MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
For our apologist Dagger quislings....The law creates a Superintendency of Information and Communication, with the power to regulate the news media.......It creates a five-member Council for the Regulation and Development of Information and Communication, led by a representative of the president, to oversee the news media.
Carlos Lauría of the Committee to Protect Journalists, a group that promotes press freedom, said the wording of such measures was vague enough that it left ample room to define a variety of content as being in violation of the law, opening the door to censorship.
“This is the latest step in the deterioration of press freedom in this country that has occurred under Correa,” Mr. Lauría said. “This law, if it’s put into practice, is not only going to undermine the ability of journalists to report critically, but it also threatens the rights of citizens to be informed on issues like corruption or other sensitive issues.”.....
and don't miss this one on 'openess' of Presidente Correa and his Wikileaks tantrum:
....In 2011, he (Correa) kicked out the American ambassador, angered by a diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks that suggested he was aware of police corruption and looked the other way....
Comments
Its much more complex than you seem to think. Not all free democratic countries have the same views on free speech as the US
http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=212
On the whole, neither modern constitutional law nor international law consistently permits or consistently prohibits hate speech. However, within this framework, two distinct tendencies in the law's treatment of hate speech can be observed. (3) One can loosely identify a group of countries that prioritize freedom of speech over most countervailing interests, even when the speech is filled with hatred. This group of nations generally follows doctrines reminiscent of the constitutional law of the United States, so this approach will be referred to as the American position. The opposing view, shared by Germany, the member states of the Council of Europe, Canada, international law, and a minority of U.S. authors, (4) views hate-filled speech as forfeiting some or all of its free-speech protection. (5) This group of nations assigns a higher degree of protection to the dignity or equality of those who are attacked by hate speech than to the verbally aggressive speech used to attack them. Under this system, hate speech is not only unprotected, it is frequently punishable under criminal law, and individuals or groups who are the victims of hate speech frequently prevail in court.
I think some of American talk radio would be outlawed in countries like Germany. Even some of Faux "news" some of Coulter, Hannity, Beck, would likely be illegal. Does that mean they aren't free or that the media is controlled by the government?
England and other European nations have much different slander and defamation of character laws so its much easier to get a conviction and win damages. Media is constrained by that.
You know, people in France, Germany, etc. think they have just as robust protection of their right to free speech as we do in spite of those restrictions
I'm an American so I've been culturally programmed to favor our system. But I'm not such an American chauvinist that I can't see the logic and reasoning in laws of other democratic free nations.
Parts of Ecuador media law makes me uncomfortable. I don't like it all or support everything. From what little I've read it seems that even before this law was passed there's been some over reach and abuses by Correa. ( I have to say though that while I'm not totally ignorant of the situation in Ecuador its not my forte.) But different countries are facing different battles. Some of the countries south of our border are fighting battles now that we fought and won here a hundred years ago. I just don't know how I'd feel if during a military dictatorship MSNBC was confiscated and sold to the Koch Brothers. CNN was shut down and sold to Sheldon Adelson. I'm not sure what laws I'd support if every news organization in America was owned by the 10 wealthiest most conservative men in America and all were the equivalent of Faux news or worse. I do know in that situation I'd fight for some changes in our media laws.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 5:01pm
It's not complex when a President appoints the state media regulator, censorship is facilitated, as the journalist in the article stated.
I find it ironic too that el Presidente Correa had a tantrum over a secret Wikileaks cable implying he ignored official corruption, while at the same time he cozies up to Assange hoping the 'open transparency' meme will rub off on him.
,
by NCD on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 5:06pm
Correa has been fighting with the media for years. He sued several members of the media for slander in a court case that lasted years. He eventually won. He's been fighting for this law for years. He keeps getting re-elected and more and more members of his party get elected to congress. Finally after years the people voted enough people into congress to pass the law. The people knew what they were getting. So either there's some reason the people want this law or the people don't want to have the right to free speech and they really want the government to control them.
So it seems complex to me and I'd have to know a lot more about the situation in Ecuador to feel I understand what's going on.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 5:58pm
They know what they are getting, that's why he needed the new media restrictions...? It sounds like he plans to be in power for a long time.
Living in the Ecuador embassy in London, I doubt Assange will be seeking leaks from anyone in Ecuador. Hypocrisy, clearly, is not an exclusive American trait.
by NCD on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 6:50pm
They didn't know? How can that be? Correa has been making this law an election issue for years. His fight with the media has been public and loudly vocal. Are the people of Ecuador in a coma they only come out of every 4 years to vote? You can't seriously be claiming they didn't know when they gave his party overwhelming power in congress that one of his first acts would be to pass this media law.
The people of Ecuador don't seem shy at all about protesting. The three presidents before Correa were driven from office before they could complete their term. Yet Correa has just been elected to his third term. Correa was re-elected in 2013 with over 57% of the vote. On 17 February 2013, Correa won his country's presidential election for a third time, defeating Guillermo Lasso, and was elected for another four-year term.
This guy gets more votes than Obama. Why do you think that is? Are the Ecuadorians so stupid they didn't know what he was going to do? Do they hate freedom so much they vote for their own government to restrict it?
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 7:48pm
Pardon but, you said they knew what they were getting with Correa.
That was under the old media laws.
So why all the baloney about why the laws need changing, and that Correa's government must now regulate the media?
Maybe it's because the last 3 Presidentes were forced out of office, do you think, do you think just maybe Correa is afraid he will be number 4?
And that is why he is clamping down on the press to grease that next election?
by NCD on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 8:20pm
Yes I'm sure he's terrified of the popular will. Under the old media laws he served 8 years and only got 57% of the vote and a super majority in the congress in the last election 4 months ago. The people are about to storm the presidential palace and kick him out any day now. Time to secretly pass with a public vote in congress the media law he's been publicly calling for for years.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 8:37pm
BBC:
...However, the image of Ecuador as a champion of free speech and human rights jars with Mr Mantilla, who is also the current President of the Inter-American Press Society.
"It seems both frustrating and paradoxical that while [the government] defends the freedom of expression in the case of Assange and now of Snowden, it has simultaneously passed a law which destroys that same freedom of expression in this country," he said....
Critics say the agency created to oversee the new law - which will in essence decide the difference between normal and healthy criticism of government policy and "media lynching" - is made up entirely of Mr Correa's allies.
Ocena-kat, you are 'sure' of a lot of things aren't you?
I am sure any politician who wants his appointees to control the nation's media wants to do so for one simple, logical reason. To stay in power. Pretty obvious, if you think hard on it, give it a try, maybe you'll get it! It's called censorship. BTW, have a nice day dude.
by NCD on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 9:06pm
No I'm not sure of much. I've said several times I think its complex and I'm uncomfortable with some of the provisions of the law. You're the one who thinks its simple and obvious. For example, here's some more complicated information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Press_Society
The Inter American Press Association (IAPA; Spanish: Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa, SIP) is a press advocacy group representing media organizations in North America, South America and the Caribbean.
It has been criticized by many Latin American journalists' trade unions, who claim that it only represents the owners of the large media corporations, that it does not seem to defend journalists themselves, and that it is closely related to right-wing parties.
In 1977 it was reported that IAPA was funded by the CIA.[2]
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 10:42pm
By the way, I'm not a supporter of Assange. I never have been. But I think that's a complex situation too. No easy answers in this world, no black and white, nothing is simple and obvious.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/25/2013 - 10:50pm
Fess up - you do not know what the fuck you are talking about - haven't bothered to Google word 1 - or you're just lying on purpose. Though it seems you've Googled stuff that fits your argument - maybe your Google has a leg missing?
From March 2012, during his campaign and a year before re-elected:
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 6:48am
The real question is how much support a person who released classified information to foreign nations and now appears to have left copies of data with people who will release the thumb drive data if Snowden is harmed (? charged). Is there a point where Snowden is thanked for informing the American public but dumped when it comes to his other activities? The focus remains on Snowden's NSA revelations, but are we forced to support everything he does? Can his data dump in China be criticized? Do we have to take the position that Snowden cannot be charged and taken to court in the United States?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 7:09am
No, at this point is "can we discuss anything, such as whether a candidate has campaigned forever as a media-hating socialist, without you guys making shit up to fit your cause?"
That's a bit more for NCD. In your case, it's whether you can stick to one subject when your ship is sinking, or whether you'll always grasp for 100 tangents to save face.
Whether you agree with Correa or not, he campaigned overtly on several issues over and over, won a large majority despite 7 or so opposition candidates, and won 75% of Parliament to push these issues through. (around 2007, he rewrote the Constitution as he promised in his campaign for which he was elected. That's called "democracy")
In our case, we have a candidate who campaigned on transparency, hope and change, and now we find he thinks it's okay to track all citizens' phone calls, emails, bank accounts, other movements & transactions, and mix it up in a big easily searchable bag to share between several US spook & enforcement agencies.
As such, I don't need to talk about that guy who let the cat out of the bag - I want to talk about the cat.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 11:45am
So we can ask any question, as long as you approve the question? You want to ofus on the metadata, then it's on the Ecuador, etc,. I set no limits on questions being asked. I obviously don't have that power. You are free to answer to question posed, ignore it or reject it. Nothing inhibits your freer speech.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:09pm
I see you want to avoid discussing the threat to release the thumb drive data. I can understand why you would.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 12:11pm
I thought the thumb drive was just speculation from someone who guessed that you wouldn't just walk out with laptops. I hear Lady GaGa is the media of choice. When will the intelligence actually follow up on their 4-year-old recommendation to limit removable media use on machines with secure access? You'd think maybe they want to lose this data.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:12pm
You use irrelevant questions to avoid providing relevant answers.
If it's a diary on Ecuador, the focus on this diary obviously has shifted to Ecuador - so I answered the ill-informed nonsense about Correa. Yes, I'd prefer we got back to the much more important issue of metadata & the NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security & related.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 1:01pm
Blogs often go in various directions. Snowden choose China and Russia. We are not sure if Ecuador is a real possibility or not. Venezuela and Iceland were mentioned are they off limits as well?
If Glenn Greenwald says that Snowden threatens a data dump while we are discussing Ecuador is that off limits? I wouldn't want the break the rules that you are setting for us.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 1:13pm
'Dictatorship of the media'. Love it. It's also called freedom of the press.
When el Presidente rules over the media it's just a plain vanilla traditional dictatorship isn't it?
I love the guy embracing Wikileaks total press freedom, while choking off the press domestically. As I said, hypocrisy is not an exclusively American failing.
by NCD on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 1:28pm
I'd like to mention that terrorist cells are changing tactics based on information that have gained from media reorts of the NSA proramss, but since it does not relate directly to Ecuador, I can't.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 1:32pm
Correct. And Peracles is telling me how Presidente Correa is resolutely purging Ecuador of the vile influence of the Limbaughistas and DeHearstas who have previously exercised their sinister dictatorial powers over that southern nation, while Correa appoints a Commission of supporters to ensure the people hear only the sacred truth.
by NCD on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:38pm
If Venzuela is the final destination, we will hear how great the reforms are in that country. The bottom line, you are pro-Snowden or you aren't. If Snowden threatens a data dump, some are standing steadfast in their support.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:55pm
Yes, it's called "freedom of the press" even if it's yellow journalism by Hearst, paid-for untrue hit jobs by the Koch Brothers such as Swiftboating, mass-bought control like Clear Channel, or 24x7 hate & deception by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. That wonderful freedom of the press that brought us Judy Miller taking background talking points from the White House & Pentagon to help deceive us into war. That freedom of the press that tells us Obama is a Muslim socialist born in Kenya.
In your exhuberant glee at a supposed contradiction, did you ever imagine that a bunch of rich oligarchs can buy up a country's media and broadcast any old shit they want, and it doesn't equal "freedom of the press" in the sense of "marketplace of ideas"? Does "freedom of the press" have to equal the ability to libel and slander with impunity? Our huge nationwide press agencies all decided not to cover the previous pre-trial hearings for Bradley Manning - that's what a bought-and-paid-for "free press" gets you - where actual news has to be handled by blogger volunteers.
As Matt Taibbi notes, "You can usually tell if you're running a Chumpbait piece if you find yourself writing the same article as 10,000 other hacks."
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:09pm
Ecuador has its own NSA style program for monitoring Facebook and Twitter accounts in the country. It is the first country to have national voice and facial recognition software. The intelligence service can monitor and alter text message. In addition phone calls can be monitored, blacked, disconnected or redirected.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 8:50am
Oh My God, Ecuador has bought some spy gadgets that can track four people at once and now their capabilities rival the NSA's according to Buzzfeed. The timing of this supposed activist leak is a bit too convenient but it does show the hysterical response and need to discredit all involved in assisting Snowden.
Our spinmasters have lost control of the news cycle and are scrambling to regain their position and dominance, it's not working and their fear of the truth is evident.
by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:39pm