Define Freedom of the Press: Is the InterNet the New Press?

We have a Constitutional Right to Freedom of the Press, along with Freedom of Speech.

The Internet is the new "Press."

Therefor, the new Internet controls and regulations are unconstitutional.

The legal "out" is matter of definition - when the Constitution was written, "Press" referred to printing presses.

Because the Internet does not involve physical printing presses, lawmakers think they're off the hook - according to the "letter of the law."

But NO, they are NOT.

The spirit of Constitutional Law - and our Freedoms of Speech and the Press - have nothing to do with machinery and technology. The spirit of the law governing our Rights to Freedom of Speech and of the Press has to do with our right to communicate freely, openly, and with such tools that allow us to reach the masses.


I would argue that the real reason for Internet regulations and controls is to protect mega-corporations' right to profit from "information products" as commodities, for purposes of trade, as originally determined and defined in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The public focus on online personal privacy, national security and cyber-terrorism constitute little more than a communications strategy designed to terrorize citizens into compliance.


Time to fight back,
soficrow





more tweaking

[edit on 11-2-2010 by soficrow]

I am so hopeful for this thread!

I find this subject to be most meaningful in today's world.

The impact of mercantilism as a 'lifestyle' of the corporate citizen has degraded what we expected was the social contract between Press and society. And the industry actively concealed that change.

Seems like a real call for the resurrection of journalism.

I agree one hundred percent that the internet is the new press and if the next decade or so can stave off the legislative and corporate stranglehold that classical media has enjoyed for over a century than we may even be seeing the beginnings of a societal shift in awareness.

I have been saying for several years now that interactive media is the wave of the future as the reality of such would all but make moot government/corporate propaganda that has permeated the news for generations. As well, us lay(wo)men now have an oppurtunity to gain instant background on sciences and gain other perspectives on social issues. Our collective access to information has exploded over the past decade.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't obstacles. Internet legislation is being tentatively tried all over the world and the generation gap (in which old and perhaps now archaic values/expressions are still persistent) still limits broad spectrum collaboration on an effective level. The entertainment industry has a very keen recognition of how to compete for attention as well.

But it is my hope and cautious belief that with persistent use of avenues such as ATS that the internet will become the new press. And while I may not be alive to see it, the world will be drastically changed because of it.

reply to post by MemoryShock


I'm thinking things are heating up fairly quickly now, MemoryShock.

Here's a snippet from Hillary Clinton's Remarks on Internet Freedom speech, delivered January 21, 2010.

During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

Obama and his administration appear to have done a full 180* turnaround in the past 3 short weeks since that speech was delivered - most during the past week.

The last G7 meeting was last weekend (February 6). It looks like negotiations did not go well.

...One of the main GATT terms (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) is that national laws governing trade must be in harmony with GATT and those of other nations.

It looks like the USA and other G7 countries now are harmonizing -quickly- with China on Internet controls and regulations.

The main beneficiaries of the related GATT terms are global mega-corporations, and the commodity of concern is information.

It is NOT a political issue, it is a trade issue. We are being forced to harmonize with international trade law that defines and protects "information products" as commodities.


- sofi






tweaking and tinkering

[edit on 11-2-2010 by soficrow]

The internet is free speech, period. No, i don't like a lot of what is on the internet, but i use my freedom to not partake of it.

I have heard a rumor that YouTube is going to censor the F Bomb. I think this is a good idea, for them to censor themselves. Create a standard which their membership should abide by. It is a good business model. But they are free to leave the way it is, and that is what is good about our nation.

Now, this creates problems in other countries. That is unfortunate for them.

But consider: the SCOTUS recently decided that, relative to corporate political donations, money = free speech. Unless i fell into an Orwellian/Bizarro dimensional shift, there is no way that you could make an argument for censoring the internets free speech if you allow corporate donations to equal free speech.

reply to post by soficrow

Will have to do more research on that, as it rings true...but one thing I do know is that corporate influence extends ultimately to the consumer. By restricting information they are not necessarily forcing people to 'buy in".

And I seriously doubt that anyone can implement effective legislation/enforcement in the next few years...

Which makes this one to watch for. As well, I am seriously curious if Google returns search inquiries on the formula it purports. Some mild tweaking of the code could be done to favor established corporate media in their transistion to electronic and I seriously doubt that something as societally important as the internet went without alphabet agency influence...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The internet is free speech, period.

I agree. Also represents Freedom of the Press (important legal argument).

But they are free to leave the way it is, and that is what is good about our nation.

Maybe not. Facebook might be responding to new regulations. In any event, new regulations and controls ARE coming down.

the SCOTUS recently decided that, relative to corporate political donations, money = free speech.

No - it wasn't the SCOTUS who made that decision - it was the Supreme Court.

Unless i fell into an Orwellian/Bizarro dimensional shift, there is no way that you could make an argument for censoring the internets free speech if you allow corporate donations to equal free speech.

I agree. BUT - international trade law overrides/supersedes national laws. ...and it looks like the Big Boyz decided to play hardball. They OWN the information, they want to SELL it, not give it away - and they have a legally protected -and mandated- Right to Profit.

FYI - the Corporate Right to Profit supersedes individual rights and civil liberties, nationally and internationally.

It's all legal.

So yeah, seems like we just might be entering an Orwellian/Bizarro dimensional shift...


- sofi

Sorry folks...the "press" has never been "free" and it never will be.

I don't care what country you're in, people simply can't print certain things without getting in trouble.

It has always been this way and it will never change.

BTW...there's no such thing as "free speech" either...you simply cannot say certain things without breaking "the law".

reply to post by soficrow


International trade law cannot supercede the individual state, should the state choose to nullify international action.

Now, would it be good business? It depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about protecting intellectual property, i don't see most Texans having issue with that. It is what is honest and what is right.

If we are talking about bending the world to China's will, i can guarantee you that the "red" states will not tolerate it.

Our governor has already talked about nullifying our relationship with the Union, and the state level rhetoric deals with nullifying unsavory federal laws.

on a side note:

SCOTUS=

Supreme
Court
Of
The
United
States

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by soficrow

 

International trade law cannot supercede the individual state, should the state choose to nullify international action.

Now, would it be good business?

If the state chose not to comply with international trade law it would be shut out of international trade - for export, import, any kind of participation.

It depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about protecting intellectual property, i don't see most Texans having issue with that. It is what is honest and what is right.

As defined by international law, "information" is: anything that has been scanned, digitalized or otherwise computerized; a product; and hence, a commodity.

The ownership of "information commodities" also is stipulated under international law: the person or agency that scanned, digitalized or otherwise computerized the product legally owns it.

For example, all the details of all your medical insurance claims, and all of the information you provided to your bank, mortgage broker and credit company become information products once they are entered into a computer. As information products, your insurance company, bank, mortgage broker and credit company OWN the information and they have the right to sell it as a commodity.

If someone gets a sample of your blood or hair and sequences your personal individual genome, they OWN that information product and have the right to sell it as a commodity - no matter how they came by the "samples." (You'll probably never know.)

...How do you define honest and right?

If we are talking about bending the world to China's will, i can guarantee you that the "red" states will not tolerate it.

Not China's will.

International trade law created a global government run by international mega-corporations.

The relevant legal terms include:
1. The "Right to Profit" mandate, which supersedes individual rights and liberties as well as national and local "political" concerns;
2. The "Right to Negotiate as Equals" with national governments; and of course,
3. As "persons" under law, all of the Rights allowed to individuals - with none of the responsibilities or liabilities.

You will note that actual human individuals are being denied their Rights as individuals, while corporations' Rights as individual "persons" are being protected.

Also note: In 2000: Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are corporations and 49 are countries. ...I suspect the post-2008 story, following the global financial crisis, shows mega-corporations firmly positioned as the world's leading economic powers (excepting for China).

...Looks to me like the mega-corporations "allied" with China on the issue of Internet control and regulation - the world's "democracies" are getting squeezed on both sides, and they're capitulating.

Our governor has already talked about nullifying our relationship with the Union, and the state level rhetoric deals with nullifying unsavory federal laws.

Almost irrelevant in the international context - but will better serve the Corporate Global Government. (Divide and conquer.)

on a side note: SCOTUS=Supreme Court of the United States

Duh. Brain fart. I read POTUS. Sorry.

- sofi



tweaked



[edit on 12-2-2010 by soficrow]