Freedom of press idea comparison: Italy and Sweden
These days in Italy, the Italian Prime Minister is saying:
I believe that this is something that we no longer need to and cannot support: a publicly funded television station that attacks the government."These days here in Tel Aviv, people are concerned about decision of the Swedish government not to condemn the newspaper that published a real strange story about Israeli Army.But in sweden:
freedom of the press is deeply enshrined, a legislated pillar of the nation’s constitution [...]politicians seem to be normally extraordinarily careful not to comment on what the media decide to publish.You can easily find about the story on the web, while my opinion is substantially the one of the Cronicle Herald columnist. To any of the people that thinks that Swedish government should take a precise position on the matter, I suggest to read the this article about what the Prime Minister of Italy is permitted to say this days. After that, you take your final consideration. What is happening in Italy are the extreme consequences of limiting the freedom of press and allowing that the whole of the press is controlled by a single person. So, that person can attack the (few) journalist that are doing their actual job saying: "you cannot attack government". I recently read a quote of a Indro Montanelli old article, back in 1994:
an alarming conceptual confusion between State and government...Freedom of press also means that sometimes someone said something that is not true. It can happen. What happens if we do not have freedom of press is really, really, a worst option.
“I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she’s too young to have logged on yet. Here’s what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say ‘Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?’”
— Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Comments [0]