April
20
MdSt 20: April 20 Morning Grade elevens…
- I’m at my seminar in Regina but stole away for a moment to begin today’s blog so you’ll have a place to post your formal paragraph responses.
- Be sure to proof read your paragraph. Maybe, if you type it into a word document and spell check, etc, it would be a good idea. This is a ‘formal’ paragraph remember. Be sure to include your opinion but give evidence to support it.
- Hope you enjoy your day! M
A. Consider whether you believe there is a valid reason for journalists to risk their lives to report news from foreign countries?
I really don’t think that there is a reason for journalists to risk there lives just to report news from different countries that don’t have anything to do with them or concern them or there country in any way. Maybe they may think that they have to risk there own lives just to get a certain storey or maybe they just really don’t wanna lose there job if they don’t do what they are supposed to do. but i guess i don’t really know all this for a fact cause i am not a journalist. In their eyes maybe there is a valid reason for them to do it but i really just don’t know.
4) a) Consider whether you believe there is a valid reason for journalists to risk there lives to report news from foreign countries.
I don’t think people should risk their lives just for there jobs. They shouldn’t have to go to a foregin country to get news. They should try and contact somone from that country and ask them to send you some information. That way you would not have to go to a foregin country and risk your life. But if some people want to risk their lives just for their jobs then i guess let them go. But i think that alot of people would rather not go to a dangerous country and possibally be killed.
I think that freedom of speech should be an international right. There should not be any restrictions or censorship of speech or thoughts. If a person doesn’t want to speak what they think they can keep it to themselves, if they want to voice there opinion they should have the rite to. I think that the restrictions and censorship is caused by to much religion in government politics. Religion should not determine the laws in a country. I think there is no reason to restrict or censor freedom of speech.
By Jeremy Sinclair
Consider whether you believe there is a valid reason for journalists to risk there lives to report news from foreign countries.
I consider that having a journalist risk there life to broadcast news from foreign countries, is not worth it. But they do it any way. Every day we hear news from all over the world, not just Canada and these journalists are risking there own lives every day, just to get the news out to all of the other countries. I believe that its interesting knowing what is going on in the world, but when news gets a littler to far spoken, it is not right to have been posted. I think that journalists should have more respect for each country, than just there own. Journalists risk there lives every single day, and they do not even think about it, if nothing has happened yet to them, then they think nothing will happen yet. Risking your life over your job, I do not think is worth it.
I believe that freedom of speech should be an international right, but all countries should have a limit to what media footage is released to the public. Citizens of every country should have the freedom to challenge and criticize their government. This will help ensure their government is aware of its citizen’s opinions and improve to avoid conflict. People have the right to be aware of current news. Some restrictions of media footage should happen out of respect for those involved. Having freedom of speech internationally would allow for every individual to be aware of their options for contribution in their society. Speaking up for your religion, whatever it may be, should also be a freedom. Some countries, such as North Korea, do not give its citizens freedom of job or religious options. Everyone should have the freedom to express their opinions and not be restricted by higher powers. Profane language should be questionable, but people have the right to speak freely. Those of us who have freedom of speech should recognize our power, and take advantage of it.
B. Should Freedom of speech be an international right? Or should some people have rights to restrict or censor speech or thoughts?
Freedom of speech is not only a right, but an expectation for most, but unfortunately, this right is not always justified. I do believe that if all news footage and personal opinions were let out into the public, society would suffer because of it. Having video clips of massacres, dead and decaying bodies, spontaneous acts of violence and other mortifying things readily available and widely broadcasted most likely could and would desensitize many people to violence. Perhaps the first time we saw something of this nature we would be shocked and look away, but eventually that feeling fades.
Not only could this type of video media alter our impressions, but the negative thoughts of others, if broadcasted, could do the same. If one person decided to demonstrate their hatred towards the government, other free radicals would feel the same, and the consequences would be endless. In other countries they suppress free speech but threats, such as when Hitler ruled Germany. If you thought negatively of the government that was fine, but the second anyone discovered your secret hatred you were as good as gone.
Most would say that censorship is wrong and unfair at first glance, as did I, but our government carefully censors what we see so as not to influence us negatively. If a four-year-old boy just happened to be watching the news with his father and images of war and violence were shown excessively that could potentially influence that child severely, making him feel as though violence is acceptable. Could this possibly be the reason why children in other countries are brought into war at such an early age? Could this lack of censorship be responsible for the violence and grudges held among common countrymen? There is no real way to decide, only assumptions.
B. Should Freedom of speech be an international right? Or should some people have rights to restrict or censor speech or thoughts?
Freedom of speech is not only a right, but an expectation for most, but unfortunately, this right is not always justified. I do believe that if all news footage and personal opinions were let out into the public, society would suffer because of it. Having video clips of massacres, dead and decaying bodies, spontaneous acts of violence and other mortifying things readily available and widely broadcasted most likely could and would desensitize many people to violence. Perhaps the first time we saw something of this nature we would be shocked and look away, but eventually that feeling fades.
Not only could this type of video media alter our impressions, but the negative thoughts of others, if broadcasted, could do the same. If one person decided to demonstrate their hatred towards the government, other free radicals would feel the same, and the consequences would be endless. In other countries they suppress free speech but threats, such as when Hitler ruled Germany. If you thought negatively of the government that was fine, but the second anyone discovered your secret hatred you were as good as gone.
Most would say that censorship is wrong and unfair at first glance, as did I, but our government carefully censors what we see so as not to influence us negatively. If a four-year-old boy just happened to be watching the news with his father and images of war and violence were shown excessively that could potentially influence that child severely, making him feel as though violence is acceptable. Could this possibly be the reason why children in other countries are brought into war at such an early age? Could this lack of censorship be responsible for the violence and grudges held among common countrymen? There is no real way to decide, only assumptions.
Sorry, I accidentally submitted twice.. Oops!
B. Should Freedom of speech be an international right? Or should some people have rights to restrict or censor speech or thoughts?
Freedom of speech is an absolute right, but what about if you are in another country? This is where i belive the “snag”, or the “catch” is involved. To many reporters and journalists are going into other countries and reporting and photographing things that they should not do in that country. What im trying to say is that even though they think that it is okay to report the news, and stories back to our country, the country they are occupying may not see that as acceptable. This is why so many journalists are being killed or captured and held hostage, and even beaten and tourtured to death. So personaly what i belive is that countries have the right to set restrictions on freedom of speech and what is reported on their own terms. This would be a form of censorship, but i just don’t see how it is fair that we can go into another persons country and disrespect their rights and religion of thier country. I think that in the long run we can save some journalists lives as well. If all the countries in the world agreed that freedom of speech is a world wide right, than yes it should be an international right. Till then countries should have the right to censor their country and the news that is reported on it.
B. Should freedom of speech be an international right? Or should some people have rights to restrict or censor speech or thoughts?
I think freedom of speech should be an international right, but with respect. If you come from a Canadian culture where freedom of speech is allowed then that should be carried on across the seas. But even though it is an international right the journalists still should respect the country they are in and their laws and culture. And the country they are in should respect where the journalists are coming from and their culture and laws. If a country doesn’t like something that a journalist has said, they shouldn’t be able to go out and beat that journalist to death. I think that it is horrible what happens to international journalists. These people are just trying to expand their careers into something much bigger than they are and the government officials of the country don’t like one thing and they take that journalist out.
Should freedom of speech be an international right? Or should some people have rights to restrict or censor speech or thoughts?
I do believe that speech should be an international right. However there is a line that should not be crossed. Give the news and reports in general, do not display deaths or dead bodies, do not cut down others faiths or preach personal thoughts, give neutral reports on information collected. People should not be murdered, tortured, or assassinated for delivering the news and if people stay a respectable distance away there should be no need for assassination. Journalism is a system of co-operation between the people being reported on and the reporter, if they both co-operate there should be no major conflicts.
SHOULD FREEDOM OF SPEECH BE AN INTERNATIONAL RIGHT? OR SHOULD SOME PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS TO RESTRICTOR CENSOR SPEECH OR THOUGHTS?
Freedom of speech should be an international right. It is important for people to voice their beliefs and concerns, because with a lack of free speech one group of people would rule over all. For example in Darfur, one group controls everything and innocent people are killed in a massive genocide daily. These citizens voices have been silenced, as have those still living in fear! Perhaps it is up to free countries to use freedom of speech for the better and help these people.
Yet, with every right comes responsibility. Everyone should have the right to free speech, but they should not have the right to force their beliefs upon others, especially through media and things that effect mass groups of people. This freedom of speech can be abused and sometimes is. The government and media stations try to filter out the negative and slurred views of reality to protect citizens from paradigms they do not want their cultures to adapt. For a society this censoring is usually for the best. Although, there is some things people should know, yet do not have access to. This could be a slightly dangerous part in that idea that “history repeats itself”, because if the histories of other cultures are not known they could easily be repeated instead of learned from.