Tik Tok CEO Shou Zi Chew Responds To The Supreme Court Ruling

The US Supreme Court has shown support for the banning of Tik Tok. Based on the First Amendment this could be considered a violation of free speech and press. The legislation has to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Tik Tok CEO Shou Zi Chew made a video response to the US Supreme Court. The response was more so directed at users. Chew assured Tik Tok users that an agreement can be reached with the US government. The case for the ban is that Tik Tok poses a national security risk related to data. There is no evidence that the CCP is using Tik Tok for espionage. If that was the actual concern, then Google, X, and Meta should be investigated. A bias exists against Tik Tok, because it is a Chinese company. The US government is attempting censorship on the basis of national security. If the Tik Tok ban happens, then a number of social media platforms could be at risk. Shou Zi Chew believes he persuade the in coming Trump administration to shift policy. Considering Trump's anti-China rhetoric, this seems unlikely. Even if a presidential veto is done it could be overridden. Social media has been under attack since the late 2010s. The attempts to ban Tik Tok is an extension of a growing movement to control access to information. 

 

Jean-Marie Le Pen Vexed Over Suspension From The National Front (2015)

 

Jean-Marie Le Pen (1928-2025) was a prominent figure in French far-right politics. Known for his anti-immigrant and anti-black racism, Le Pen had not problem expressing his views publicly. Marine Le Pen expelled him from the National Front in 2015. One remark that got more criticism was Le Pen referring to the Holocaust as a "detail of history." The coded language implied that it was not that serious of an event. Jean-Marie Le Pen also expressed anti-Muslim sentiment. Jean-Marie Le Pen was not removed from the National Front for being too extreme. Most members and leaders hold these views. His daughter wanted more control of the party and to change its image to the public. Far-right parties try to appear more civil to get votes. The attempts to mainstream far-right political parties only work under poor economic conditions. Marine Le Pen  was not concerned about the National Front's racism, but trying to appeal more to the French population. Intolerant ideas would be repackaged to the voters. Blatant hatred could not be openly spoken, but done through policy. This required Jean-Marie Le Pen to be removed. The National Front continues to be active in French politics.  

Jill Stein Was Arrested For Anti-War Protest

 

Jill Stein was arrested at a protest in support of the Palestinian people. She is the only presidential candidate to be arrested during the US  presidential campaign  in 2024. A number of college campuses are holding anti-war demonstrations across the United States. Jill Stein was participating in a demonstration at Washington University. Located in St. Louis Missouri, few parts of the US are isolated from the events in the Middle East. Jill Stein was accused of assaulting a police officer. Looking at footage, it shows police officers attacking non-violent protestors. If this went to court, it would show that the police were engaged in misconduct. The motivation for targeting Jill Stein could be that the Democratic Party fears third party candidates. A number of economic and foreign affairs related policies have made the situation volatile. President Biden's chances of winning reelection are reducing due to the Israel-Gaza War. Jill Stein being an anti-war candidate could attract some voters disillusioned with the Democratic and Republican Party. The challenge is the Green Party does not have the same financial power as the two major political parties. The donor class ensures that the two party system survives. The more disturbing aspect is the effort to suppress political opposition. The freedom of assembly is being threatened by law enforcement. Free speech on campuses is also being stifled under the excuse of protecting Jewish students from antisemitism Jewish students are not under attack, but there is a rise in anti-Arab racism. Universities across the United States make no such accommodations to Palestinian students. Jill Stein's arrest is further evidence that free expression and open dialogue is being phased out  in higher education.        

The Attempts To Ban Tik Tok

 

Governments are attempting to ban Tik Tok . The popular social media platform has been accused of disinformation and being a national security risk. These claims are being made based on anti-China sentiment. A number of countries are attempting to ban the application based on a xenophobic nationalism. The European Union has made a ban on Tik Tok to apply to staff devices. This applies to the European Parliament, European Commission, and and EU Council. The measure is unnecessary considering the only application that should be used in offices are for work , not entertainment. France, Canada, Belgium, Pakistan, Nepal, and Australia have adopted similar policies. The US motivation for the ban is because it does not want Chinese competition in the technology sector and wants censorship. Video sharing applications expose concerns that are not discussed by the mainstream media or government. While it is used mostly for frivolous purposes, videos show abuses. Israel's human rights violations and war crimes in Gaza have been exposed on various platforms. The Tik Tok ban is a test to introduce censorship on multiple platforms. The public would never accept this, so false justifications are made. Disinformation, preventing public disturbance, and national security are the common arguments. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement have a good amount of resources to deal with matters of espionage. This is not about protect, rather undermining press and free speech. Afghanistan also imposed a ban on Tik Tok on the basis it was protecting the youth. Governments both authoritarian and democratic want to prevent the public from having independent thought. More social media platforms and video sharing sites could be a target of censorship.     

Jiang Zemin Criticizes The Model of Reporting

 

President Jiang Zemin's leadership further cemented China's transition  to a free market in the  1990s.Economic liberalization did not produce the reforms that some desired. The Chinese Communist Party remained the only political force in the People's Republic of China. Maoism was phased out by the 1980s.  President Zemin in this rare video criticizes a journalist for not understanding the nature of the system. He implies that the questions asked do not consider the complexities of China politics and government. Zemin explains that it is important for a journalist to be knowledgeable and have greater understanding of certain situations. The model of modern reporting is to repeat a certain narrative. The problem with this is that it can normalize bias, without examining other perspectives. While Jiang Zemin's point is valid, but that does not negate the fact the government is a one party state. The absence of free press or political opposition make it difficult for journalism to evolve. The footage demonstrates how leaders in China try to deflect the authoritarian nature of the regime. The modern model of reporting does have flaws, which abusive governments can use to their advantage. They can cite unfair reporting as a foreign plot or disinformation to restrict free speech. Under Zemin's administration the urban-rural wealth gap grew and state owned enterprises closed. Few in China seriously criticized or challenged him on policy.    

Twitter Has New Ownership

 

Elon Musk the CEO of  Tesla is set to purchase Twitter. This will be one of his many business ventures. Musk has also stated that he wants to change the popular social media platform. One promise was the relaxing of content restrictions. Musk claims he wants to promote free speech on Twitter and  wants to include an edit button for posts. There also has been discussion about having an open source algorithm. Elon Musk also wants to target cryptocurrency scams on the platform. While it appears that Musk has some ideological motivation for buying Twitter, the real reason is business. Buying Twitter makes it easier for Musk to promote his other companies. The business elite do not support free speech or free expression when it interferers with profit. Twitter was bought by Elon Musk for a total of  $43 billion. An investment of that type is not done for political reasons. Twitter still has a large amount of users and it could be expanded in various ways. The growing concern is the rise of the giant tech monopolies. New competitors can rise, but are at a disadvantage compared to Twitter and Facebook. Having a small business elite control social media platforms is a threat to press freedom and free speech. Large tech monopolies also reduce competition in a free market. This can cause economic complications, which reduce consumer choice . Another concern is related to employment. If the tech giants collapse the job loss will be immense. Elon Musk will certainly add more wealth to his net worth. 

Russia Today Gets Banned In The EU and RT America Shuts Down

 

The Russian state owned international news network is being banned in the European Union. RT America has shut down after ten years in operation. The American staff was dismissed and programs cancelled. The claim is that RT was being used as a platform for spreading disinformation. The motivation behind this ban is due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The channel does provide a Russian perspective, but is also critical of EU and US foreign policy. The channel has produced documentaries regrading the Iraq War and The Afghan War. The ban on media based on its country of origin is more like xenophobia rather than a concern about disinformation. This goes against the values of press freedom and free speech. Viewers should have the right to access multiple sources of information no matter which country it originates from. The purpose of fact checkers is to expose false information. Prohibiting RT is more of a political gesture to express anger with the Russian Federation. Censorship is a threat to free press and this will reverberate. BBC and Voice of America are restricted in Russia. These were steps in retaliation for the RT restrictions .   Disinformation is being used as an excuse for censorship. Ultimately, the consumers of news around the world are put at a disadvantage. With few sources of information,  it becomes difficult to make sense of  of world events. RT still remains on  Facebook and Youtube. 

Nigeria Bans Twitter

 

Nigeria has banned Twitter. The popular social media site can no longer be accessed by Nigerian citizens. This comes as a blow to people attempting to organize politically or get involved in activism. The ban was put in place when President Muhammadu Buhari's tweet was deleted. The president stated punishment would come to secessionists in the southeast of the country. Twitter  deleted this post causing much anger in the government. The statement he wrote referenced the Nigerian Civil War and Biafra conflict. He claimed those resisting do not understand the past hardship Those Buhari claimed continue insurrection will be treated to language they can understand. The message was interpreted as an attempt to instigate violence. The tweet can be considered a threat. Social media platforms should not be involved in censorship of world leaders. Nor should a government have the power to ban a social media platform. Other sites such as Facebook could also be targeted. Twitter must have a clear policy in terms of bans or the deletion of  tweets. Twitter has done censorship of its own, using disinformation as a justification. The irony is that the social media platform is being banned. Social media and the internet has keeps free speech alive, but there are intense efforts to increase online censorship. Even though Twitter is banned in Nigeria, there is a method to counter it. VPN (virtual  private network )  can allow access by using other servers around the world. Nigerians will not fully cut off from the internet or social media platforms. The ban has also sparked condemnation form the Nigerian Bar Association. Legal action may be taken to reverse the ban. 

Protests Break Out in Thailand

 

Protests have broken out with Thai citizens demanding more protection of rights and accountability in government.  There is a difference in this developing movement. The monarchy appears to getting criticism and constitutional reform may be an objective. The military and monarchy have long been the stable force in Thai government. The structure by nature has been repressive  cracking down on press freedom and basic human rights. Since the military coup in 2014, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has been leading Thailand with little to show in terms of reform. The protests he states are endangering the security of the nation. The demand for constitutional reform will not go away as long as the youth remain dissatisfied. The alliance between the military and monarchy has been a hinderance to the political participation of the average Thai. Calls are growing for a general strike. Thailand has had coups before and mass political unrest. Prime Minister Chan-ocha may not be defeated so easily as long as the military supports him. He has pledged his loyalty to the monarchy and so far that collaboration has not been broken. Student groups have become more politically active organizing reform rallies. The demands include ending military influence in politics, a new constitution, ending royal offices, and dismantling the royal guards.  

The Importance of Internet Freedom

The creation of the internet enable more communication between people globally than one could ever think was possible. Ideas, information, and various movements can spread rapidly. Internet Freedom has given rise to digital media, e-commerce, and an evolving form of technology based activism. There have been calculated means to stop the progress of this new freedom by the ruling elite of the world. Net neutrality has been under attack by various governments and corporations who realize the power of the medium. Internet freedom offers a diverse alternative media, enables a new form of commerce, and allows for a forum of open discussion on various topics or issues. The major reason why internet freedom is so essential is that it provides a vast amount of knowledge  easily available to people who have access. Once the digital divide is closed, more people have access to information. There are still places in the world that do not have reliable internet access. It is only a matter of time before this changes. It will become more difficult for information to be suppressed or hidden from public view. The internet's creation did have negative consequences. Hacking, the spread of extremist ideology, and cybercrime have become common problems with widespread internet use. Prohibition of certain internet platforms would be counterproductive. Such suggestions are designed to either hinder the flow of information or end internet freedom completely. Arguments from suppressing internet freedom range from public safety, stopping online piracy, or crime prevention. The real motive behind this is for far-right and authoritarian elements to silence the voices of dissent. If social and political movements can be started by either websites, social media, or other digital platforms networks of oppression may not have a means to counter such speed. Internet freedom could be a means for radical change of the economic, political, and social structure.
        Internet freedom can ensure preservation of a functional free press. Many nations do not have this privilege. Nations with press protection face another problem of corporate domination of news. The presentation of the truth is not the objective for a business. The major media corporations are more concerned about profit rather than high quality reporting or journalism. The authoritarian regimes seek to stifle internet access to prevent exposure to new ideas or information reaching the wider world. Exposure to new ideas or ideology can disrupt the status quo in a repressive state. The internet has become a place in which information and news is limitless. Video sharing and original content for various individuals has exposed billions of people to different perspectives. Alternative media has emerged  as a challenger to mainstream news, which presents a simplistic or biased narrative. Although major cable news networks both local and international have an online presence, they still present the same message. The critical or serious analytical element is missing, yet is replaced with opinion presented as fact. Out of frustration, consumers have turned to alternative media. Fox News, CNN, CCtv, BBC, Africa News, Euronews,  France 24, and Russia Today either have a national  or political based biased that can be seen in their reporting. The internet allows users to seek out various websites and compare information. The challenge for the user is distinguishing between fact and erroneous claims.

      
There has been an increase in what has been called fake news. Websites and social media platforms have been spreading information that is not true or checked for accuracy. Fake news is not a new phenomenon seeing as there were cases in which false statements or accusations were made in newspapers and television. Jayson Blair a former New York Times  journalist fabricated stories in 2003 regarding the Iraq War. Articles were discovered to false by the staff and Blair was forced to resign. Incidents such as that have gradually cause a more suspicion  of the media by the public. The press has come under threat from the corporate model of news, censorship, and government hostility. The internet has for the most part avoided large scale censorship that television and radio has been faced with. The issues surrounding privacy and   technology companies using personal data has gained the attention of numerous political figures. The government's concern is not the theft of personal data or the violation of privacy, but a means of either having control or more strict regulation of the internet. If net neutrality is eradicated, press freedom could lose a valuable resource. Internet service providers could easily just reduce speeds to certain websites or worse by taking them off of search engine listings. With print media disappearing, it is critical that the consumers of news have access to multiple sources of information. Media literacy become more essential in a world that is driven by information.
        Electronic commerce has become a major economic development. It has revolutionized the way people purchase products. The driving force in the contemporary consumer culture is e-commerce. None of this would have been possible without internet freedom. People have the power to buy many products at any time of day. Amazon or E-Bay has a multitude of items ranging from clothing, books, electronics, clothes, and furniture. The difference is that a consumer can also engage in selling items. The option for the individual can be to set a certain price with the hope it get s the attention of a potential buyer.  E-commerce also contributes to the survival of small businesses. Compared to large and long running corporations, smaller businesses have difficulty competing in the market. The disadvantage is obvious in terms of advertisement. A corporation can have more resources devoted to buying air time, erecting billboards, or developing public relations campaigns. A small business or start-up does that have the finance for such ambitious projects. However, social media and websites can provide spaces for advertisement at minimal cost. This creates an equal atmosphere of market competition between small business and corporations.

    
Large corporations have the benefit of  having a lower federal  income tax  rate compared to smaller businesses. Having wider internet freedom encourages an expansion of small business, which will keep the economy diversified. There is a legitimate fear that monopolies could reemerge as corporations move to more amalgamation. This is occurring more so with media and entertainment.  Entertainment and other forms of media can benefit from internet freedom. Video streaming and sharing has change the way people watch movies and TV shows. It allows for a greater variety for the viewer to choose from. As time progresses, the internet will become a large section of the entertainment industry.  Internet freedom allows commerce to happen even without a physical store or market. Staring a business or company becomes much easier with the tools of the internet. Some believe that e-commerce has been causing the decline of traditional retail stores. What is not realized is that many stores are establishing websites and online shopping options. This allows more exposure of a company's brand to the wider public. The rise of e-commerce will continue and it will become more a part of  consumers lives. The amazing phenomenon is that the divide between consumer and producer may gradually disappear.
       Internet freedom has given the average person more knowledge than previous generations. Prior to the internet, the library, school, or a book was what people referred to. Now, a person can merely type on their laptop or phone and get answers to their questions. The internet has become a large encyclopedia of a vast assortment of human experience. Video streaming as also enabled an immense archive of prominent individuals and years gone by. Knowledge has become an even greater power and commodity in the modern world. The more a person knows, the more advantages they will have. Even though many would see the internet as nothing more than senseless entertainment or a frivolous waste of time, it can be used for learning. Public schools and universities realize that a contemporary workforce needs at least some basic computer literacy skills. Schools now offer coding and computer science courses to students. Living in a technological society requires a solid knowledge base. Just having knowledge stored is not enough; people must be taught how to decipher and interpret it.

Prior to technological advancements, it was difficult for the average person to gain access to knowledge. Information was either transmitted through oral traditions in many societies. The rise of writing and language made it so a person did not have to be reliant on their memory only. The printing press gave way to the increase in literacy and the rapid transfer of information. Books became  more available and libraries became open to the public. Newspapers could print faster with a printing press. Speed of information became more important as the centuries progressed. The 20th century brought into existence two influential  forms of technology which were radio and television. People could listen or look at what was happening around the world. The establishment of the World Wide Web in 1989 would amplify how fast and the total amount of information  the public could receive. The people of the world can witness events without even leaving their own country. Information on individuals, academic subjects, or entertainment can be accessed at anytime. Research and archiving has experienced  in a sense a renaissance. The internet can have a positive effect on education and the wider knowledge base of human civilization.  The internet can contribute the spreading of ideas and the preservation of the vast body of  knowledge.
        Internet freedom also ensures that activism can continue and get large portions of people involved in a cause. There is a negative consequence to this. Hate groups, terrorist organizations, organized crime, and cyber criminals can also use internet freedom to their advantage. The only way to counter extremism to confront it with activism and facts. Organizing has become much easier with social media platforms such as Twitter or Facebook. Gathering people for a demonstration could be more complicated in the past. Making contact or attracting others to a cause would take considerable time and effort. The absence of internet freedom would mean movements such as Black Lives Matter or # Me Too may not have become as large or rapidly growing. Their is a limitation to the new wave of digital activism. Short attention spans and long term plans for change seem absent. There is the greater possibility of co-option at a faster rate. Leaders of social justice movements must be aware of this and learn to use the internet to their advantage. The term hacker has been given a negative connotation. Yet, some use their skill to expose or leak information that is deliberately hidden from the public. The exposure of government abuse and surveillance has caused many leaders  to seek more restriction to hide possible crimes.

The establishment of Wikileaks has made world leaders more nervous about possible leaks to the press. Julian Assange is not being charged because he committed a heinous act, rather he exposed  US war crimes in Iraq. The release of diplomatic cables cannot be considered classified information, yet the argument has been made it compromised national security. If Assange faces prison or possible execution then it will be a major loss for press and internet freedom. Eric Snowden who was a subcontractor for the CIA exposed the US government's expansive surveillance network of its own citizens. Both Assange and Snowden have been demonized by both government and mainstream media. Being a whistleblower  in an age of internet freedom has become easier, which puts political figures in a state of fear. No longer can acts of  corrupt  foreign  or domestic policy be denied when physical  evidence exists. The Panama Papers were leaked by an anonymous source, which revealed that world leaders and the business elite were using firms for tax evasion, fraud, or circumventing international sanctions. The documents were leaked from the former corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca. When more corruption is discovered, the greater the amount of public discord grows. Controlling the narrative seeks to keep people passive and accepting of violations or government abuse of power. Some who were active and fought to keep internet freedom alive were not so fortunate. Aron Swartz was a computer programmer and activist for internet freedom. Swartz was the founder of Demand Progress, an organization dedicated to human rights, an open internet, and transparency. Aron Swartz was also involved in the development of RSS, Creative Commons, one of the founders of Reddit, and the Markdown web publishing format. Swartz had the belief that knowledge should be free and available to everyone. Aron Swartz connected a computer to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology  network gaining access to academic journals. He was charged with under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Instead of facing a life sentence he chose suicide. Swartz's story is a tragic one, but makes it even more important to be aware about net neutrality and technology related issues. The new era of movements is going to have online activism being a part of their organizing strategies. 

          Internet freedom can protect free speech and expression to a greater extent than previously imagined. Discussions are more open in an online setting. The problem is that  can get more vitriolic and tribal. People have a tendency to associate both online and in real life with others who share their own views. So, a internet  user may not be getting more exposure to different ideas or belief systems. Inevitably they will seeing as the internet is an enormous entity of information. The way in which  a person articulates themselves online differs compared to seeing someone face to face. Online discussion can be more candid, at times more offensive, or too truthful for people to handle. There is a habit for some to impose self-censorship when debating sensitive issues. Certain topics are either ignored or not talked about at all. Racism, sexism, homophobia, police brutality, poverty, or corruption are topics that are avoided in common conversation. The internet through video displays the worst aspects of human cruelty and hatred. Without video sharing  websites, the public would not know the severe extent of police brutality. Generating conversation is the first step to initiating effective change. No topic or subject is off limits in digital space. Content can be violent, extreme, or artistic. The exchange of ideas and art can provide a creative outlet that no other medium can offer. Free speech can also be unlimited as well as expression. While a huge amount of  freedom can be a benefit, it comes with responsibility. Internet users mush be conscious of what they post or share both personally and professionally. Comments or pictures could instigate controversy and condemnation. Words do have power and it is proven with writing. New mediums always have a challenge or establishing appropriate conduct, but this is not a justification for censorship. Free speech and expression cannot exist under a society than wants everyone to adhere to a single mode of thought. The ability to share large amounts of data and information can ensure that free speech and expression has a future. 

       Net neutrality has been under attack and its effects could be devastating. Numerous global challenges do dominate including climate change, war, and poverty. It would seem that internet freedom should be a low priority. However, the only weapon that the oppressed or the struggling have is a platform to expose injustice. The mainstream media has failed in many regards in relation to reporting truth. Alternative media provides a more critical technique to global affairs. The corporate model focuses on establishing on narrative or  presents information based around a politically partisan spectrum. This distorts the view of the world, which is more complex than presented on television. Internet freedom allows a person to get access to different sources. The only way to foster media literacy is to see news from other countries and websites. Consumers must learn to see various media and compare. While some condemn or scapegoat the internet for particular troubles in society, the rise of technology should not be seen as a curse. Outcomes depend on how technology is used. E-commerce, online activism, and the spread of human knowledge is what the internet should be used for. A government controlled internet would be nothing more than a branch of a large propaganda arm. Regulations and laws are required to keep private data safe, stop online piracy,  and prevent cybercrime. However, laws should not be made to reduce a user's access  to information. Copyright should not be used as a means of corporations to hinder fair use. The internet was meant to be free and for everyone. The information age has enabled  the world to become a smaller place. An event that occurs on one part of the globe will effect the rest. More people will know about it and share information. Information technology has ushered in a possible fourth industrial revolution in which computers and artificial intelligence will be a part of our daily  lives.  Internet freedom is a human right, but at the moment few recognize it as such.        

     

A Condemnation of Censorship

When an argument for the support of censorship is made, it is justified advocates claim for the protection of the public. Censorship is an act of  oppression on multiple levels.It attempts to halt free speech, thought, or opposing views. At its worst it stifles intellectual curiosity.While these seem like minor violations of basic right it can escalate to another extreme. Imprisonment, persecution,  or death can be the devastating consequences of censorship. This has become a attribute of authoritarian systems, but democratic systems are not immune either. Free speech and press remain fragile when measures are taken in the name of national security. Even moderate levels of censorship could be potentially dangerous. The advocates of this type of censorship want to prevent offending various groups or people. This seems misguided. What may be offensive to one person could be different from another individual's perspective. Censoring media or print does not hide the reality of society's prejudices and intolerance. Policing language becomes more restrictive rather than a tool for social change. What this does is only silence debate. Censorship does not do the public a service. Censorship is the desire to control what people think, feel, read,or watch.
         It cannot be denied that censorship is a form of oppression. What it seeks to do is stop independent thought. When a person is no longer able to reason for themselves, they will be subject to easier manipulation. There is also an emotional response component. The information presented to a individual has to induce a certain reaction. The message could either be telling a person how to feel about a certain group or take a particular political position.  Truth and falsehood can no longer be deciphered. There is a war on critical thinking in which opposing views are either considered conspiracy theory or nonsense. Free speech continually is under threat from both political and corporate power. Populations that do not utilize critical thinking can easily be misled by various institutions in society. The ability to decipher information is more important now than ever. The average person has more access to information than at any point in human history. This may be the last bit of hope,but the ruling class of  various societies want to stop people from getting access. A population that has critical thinking skills or is educated cannot be controlled. The desire is to create conformity in thought and action. Putting people in an imposed state of ignorance is nothing new. The enslaved in the Americas were not taught to read for fear they would question why they were in slavery. Women were denied education, because it would make them question their lower status in society. Peasants were kept in ignorance of their condition in Europe to prevent revolts which would change the feudal order. Since these periods of oppression and social change, there has been improvement in conditions.   
        The worst acts of censorship come from the restriction on press freedom. Governments attempt to silence people who oppose certain policies. Liberal democracies have another issue,which involves the mass media being controlled by a few corporations. The result is a population thinking they are getting unbiased and new information when they are not. Authoritarian governments are more blatant about their disdain for press freedom. Uganda and Saudi Arabia for example have been known to persecute journalists or be involved in their disappearance. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi government demonstrates oppressive governments are willing to liquidate their own citizens who oppose the system. The United States seeks to imprison Julian Assange for documents he put on Wikileaks regarding the Iraq and Afghan wars. The liberal democracies seek to also silence opposing views,but it is done in a more covert manner. They simply do not have the political power and force of a dictatorship has to violate basic human rights to the same degree. The troubling aspect in liberal democracies is the abnormal amount of corporate influence on print and television news. If a group of corporations owns papers and networks they can stop certain stories from being reported that do not suit their objectives. Alternative media has arisen to counter the corporate news model, yet it is often presented as being fringe or based in conspiracy theory. Societies that pride themselves of free expression allow various views to be presented, yet the fact is media shapes one perspective.  The reader or viewer of media is kept in a state of ignorance about the reality of political and economic conditions.
         Prior to television or the internet books were a source of recording information. Prior to that oral traditions were common in various societies. Censorship has a long history of banning books or simply destroying them. The Catholic Church had a list of banned books considered blasphemous. During the Middle Ages it was possible to be burned at the stake for questioning religion. Nicholas Copernicus did not even publish his heliocentric theory during his lifetime for fear of punishment by the Church. Giordano Bruno was executed for promoting the Copernican model. Institutions that dislike the truth will always want to suppress numerous texts. If they cannot stop people from reading certain books, they are eliminated. The execution of people or the destruction of books has continued into the modern era. The 20th century did see similar behavior related to extreme censorship with totalitarian states in Europe. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union went to obsessive lengths to prevent any written material getting to the public that challenged their ideology. A common practice in the Third Reich was to burn books. If books were not in line with ideas of race supremacy or militarism they were simply liquidated. Fiction works were also subject to book burning. Works of satire or comedy can be a threat to rulers or institutions that want to present their convictions as ultimate truths. If a lie can not be sustained, then war on truth must be waged. Public schools have even been known to ban books they deem to controversial  or inappropriate for students. Reading can give the people the power of knowledge and awareness, which many ruling elites want to prevent.
       The argument for censorship lacks credibility. The excuse is either for the instance of public safety or the notion certain thoughts  should not be spoken. Governments make the argument that press and free speech need restriction to ensure national security. What the real concern for them is exposure of possible abuses or illegal activities. The NSA was doing  mass surveillance of US citizens who had nothing to do with terrorist organizations. Edward Snowden exposed these programs in 2013 and ever since he has been demonized or prevented from explaining on mainstream media. There is no evidence that his links caused a spike in terrorist attacks or endangered people working in the CIA or NSA. The only actions that endanger national security is being in a permanent  state of warfare, not public awareness of  NSA programs. Moderate censorship may not be as severe as the national security or public safety argument, but still raises concerns. This extends into the concept of political correctness and what is deemed offensive. Advocates argue that certain language or speech should not be spoken on the basis it can offend certain groups. This can extend to ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation identification. The problem with this is that it is stifling free expression. What may be considered offensive to one person may not be to another. What is considered obscene or lascivious can also vary among individuals and culture. This attempt to create a safe space really only accomplishes the illusion of an inclusive atmosphere. Censoring films, TV,  social media, or any other medium does not eliminate racism, sexism, homophobia, or religious intolerance. The result is that discussion and debate are neutralized, because there are some topics that are forbidden to talk about. Free speech seems to be okay until somebody hears a view they do not like. Far-right extremists make the argument that they are having their free speech restricted, but their real intent is just to insight violence and hate. Moderate censorship cannot distinguish the difference between general disagreement and extremist thought. This leaves tech companies in a more precarious situation when their platforms are used for hate groups or terrorist organizations to organize. The government will just use that as an excuse for more regulation and censorship.
      Censorship has caused major damage throughout history. It has attacked the arts,sciences, and even free thought itself. Humanity has reached a new age in which knowledge and information is ubiquitous. Governments and the ruling classes of the world may not be able to manipulate or control populations like they used to. However, the threat of censorship has remained present along with disturbing new developments. Fake news is not a recent phenomenon due to the fact newspapers of the past were filled with bias or false information. The problem is that people of their own free will are believing what they read without serious examination. People may be willing to believe anything if it correlates to their opinions, even if the facts state other wise. The internet and social media provide a vast scope of various perspectives and information, but people require the critical thinking skills to decipher what they are reading. As there is a greater movement to dismantle net neutrality, this means censorship could reach a whole new level. This means users will have access to only certain websites under the direction of internet service providers. Censorship will become more prevalent in the future seeing as the average person has more access to information. The movement for more censorship must be resisted. Ignorance and philistine attitudes can be lethal to free society. Now more than ever it is the public must be vigilant of corruption and government abuse. There is no good reason for censorship,other than protecting the powerful. Knowledge was meant to be free and open to everyone. Censorship seeks to keep  people isolation and darkness.               

The Arrest of Julian Assange and The Possibility of Extradition to The US

After years taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Assange was arrested. Now there is discussion of possible extradition to the United States. This would certainly mean that Assange would not be given a fair trial for the crimes he allegedly committed with Wikileaks.  Assange has been targeted mainly because he has exposed war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States. These arguments of endangering national security or enabling terrorist organizations lacks cogency. The United States government does not want to be exposed for its roles in atrocities and corruption, which could generate massive public outrage. Whistle blowers have been persecuted under both the Obama and Trump administrations. Julian Assange has not sold any of the information from Wikileaks to foreign entities or other nations for personal gain. Wikileaks mostly contains diplomatic cables, which are not classified information. The reason why Assange has become a target is due to the fact many nations have been revealed to be engaged in ethically questionable activities. The attack on Assange really is a means of stopping investigative journalism informing the public about abuses around the world. Governments may also use Wikileaks as an excuse to reduce or eliminate completely internet freedom. Free speech and press freedom are coming under attack by not just authoritarian states, but liberal democracies. The mainstream corporate media has demonized Assange as either a national threat or working on behalf of America's global competitors. If Julian Assange is given a prison term in the United States, it symbolizes a movement attempting to stifle independent press that voices dissent or opposing views. Wikileaks founded in 2006, may be permanently shut down or new measures would be employed to control what the public sees or reads on the internet. The mainstream media's inability or refusal the question American foreign policy demonstrates it is more interested in profit motives, rather than telling the truth. Julian Assange's extradition will be unfortunate news for supporters of transparency and media that does not follow one narrative in relation to world politics.