re-posted from an lj reply i wrote...

[confliction]

- - - - - - - -

"...control of thought, speech, expression, belief, faith and communication.

We are currently in the 'Information age' right?
This is the peak of the cycle...
...the expansion of knowledge...
...the 'evolution' of 'memes'...
...and we are far from free.

Sign the Media Carta today...
...www.mediacarta.org

Know Your Enemy!
(Rage Against The Machine)"

Comments

[confliction.livejournal.com]

well, yes, but freedom of speech over the internet has also allowed us many good things...

it's not about the good or bad, yet.

without the internet all this stuff still happened, even without human rights declerations and constitutions, this shit happened.

you're right when you say that to know a problem we need to know it's active...
i.e. not drive it underground.

in saying that, what the media carta is trying to do is have freedom to 'access' information... at the moment we're only allowed to impart and receive it... accessing it is slightly different... who controls it is the question?
the people sure don't.

furthermore, in the entirety of the freedom of speech debate, i believe the main restraint is not on the access to, or imparting of, or receiving of, but the procurement of that information... if you take advantage of, exploit, or otherwise harm, physically, intellectually, or harm someones 'potential' self, i.e. who they could of been if you hadn't of interfered... then it is illegal.

also, ignoring a problem until it 'becomes' a problem? it already is.. you're just ignoring it :P

[confliction.livejournal.com]

"Control of any information - think how dangerous that would be in the wrong hands."

I don't need to think... i just open my eyes

"So potentially we'd be able to arrest our parents and friends? :P"

LoL... i was relating to the 'procurement' of information... and yes, if your parents or friends harmed your physical, intellectual, or potential self... you could charge them with an offense.
or beat them around the head with the christmas turkey.

[confliction.livejournal.com]

I was thinking, and it's not just the access to information that's the issue, it's who has the rights to have their say?
Advertising is the main issue... everyday our heads are pumped full of commercials, but due to how it currently functions, the public are not allowed, even if they have the ridiculous amounts of money, to say what they like.

Furthermore, just because the information is 100% available, doesn't mean you're exposed to all of it at once... it means you have access to it if you want to.
At the moment information we never asked for is rammed down our throats everyday by the news, adverts, and tv/radio and other media, daily. What makes it worse is that we usually have little way of being able to verify the validity of this information.

You say if we're 'open' to too much information, it'll breed...

paranoia - since september the 11th, paranoia has been on the increase dramatically... only against ethnic groups mainly, and the threat of being blown up or having your holiday flight hi-jacked... but sooner or later, we'll be afraid of each other... of our neighbours... and even our friends and family.

stress - as world stress levels rise due to over-population, over-working, over-consumption and the rise of war... maybe if we weren't so exploited and were more informed as to 'why' our leaders do what they do, and what our advertisers really think of us, then maybe we'd be able to take action... rather than let levels of apathy (feelings of helplessness?) rise.

fear - fear is not only of the future... but if the future is truly unknown... then fear is of the unknown. If you 'know'... then what is there to fear?

dependence - if the information you receive is being controlled, then you are already dependent upon them for the information you receive. It's the information you don't receive that might even be making you dependent on the information you do.

just a few thoughts :)

[confliction.livejournal.com]

well, yes... i do mean more access to information for all people, regardless of wealth... but why not the tv?

i wasn't talking about tv shows, par se, more about the fact that the public have no say what's shown on tv... especially advertisements, which not only interrupt every show we watch, bar the government owned bbc, but pepper the shows we watch, with product placement becoming a very big thing indeed.

i don't want a wider market, i'd referably not want a market at all, but firstly i would like a market where we, the people, can have a voice... to speak out against adverts and the such... to point out that fast food is bad for you... etc.