title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
A great many states see no need to particularly acknowledge the darker side of their past and founding; the United States still lionises the manifest destiny and the conquest of the west despite the genocide of the Native Americans who still live there. And there is no reason why they should. Some other nations may dis... | |
The purpose of history as a subject in Schools and in Universities is very different. The role of history in School is simply to teach about where we come from, to learn about the origins of the nation and why it is organised the way it is organised. History needs to be taught as it binds the nation together by creatin... | |
History shapes attitudes History is important because of the way it shapes attitudes and identities. Nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson has dubbed nations ‘imagined communities’ because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the min... | |
Makes history more useful, more human, and more interesting While the state may like to whitewash history to produce its own ‘national history’ that sticks to one grand narrative that is about the state this is not history as it really is. While a national history full of patriotism may be good for instilling a love o... | |
While a country is entitled to promote its own national story, its own interpretation of events and create its own national heroes however it is not entitled to suppress historical events and so blot things out of history by preventing any competing ideas about that history. Most people learn their history through the ... | |
Simple ‘disrespect’ is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech and freedom of academic enquiry. Those who find it disrespectful need not watch or read that which is written that they find disrespectful but more importantly they should be open minded enough to be able to reconsider their previous views. No matt... | |
Damages the country’s reputation Rightly or wrongly countries are judged in part based upon the past; In Europe Germany is regularly judged on the basis of the Nazi’s [1] and in Asia Japan on the basis of its atrocities in World War II. [2] Any nation would be sensible to want to avoid such vilification on the basis o... | |
Countries are entitled to make what they will of their past. Past leaders are dead and if they have become heroes it has already been accepted that accounts of that figure may not be entirely accurate as with any myths and legends – and indeed many country’s heroes are myths such as King Arthur. Where they are not as ... | |
Disrespectful Few nations go so far as to deify their national heroes or the formation of the state but none the less it is disrespectful to attack these ideas and many people are likely to be offended. This is indeed the case with the film Mustafa about Atatürk one doctor referring to the poster advertising the film ... | |
This gives all the more reason to act pre-emptively by allowing free and open scholarship and critical analysis of the past. If a nation will not take a long hard look at its own past eventually someone else will and they are just as likely to uncover any skeletons in the closet as a national historian is. If however t... | |
It seems unlikely that there would be a rush to offer corrections where it was to the advantage of an individual or organisation, so let us not pretend this is the noble pursuit of truth at any cost. Where a major mistake is made by a news outlet, its competitors are usually only too happy to point the fact out, vastly... | |
There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note. In many countries corrections or clarifications in newspapers are buried away in the depths of the middle pages and are unlikely to be spotted by anyone other than the most ardent reader. Not only does this defy natu... | |
The issue of credibility is an important one. If a story that was broadly true can be picked to death by the PR and Legal departments of companies, then it places a real burden on the future of investigative and campaigning journalism. One minor mistake, plastered across the front page, will inevitably encourage reader... | |
It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction. [i] The right of reply goes a long way in balancing the playing field – especially for private citizens who may not be able to afford recourse to the law. It is also simpler and quicker than protracted arguments in court. Finally it re... | |
Prop correctly identifies conveying information as a key role of the media – there are others; informed and impartial comment and, critically, a relevant news agenda. It is hard to see how chasing a story off the front page to make room for the right of reply fulfills these other requirements. Equally, where there is d... | |
In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start. In response to an ever faster news agenda, produced by ever more pressured journalists, sloppiness may be seen as inevitable [i] . As a result, anything that is unlikely to result in legal action may be given a bye... | |
The notion that the print media has lost its power since the emergence of the Internet is simply untrue. Not only are they still a major source of news for many – they are particularly a source of news for other news-makers. Blogs and other exclusively online sites rarely ‘break’ stories – with the exception of those t... | |
The on-going agglomeration of news and opinion is a wider and deeper issue than tackling factual inaccuracies and one that needs to be resolved in other ways. Frequently, that’s the very point to be addressed by the courts – whether a statement is legitimate comment or is being masqueraded as fact [i] . The right of re... | |
This undermines actual parity by creating a false sense of the right to reply. A right to reply would be no more of a fig leaf than voluntary self-regulation that has so bedevilled the media in so many countries. Responsible journalists and publications are already involved in the process where it is useful and others... | |
This solution – if it is one - is now out of date. We are happy to concede that in the glacial world of academic journals, the right of reply mostly works. Two experts clarifying exactly what was said by whom and being appraised by an equally expert readership can make sense of this process through article, response, ... | |
What is a fact – there are few circumstances where this would be of significance. The line between factual inaccuracy and opinion is pretty slim. What about “Far right politician” statement or comment? The difficulty is that most publications work on the basis that there is a narrative that is already understood in or... | |
Opposition seem to be arguing, ‘This is difficult, let’s do nothing’ – the rallying call of apathy down the ages. There may well be grounds for a wider right of reply – indeed as most news outlets increasingly favour their online presence many of their practical arguments of the past fall away. The disadvantage of regu... | |
The head of no large corporation has complete control of their operations. The head of the BBC almost certainly does not know all the policies and everything that is happening in the BBC’s Persian language division. While the head of the company is ultimately responsible it is unrealistic to believe that they will have... | |
Lack of control Rupert Murdoch has an immense empire and if we believe his testimony obviously did not have as much control over his publications, or take as much responsibility for them, as he should have done. Murdoch himself has claimed “someone took charge of a cover-up we were victim to and I regret that." This w... | |
News organisations cannot be completely transparent if they are to do their job properly and News International is no exception. Such organisations cannot for example reveal their sources as this may sometimes put their sources at risk and would mean that others would not come forward. As part of this news companies ne... | |
Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company. Those running media corporations should be morally upright people who control their media companies in the public interest as these are organisations that potentially have a lot of influence through their control of information. This is however not at all how R... | |
It is unfair to blame the culture in a newspaper, only one among many in Murdoch’s empire, on Rupert Murdoch. With hundreds of publications to control Murdoch would never be able to set corporate culture for every paper. Nor is it correct to accuse Murdoch of running his papers in pursuit of power rather than profit; M... | |
There was a lack of transparency in News Corp The Media’s role is to increase transparency and bring others to account. Murdoch himself in his testimony to Leveson said "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" yet he has been exactly the opposite in terms of accountability and... | |
We should not take Rupert Murdoch’s word for it that he does not seek to influence politicians and does not influence the editorial line of his newspapers. Andrew Neil, a former editor of the Sunday times argues Murdoch "had a quiet, remorseless, sometimes threatening way of laying down the parameters within which you ... | |
The Sun and the News of the World sold newspapers through sensationalism and sex, not content that was in the public interest. As such Murdoch’s success at selling newspapers should not have any bearing on whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a media corporation. | |
Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments. An independent media is vital for democracy as it is a necessary check on over powerful politicians and government. The ‘fourth estate’ has a vital oversight function over government ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath o... | |
Murdoch does not seek to influence politics. It is a myth that Rupert Murdoch influences politics or seeks to get his way with powerful politicians. As Murdoch himself said in the Leverson Inquiry "I've never asked a prime minister for anything.” Instead it is politicians who go out of their way to impress people in t... | |
Murdoch is effective at selling news The first criteria for fitness to control a media company should be the ability to bring people the kind of content that they want to consume at a price they are willing to pay. Murdoch is undoubtedly good at this. When he took over the Sun in 1969 the sun was selling just over a m... | |
Just as with any method of control there need to be checks and balances on the media itself in order to ensure that the media remains honest. As Lord Justice Leveson put it in his opening remarks “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all o... | |
It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it. If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of c... | |
Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict While there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J... | |
Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where t... | |
It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat There is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to ... | |
These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition ... | |
Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society Democratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on ... | |
It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resu... | |
That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national secu... | |
Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sover... | |
Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered Of course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would... | |
Religion does not motivate foreign policy Religion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the cou... | |
An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having ... | |
The problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority. Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny. Secondly it is ... | |
India has a specific need to main social cohesion India’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory. There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this ba... | |
People have a right to choose their cultural values Society has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other. In Muslim countries faith may be a more important aspect of life that it might be in ... | |
‘Freedom of speech’ is not so much a ‘cultural value’ so much as it is a vehicle for communicating and exploring different cultural values. | |
Freedom of Speech is but one right amongst many, including freedom of religion, and they are not intrinsically ranked against each other. The right of people to have and hold religious views without having those views demonised or insulted is a right that might easily be considered just as important. Moreover the West... | |
Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right Freedom of speech and expression exists in any modern list of human rights. It is a fundamental right that is necessary for any society to function properly and for individuals to achieve happiness and fulfilment in their lives. ‘Hurt and outrage’ are false harms – nobody suffer... | |
Punishing the users of these extremist websites will not force these extremists to confront their views either. Punishing them is likely to create a victim mentality, a belief that the state is out to get them because of their beliefs not because of any particular act they may have committed. This is similarly likely t... | |
The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped The internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own ... | |
The proposition is assuming that we know what effect visiting extremist websites will have, we don’t. For some regularly visiting websites that promote violence may end up sickening them and encouraging them to re-evaluate their views rather than further radicalising them. The best way to prevent heinous terrorist acts... | |
There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites National security concerns around terrorism mean that it is necessary to have a deterrent that will help prevent the recruitment of terrorists. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats to western countries today and this is potentially ... | |
There is no evidence that a deterrent like this works, we will never know who might have been radicalised but was not because they were deterred from visiting extremist websites. However if those visiting these websites really are terrorists then a spell in prison is not going to deter them. Moreover this is not a good... | |
Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised Regardless of whether as Sarkozy claims Mohammed Merah would himself have been stopped earlier had this law been in place at the time this law will catch some terrorists in the future and stop them before they can do large amounts of harm. Punishing users ... | |
Many of the worries raised about who might be charged under such laws are irrelevant, judges and juries will be able to tell when someone is a journalist or intelligence official who does not have any criminal intent. Others who are visiting these extremist sites based upon ideology and yet are never going to engage in... | |
Criminalisation will prevent radicalisation by stopping users accessing the most extreme content. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook already police themselves and are unlikely to allow extremist materials to remain online for extended periods in the face of public pressure. [1] It is for extremist websites where public... | |
Criminalisation creates more problems than it solves A law that punishes users of extremist websites would create a whole host of practical problems. Most obviously how are the authorities to monitor who are visiting extremist websites without a large expansion of a surveillance society that already exists? [1] There ... | |
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that is recognised universally as is shown by its inclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] This however should not just be taken as the freedom to have an opinion but also as the freedom to “seek a... | |
There is a lack of proportionality in punishing users of extremist websites It is a basic principle of fairness that punishment should fit the crime. [1] In this case the crime is visiting a website, something that in itself may cause no harm at all so why should there be punishment? At best such a law would be punish... | |
Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation How will criminalising visiting extremist websites prevent radicalisation? Those who know about the law will simply look for the same material that they used to find on extremist websites elsewhere on the internet either through social networks such as Facebook and twitter,... | |
Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are access... | |
This ‘climate of fear’ would only apply to those who know that what they are looking for is wrong. For these people if it does create a climate of fear then this is beneficial as it helps to create deterrence. Government would only be monitoring those it already suspects of extremism so ordinarily law abiding citizens ... | |
Money cannot be considered a form of symbolic expression the same way burning a flag is. Money only magnifies a certain idea, by giving it a greater platform. It is not a constitutive part of speech, or speech in itself. If someone burns a flag in political protest the point she’s making does not become more powerful o... | |
Money as “symbolic expression”. Not only is money instrumental to effective political communication, the expenditure of money in support of a campaign or cause is also, in itself, a form of political expression. The gesture of donating money expresses one’s allegiance to and endorsement of a candidate’s or organizatio... | |
Money gives a megaphone to one point of view. That view then gains more notoriety by spending more money to advance and promote it, by using mass media to bring it to the attention of a broader group of people, by hiring advocates to persuade a broader audience, by creating hype around an issue or candidate, with finan... | |
Money is intrinsic to political speech. In Buckley, the Justices declared: “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessi... | |
Something can be an appendage to a right. But it does not mean the government has an obligation to afford it the same protections as the right itself. Effective communication of political ideals also requires access to airways, printing presses, campaign staff, etc. But the government has no obligation to treat access ... | |
Money as a metric of support for political ideas. Money is actually a very effective way of gauging the success of the ideas presented to the electorate, it shows the best political ideas and personalities in the through the market. It is often argued that politicians who spend a lot of money win elections. However, w... | |
This point of view assumes an inherent virtue of middle of the road, status quo ideas, and picks winners and losers before the debate even gets a chance to occur. It presupposes that certain ideas automatically deserve less ‘airtime’ than others because at the moment they happen to be unpopular. Every great idea which ... | |
Money is a fungible resource and can fulfil different roles depending on the context in which it is used. It can be exchanged for almost anything and should be treated differently according to the circumstances in which it is used. It can be exchanged food, housing, weapons, medicine, services, hired hands. More conven... | |
Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation. Allowing for unlimited political contributions under the protection of the First Amendment distorts one of the most fundamental democratic tenets, the principle of fair representation – “one person, one vote.” [1] The Supreme Court has in the ... | |
Money stifles, it does not advance debate. We protect speech under almost all circumstances and cherish its freedom as a tenet of democracy because it enhances debate and better decision-making. We believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, where everyone is given an equal opportunity to advance competing points o... | |
Money is property. In his concurring opinion in Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government Pack, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile... | |
Taken to its logical conclusion, such an argument can have anti-democratic implications. Perhaps the government should also cap the amount of time someone can volunteer to a political campaign or in support of a political cause. Other members of the electorate might have greater time or financial constraints which may ... | |
There are already laws in place to respond to the fabrication of evidence in support of a news report. Libel laws already prevent newspapers from making attacks based on untruths or even ones that are true but are not in the public interest. There is no doubt that times are tough for the British Press – as they are fo... | |
The British tabloid press isn’t so much free as in freefall. Tabloid journalism in the UK has always been reckless and arrogant in pursuit of the trivial, but as advertising revenue dwindles that trend looks set to get worse The media increasingly resembles one of the drug addicts it is usually so keen to condemn. As ... | |
t is entirely fair to say that the way we approach and share information has changed beyond recognition in the last thirty years. There have been innumerable efforts made to control high-speed information networks and all have failed. To hobble journalists with constraining regulation is as impractical as it is reckle... | |
The British tabloid press has proved singularly incapable of regulating – or for that matter restraining – itself. The phone hacking scandal is simply a new low in the recent, tawdry life of the tabloid press. As the Leveson Inquiry is discovering, the use of private detectives, bribing police officers, and trailing t... | |
It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder. It is furth... | |
There have to be limits to the permissible levels of intrusion into people’s lives, in an increasingly connected world people- celebrities or not- have never been more conscious of this simple fact. In an age when any fool with a cell phone and a twitter account can snap a topless pop star on the beach, tabloid hacks ... | |
The idea that stopping journalists rummaging through the bins of private citizens in pursuit of credit card statements on the off-chance they might have done something unusual is hardly likely to bring down the entire edifice of freedom and democracy. Indeed, there is a clear democratic mandate for the robust protecti... | |
We should remember that the original defence of the NoW was that phone hacking had been carried out by just ‘one rogue reporter’ [i] and that defence has crumbled at every stage. It quickly became clear that others at the paper were involved, then that others in the group and now, apparently, that the practice was fair... | |
Who does the regulating? All of the obvious bodies – police, parliament and so on – haven’t exactly shown themselves to be whiter than white in the last year or so. Newspapers are at least accountable to their readers and it is worth noting that exactly the kinds of stories now under the spotlight are the ones that pr... | |
All of those involved in the phone hacking cases broke laws. Existing laws. They can be prosecuted under existing frameworks and cases are already being pursued. There is no need for another set of controls We should be very cautious when giving politicians- in particular- the power to control what is said about them.... | |
The overwhelming majority of journalists would not know – and wouldn’t want to know – how to hack a phone and it is unfair to restrict them because a few do Introducing regulation on the basis that a handful of journalists have broken laws that already exist – and were caught doing so by other journalists – seems odd,... | |
It is, of course, a matter for Lord Leveson and his inquiry to make recommendations on what the final regulatory framework should be. However the idea that newspapers are already accountable in an appropriate manner simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is, if nothing else, compelling popular support [i] on such a... | |
It seems unlikely that it will become any less iconic after publication. Indeed the very fact that it has been published is likely to be hailed as a great victory. Neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere will not present this as the result of the elapse of copyright and a measured response by the state. As in any comparable... | |
Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol. Extreme parties frequently thrive when they are able to present themselves as being suppressed by a supposed elite. Their ability to portray themselves as being unfairly silenced by a capricious elite has long been used to attract support by pa... | |
Presenting Mein Kampf as a text for critical discussion gives the impression, at least, that those who supported its arguments and those who decried them were somehow on an equal footing. Having the massed ranks of German academia comment on it is likely to add to its credibility rather than detracting from it as it wi... | |
It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none. The content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an... | |
There is no such thing as a ‘presumption in favour of publication’. Publishers don’t publish books all the time – and absolutely nobody cries free speech. Proposition have said it themselves, the arguments aren’t persuasive. However, having it published at all would have given the work a degree of credibility it doesn’... | |
The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global. If there were not already easy access to the book through the Internet [i] , then it might be possible to argue that there was some practical purpose to be served by continuing its suppression. However, when any disaffected teenager can gai... | |
All of which goes to show how ridiculous bans are in practice as a political tool. When neo-Nazis arrive at rallies with an assortment of black geometric shapes on a white background surrounded by red, nobody stands around trying to figure out what the reference might be. In the same way banning publication of the book... | |
If the publication of other versions is ‘inevitable’ then it makes sense for those versions to be framed within the narrative set by a version grounded in scholarship and critical discourse. Indeed the very process of allowing people to understand that different versions of the same text can fulfill radically different... | |
Money for blood. If Mein Kampf were presented by a contemporary writer to a contemporary publisher, nobody would go near it; simply because nobody would buy it. There is virtually no market for books of its kind, of which it is a poor example, and even those who might be interested in what it has to say tend not to be... | |
Publication is inconsistent with other legislation. Publication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list. [i] If Mein Kampf were one of a kind, there might... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.