|
|
Post by PickyChicky on Jul 8, 2014 11:43:43 GMT -6
I found an interesting article in the business section of the Houston Chronicle's July 4th edition, written by Juergen Baetz of the Associated Press in Brussels. It's about Google removing links at people's requests as is now required by law in Europe, which is now resulting in accusations of press censorship. I went to the Chronicle's site in search of the digital version so I could link to it, but it required a digital subscription in order to view the entire article. So, I went to Google in search of stories about it and found the exact same article available in its entirety on their site. That's just crazy. If they're offering it in its entirety for free on Google, then why isn't it available when you go to read it on their site? Anywho, I don't know how long it will be available, but here's the link I found on Google: Google Yanks Links as it Obeys EU Ruling |
|
|
|
Post by PickyChicky on Jul 8, 2014 13:58:45 GMT -6
As for my thoughts on press censorship, I'm glad people are finally given the chance to control information that is shared about them on the internet -- at least in Europe. We should have the same ability here in the US and around the globe. My take on it is, if it's not important for the public to know, then it doesn't need to be shared if it's needlessly harmful to the subject of the article.
Take, for example, the subjects of the links mentioned in the article that were removed: "stories on a soccer referee who resigned after a scandal in 2010, French office workers making post-it art, a couple having sex on a train and a lawyer facing a fraud trial." Does the public really need to know about any of that? Not as far as I'm concerned, especially since it's harmful to those who the articles were about.
While it's nice to see the EU taking measures to protect its citizens from the likes of Google, I sure wish the U.S. would do the same for its citizens. Unfortunately, it would seem the U.S. government is taking a backseat to the whole issue, among many other issues they should be tackling, making lame excuses for not taking action.
At least Obama is attempting to do something about the NSA's information-gathering practices, but that's just all the more reason they should be doing something about Google, especially since much of the information the NSA has been gathering was appropriated from Google. While Google claims it was without their consent and has publicly denounced the NSA for appropriating the information, the fact that the information was available for appropriation is still a major problem.
The media is given way too much leeway when it comes to infringing on people's right to privacy. As far as I'm concerned, they need to be censored in countless cases just as they were regarding the above articles. They have no right to complain about it, either, because they're simply wrong for reporting such things, exploiting others for their own financial gain -- and they know they're wrong, too.
Now, if it the subject relates to something like a politician's or other public servant's criminal activity or an environmental disaster and how individuals are trying to cover up the truth about anything related to it, then, yes, the public needs to know. The public has a right to know such things because it negatively affects the public, or multiple members of the public, in some way, and they may need to take action to protect themselves from the problem.
Regarding the story about the lawyer facing a fraud trial, that might be something the public has a right to know. However, the lawyer shouldn't be publicly persecuted for something he/she hasn't been convicted of, yet. As is supposed to be the case, you're innocent until proven guilty, but the media makes it impossible to get a fair trial with their speculations that influence public opinion.
They might claim that they're just reporting what's already publicly available information, but we all know better. They're out to make a buck with their blatant sensationalism, whether or not they're reporting facts. I mean, just look at how many times have they reported false information and don't usually retract or otherwise correct that information unless someone forces them to. So, that false information just keeps getting spread in one way or another, particularly if it's posted on the internet.
Now, IF the lawyer is convicted and it negatively affects multiple members of the public, THEN it should be reported, particularly if he/she is allowed to continue practicing law. However, if the lawyer isn't convicted or otherwise proven guilty, then he/she would be needlessly harmed by the publication of the story, whether or not he/she continues practicing law, and most especially if he/she is, in fact, innocent.
So, I feel we have the right to protect ourselves from any sort of harm. Whether it's public persecution, has a negative impact on your ability to earn an income in your field of expertise, or simply embarrassing and causes ridicule from your peers, we should have the right to our privacy to protect ourselves from such things. Everybody makes mistakes and no innocent person should be persecuted or otherwise held accountable for something they didn't do.
|
|
.jpg)