SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-Disapprove-of-What-You-Say,-But-I-Will-Defend-to-the-Death-Your-Right-to-Say-It dept.
From an editorial in the Otago Daily Times out of New Zealand, Censorship a Trojan Horse:
It's an oft-cited maxim that the news media is the "fourth estate" upon which a healthy democracy stands.
It ensures the three traditional powers of state — the legislature, executive and judiciary — can be critiqued, challenged and curbed from quietly drifting into the arms of corruption and authoritarianism.
A free, fair, open and uncensored media is an antidote to state power and, for all its failings (and there are many), should be treasured as such. There are many countries around the world whose people would give anything for such a freedom.
Yet calls for the banning of certain opinion pieces, cartoons and commentary have risen in recent months, especially from those using social media, a world where such talk is becoming a trend. It is a trend we must confront.
Censorship is to suppress the harmful, the unacceptable, the obscene and the threatening from the media and other forms of public communication. Like a virus attacking democracy from the inside out, it was traditionally the tool of the dictator, though it is one used by many in power.
[...] It pays to query what those demanding censorship — be they celebrities, social-media activists or anybody else — see their ultimate goal as being.
To reduce hurt? To make the world a better place? Possibly, and those motivations are laudable. But the method employed to achieve them is not.
While censorship may be meant as a figurative horse upon which a better future rides, inside the belly of that horse lurks an army of conformity, quite capable of unwitting oppression.
History shows what happens when the fourth estate is no longer free to table all opinions.
It is a bleak picture. Without the disinfectant of exposure, power and ideals tend to corrupt even the most seemingly incorruptible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday October 02 2018, @12:04PM (1 child)
No that wouldn't be ideal. Contrarily, things are working as intended. Judges are supposed to interpret law in the current social context. If their interpretation is considered undesirable, the law needs to be changed/amended/made more specific. Judges are no ultimate wielders of power, they are mere functions determining the best fit of the law in the current situation (they are throw-away products).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday October 02 2018, @03:44PM
That is "Living Constitution" Judicial activism. Legislatures are what change laws based on the current "social context" and if you notice, every time Judges Usurp that power it is because the elected politicians quietly agree with what the judges did but are afraid to say so publicly, preferring to "blame" the unelected branch. In other words, the elite imposing its will on the public through extralegal means. If you think yourself in that "elite" and desire that sort of power, admit it. Otherwise face the reality such power will never be used for your benefit and oppose it.