Humanity didn’t know it had rights until it realized its wrongs. The conundrum between freedom of speech and cultural appropriation has been one of the most controversial subjects in recent years, and the use of technology has made the world all too cautious but at the same time more aggressive about the matter at hand. One of the best examples is described by the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists - Joel Simon - in an article regarding the standpoint of technology among french political and cultural struggles in the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack. For one, journalists and cartoonists (or anyone who wished to communicate) fight constantly to exercise their freedom of speech against a sea of ignorance and oppression coming either from their governments or international communities; but, on the other hand, their messages may not be culturally appropiate worldwide. So, where do we draw the line? To spice up the issue, the Internet has blurred the frontier even more.
It’s ironic how one has to hide to shine a light over the the word they wish to spread. The media has always had a controversial position in society. It publishes secrets that organizations value, yet it constantly hides the truth. To some extent, freedom of speech can be considered inconvenient; it causes too much controversy, it makes people doubt the world around them. Perhaps, this is why this inconvenience is so crucial in society. It may be why we start to wonder if oxygen is just another poisonous gas and its effects are just much slower in comparisson too smog; or if Splenda is as good as it claims to be. It sparks a thirst for knowledge in people and it aspires for a cultured world.
Speaking of culture, there is a concept called rhetorical thinking and it implies that writers (or anyone who is publishing a message) should be mindful of their audience. No article or newspaper cartoon is welcomed lovingly by 100% of its audience, someone is bound to disagree. The importance in this situation is how considerate was the publisher when thinking about the content of their message and how the viewers act upon it. The availability of technology is much more widespread than the general knowledge of rhetorical thinking, and this is the main problem. Everyday is judgement day for journalists who are chased around because of their mentality and for those who don’t know where they stand in an argument. Governments should strive to build a more accepting and knowledge hungry mentality in their citizens, not to take on the absurd task of trying to control the Internet. You shouldn’t cry for spilt milk and neither should they; and the Internet is the biggest glass of spilt milk there ever was. Or worse, try to limit the use of technology in the midst of an era of rapidly developing technology. Would they tell their farmers not to farm because some people are allergic to their produce, would they tell their schools not to teach because not very parent is in agreeance with their curriculum (if it fulfilled all the necessary standards for it to be considered proper education), would they tell their flowers not to bloom? With great power comes great responsibility. The Internet may be the the most powerful force making our own worlds spin, and it should be treated as such.
It’s ironic how one has to hide to shine a light over the the word they wish to spread. The media has always had a controversial position in society. It publishes secrets that organizations value, yet it constantly hides the truth. To some extent, freedom of speech can be considered inconvenient; it causes too much controversy, it makes people doubt the world around them. Perhaps, this is why this inconvenience is so crucial in society. It may be why we start to wonder if oxygen is just another poisonous gas and its effects are just much slower in comparisson too smog; or if Splenda is as good as it claims to be. It sparks a thirst for knowledge in people and it aspires for a cultured world.
Speaking of culture, there is a concept called rhetorical thinking and it implies that writers (or anyone who is publishing a message) should be mindful of their audience. No article or newspaper cartoon is welcomed lovingly by 100% of its audience, someone is bound to disagree. The importance in this situation is how considerate was the publisher when thinking about the content of their message and how the viewers act upon it. The availability of technology is much more widespread than the general knowledge of rhetorical thinking, and this is the main problem. Everyday is judgement day for journalists who are chased around because of their mentality and for those who don’t know where they stand in an argument. Governments should strive to build a more accepting and knowledge hungry mentality in their citizens, not to take on the absurd task of trying to control the Internet. You shouldn’t cry for spilt milk and neither should they; and the Internet is the biggest glass of spilt milk there ever was. Or worse, try to limit the use of technology in the midst of an era of rapidly developing technology. Would they tell their farmers not to farm because some people are allergic to their produce, would they tell their schools not to teach because not very parent is in agreeance with their curriculum (if it fulfilled all the necessary standards for it to be considered proper education), would they tell their flowers not to bloom? With great power comes great responsibility. The Internet may be the the most powerful force making our own worlds spin, and it should be treated as such.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario