So much for Independent State Broadcaster

So tonight RTÉ apologised for the airing of the report about the Nude Pictures of Brian Cowen last night. The Government seam to be trying to censor RTÉ at all times and this is the second one I know of. The first is Ministers been given a g0-over in interviews. Suzy has of course the full catalogue of pressure RTÉ are under from the Government.

Slugger have a PR from Dublin North Fianna Fail TD Michael Kennedy which gives an insight to how FF see this:

“Regardless of who the incumbent is, the position of An Taoiseach deserves respect, especially from our national public service broadcaster.”
“For an item like this to be given so much air time beggars belief and raises serious questions about the agenda at play in the RTE newsroom. It was obviously seen as a piece of entertainment – biased and partisan entertainment. It was the most tasteless item (I will not refer to it as ‘news’ as it clearly wasn’t) I have seen for many years.”
“It is evident that RTE management have long since given way to the celebrity culture where reporters and presenters have been allowed become commentators in constant pursuit of their own ‘celebrity cult’, rather than simply reporting the news in a straight forward manner, without their personal point of view.”
“The incoming RTE Authority should have a hard look at the direction the broadcaster is heading.  Maybe a change at the top and a back to basics approach in terms of RTE’s public service remit would be a start,” concluded Deputy Kennedy.

And of course here is the apology (via @handelaar)

Follow the debacle on twitter with the tag #picturegate

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

ACLU: Free the Net Campaign

Free the Net

Free the Net

Free the Net

Free the Net

Free the Net

“The ACLU’s fight against Internet censorship stretches back a decade. Congress first attempted to censor the Internet in 1996, when it passed the Communications Decency Act. The law criminalized “indecent” speech online. The ACLU sued, arguing that the law abridged the First Amendment. All nine Supreme Court justices agreed and struck down the law. For the first time, in ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court recognized that online speech deserves full First Amendment protection. “

From here

Some of you may have notices a new box on the right hand side of the blog. This is a campaign being run by Amnesty International on Press Censorship by Governments and Internet Corporations.

Irrepressible Adj.
1) Impossible to repress or control.

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information.

The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression.

Amnesty International, with the support of The Observer UK newspaper, is launching a campaign to show that online or offline the human voice and human rights are impossible to repress.

Sign the pledge on Internet freedom to call on all governments and companies to ensure the Internet is a force for political freedom, not repression.

Undermine censorship by publishing irrepressible fragments of censored material on your own site. The more people take part, the more we can defeat unwarranted censorship and create an unstoppable network of protest.

Should there be a limit to free speech, if so where?

Free speech is an inalienable human right. it is protected in many important documents including; The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; The European Convention of Human Rights and many Constitutions of Countries. Why should we give up these rights?

In light of the recent protest in the Middle East over the Danish cartoon, demonstrations are allowed but violence? These people for years printed cartoons of Western politicians and religious leaders of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Their cartoons mock the fabric of Western society. Do you see protests? Do you see people burning flags or burning down embassies? No.

Free speech should not be compromise due to religious beliefs or intolerance. Its is an inherent human right and cannot be compromised