I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offense to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.
The chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of … If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. White would come to redirect this critique at commercial rather than governmental pressures.) The picture he paints of the press and its relationship with dissent and public opinion is ominously similar to what Galileo faced with the Catholic church nearly half a millennium earlier: Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.
for the exchange of views.” He compared the internet to a public forum, akin to a public street or park. Alito concurred in the opinion, he also chastised Kennedy for his “undisciplined dicta” and “unnecessary rhetoric.” But Kennedy’s lofty language in accurately observed that the greatest battleground for free expression both nationally and globally occurs online with social media.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in an opinion on a 2017 First Amendment case, called the cyber age a revolution of historic proportions, noting that “we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be.” Kennedy said cyberspace, and social media in particular, was among the “most important places ...
In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book on Amazon from a link on here, I receive a small percentage of its price.
For as long as humans and societies have communicated using media technologies, there have been measures to regulate media content.At their strongest, such controls have constituted censorship, defined as the restriction, suppression, or prohibition of forms of speech and media content deemed to be contrary to the common good.The word comes from the Latin , which referred to the officials in the Roman Empire who took the public census, and whose role was also to supervise public behavior and morals.This may well be true, but it is obviously not the whole of the story.One does not say that a book “ought not to have been published” merely because it is a bad book.At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady.I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think …I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time.Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say “Yes.” But give it a concrete shape, and ask, “How about an attack on Stalin? ” and the answer more often than not will be “No.” In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses.If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines.