Freedom of press

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of modern press and it certainly does not exist in Russia. However, as a kid i remember reading Russian magazines like Sputnik, Misha etc. they were really good. The one fact i have a recollection of is the communist Russia, was and is technologically very advanced ( their engineering skills are superb, the sad partis the engineering is mainly used for creating weapons). However, Chechnya is a very sensitive issue, and probably the Putin regime considered it the ultimate insult against the country, and got the journalist eliminated. Russia and China will always remain an enigma they are big and veiled in secrecy.

Safronov fell about like I got back together with my ex. hint--that woman ain't comin' back into my life. Putin is bringing back old time Russian "values." Having said that, I will agree with you. While sad and unfortunate that people like Ann Coulter exist, it is also a testament to one of the few things left in our country we can be proud of: the freedom of speech. The old witch has every right to say what she said. She has the right to be a bitter old biggot. And I have the right to turn the TV off and not listen to her or buy her books.

I absolutely agree. I wish that people wouldn't abuse freedom of speech but there really isn't a way to legislate that, it's all up to tact and consideration. I think its very important that freedom of speech is left as open as possible, even if it means crazies are allowed to spew their zaniness.

I have something to say, am I free to speak? It depends if I can get past the Editors and Censors, the Moderators or as they say the middle people. Screeners and people who know what they want and who they want to hear it from. People can choose to listen or not as has been discussed earlier. The real problem is when people are promoting lies and not telling the whole truth. Truth, Liberty and Justice are the foundations of all human rights.

Although I agree with nothing that ann coutler has ever said, I'm glad to live in a country where she can say it. I'm also pleased to find that by saying it, she's hanging herself, which is the greatest justice.

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't really like the notion of American free press. I think in a lot of respects the US society is actually quite the opposite. I don't want to offend anyone in the slightest, but I think it's important to say what I think, as that is how we create debate. I think the freedoms enjoyed by some in the US media are freedoms that go to far, because it would seem that they are able to use their jobs, use the medium which is there to report a situation, to empart their own personal views. So I guess this makes me sound slightly contradictory right? well i hope not, I think it's very important that people are allowed a voice, but that's where I have a big problem with some of these freedoms. In the UK, the media is regulated, but it is still a free press, but to the extent it is bound by certain rules, cannot slander or defimate character, and to an extent has to abide by some standards of decency. Above all reports are supposed to be in the public interest. Now, everyone will know that the tabloids in the UK are pretty forthright, not exactly the greatest sources for authorititive news, but they still have to abide by these rules. I think newspapers are one thing, but television is another altogether, and yes there is competition, choice and the off button. Yes freedom of speech means that for every one person spouting something you agree with there'll be equality in the opposite. But, I don't like the idea of television hosts, especially some of the ones I see on Fox news, who claim balance by inviting a guest from an opposing viewpoint only to shout them down and constantly interrupt their view. No I don't come at this as some lefty egalitarian, I come at this as someone from a centrist viewpoint with conservative leanings. Television news presenters should do that, present the news in an impartial, balanced and fair way. It is not for personailities to decide what is right and wrong, it should be for them to report so the rest of us can judge. If UK broadcasting standards went the way of those in the US I would be very sad. It's all well and good giving the press the freedom to report, but the reports should not be the voice of one or two businessmen that own the media outlets. Democracy thrives on debate and being able to report and criticise and question the establishment, authorities etc. and that's a good thing. But I will always err on the side of some sort of media watchdog.

I like the freedom of speech, even if it is bizarre, outlandish or insensitive. I also like the fact that I have the right to put Ann Coulter on mute and cuss her through the TV. She is insane and probably in any other country she would have been shut up.

Freedom of speach is an expected right in today's world, but we haven't always enjoyed the privalage. I believe that freedom of speech is a privalege and the "mysterious deaths" that occur, from what I have seen and read have also been linked to CIA and "Power Oganisations" in the process of Cover-ups. I do agree with you on the ideals of democracy over dictatorship, and do not think that killing or using "thug" tactics to silence a situation is right in any country! (Not even out among the stars)

There's all kinds of bad stuff going on there. It's supposedly the most dangerous country for journalists, and that former agent got poisoned with some radioactive substance a few months back. Seems like the old cold war-style cloak and dagger activities, except that they're being carried out *within* Russia, not between the USSR and the US. Strange stuff...

I find it odd that the use of a foul word is cause for such attention when people all around us are using many of them daily. I am concerned about the foreign events that cause untimely deaths for those that tell of the real truth of events and information about leaders and politicians. We need freedome of speech, it is one of the things our country was based on. It still has value. It is badly needed the world over.

Famously in the UK, there is no actual freedom of speech and now would be a difficult time to introduce it. There are times when freedom is indeed desirable, but there will always be some crazy person who latches on to a oublic wave of feeling (much like Hitler) and abuse freedom of speech. If you have freedom of speech as an ideal, then you must stand by and watch while extremists are allowed to publicly call for killings to take place (this happened in London last year, and the offenders are being traced via video footage and quietly dealt with through the courts). I love the idea of freedom of speech and would defend a persons right to beleive what they will, but that doesn't always mean they should have the right to express it publicly. Just to clarify, no I'm not in favour of killing journalists... (though there are some paparazzi that could do with a smack)

Yes I agree. I do have to say that I had never heard of Ann Coulter until her remark about John Edwards and "gay".

Yes. Freedom of the press is important. However, the press in this country(US) is decidedly slanted toward the left. As long as I have the right to totally ignore the garbage they spew, freedom of the press is a valuable freedom. They can write whatever they want. To me, themore important freedon is that I can come to my own conclusions and believe how I want. I have read several stories about possible assassinations in Russia. Some involving journalists, as you have said. And in China, freedom of the press is virtually non-exsistent. In many countries it is non-exsistent. Even when there is freedom of the press, it is difficult to know if what they speak(write) is the truth or from some hidden agenda.

I agree that even though there are some journalist people I can't stand, we have to keep freedom of speech an integral part of the usa. It seems more and more we are losing rights, and we got to take a stand to keep this country free. However, it can be a mix bag, because up to certain points, a persons character should not be obsecured, or defamation of character. But if we allow the government to dictate and control, then we once again lose the freedom of speech. So where can the line be drawn? I would rather deal with the negative affects, then lose the freedom of speech altogether. We need to band together to make sure that right is not taken away. Our forefathers fought for that, and to allow that to be taken away would be a travesty.

While U.K. doesn't kill their journalists (yet!!), the press is slowly being stifiled, especially by government, which is repeatedly bringing in injunctions to prevent publication of matters which may harm them, the recent injunction on the 'Cash for Peerage' investigation is a case in point, not only was tv and newspapers banned from publishing details, they also tried to ban the fact that there was a ban. There have been some cases when the U.K. press has been banned from publishing and the reports have been published in foreign newspapers, foreign television and on the internet, which now goes to show that freedom to publish is still available. I wouldn't be surprised if some websites are eventually banned in the U.K. to prevent banned details being available in the U.K.

I do agree... freedom of speech is great when it is used for the right reasons... and should be supported at all costs. However... many journalists in the western world have exploited that freedom to tell lies in order to sell newspapers. I would like to send those parasites to Russia. I heard some rumors that Russia was contemplating reverting to its old ways. But Russia is not the only one. Things are even worse in China... despite the new coming of age... the government attitude has not changed that much. And from what I hear... it might be their downfall. India is emerging as a superpower and might surpass China for the sole reason that it has a democratic government.

i most definitely agree. if it was not for journalists, shabby care of our wounded military vets would have remained a deep, ugly, and dark secret. thanks to the brave outspoken journalists, walter reed is getting a badly needed makeover, command is getting a shake up, and vets are (hopefully) going to get the care they deserve.

Most definitely! Stifling the press means to stifle the free voice ,voice of people .That is a direct attack on democracy.Any country that says it's democratic should not suppress independent opinions.What could be the cost of a wrong press report? Ultimately,the debate will be carried out in the parliament and the accused party/parties could present evidence to support their claims of innocence and if guilty then they will face the music.It's very hard to know how the government is functioning if there is no free critic and press,though at times prejudiced,serves that role better than any opposition which one would say is also an office of profit,when it comes to critising the government.Again,the government can't interfere with the judiciary when it goes wrong ,but the press can highlight it and the issue could be debated.The meaning of democracy isn't always getting the best result ,but the most popular one.The independence and freedom of press is indeed imperative for the maintenance of a true democracy.

you must live in pressure.that is life