Category: Freedom

Introduction

Internet- A Medium of Social Interaction and Information Distribution

The creation of World Wide Web in the decade of 1990 has transformed the Internet from a simple communication tool into a creditably and commendably revolutionary technology. Internet may be described as a vast and enormous public web of computer networks linking users of all types around the globe to each other and also to a remarkably substantial information repository.

The explosive growth of Internet continues in the twenty first century. In the United States, Internet penetration had reached almost sixty-three percent. There are one hundred and eighty five million Internet users and every month there is an increase of two million Americans using it for the very first time (Herumin 2004).

Even though, the dot-com crash in the year 2000 led to overall cutbacks in expenditures on technology. The growth of Internet around the citizens of world is expected to explode. The explosive growth in the usage of Internet forms the basis of new digital age.

Internet has, in fact, been the new millenniums revolutionary technology, empowering general public, governments and businesses with blessings of connectivity. The information enables the members of world community to share and access huge amounts of information with a simple mouse click.

Aims and Objectives

Aim of the paper is to explore the general role of internet and its relationship with the society. Moreover, it also strives to differentiate what should be allowed and not allowed to display on the internet.

Research Methods

The research will primarily focus on analyzing the secondary data available in theoretical books, magazines and internet. On the basis of the exploration made, a deep analysis and an in-depth opinion will be presented supported by authentic resources.

Developing Theoretical Framework

While reviewing critically the literature in this paper it has been identified that there are many gaps in arguments regarding what should be allowed and not allowed to display on internet. It has been noted that some of the theoretical approaches that are designed by different authors have not been specifically addressed in the available literature about applicable issues that are related with highlighting relationship between internet and society and advantages derived from it.

Data Analysis

In this paper the data collected through primary and secondary sources was assessed to perform analysis. The stage of analysis scrutinized the constructs for reliability, content validity, convergent validity and social desirability prejudice. The procedure of confirmatory element analysis is termed as a useful approach for the purpose of constructing validity. This procedure provides an exact view of dependency and is also a formal examination of uni-dimensionality of magnitude.

Literature Review

Censorship on Internet

The Internet commenced in the year 1969 as APPANET. The government of United States supported this project. By the middle of 1990s, the Internet exploded to more than twenty million users. The evolution and expansion of Internet places a continuous threat of government rules and regulations to become more practical. The primary concerns related to Internet focus on hate-speech and pornography and terrorists activities. (Herumin 2004)

Censorship is the legislative or moral process by which community concurs to limit what a person can say, see, think or do. (Herumin 2004) One target for censorship by different countries including Untied States has been the Internet. Censorship on Internet aims to focus on much wider spectrum of topics including hate speech, pornography and instructions of bomb-making.

The justification for censorship on the contents available on Internet is that it is directly related with the exigencies of society, even if people are restricted in their consumption on Internet. Presently, the movements of Internet censorship have taken two major forms; placing limitations on what can be posted or viewed on Internet. Several bills have been passed by United States Congress focusing on the Internet. (Owen 2000)

What should be allowed/Disallowed on Internet?

While hate speech, pornography and different other materials could be deemed to acceptable to some and offensive to others, the robust and strong desire to restrict access to this material by a majority of individuals is, in fact, at the core of discussion regarding what should be available and what should not be. The evolution of Internet has proved to be a significant platform not only for economic development, but also as a huge support for those advocates having desire to express their independent opinions (Ringmar, 2007).

Internet also work towards the development of democracy and has provided enormous opportunities for people to participate in different forums, involve in debates and discuss issues that specifically concern them. Different studies made about what should be allowed or not allowed on internet focus on the fact that Internet censorship is, in fact, a commonplace in most of the countries. United States, France, India, China and other nations, over last few years, have accelerated their endeavors either to close down or restrain activities on Internet. For instance, in China, the control level signifies a low value of Internet as a medium for independent and organized autonomous speech and its usage could create additional threats at personal level for different activists.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 have provided numerous opportunities for many countries including United States, France, India and China to promulgate preventive and restrictive policies that were previously opposed by most of their citizens. The governments around the world have accelerated legal authority for extra snooping of all types, especially involving Internet, form enhancement of activities to monitor email for retention of communications data and Web logs (Herumin 2004).

The governments are more secretive about their own activities, reducing data that was available in the past and refusing to adhere to rules and regulations on freedom of information. Another common phenomenon found is the transfer of surveillance tools and technology. The developing or third world nations often rely on Western countries to supply them with the essential technologies of control and surveillance. These technologies include deciphering equipment, wiretapping equipment, bugs, scanners, computer intercept systems and tracking equipment (White, 2006).

A wide variety of methods are used by governments of United States, France, India, China and other nations to regulate and restrict Internet access especially to confront pornography, hate speech and terrorists activities. The common methods used by the countries include; content filtering, applying licenses and laws, surveillance and tapping, taxation and pricing policies, manipulation of telecommunication markets, manipulation of software and hardware and self censorship (Deibert, 2008).

Pornography and Internet

The censorship on Internet by many governments focuses on pornography and place restrictions in this regard. However, according to Kant; loved person is, in fact an object of sexual appetite. He is of the view that the focus of sexual desire is primarily on body and not on complete person. Entire sexual gratification specifically outside marriage is wrong. Kantianism provides support to the policies of governments for imposing censorship on Internet when it comes to pornographic activities. Utilitarianism also encourages governments to combat with the issue of pornography on Internet through censorship. The utilitarianism signifies that pornography tends to reduce dignity of life, harming each and every one. It increases specific crimes like rape (Kant, 1999).

Pornography reduces level of sympathy for the victims of rape and is like pollution that ultimately poisons the environment. Industry of pornography diverts resources from socially redeeming activities. These arguments justifies the actions taken by the countries like United States, France, India, China etc to impose censorship on Internet (Schneider, 1997).

The Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) provides that libraries receiving networking funds from federal government should filter pages containing child pornography or obscenity. According to utilitarian evaluation; it depends on how harms and benefits are weighed. Social contract theory asserts that freedom of conscience must be given precedence (Nakaya, 2005).

Basic Themes to Forbid and Permission

There are two basic themes regarding access to available information which are; everything that is not permitted explicitly is forbidden; and everything not forbidden explicitly is permitted. Moreover, these are also referred to as whitelists and blacklists. As websites appear and fade swiftly on the Internet, it is a full time job to maintain list on Internet of either type.

Both these types are generally used at the domestic level. For instance, Australia has enforced a law that requires entire ISPs to block undesired access to such materials which seems to be harmful for minors. It also comprises pornography involving animals, children, or excessive violence and certain information about violence, crime and drug use. On the other hand, Burma has almost blocked all the activities on Internet. In that country, it is not legal to own even a fax machine or a modem without the related license, Burma also limited access to Internet to just eight hundred whitelisted international sites and also a few dozen on the internal network of the country.

Use of Internet for Social Interaction

One significant implication of the Internets access to homes and its continuous increasing use for communication is that it could alter social interaction of people with their closed associates. Social interaction with friends and family is regarded as the most pleasant experience of people. It supports in fulfilling the needs of people to belong and mostly leads to emotions of closeness, to perceptions of support by society, and also increases in the possibility of receiving community support (Abbot, 2006).

Social interaction is also related to the commitment by people to groups, organizations and neighbors with their feelings of meaning in life, and with their compliance to social norms. It has been argued by some researchers that Internet is successful in improving the ability of people to form new relationships and improve them over time. Some studies have suggested that Internet facilitates growth of group ties, and also establishing new organizations and groups. Internet has evolved to serve as the significant platform not just for commerce and economic development; but also as a help for proponents who wish to state their opinion freely and also to work towards the democracy development. This medium has provided opportunities for people to participate in different forums and to debate and discuss issues directly or indirectly related to them (Contrada, 2006).

Findings

Internet should be used to facilitate a multi-way process of communication providing the chance for anyone to express their views and opinions. Internet should be allowed for vertical and horizontal communication. Censorship and control has a considerable impact on the Internet as it challenges trust and confidence in the medium and restrain critical flows of data. As mentioned in the paper, attacks of September 11, 2001 have provided governments the opportunity and chance to promulgate different policies regarding certain restrictions that in the past were opposed by most of the citizens. Governments should further accelerate their legal authorities for more snooping of all types, especially involving the Internet.

It is necessary to monitor emails as well as retention of communication data and Web logs. Governments are required to increase safety and secrecy about their activities. They should reduce providing such information that was available in the past. Moreover, they should refuse to comply with the policies on freedom of information due to the reasons already presented in the paper.

Conclusion

The evolution and expansion of Internet places a continuous threat specifically on governments to become more practical and assume their responsibilities to distinguish as to what should be allowed and not allowed to display on the Internet. For this purpose governments can focus on certain areas such as terrorism, child pornography, hate speech etc for managing internet i.e. balancing freedom and regulations. It can be concluded, on the basis of arguments presented, that contents on internet should be allowed to display only if they are related with the exigencies of society. Moreover, people should be restricted in their consumption on Internet. Future research is recommended to focus on the areas like more legislation, managing cultural differences, and role of ISPs.

References

1. Abbot, J, 2006, The Political Economy of the Internet in Asia and the Pacific: Digital Divides, Economic Competitiveness, and Security Challenges, Praeger Publishers.
2. Contrada, J, 2006, Reno V. Aclu Internet Censorship: Reno Versus Aclu, Benchmark Books.
3. Deibert, R, 2008, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. MIT Press
4. Herumin, W, 2004, Censorship on the Internet: From Filters to Freedom of Speeches, Enslow Publishers.
5. Kant, I,1999, Correspondence. (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant in Translation. Cambridge University Press.
6. Nakaya, A, 2005, Opposing Viewpoints Series- Censorship, Greenhaven Press.
7. Owen, U, 2000, Privacy and the Internet, Index on Censorship.
8. Ringmar, E, 2007, A Bloggers Manifesto: Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of The Internet, Anthem Press.
9. Schneider, K, 1997, A Practical Guide to Internet Filters, Neal-Schuman Publishers Inc.
10. White, A, 2006, Virtually Obscene: The Case for an Uncensored Internet. McFarland & Co Inc.

Introduction

Net Neutrality is a concept defining the freedom of internet access with minimal or no restriction from internet service providers and regional authorities on the web contents. In the principle of Net neutrality, every entity is entitled access and interaction with other internet users at the same cost of access. In this respect, the cost of internet access is termed as the subscription level. Owing to tight competition in major markets, proponents of internet neutrality suggested for establishment of certain regulations to control access by broadband providers in other sites. Since such providers would use their modes of communication to deter the services of their main rivals, the subject of net neutrality generated major debates from many internet users. Net neutrality promotes invention and innovation. As this essay argues, several net users usually freedom of internet communication and in this essay supports the concepts of net neutrality.

Reasons in favor of internet neutrality

Competition and innovation

The current trend in technology, demands that professionals for internet services providers (ISPs) continue to buffer the free internet access offered at fixed rates. Advancement in technology, coupled with competition amongst broadband providers has resulted into many unethical practices in internet provisions. Towards this end, internet neutrality has controlled the emergence of system hackers who always try to block the web content of their competitors. Such users also introduce foreign information in target sites without the knowledge of the website owners thereby obliterating their original intentions of the site. In the simplest practice of unfair business, this can only represent the unethical model of allowing unhealthy competition in business. Hence, growing companies would relinquish their opportunity to trade online to major established online retail companies. This way, regulation on net neutrality would hamper innovation and development (Moreno-Riano and Margolis, p. 10).

Good internet protocol (IP) always proves suitable based on its reliability and efficiency independent of any regulatory authority. Thus, network neutrality provides fertile ground for nurturing inventions and innovations suitable for driving online business. On the hand, regulating net neutrality would allow commercial crime to thrive through systems such as money laundering without up-to-date programmes to track the capital offenders (Pavlik, p. 193).

Network neutrality has brought unprecedented freedom and convenience in conducting online business. Despite of the current competition in the market place, net neutrality has encountered the congestion in information dissemination that would otherwise require other monopolized media channels. This way, broadband providers continue to unleash better and well-adjusted automated systems for advanced search of required information. Contrary to the first amendment of the US constitution, regulation on network neutrality would infringe into various individual and institutional rights of American citizens. Besides, firms that invest in Broadband and cables would fail to reap the benefits accruing thereof as the internet monitors make preferential decisions on the nature of data traffic passing through the connections (Seery, p. 28). Therefore, net neutrality remains the vital factor in promoting diverse completion in the global market. In case there is some website that needs priority, they should consider large affront investment in telecommunication infrastructure provides the suitable avenue to its long-term profits (Stair, Reynolds and Reynolds, p. 275).

Preserving internet standard

Many service provider decline from accepting net neutrality regulation because they consider blocking certain web content or rating network as big threat to their businesses. For example, peer-to-peer communication in social networking sites generates a lot of revenue to internet service providers. Therefore, slow end-to-end communication in this process results from deliberate action by some internet providers to reap out of this problem. Net neutrality regulation primarily predisposes some internet users to discriminatory services based on the personal details requirements aimed at enhancing quality (United States and Goldfarb, p. 61).

Contrary to conventional internet standards and service quality, allowing intermediaries to manage the nature of data traffic through fiber optic cable would subject telecommunication and cable companies to many flaws. While the companies would concentrate on laying the infrastructure and maintaining its stability, regulatory authorities monitoring the bundles may encounter impurities such as worms and viruses capable of making the data erroneous. Regulating the internet neutrality principle also has a likelihood of interfering with the flexibility of the data traffic besides compressing certain pieces of information and delivering them in small bits (Gray, p. 293).

Several other critics of internet neutrality also concur with the view that end user segmentation of internet services is discriminatory to other potential participants. The methods used in billing and paying of the services often occur as disproportionate to bundles in some zones. Lately, cable technicians have learnt that telecommunications companies value added services implemented using the mobile phones cost internet users more money. On the contrary, such companies need to prioritize the brand-width of information flows in order to harmonize costs and segmented services. For instance, firms willing to pay cable companies for quick data traffic would get the first priority on introduction of rules governing net neutrality. Since this would also lead to the problem of degraded service on the poor, then regulating the internet would help sustain innovation associated with internet (Schewick, p. 220). End-to-end user efficiency

Based on the principle of equality on the use of internet, pioneers of the internet agree that net neutrality is critically important in ensuring that each person gets equal access to the internet services at the same rate. Rate does not only apply to money but it also refers to time and speed. In order to curtail the discrepancy, which may arise due to preferential treatment of data based on uniform bandwidth or bundle, net neutrality, would ensure uniformity in origin to destination information flow across the board. This way, net neutrality encourages both economic and social functions it aims to integrate in the virtual world (United States and Goldfarb, p. 63).

Essentially, people need to communicate and transact in trade. As the internet protocol came into play, it sought to ease the process involved in both spheres. Thus, all networks behind the firewall should transmit information with clarity that allows for traceability in both forward and backward linkages. Newly developed systems allows for rating of both sender and recipients modes of communication. This allows for active participation in both social network sites and business information in commercial sites (Stair, Reynolds and Reynolds, p. 173). Conclusion

As the forces of demand and supply determine the price of a commodity in a free and fair market completion, internet users should let innovation to rule the internet industry. This guarantees the users fare price through healthy competition powered by network neutrality unlike regulating the entire concept, only to end up with a maladjusted internet protocol. So far, network neutrality has promoted the advancement of many giant internet sites tailored for various activities. Google and facebook typify the level of inventions achievable by net neutrality. Therefore, network neutrality should continue undeterred or disturbed.

Works cited

1. Gray, Jonathan. Battleground: the media, Volume 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.2008. Print.
2. Moreno-Riano and Margolis. The prospects of internet democracy. Cornwall: TJ International, Ltd. 2009. Print.
3. Pavlik, John. Media in the digital age. New York: Columbia University press. 2008. Print.
4. Schewick, Barbara. Internet Architecture and Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2010. Print.
5. Seery, Mark. Marketing broadband to the home. Lulu.com. 2006. Web.
6. Stair, Reynolds and Reynolds. Fundemental of Information systems. Boston, MA:Cengage Learning 2008. Web
7. Stair, Reynolds and Reynolds. Principles of Information systems. Boston, MA: Cengag Learning. 2008. Web
8. United States and Goldfarb, Charles (ed.). Telecommunications Act: competition, innovation, and reform. www.novapublishers.com. NovinkaBooks. 2006. Web

Promoting freedom of association has always been a crucial part of democracy in American societies. Nowadays, this point of view has become even more critical. More and more people, to realize their opportunities or confront the institutionalized forces around them, find it necessary to unite with other people to achieve common goals. Its freedom to choose to do so is an essential element of a democratic way of life. In the meantime, the apprehension of this freedom has brought new problems. The organizations have increased in both size and strength, and organizational approaches have achieved a new level of efficiency. These associations sometimes meet stubborn resistance from other private groups or are regulated or restricted by public authorities. Certain radical private organizations are given a formal status, and this can be very hazardous for society.

Moreover, the individual who does not wish to be coerced into association has also raised problems of defining an area of personal freedom that neither government nor private organizational power can invade. No one doubts that freedom of association, as a fundamental mechanism of the democratic process, should enjoy constitutional protection and that restrictions on such fundamental freedom should be included within the framework of constitutional guarantees (Harris, 2010). The governments have in the past recognized this necessity and have addressed many aspects of associations from the perspective of constitutional law and power. However, in recent times, these issues have taken new and complex forms.

One such complex problem is the assignment of tax status to radical groups. On the one hand, the law says that all groups and associations should be given tax status freely  this follows from the law on associations and from the law on freedom of expression (Stefano, 2017). On the other hand, the question arises whether freedom of expression and association should be given to groups known to transmit negative ideas such as racism, nationalism, or xenophobia to the society. For example, the public was recently disturbed by the news that four nationalist groups were given tax status by the state and allowed to collect donations (McShane, 2016). On the one hand, the state has directly translated the letter of the law on freedom of expression and freedom of association and has made the right decision because no organization should be disadvantaged. On the other hand, it now turns out that people can safely promote the most radical and even dangerous views, enjoying even the support of the state. I think that the Internal Revenue Service, which has allowed this situation to happen, is fundamentally wrong.

Firstly, the world has moved away from the literal way of interpreting laws, where a tax authority is the mouthpiece of the law, without regard to the situation in which the law is applied. There are exceptions to any law, just as there are limitations to rights in some instances, such as when a person has committed a criminal offense. Of course, the formation of radical groups cannot be fully criminalized, but such groups are responsible for harassment, incitement to hatred, and propaganda campaigns against a particular group of people. For example, nationalist and racist groups incite hatred towards other nationalities or people of other races, which is also a crime. Therefore, by giving freedom of association and tax status to such groups, the state encourages crime.

Secondly, people usually use freedom of association to protect their interests, the interests of minorities, or to fight for freedom in a particular area. For example, the feminist movement that fights for womens rights and freedom operates in the community interest. Radical groups do not fight for certain rights but against them. They fight against black people and their rights, against people of other nationalities and their rights, and even against people of other religions. Since we speak of freedom as an integral part of a democratic society, the state should not encourage groups that try to take away or violate that freedom.

Moreover, one of the risk groups to join radical organizations is young people, so with the adoption of official status, radical groups also have the opportunity to broadcast their views and attract adolescents. Due to several factors, young people are the social group most susceptible to radical nationalist and xenophobic ideas and sentiments (Aiello et al., 2018). These factors include the non-critical perception by young people of the messages of some media and other sources. Moreover, the opportunity to express nationalistic views quite openly through subcultural channels can contribute to the escalation of domestic xenophobia into a source of aggression and open racist violence. Under unfavorable socio-economic and political conditions, the subjectivity of young people can be realized in the form of youth radicalism (Miller-Idriss, 2018). Youth radical movements act as an extra-systemic opposition oriented towards implementing alternative projects to the existing social and political order models.

Radical thinking and behavior are characterized by maximalism, nihilism, a wide range of fluctuations in attitudes and actions between extremes, and an orientation towards the primacy of force methods in achieving social and political goals. The radical type of consciousness and behavior is determined and provoked by the specifics of society itself and the socio-political processes taking place. This is another reason why it is important not to encourage radical organizations but to limit the freedom of association in specific cases where it may harm the life, health, and freedom of others. Specifically, those groups discussed in the article should not have been given legal tax status and allowed to operate freely.

Some may disagree with my arguments because, after all, the law on freedom of speech is above all, and we cannot disregard it. However, the ideas I put forward in this essay are not just words, as I am basing them on the specific letter of the law. I am making that our constitution clearly defines a hierarchy of rights and freedoms to resolve such situations. Namely, the boundaries of the fulfillment of our rights end where the boundaries of exercise of other peoples rights begin. Radical groups do not just use freedom of speech to express their personal opinions. They use this right to propagate their views, spread influence on others, and incite harassment against certain social classes. Therefore, it appears that radical groups are using their rights to infringe on the rights of others, and such behavior is not encouraged by the law. This assertion is the primary and fundamental argument in the debate on this topic  radical groups should not use freedom of association to harm other people potentially. It means that such groups should never be given legal tax status.

References

Aiello, E., Puigvert, L., & Schubert, T. (2018). Preventing violent radicalization of youth through dialogic evidence-based policies. International Sociology, 33(4), 435-453. Web.

Harris, S. (2010). Science can answer moral questions [Video]. YouTube.

McShane, L. (2016). Four white nationalist groups given nonprofit status permission to raise nearly $8M in tax-deductible donations. Daily News. Web.

Miller-Idriss, S. (2018). Youth and the radical right. In J. Rydgren, (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 348-359). Oxford University Press.

Stefano, V. (2017). Non-standard work and limits on freedom of association: A human rights-based approach. Industrial Law Journal, 46(2), 185-207. Web.

Abstract

According to Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, every person should have the right to request freedom of expression. This article includes the right to freedom of opinion without intrusion and liberty to pursue, obtain, and convey ideas and resources through any media and irrespective of borders. According to Chinas present Constitution, residents of the Peoples Republic of China have the right to freedom of speech. On the other hand, Chinese journalists cannot express themselves freely, and press freedom has become a critical issue in modern China. On the other extreme, as per the Freedom House, Taiwanese media freedom is the greatest in Asia. The social and cultural factor has the most significant impact on journalists perceptions of media functions. The personality characteristics have virtually no effect by comparing the goodness-of-fit of a sequence of log-linear models.

Introduction

China has risen to become a worldwide powerhouse in the twenty-first century. The fast development of this countrys military, political, scientific, and technological capabilities drew international attention. China plays a vital role in global relations as one of the quickest emerging countries in economic development. However, many negative aspects have arisen due to the rapid growth, such as the current significant environmental degradation and the contentious topic of Chinas human rights. Concerned about fundamental rights in China, Chris Smith, the American federal upper house, Congress, and the administration of China council chair of the general staff, was interviewed by Voice of America. In 2016, it discussed the human rights situation in China.

Research Problem

According to the preface, Taiwan ranks top in Asia on the World Press Freedom Index, while China has constantly remained in the bottom five. The progress of news and the fundamental human rights of all Chinese journalists are inextricably linked. Unfortunately, few studies have tried to observe the discrepancy in media freedom between China and Taiwan and the challenges that Chinese press freedom faces. Looking into the distinction is an intriguing subject because, while Taiwan and China have similar cultural backgrounds and different administrations, their levels of journalistic freedom are vastly different.

Research Objective

This thesis aims first, to provide a thorough grasp of the current state of press freedom in modern China and then to analyze press autonomy under various regimes. A variety of factors influences the degree of media independence in any country, such as the regime, religious beliefs, and personal social system. The release of the press is the result of a long-running fight and compromise between the media and government. As a result, it is fascinating to investigate the differences in media freedom among different administrations. It is difficult to say whether a rule is excellent or dreadful. Nonetheless, the gap in media freedom between two systems can be explored and used to develop remedies in the future, thereby advancing the nation to a better position.

Research Relevance

The topic is particularly timely given the current state of freedom in China, particularly liberty in the way media operates. As previously said, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. This right assures that people have the freedom to accept information from any media, and hence this type of autonomy is strongly linked to human rights. To maintain social stability, the government regulates all public media. As a result, this argument is also pertinent to human rights. Free media and information access is a necessary step toward realizing peoples independence and achieving more significant development goals.

Limitations and Delimitations

A potential limitation is the media selection; in this case, the researcher selected three significant media sources in China and Taiwan. There is anticipation that this media selection could limit the number of outcomes, but given the time constraints, it appears appropriate. Furthermore, writing some of the specified scholarly articles in Chinese may have some minor differences while translating into English. The author carefully selected the most representative national press in both China and Taiwan to reduce the limitation. Because these media have a significant impact on the public, the media could reduce the restriction.

Previous Research

There is a large body of literature in the field of freedom of the press investigations, media freedom in China, and press freedom and human rights studies. This researcher built this thesis on a solid basis of current sources. Many international non-governmental organizations have published reports on free media. RSF is a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting and defending press and information freedom. Press releases, fact-finding studies, and monthly publications are all issued by RSF. It regularly releases mission reports on individual countries or regions or a specific issue. The CCP brought oppression to a new pinnacle, according to the RSF annual report from 2015. RSF stated that the Communist Party has complete control over Chinas numerous media outlets. Their research paper gave reliable data on the state of media freedom.

Conclusion

The author contrasted news reports from Chinese and Taiwanese media in general. The goal is to contribute to the study of Chinese media freedom by using news stories as a lens that portrays the broad current occurrence of press freedom in China. Although the analysis results do not fully reflect the status of Chinas entire media due to sample size limitations, the study can provide some proof that press freedom in China is severely restricted. Furthermore, historical origins and Chinese culture may restrain Chinese media freedom. Still, media freedom is a highly complex topic that various elements influence it with distinct analysis aspects.

The problems of inequality, racism, and voting rights are of particular importance in the contemporary world. Social activists fight for freedom and equal opportunities for people at all times. In this regard, the 1964 Freedom Summer Project can be considered a remarkable civil rights event that aimed to draw public attention to the oppression of Blacks in Mississippi (Duran, 2021). This initiative meant to increase the registration of black voters, support their right to vote and establish a democratic party available for people of color (Nelson, 2014).

Furthermore, social activists attempted to promote black history, education, and social studies to emphasize the importance of equal opportunities for everyone. However, during the Freedom Summer project, acts of violence and harassment, beatings, intimidation, and killings occurred (Nelson, 2014). These events raised Americans awareness of the shocking disparities in the country. The purpose of this essay is to discuss to which degree the story of the Freedom Summer project illustrates the concepts of politics outlined in Karengas book Introduction to black studies.

Power and justice play a pivotal role in the political context, defining how resources and opportunities are distributed among different people or social groups. According to Karenga (2002), a key element in politics is power which can be defined as the social capacity of a group to realize its will, in spite of opposition from others (p. 294). In turn, justice is considered an essential component of ethics which focuses on fundamental human rights (Karenga, 2002). In this regard, the Freedom Summer project illustrates the concepts of power and justice by highlighting how white supremacy and power structure prevent the black population from exercising their basic rights, such as voting.

Another important idea presented in the film is social change, which is central to the whole initiative. Civil rights organizations united to make a change and improve the quality of life and access to voting for black people. In this regard, community control is another relevant concept mentioned in the book. Karenga (2002) defines it as command of an authority over thr economic, political, and cultural institutions & as a result of community organization (p. 297). The Freedom Summer project demonstrated how community control could implement change and help address inequality issues as more people became aware of disparities.

Finally, the problems of race and class division were showcased in the film, illustrating the concepts discussed in the book. For instance, it is evident that the Freedom Summer project was a result of the communitys attempt to address the presence of racial and class segregation in Mississippi (Nelson, 2014). Karenga (2002) emphasized the role of power in contributing to the repression of different social groups. Such politics of the officials increased the tension in the population and promoted a struggle against the segregation of Blacks.

To conclude, the story of the Freedom Summer project illustrates such concepts of politics as power, justice, social change, and community control, as well as race and class division, as discussed by Karenga in her book. These notions play an essential role in the political context and help explain the core concepts of black studies. The distribution of power, presented in the movie, was the main factor leading to oppression, inequalities, and associated adverse outcomes for the black population. Overall, studying these issues is critical to promote social change and addressing the conflicts between social groups.

References

Karenga, M. (2002). Introduction to black studies (3^rd ed.). University Of Sankore Press.

Nelson, S. (2014). Freedom summer [Film]. Firelight Films.

Duran, J. (2021). Philosophy, Civil Rights, and Freedom Summer. Peace Review, 33(2), 270-278. Web.

An annotated version of Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus by Derek Bok in The Boston Globe.

Underlining is to catch key points

*and these stars are where I have a question or opinion on a statement*

For several years, universities have been struggling with the problem of trying to reconcile the rights of free speech with the desire to avoid racial tension. In recent weeks, such a controversy has sprung up at Harvard. *Two students hung Confederate flags in public view, upsetting students who equate the Confederacy with slavery. A third student tried to protest the flags by displaying a swastika*.

These incidents have provoked much discussion and disagreement. Some students have urged that Harvard require the removal of symbols that offend many members of the community. Others reply that such symbols are a form of free speech and should be protected.

Different universities have resolved similar conflicts in different ways. *Some have enacted codes to protect their communities from forms of speech that are deemed to be insensitive to the feelings of other groups*. Some have refused to impose such restrictions.

It is important to distinguish between the appropriateness of such communications and their status under the First Amendment. The fact that speech is protected under the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil. I am sure that the vast majority of Harvard students believe that hanging a Confederate flag in public viewor displaying a swastika in responseis insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives to the students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes too many others.

I share this view and regret that the students involved saw fit to behave in this fashion. Whether or not they merely wished to manifest their pride in the Southor to demonstrate the insensitivity of hanging Confederate flags by mounting another offensive symbol in returnthey must have known that they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others so essential to building and preserving a strong and harmonious community.

*To disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is not enough to justify prohibiting it*. We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect. Our society has wrestled with this problem for many years. *Interpreting the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has clearly struck the balance in favor of free speech*.

While communities do have the right to regulate speech in order to uphold aesthetic standards (avoiding defacement of buildings) or to protect the public from disturbing noise, rules of this kind must be applied across the board and cannot be enforced selectively to prohibit certain kinds of messages but not others.

Under the Supreme Courts rulings, as I read them, the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment and cannot be forbidden simply because it offends the feelings of many members of the community. These rulings apply to all agencies of government, including public universities.

Although it is unclear to what extent the First Amendment is enforceable against private institutions, I have difficulty understanding why a university such as Harvard should have less free speech than the surrounding societyor than a public university.

One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of communication. If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers.

I suspect that no community will become humane and caring by restricting what its members can say. The worst offenders will simply find other ways to irritate and insult.

In addition, once we start to declare certain things offensive, with all the *excitement and attention* that will follow, I fear that much ingenuity will be exerted trying to test the limits, much time will be expended trying to draw tenuous distinctions, and the resulting publicity will eventually attract more attention to the offensive material than would ever have occurred otherwise.

*Rather than prohibit such communications, with all the resulting risks, it would be better to ignore them since students would then have little reason to create such displays and would soon abandon them*. If this response is not possibleand one can understand whythe wisest course is to speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their actions on others.

Appropriate officials and faculty members should take the lead, as the Harvard House Masters have already done in this case. *In talking with students, they should seek to educate and persuade, rather than resort to ridicule or intimidation*, recognizing that only persuasion is likely to produce a lasting, beneficial effect. Through such efforts, I believe that we act in the manner most consistent with our ideals as an educational institution and most calculated to help us create a true understanding, supportive community.

Annotations on Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus by Derek Bok.

Questions and Comments

The problem of freedom of speech on campus is one of the main problems and a lot of people face this problem from the point of view of offenses and discrimination. How do these notions coincide? People usually want to express what they think in a liberal country, but there are people whose opinions about this or that problem offenses to other people. This problem is rather up to date in the racial and ethnic discrimination situations when one side has the right to express their opinion, and the other is offended and abused. The problem of freedom of speech and racial discrimination should be limited, especially on campus.

The situation is rather contestable in the first paragraph. It is impossible to protect neither of the sides: those two Harvard students, who hung the flag of Confederacy, which was rather offensive for some people, as the flag was the symbol of slavery, on the one hand, and one student, who put the swastika near the flag, on the other.

The third paragraph tells about the fact that some campuses provided some limitations to offense the other ethnical groups. The questions are how they did this and whether the strategy offered was effective.

In the sixth paragraph the ways out of the problem are discussed. The prohibition of expressing the opinion against the minorities will bring the biggest dissatisfaction and demonstrative reaction to the situation.

Further, in the sixth paragraph, the First Amendment of the Constitution is discussed. It is impossible to forbid students to express their opinions in reference to the other nationalities in the form, which does not sound rude, but is rather offensive to others as it will limit them in their right of free expression of their thoughts. On the other hand, the offenses from other students of the racial minority are the violation of the law about racial discrimination.

Paragraph seven offers that students may be forbidden putting the aesthetic beauty of the campus buildings under hazard, making noise, but this is not the way out, as students have a lot of other ways to announce their opinion, which combat the dignity of some people. The problem is rather sharp and at the same time, it should be solved rather tenderly.

Paragraph 12. The situation is rather complicated as students have the right to free expression of their thoughts and to forbid it for them means that a lot of attention will be paid to the problem, which is rather unnecessary in the situation. Two different ethical freedoms and obligations were faced: the freedom of speech and obligation for respect and racial discrimination avoidance.

Derek Boks idea about ignoring all the offenses is rather effective (paragraph 13). For the first time, it will be impossible to avoid offenses, abjection, and public assistance, as all of the comments should be ignored. The result of such a strategy should be magnificent, as abhorrence generates abhorrence, and mutual offenses never stop. The silence of the injured will give the result that the offender will get tired of the situation and will stop announcing his opinion aloud as no reaction is seen. It is the life experience and the result of a lot of experiments that people offense the others only with the aim to be perceived higher than the others are, to show his/her priority. When the reaction of the injured follows, this is the main factor to continue offenses. No reaction, no further actions. This is the main way out of the situation. Ignoring the offenses is one of the ways to stop these offenses, as the direct prohibition will lead to the demonstrative reaction.

The 14^th paragraph of the article shows that communication is the main way to understanding, and it is teachers obligation to stream the conversation in the right direction to avoid racial and ethnic offenses.

Works Cited

Bok, Derek. Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus. The Boston Globe.1991. Web.

The existence of freedom in the world has been one of the most controversial topics in the world. This controversy arises due to the multidimensional and widely differing perspectives on defining freedom (Juillard 327). As such, it becomes crucial to discuss it with the aim to conceptualize its definition, the supportive factors, and the aspects that pose threats to freedom. In this light, it is every crucial to consider some of these perspectives in order to understand the meaning of freedom in a broad sense. In this case, therefore, this paper will explore some of the thoughts expressed by scholars in order to conceptualize and make a compromise as far as the meaning of freedom is concerned.

Definitions of Freedom

According to the earlier statement made in the introductory part, it was evident that the perspectives of defining freedom are diverse. In this case, freedom is the idea of being fully active, alive, and attaining complete independence of social, political, and financial strings of attachment (Spence para. 2). In that regard, therefore, it is clear that freedom is basically unattainable from that perspective. This impossibility is found in the difficulty of becoming completely free from social and political cords. Understandably, individual interests are embedded and intertwined with other peoples status and authorities (Sacks 137). As such, absolute freedom cannot happen in such a mutual world.

Whereas Spence views freedom as an absolute sense of independence, Martin Luther King Junior painted a different picture of freedom in the minds of people. In his response to the criticisms concerning the Birmingham jail activities, he viewed freedom as the absence of injustice. This implies that he considered freedom as an equivalence of fairness to all people in USA. In fact, he stated that the prevalence of injustice in a single part of USA meant lack of freedom in the entire country.

In order to obtain and restore freedom to the people of Birmingham, Martin believed that the collection of facts and direct action of a campaign was necessary as well as urgent. At this point in time, Martin was conducting notable campaigns against the racial discrimination against the black Americans. Indeed, racial discrimination took root to an extent that black people could not serve in certain hotels reserved for the white people. His believe that racial discrimination was a retrogressive undertaking as far as freedom was concerned indicated that freedom is the presence of justice.

Another perspective of viewing freedom is related to the ability and willingness to think liberally. Raymo discusses the human believes towards truths. As such, he indicated that everyone believes he or she is the guardian of absolute truth while the rest are wrong. He stated that people are so convinced about their truth that they can easily engage in suicide bombing to eliminate their counterparts (Raymo 2). In addition, he observes that some individuals are convinced that God is on their side and against the other humans. As such, Raymo rejected the use of conventions as the truths that guide the world without liberal thinking.

As a result, he suggests indirectly that freedom is found in the ability to think rationally. A free man must be capable of making decisions without the influence of conventions. In case a liberal person has to use conventions, he or she must have personalized reasons to make the decision. As such, the author purports that actual freedom can be experienced if humans think freely and adopt an individualized approach to issues.

In a different perspective, Lickerman viewed freedom as something that can be denied or granted by certain people in the society. In this regard, he indicated that people are entitled to freedom of speech, press, and religion among others. In this perspective, it can be implied that freedom exists only when people are allowed to access their needs.

This means that authorities are the givers of freedom since they can deny them. As he proceeds, however, he argues that the freedoms do not exist in absolute sense. He based this argument on the fact that people are not allowed to say anything. He gave a very good example that was related to the threats of national security. A person cannot just wake up and say he is going to detonate a bomb in a plane (Lickerman 1).

This would attract attention from security machinery since it contravenes national safety. The author, therefore, views freedom from a very unique and complicated perspective. The uniqueness is found in the fact that freedom is a shared attribute in the society. The complicated part arises from the understanding that freedom cannot exist if it contravenes the welfare of others. He, therefore, implies that freedom is not absolutely open. Instead, freedom is subject to certain reasonable limits which are ironically determined by fellow humans who are equally capable of denying it.

Misconceptions about Freedom

Human beings believe that a person enjoys freedom if he or she feels free in the environment and situations experienced in their lives. In regard to the perspectives that freedom is embodied in the idea of feeling free, people have always disregarded the actual freedom. As such, Spence argues that our general perception of freedom is very far from the actual reality. Factually, the author argues that human beings are not free and they have never experienced freedom as a result of this misperception. In this light, it is evident that the existence of freedom does not revolve around the feeling that somebody is free in his or her own harnesses.

It takes more that the simple feeling to become free in actual sense. As such, for a person to experience freedom, he or she must be active, alive, and aware of the feeble nature of humans. This implies that such a situation would lead to pure freedom which is basically complete terror. Evidently, the status of purely free world cannot exist owing to the fact that people must pay a price to get a certain benefit. In consistency with this fact, Spence argues that humans are forced to forego their opinions in order to earn social acceptance.

Equally, they sacrifice their liberal understanding of morals in order to avoid rejection. As such, it appears that humans are ready to give up their freedom in order to earn comfort. However, the comfort is equated to freedom since it puts people in the condition that is easy to harness. One of the good examples that showed this condition is the humans efforts to propagate the slavery. Understandably, every person knew that slavery was a wrong undertaking because it capitalizes on denying basic human rights.

However, instead of abolishing slavery, people were tempted to enslave other in order to comply with the world order. As such, it appears that pure freedom cannot happen because humans are tied to social, financial, and political needs that make it difficult to enjoy complete independence. It is, therefore, valid to argue that human beings are not free and they have never enjoyed freedom. Instead, they misconceive freedom as a feeling rather than an actual sense of independence.

Threats and Supporters of Freedom

In accordance with the authors, freedom is threatened by various factors in human life. First, human beings are identified as the main enemies of freedom. They limit freedom through discrimination, propagation of oppression, and refusal to think liberally. The interesting part about this argument is embedded in the fact that a person can limit their own freedom. As such, a person who fails to think liberally and considers absolute conventions does not freedom. When such a person decided to think liberally, he can be termed as a free human being.

On the other hand, human beings are conceptualized as the supporters of freedom. This implies that humans are both threats and supporters of their own freedom. Indeed, different people have risen against the oppression caused by government and capitalistic companies. For example, Martin Luther King Junior was at the forefront to fight against racial discrimination. Liberal minds have also been identified as crucial promoters of freedom. In this light, liberal minds are capable of respecting other peoples thoughts. They do not consider themselves are the only guardians of truth.

Conclusion

It is evident that there are various diverse definitions and perspectives of viewing freedom. It can be viewed from the perspective of liberal mindedness, lack of injustice, and the willingness to let people express themselves without unreasonable limits. In addition, it was indicated that freedom is wrongly equated to feeling free rather than being active and alive.

Works Cited

Juillard, P. Freedom of Establishment, Freedom of Capital Movements, and Freedom of Investment. ICSID Review10.6 (2000): 322-39. Print.

Lickerman, Alex. The True Meaning of Freedom. Happiness in the World 5.2 (2012): 1-2. Print.

Raymo, Chet. The Gray Areas Save the World. The Boston Globe 9.3 (2001): 1-3. Print.

Sacks, David. Freedom To, Freedom From, Freedom of Urban Life and Political Participation in Early Modern England. Citizenship Studies 5.2: 135-50. Print.

Spence, Gerry. Easy in the Harness the Tyranny of Freedom. Boehning. 2010. Web.

Introduction

The rate, at which change is taking place in society, as well as the challenges posed by the digital era, forces any government to employ new strategies in order to realize its existing strategies. Based on this, development of strong leadership strategies, instituting strong governance and embracing the culture of professionalism as regards to knowledge and information handling, is critical if the government wishes to accomplish its missions.

This essay aims to evaluate the importance of freedom of information in government. It analyzes the effectiveness of information sharing within three domains: among government agencies, between the government and the public and between the private sector and the public sector.

Firstly, the major aims or objectives of freedom of information will be presented, followed by a discussion on the reaction of the government regarding free information flow. The third chapter explores the new systems of openness, whereby the government has been forced to accept information sharing.

The last chapter offers a succinct conclusion, whereby it is reiterated that information sharing plays a critical role in boosting the security and the economy of the country.

Major Aims of FOI

Aims of Policy Makers

One of the aims of policy makers is to develop the value of information and data that is within the public domain (Dawes 2010, p. 379). Information and knowledge found at various levels serve different purposes, hence the policy makers ought to improve them in an attempt to utilize them in the most suitable way.

The availability of such knowledge and information benefits members of the public in a number of ways because it empowers them to take up their roles as citizens. This in turn would affect the economy and bolster the performance of the government. Improved information and knowledge handling enable policy makers to develop evidence-based policies, implying they would engage in research before designing new policies.

Thus, policy makers have the opportunity of evaluating the results of the existing policy by means of information sharing process. It should be noted that efficient utilization of information, namely in decision-making, encourages the drafting of strong policies and superior service delivery (Cartwright-Hignett & Carter-Silk 2011, p. 31).

Studies show that sharing information with the right people at the right time facilitates better value and more adaptive service deliverance, since it reduces doubling-up of roles and the chance for error (Cartwright-Hignett & Carter-Silk 2011, p. 33). Furthermore, improving the value of information enables personalization of services and utilization of customer knowledge (Cartwright-Hignett & Carter-Silk 2011, p. 35).

Another aim of policy makers would be to develop a knowledge handling and sharing culture, which would disseminate the power of the information within the public domain (Birkinshaw 2010, p. 314). Previously, policy makers were simply concerned with improving information handling techniques, but not information sharing skills.

The government should share information with relevant partners and individuals more securely, to enable it in achieving its goals. To do this a modification of culture is required, particularly in the civil sector. For the policy makers to manage knowledge effectively, they should utilize available information (Birkinshaw 2010, p. 318).

Strong leadership, productive culture, and the role of government officials are critical as far as development of information sharing culture is concerned (Birkinshaw 2010, p. 321).

For instance, in the private sector, adequate resources are channeled to behaviour development, which would further support the company needs of information-based reformation (Birkinshaw 2010, p. 325). The government would also need to employ a similar strategy in order to ensure that free flow of information is enhanced.

In 2007, the British Prime Minister noted that the 21^st century is characterized by information flow hence the major role of the government would be to develop strategies that would help it compete favorably in the global economy. This entails devising some of the best information handling techniques in order to resolve global issues, such as cyber crime and terrorism (Goldberg 2009, p.52).

However, the underlying factor in the governments ability to compete effectively was dependent upon how it used this information. In such modern times, information determines the development of the economy since it is the force driving democracy (Staples 2004, p. 14).

Each sector of the economy, irrespective of whether it is public or private, needs information and knowledge in order to create value In short, the future of any society depends on information handling; which implies if governments share information appropriately, there is a high likelihood in achieving its objectives.

The overall success of future governments is therefore dictated by the capacity to develop policies based on the available information.New information and knowledge should always be used to create value and deal with the challenges that the digital era presents. With the new information age, the safety of the public, sustainability of programs and the privacy of various agencies are all at stake (Escaleras, Lin & Register 2010, p. 450).

If the government aspires to manage and share information with members of the public, it would improve the lives of the majority, as well as the welfare of society. This would in turn, contribute significantly to their countrys economic development (Escaleras, Lin & Register 2010, p. 456).

Aims of Government

The major aims of the government regarding freedom of information would be to utilize general principles and secure processes to manage critical information. This government struggles considerably in presenting information as paper format, particularly during this modern digital era. Consequently, the government cannot neglect these new changes and must employ new strategies.

Application of general standards, the use of uniform formats, and the application of standard language ensures the government will monitor the information flow since new strategies allow consistency in terms of acquisition and distribution of information (Barstow 2010, p. 809). New strategies would perhaps allow the government to implement quality assurance processes as well as accuracy.

This would guarantee legality and consistency in the handling of information systems. Since the new laws compel the government to allow openness and transparency in information handling and sharing, utilization of good information handling processes, such as information appraisal, would encourage cost-effective conformity to the law (Barstow 2010, p. 812).

Through information sharing, the departments of government would benefit, as they would be informing each other on what is taking place in the public. One should also note however, that although the government has a primary goal on sharing information, the privacy of agencies and individuals is constantly considered.

An additional aim of the government is to build capability regarding information sharing. This is based on the necessity for governmental employees to utilise this information to execute their duties. This is contrary to the traditional society, whereby only professionals need information due to their career (Abbot & Marohasy 2010, p. 6).

The government utilizes information in order to improve accountability, by which senior leaders within every agency or department is expected to share critical information with members of staff, as well as other stakeholders. Involvement of other groups in information circulation is critical since they are usually charged with the task of creating, storing, and accessing them when necessary.

For example, government librarians, archivists, and freedom of Information (FOI) managers must always be given information since they would modify such information to suit a required purpose (Abbot & Marohasy 2010, p. 9).

Governmental Response

The Idea of Thirty Year Rule

In the United Kingdom, as well as other countries such as the Republic of Ireland and Australia, the concept of withholding information from the public has generally been applied. In the UK, this rule was enacted in 1958 under the Public Records Act, stating that public records (apart from that already in circulation) are only accessible to the public after a specified period of fifty years.

This rule was altered in 1967, from fifty to thirty years. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor had additional powers to withhold any information that was considered critical to the operation or functioning of the government (Brooke 2006, p. 62).

Unlike in modern society, information was transferred directly from the department of government to the agency responsible for keeping records, more commonly referred to as the Public Record Office. This office is still in existence, now known as The National Archives.

One of the fundamental objectives behind withholding governmental information was to safeguard national security. Sensitive information could derail the operations of the government and could be used to destabilise the countrys infrastructure.

The thirty-year rule was abandoned in 2000 with the formulation of another policy referred to as the Freedom of Information, which was in full operation in 2005. The policy was formulated specifically to counter allegations of the previous policies regarding information circulation, by demonstrating that the government was willing to share information with the members of public to a certain extent.

The new policy gave citizens a constitutional right to demand for information from the government whenever such information was deemed necessary (Guy & Oberlin 2009, p. 349). This meant a citizen would not necessarily have to wait for thirty years before requesting the government to share information with the public.

In addition, the process transferring all government records to The National Archives remained in order to maintain the safeguarding of public information for future use.The previous constitutional dispensation specified that information could not be directly accessed once it was deposited and the government reserved the right of access once it reaches The National Archives office.

On the contrary, since the enactment of the new law, members of the public are entitled to access this information freely (MacDonald 2003, p.42).

Furthermore, all records of recent events and public proceedings should be given to the public through the media and for critical information, such as cabinet papers, a commission of inquiry suggested that the period by which people should access such information, should be reduced from thirty years at least fifteen years (MacDonald 2003, p.45).

Before the institution of the new law, the commissions of inquiry established that the government had to redefine its role and scope as far as public communication was concerned (Petersen 1992, p. 448). It was reported that public servants were yet to come to terms with the new changes brought about by the digital era (Petersen 1992, p. 452).

One major recommendation was that the government had to redefine its position regarding information sharing, by allowing continuous discussions with all affected parties, particularly stakeholders, in policy formulation (Petersen 1992, p. 455). Thus, the government has to be responsive to the demands of the majority and allow free access to information and knowledge (Petersen 1992, p. 456).

Extension of FOI into the New Governance

The new law on the freedom of information states that the government should be open. This implies that secrecy should be eliminated in order to pave way for information sharing in the public sector. Public servants are expected to display any needed information to the members of public when needed or requested.

When releasing information to the media, such messages should be unmediated and direct, since public officials have a tendency of editing information before releasing to the public (Staples 2004, p. 45).

If it is indeed the goal of a government to establish a good relationship with the public, they should engage genuinely in regards to information sharing, which should not be given a second thought. Some public officials tend to present misleading information whenever presenting public policies and reading out governmental achievements.

Staples (2004, p. 57) believed that this system should be restructured, whereby public officials ought to employ a number of relevant communication channels whenever presenting information. Genuine presentation of information would prevent conflicts, particularly if two closely related governmental departments give contradictory information regarding an issue.

Therefore, maintaining transparency when sharing information with the public, the public servants would be avoiding conflicts with other members of society, particularly politicians. Moreover, it encourages civil servants to employ the spirit of political neutrality.

The government has moved on to restructure various governmental agencies that are responsible for information circulation. For instance, the new permanent secretary in charge of communications is now the head of profession. The permanent secretary is assigned with the responsibility for handling governmental information and providing strategic leadership to all government communications.

Whenever the secretary feels that a new communication agency is needed in government, he has the constitutional right to advise the government to set up one such agency. It is therefore evident to see how vital this role is for national and international relations. Even the senior most communication officer in charge of the handling information in the premiers office will be reporting to the permanent secretary.

This would illustrate the level of commitment from the side of the government. Even though the government has restructured its core communication infrastructure to incorporate the new law, some inconsistencies between departments exist.

An example if this is due to the implementation of new roles; this has led to confusion among junior officers on who their official line manager is (Benedek, Bauer &Kettemann 2008, p. 89).

Thus, for the law to be integrated into government operations the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS) should be disbanded and the permanent secretary in charge of government communication should assume responsibility over the GICS existing responsibilities.

New systems of openness

New systems forced upon governments, such as Wikileaks

The UK government has previously been accused of lacking openness because information was highly guarded (Klang & Murray 2005, p. 5). Members of the public could only access information that was deemed as safe in public quarters.

However, in modern society, the government needs to be transparent and open with information to gain public support. Unfortunately, the government has been compelled to accept and embrace some new systems of information circulation, which in turn force them to share information with the public.

An example of this is wikileaks.org, which has contributed in revolutionising global information distribution by releasing information to the public without governmental consent.

For instance, the organization embarked on the campaign that saw it release diplomatic information that referred to the British government (Klang & Murray 2005, p. 12), as well as revealing the relationship and secret foreign policies of the UK government towards countries in Africa and Asia.

The government has frequently complained that its sovereignty is interfered with by such organizations as wikileaks, because this new form of information sharing pose serious challenges to various governments since they discourage policy makers from making secret deals with foreigners.

The open data initiative

The idea of open data suggests that certain forms of information should be available to members of the public for free use, without disturbances from patent enforcement organizations and copyright (Mazhar 2010, p. 206). Through open data initiatives, members of the public would access adequate information without problems.

Consumers would access information regarding the operations of the government and the government would know which services are needed in the public. The UK government is one of the governments in the world, which have already embraced technology using open data systems (Mazhar 2010, p. 214).

Negative governmental consequences to FOI

The government has always believed that it has a monopoly over information, (particularly that which is considered as sensitive information) mainly because it has the role of maintaining national and public security. Information can bread violence because members of the public may interpret any information in a way that is unpleasant Kauppinen & Espindola 2011, p. 122).

By doing so, the government interferes with the freedom of information because members of the public would not receive any valuable data at the right time. In most occasions, the government prevents free flow of information to safeguard its interests.

New systems of information distribution, such as wikileaks, are under threat since the government is doing everything under its power to ensure that the organization does not circulate sensitive information to the public. If sensitive information reaches the hands of such organizations as wikileaks, the image of the government is always tainted since the information displayed is predominantly negative.

Apart from tainting the image of the government, information distributed through new systems would be used by adversaries to attack the government. Terrorism and distribution of weapons of mass destruction pose serious challenges to governments (Puddephatt 2005, p. 88). Any government would want to protect its military or diplomatic information since it could be used against it when it gets into the hands of extremists.

Conclusion

Information sharing serves a number of purposes; among them includes enlightening members of the public. It plays a critical role even in developed countries since it helps policy makers in drafting sound policies. In the United Kingdom, policy makers need it to strengthen their policy-making strategies, while the government would need it to improve service delivery.

The government of UK responded positively to this, by creating specific laws that pave the way for transparent and unobstructed information sharing. Regarding the extension of information sharing to governance, some policies need to be developed further in order to help in the process of full implementation.

The new systems of information sharing, such as, wikileaks, pose serious challenges to various governments because they release sensitive information that would interfere with national security, which is why the government is against such systems.

List of References

Abbot, J & Marohasy, J 2010, Accessing environmental information relating to Climate Change: A Case Study Under UK Freedom of Information Legislation, Environmental, Law And Management, Vol. 22, no. 1, pp 3-12.

Barstow, DT 2010, The Freedom of Information Act and the Press: Obstruction or Transparency? Social Research, Vol. 77, no. 3, pp 805-810.

Benedek, W, Bauer, V & Kettemann, M 2008, Internet Governance and the Information Society, Eleven International Publishing, New York.

Birkinshaw, P 2010, Freedom of information and its impact in the United Kingdom, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27, no. 4, pp 312-321.

Brooke, H 2006, Your Right To Know, Pluto Press, New York.

Cartwright-Hignett, C & Carter-Silk, A 2011, BBC v Sugar: Freedom of Information Act 2000-A Cursory Glance at the Journalism Exception, Entertainment Law Review, Vol. 22, no. 1, pp 34-36.

Dawes, SS 2010, Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27, no. 4, pp 377-383.

Escaleras, M, Lin, S & Register, C 2010, Freedom of information acts and public sector corruption, Public Choice, Vol. 145, no. 3, pp 435-460.

Goldberg, D 2009, Freedom of information in the 21st century: Bringing clarity to transparency, Communications Law, Vol. 14, no. 2, pp 50-56.

Guy, M & Oberlin, M 2009, Assessing the health of FOIA after 2000 through the lens of the National Security Archive and federal government audits, Law Library Journal, Vol. 101, no. 3, pp 331-353.

Kauppinen, T & Espindola, GMD 2011, Linked Open Science-Communicating, Sharing and Evaluating Data, Methods and Results for Executable Papers, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 4, no. 726, pp 112-125.

Klang, M & Murray, A 2005, Human Rights in the Digital Age, Routledge, London.

MacDonald, J 2003, The Law of Freedom of Information, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Coppel, A 2004, Information Rights, Sweet and Maxwell, London.

Mazhar S 2010, Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective, Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences, Vol. 2, no. 1, pp 211-223.

Petersen, B 1992, Copyright and State Government: An Analysis of Section 119.083, Floridas Software Copyright Provision, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 20, no. 2, pp 441486.

Puddephatt, A 2005, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder, Arnold

Staples, W 2004, Encyclopedia of privacy, Greenwood Publishing Group, London.

Steven Groves in his article Advancing Freedom in Iraq raises the problem of the further development of Iraq and the role of the USA in it. The authors theses sound rather explicit though the general tone of the article reflects his personal opinion. It is impossible to say that the author is impartial in his judgements. The aim of the article is to describe the current situation in Iraq and to persuade the reader in the positive role of the U.S. authorities in the promoting of the democracy in the country.

The author does not deny the complexity of the situation in Iraq, as well as the problems with which the government and non-governmental organization face. Nevertheless, the author is apt to think that without the U.S. authorities interference the situation will be worsened. The article will be interesting for those who concern themselves with the situation in the given region and with the politics in general.

From the very beginning of the article the author sends a clear message that the only acceptable way for Iraqs further development is the development of the democratic institutions on the model of the Western pattern. Iraqs best chance for long-term stability is to develop democratic institutions that will protect the basic civil, political, and human liberties and rights of the Iraqi people (Groves 1). At the same time, the author ignores the fact that it is the country of another culture. Groves does not take into consideration that the autocratic leadership style is one of the particularities of the countries of this region.

The important role in the promoting freedom and democracy in Iraq is given to the U.S. Agency of the International Development (USAID) and the different non-governmental organizations. According to Groves opinion the conduction of the democratic elections is not enough for building the robust democratic society. The author asserts that it is necessary to improve the democratic freedoms, to change the attitude towards women, to improve the observance of the human rights.

All these issues are the focuses of the attempts of the above-mentioned organizations. Special attention is given to the activity of the non-governmental organizations, whose main purpose is the involving the ordinary citizens in the political process. In order to emphasize the meaning of the USAID for the democracy promotion, the author gives the statistic data concerning the establishing of the new Civil Society Recourses Centers and their activity.

The author also underlines the meaning of the USAID for the creation of the new independent media network. According to the authors opinion all the mass media which had been acting under the Saddams regime were completely subdued to the centralized power. Establishing the new media groups, the USAID promotes the new democratic approach of the local mass media functioning.

In the final part of his article, the author tries to predict the effect of the U.S. military withdrawal. All the variants of the case scenarios described by author are far from being optimistic. According to Groves, the only result of the military withdrawal, even under the happiest circumstances, will be the war. And he is rather convincing in his arguments.

In general, in his article Groves gives quite a vivid review of the situation in Iraq. His usage of the statistic data makes him sound rather persuasive. At the same time, the article is not just the mere statement of the facts. The authors negative attitude towards the Saddams regime may be seen practically in every paragraph of the article. It must be also admitted that sometimes the author lacks the authoritative sources. Thus, the description of the circumstances of the military withdrawal is the personal opinion of the author. In spite the fact that it is difficult not to agree with Groves, he does not conform his view with the opinions of the other experts. The author is convinced that it is possible to rearrange the political system of Iraq according to the Western pattern ignoring the mentality of the local population.

Works Cited

Groves, Steven. Advancing Freedom in Iraq. Backgrounder, 30.6 (2007):1-4.Print.

What is Freedom?

There is a great need to understand what freedom actually means. A misconception will lead to many problems and one of them is to abuse ones idea of freedom to hurt and subjugate others. Although it is already a given that freedom just like the concept love is not easy to define and the quest to define it can be exhaustive but at the end of the day what one will get is approximation for there is really no human words that can describe what it means as well as the fact that freedom can be interpreted in different ways by different peoples and cultures.

The best way to narrow down the definition of freedom is to narrow it by defining it according to a particular context. With regards to this discussion freedom will be define in the context of European history as well as the emergence of the United States as bastion for democracy. Paradoxically freedom will be fully understood as the proponent of this study will try to link it to the institution of slavery in Europe and then in the United States of America.

According to Walton and Smith freedom even if one delimits the research to understanding freedom in the context of slavery there are still many different ways to define the term. But in their search for the correct definition of freedom in the Western context they were able to narrow it down to three typologies of freedom. The three typologies will be shown below together with their respective authors:

Table 1 Typologies of Freedom.

The best way to look at the table shown below is to understand first that there are at least three basic forms of freedom: Personal, Sovereignal, and Civic. After that the types of freedom that can be seen on the right side of the table are the rights that should be given to the individuals as well as the social conditions needed to be able to experience the basic freedoms that Patterson has pointed out earlier.

According to Patterson personal freedom is the sense that a person can do anything he or she wants at the same time it is the sense that he or she is not coerced to do something that is not desired (Walton & Smith, 2). Sovereignal freedom on the other hand is the power to do anything without regard for the rights of others (Walton & Smith, 2). Civic freedom is the capacity of adult members of a community or nation to participate in its life and governance (Walton & Smith, 2).

Foner and Kings ideas can be seen as supporting Pattersons ideas by giving the reason why personal and civic freedom is possible in the first place. For instance Foner asserts that each human has natural rights that enable him to feel the need for freedom and at the same time these rights should compel others to respect his rights to be free. The same is echoed by King who in essence is saying that there should be no arbitrary legal or institutional restrictions that will limit the persons capacity for freedom.

At the onset of the discussion one can easily see that there is no harmony among the typologies. There are some instances when they support each other but there are times when they contradict each other. For example while Patterson declared that there are personal and civic freedoms he also acknowledges that there are powerful entities who have the power to do as they pleases irregardless of what others may say or do.

For instance the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) can easily impose their will on another and order that person or organization to submit to their auditing procedures. The person being scrutinized under the investigative powers of the IRS can protest and say I need to go on vacation and that he had promised his sons and daughters that they would go to Disneyland this weekend. But the IRS could just as easily lay down the law and say hey you need to work with us this coming weekend and show us your financials.

What is Power?

Based on the preceding discussion one can easily see the link between freedom and power. First of all freedom is the main prerequisite before a person can achieve power. Secondly, power emanates from freedom. And finally, power can restrict the freedom that is enjoyed by others. There is that tension between freedom and power plus the interaction with other people who had the same capabilities. This means that the freedom exercised by others will be the chain that can bind other people groups.

This is demonstrated by the following. A man gets up from his bed, gets out from his own house, takes the car to the train station and from there get tickets to travel to the next city. The aforementioned scenario can be considered as mundane and many will say what does this got to do with the discussion regarding power and freedom? Well, one has to remember that 200 years or so ago there are some groups of people in the United States that could not perform the aforementioned activities. It is illegal for them to do so.

Two centuries before this date African-Americans could not own their own homes, they could not purchase luxury items such as an expensive means of transportation, they could not move freely and they could not travel to the next city. This is made impossible by United States laws. This is because during that time African-Americans are considered as less than humans, they are properties of their masters, they are slaves.

Conclusion

Freedom is a concept that is difficult to define. There are so many shades of meaning. But one way to limit the analysis of this term is to study it in the context of Western history. This can be done specifically in the United States of America a nation that had its shares of tyrants, uprisings, and slavery. Using the information that can be gleaned from studying its more than 200 year history one can declare with confidence like Patterson that freedom is indeed personal and civic. This is the type of freedom desired by the people of the United States. Moreover, one has to add another type of freedom which is called sovereignal because in a society where freedom is experienced there are those who rise to the top and they will begin to consolidate their power as rulers and protectors of the people.

Since there are those who rise to the top and become the elite of society personal and civic freedom is not without bounds. There are people in society who has the freedom to exert their power and they do this either to enslave or to enforce laws. This means that it is impossible to have unlimited freedom in this society because there are those who will impose laws that will limit the freedom enjoyed by other.

Power emanates from freedom and this is a good thing. This power can be used to help the person achieve his dreams and goals in life. This will also make the person feel fulfilled and satisfied. On the other hand this same power can be used to limit the freedom of others in a positive or negative way. This the tension between the two, freedom versus power. One cannot drop the one in favor of the other, these two forces must work hand in hand. If power is used to enforce laws that will benefit the general public then power is good. But when power is used to enslave others so that a minority can live a life of comfort and great wealth then freedom and power is misused.