Political Speech Punished in Egypt, Under-Appreciated Here
I commented to a friend, who is currently living in Cairo and who first alerted me to this story, that if the US government took this tactic, half of the political bloggers in the U.S. would be in jail.
That sounds like a laugh, until you examine this insight into the American psyche -- only 13 percent of Americans polled in 2006 knew that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press; 36 percent could not name any right guaranteed by the First Amendment. [Margin of error: +/- 3.5%]
Equally troubling (and perhaps a reflection of the prior info), four in 10 believed that newspapers should not "be allowed to freely criticize the U.S military about its strategy and performance."
If these Americans don't think newspapers should be allowed to be critical, do you really think they'd think it OK for bloggers to be? My guess is "no" and it's based on another data point from the survey: half believed we should not "be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups."
That's part of the offense that landed Suleiman in jail in Egypt.
These final factoids about the state of the first amendment in the mind of the average American may worry me the most:
- About one-third believe that newspapers should not "be allowed to publish sensitive and classified government information" even if it "exposes government wrongdoing."
- About one-third believe that the press should not "be allowed to publish stories that criticize the actions of the government... even during wartime."
- About one-third believe that political candidates should not "be allowed to criticize the actions of government while campaigning... even during wartime."
In other words, a significant -- although minority -- percentage of the American public does not believe in public dissent.
Institutions Feel Threatened
The Internet, in general, and blogging software/hosts, in particular, is disrupting established institiutions -- including governments accustomed to controlling messages in domestic news outlets. Printing presses are expensive; an account at Blogger or Live Journal or Vox or WordPress is free.
Too often, perhaps, we take for granted our political speech rights protected by the First Amendment. It doesn't protect us from libel or slander (case law), but it prohibits the government from unreasonable censure (more case law). That's why some of the White House rhetoric around Iraq -- you're with us or you're like one of the terrorists (implied, never stated this baldly) -- set civil libertarian teeth on edge.
Freedom of speech is essential to a functioning democracy. It's a necessity for a functioning minority party. It's the mantle 'round which the press performs its watchdog role on government and other powerful societal institutions. It's also the reason the Michael Moore's and Rush Limbaugh's of this country get to say what they say in the public space.
Public v Private Speech
If you venture into the political forum associated with this site, sooner or later you'll hear someone yelp about how I'm restricting their "freedom of speech" because I prohibit copyright violations and personal attacks. I have to remind participants that this is a private space, with rules governing behavior -- if they don't like the rules, they are welcome to leave.
I think that one thing that has contributed to the vitriol that passes for political rhetoric in America is that politicans are except from libel/slander as they throw mud at one another. They set the bar, and columnists right-and-left, in print and on the air, mainstream and independent ... follow suit. I don't know if it is the reason but I think it's a reason that political rhetoric in this country is too often devoid of substance and, instead, is a verbal attack on another.
I'm asking the people in the US Politics forum to adhere to a higher standard of political speech than that binding just about every other pundit and politician. Consider it my call for a return to civility. Just don't call it an abridgement of "free speech."
For additional reading: Danish Cartoonists, Political Correctness and Freedom of the Press, Flag Burning and the US Congress, Google Fights US Request for "Porn" Data, The Legacy of William Rehnquist : Notable Cases, The Bill of Rights - US Constitution - Amendments 1 - 10.
Sources for information about freedom of speech:
Comments
Corruption in Egypt became obvious.The government is safeguarding corruption and does’nt allow anyone to critcize. They could contorole Egyptian media, but could not control the web. This incident is just a threatening to web users that they will face the same sanction if they dare to expressingly critcize Mubarak and his gang.
Congress should give leniency and understanding towards
President G.W. Bush.
Though the Democrats have the victorious vote and have gained the majority seats in today’s American Parliament, they should consider and give President G.W. Bush a leniency and understanding toward his decisions on Iraq. U.S. is currently facing with the world’s situation, which is totally unlike the past German and Russian Communist regime. We all should understand and analyze this fact as mandatory.
Reinforcing and supporting with more U.S. Military Troops to Iraq is the requirement and the right decision of President G.W. Bush. The Democrats should not use time, money and casualties as a base for decisions to withdraw U.S. Troops out from Iraq either.
Withdrawing U.S. Military Troops out from Iraq now would be a rash decision, considering Iraq being the most unrest and unsafe country in the world. Thinking that Iraqis presently have their own new government and the resistance movements are just their own act of ‘ civil war ‘ activities, within their own country while Saddam Hussein and his brutal ruling party has already been brought to justice, should not be the final ending point to just brush off and leave Iraq as is.
It would outcast in world’s view on U.S. as a child poking a beehive with a stick, then running for its dear life, if U.S. withdraws now at present condition in Iraq, while bearing all cost of war spent already. This would give a negative impact in all dealings with the future world’s affairs and would surely be marred in history as an unsuccessful attempt by the U.S.
Therefore, present issue to withdraw U.S. Military Troops from Iraq mainly relies on the fact that if U.S. can assure and to provide the unrest resisting condition into a peaceful nation of the Iraqis. Then U.S. would not only gain Iraqis’ trust but also would be able to withdraw U.S. Troops and various supports from Iraq also, while realizing that the future Middle East situation can demise.
We can clearly see President G.W. Bush’s intention with careful decision not to withdraw U.S. Military Troops from Iraqis soil, instead to reinforce +20,000 of more Troops to send to Iraq is a rightful and wise decision that he has made.
Till now, Middle East has been already declared clearly by U.S. as the War Zone ‘. Therefore, the question arise to all to consider is that. At present the Middle East was in turmoil and warring condition is it the right decision U.S. going to withdraw its Military Troop or reduce troop from Middle East and this soon?
Voicing out to wipe out Israel from the Middle East map quite often is like threatening and declaring for war. In addition, if by chance U.S. withdraw its Military Troops out from Iraq now, the future situation or the conditions that will arise between Israel and Iran will be much worse than it is at present. If that such situation occur, can U.S. keep its head turn the other way and completely ignore the war between the two Nations? Most probability is Iran can manage itself to hold nuclear warheads within 6 to 18 months.
Moreover, by just withdrawing the U.S. Military Troops out from Iraq, can we definitely agree that Middle East now be in peace with security in that Nation for sure?
Summarizing the above-mentioned facts, the Democrats should think and give consideration while giving room for understanding on President G.W. Bush’s decisions.
As a rule of a sane mind, we cannot deny the fact that every human being dislike war with disgrace but if situation up rise that can create war with no easy solutions to avoid or solved by peaceful diplomatic mean, then the only choice left is to wage war until a peace treaty was signed by warring leaders.
Therefore, the United States Democrats and the people of the Nation should give clear understanding to President, G.W. Bush’s decision because that is the only choice left but to increase the necessary amount of U.S. Military Troops into Iraq until end of the year 2008 and there is no chance of withdrawing U.S. Military Troops out from there either.
Bella Liberty ( Astro-political science research.)
Congress should give leniency and understanding towards
President G.W. Bush.
Though the Democrats have the victorious vote and have gained the majority seats in today’s American Parliament, they should consider and give President G.W. Bush a leniency and understanding toward his decisions on Iraq. U.S. is currently facing with the world’s situation, which is totally unlike the past German and Russian Communist regime. We all should understand and analyze this fact as mandatory.
Reinforcing and supporting with more U.S. Military Troops to Iraq is the requirement and the right decision of President G.W. Bush. The Democrats should not use time, money and casualties as a base for decisions to withdraw U.S. Troops out from Iraq either.
Withdrawing U.S. Military Troops out from Iraq now would be a rash decision, considering Iraq being the most unrest and unsafe country in the world. Thinking that Iraqis presently have their own new government and the resistance movements are just their own act of ‘ civil war ‘ activities, within their own country while Saddam Hussein and his brutal ruling party has already been brought to justice, should not be the final ending point to just brush off and leave Iraq as is.
It would outcast in world’s view on U.S. as a child poking a beehive with a stick, then running for its dear life, if U.S. withdraws now at present condition in Iraq, while bearing all cost of war spent already. This would give a negative impact in all dealings with the future world’s affairs and would surely be marred in history as an unsuccessful attempt by the U.S.
Therefore, present issue to withdraw U.S. Military Troops from Iraq mainly relies on the fact that if U.S. can assure and to provide the unrest resisting condition into a peaceful nation of the Iraqis. Then U.S. would not only gain Iraqis’ trust but also would be able to withdraw U.S. Troops and various supports from Iraq also, while realizing that the future Middle East situation can demise.
We can clearly see President G.W. Bush’s intention with careful decision not to withdraw U.S. Military Troops from Iraqis soil, instead to reinforce +20,000 of more Troops to send to Iraq is a rightful and wise decision that he has made.
Till now, Middle East has been already declared clearly by U.S. as the War Zone ‘. Therefore, the question arise to all to consider is that. At present the Middle East was in turmoil and warring condition is it the right decision U.S. going to withdraw its Military Troop or reduce troop from Middle East and this soon?
Voicing out to wipe out Israel from the Middle East map quite often is like threatening and declaring for war. In addition, if by chance U.S. withdraw its Military Troops out from Iraq now, the future situation or the conditions that will arise between Israel and Iran will be much worse than it is at present. If that such situation occur, can U.S. keep its head turn the other way and completely ignore the war between the two Nations? Most probability is Iran can manage itself to hold nuclear warheads within 6 to 18 months.
Moreover, by just withdrawing the U.S. Military Troops out from Iraq, can we definitely agree that Middle East now be in peace with security in that Nation for sure?
Summarizing the above-mentioned facts, the Democrats should think and give consideration while giving room for understanding on President G.W. Bush’s decisions.
As a rule of a sane mind, we cannot deny the fact that every human being dislike war with disgrace but if situation up rise that can create war with no easy solutions to avoid or solved by peaceful diplomatic mean, then the only choice left is to wage war until a peace treaty was signed by warring leaders.
Therefore, the United States Democrats and the people of the Nation should give clear understanding to President, G.W. Bush’s decision because that is the only choice left but to increase the necessary amount of U.S. Military Troops into Iraq until end of the year 2008 and there is no chance of withdrawing U.S. Military Troops out from there either.
Bella Liberty ( Astro-political science research.)
Super Power Election
Super power US Presidential election will have an impact not only on US but also on the whole world where world affairs including peace is concerned.
Result of US Presidential election will have a pivotal effect probably involving an immediate change in the corridors of world history. World peace will be determined by the election. Destiny of American people depend on it. Economic recovery depends on it. Super power strength is depends on it.
As the current history of US is the effect of 2000 Presidential election, the coming 2008 Presidential election definitely will affect the history of US and the destiny of its people.
Who will win is a challenge to astrology? Who should be the President of America is an important political matter?
Supreme Court had to apply centralism in deciding the victory of President G.W Bush in 2000 presidential election. According to the modern political science theory, any error in election process, whether the computing electoral error or human error, there is only one way the problem must solve by the people of America.
Every Law maker and politician should know the true definition of Election and we shall keep trying to maintain true and justice as nature citizen of fully developed nation.
Bella Liberty ( Astro-political science research)
May 20th 2007
I don’t think the third of the people you mention are against pointing out the wrongs of the government. It is I think, that the people pointing it out only do so when it fits their agenda. They third object to the open disclosure of information that will directly give an enemy the upper hand in our struggles, classified information given to them by someone who swore to withold it. I guess several wrongs make a right if it fits your political philosophy. We have a moral obligation to take care of our citizens, but that does not meaning we should give in to their every whim. Our press no longer judges the importance of what they write but only the splash it makes and the papers it sells. Its like pointing a gun and pulling the trigger because you like sound, then being mad at the gun for the damage it causes. If you continue to discredit the government and oppose all of its policies just because you can, you really have no right to complain that it no longer can function. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum as a wedge to get votes. The old saying, If you live by the sword you will die by the sword, has always been true. Our “free speech” newspapers, bloggers etc. will demand their rights and get them until the system that allows them is destroyed. Why can’t we see that. Why can we never learn from history.