正文
關於西方的言論自由、新聞自由本質上是怎麽回事，不妨看看如下文章：
看過喬老<<製造共識>>那本書沒有？沒有的話應該看看，那是經典，下麵這個是喬老最近的發言
喬姆斯基：新媒體終究還是在“製造共識“
guancha.cn/QiaoMuSiJi/2015_04_27_317408.shtml
這是當年一個美國巴勒斯坦裔教授因反以色列言論獲罪受迫害的故事：
www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/protecting-speech-on-campus.html
這是為CNN賣命20年的記者，因為一條悼念死去的Shi'ite 著名宗教領導人去世的tweet而被解雇的故事：www.salon.com/2010/07/08/media_259/
這是去年夏天一個教授因為反對以色列濫殺巴勒斯坦人的幾個tweets被伊利諾伊大學違約不給tenure的case：www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/09/professor-israel-criticism-twitter-university-illinois
穀狗搜索“fired for speech, 你可以找到更多
幫斯諾登爆料的記者GLENN GREENWALD寫過不少西方控製言論因言治罪的文章，這是其中的倆：
firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increasingly-monitoring-criminalizing-online-speech/
firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
這是斯諾登爆的英美政府如何控製操縱網絡言論，這大概也部分解釋了為什麽西方不像中國有那麽多反體製的大V： firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
這是英國在討論要通過的新法律（土共搞法製不妨學英國跟著製定類似法律）：
“The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
It will also contain new powers to close premises including mosques where extremists seek to influence others. The powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate fund”
先把西方看懂了，咱再討論中國是不是沒有言論“自由”，為什麽沒有。
另外，不妨想想，為什麽有“言論自由”的西方（包括港台）對中國的報道都是充滿著偏見和謊言，導致老百姓對中國基本不了解，而且充滿著偏見和誤解。沒”言論自由“的大陸人民，對西方和港台的認識反而更全麵少偏見？
___________
所以，威脅既得利益和權勢階層的言論自由，威脅體製的言論自由，哪個國家都是不可能有的，中國沒有，西方也沒有。中西的區別在於反對勢力的力量不一樣，政府和權勢階層操控輿論的能力不一樣，如此而已
看過喬老<<製造共識>>那本書沒有？沒有的話應該看看，那是經典，下麵這個是喬老最近的發言
喬姆斯基：新媒體終究還是在“製造共識“
guancha.cn/QiaoMuSiJi/2015_04_27_317408.shtml
這是當年一個美國巴勒斯坦裔教授因反以色列言論獲罪受迫害的故事：
www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/protecting-speech-on-campus.html
這是為CNN賣命20年的記者，因為一條悼念死去的Shi'ite 著名宗教領導人去世的tweet而被解雇的故事：www.salon.com/2010/07/08/media_259/
這是去年夏天一個教授因為反對以色列濫殺巴勒斯坦人的幾個tweets被伊利諾伊大學違約不給tenure的case：www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/09/professor-israel-criticism-twitter-university-illinois
穀狗搜索“fired for speech, 你可以找到更多
幫斯諾登爆料的記者GLENN GREENWALD寫過不少西方控製言論因言治罪的文章，這是其中的倆：
firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increasingly-monitoring-criminalizing-online-speech/
firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
這是斯諾登爆的英美政府如何控製操縱網絡言論，這大概也部分解釋了為什麽西方不像中國有那麽多反體製的大V： firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
這是英國在討論要通過的新法律（土共搞法製不妨學英國跟著製定類似法律）：
“The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
It will also contain new powers to close premises including mosques where extremists seek to influence others. The powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate fund”
先把西方看懂了，咱再討論中國是不是沒有言論“自由”，為什麽沒有。
另外，不妨想想，為什麽有“言論自由”的西方（包括港台）對中國的報道都是充滿著偏見和謊言，導致老百姓對中國基本不了解，而且充滿著偏見和誤解。沒”言論自由“的大陸人民，對西方和港台的認識反而更全麵少偏見？
___________
所以，威脅既得利益和權勢階層的言論自由，威脅體製的言論自由，哪個國家都是不可能有的，中國沒有，西方也沒有。中西的區別在於反對勢力的力量不一樣，政府和權勢階層操控輿論的能力不一樣，如此而已
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
