In this thread,
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157615
the concept is expressed that various tyrants would be threatened by information being disseminated to their populaces.
Is this true? Can giving opressed people open channels of communication and learning free them? I had always assumed that trying to quash free speech/free listening was a mark of arrogance and stupidity on the part of said tyrants, but have no cites either way.
Well, given the Bush administration’s reticence to comply with the Freedom of Information Act , I’d have to say it must constitute some sort of threat.
Oppression is limiting the options open to the people.
*They cant join the ruling class if they are uneducated, thus they cannot usurp the power.
*Supressing information limits knowledge to only what you tell them. If the dictator says “resistance if futile” and supresses all information about resistance, the people will believe the dictator for lack of any credible alternative.
*If you tell the people lies, they will believe because they havent seen the truth. If Saddam says he won the gulf war and suppresses all outside news. The people would belive because where are the conquerors if they won?
Now, if information is free to flow in, the poeple will now have alternatives to the information being given by the ruling class. That causes chaos and protest and disruptions. Inefficiency n government causes weakness. Options would be available, protest could lead to revolution or at the very least resistance to the status quo. Government control is now weaker and resistance could lead to freedom of oppression.
While I am recitent about posting without cites, I would humbly ask how a country with the majority of its populace intentionally kept ignorant can function with other countries without being infected by import/export agents with inconvienent facts.
Billionaire George Soros thought so. That’s why he donated many Xerox machines to organizatons behind the Iron Curtain.
Of course oppressive governments are threatened by freedom of information.
Thats why many countries in Europe have laws against disseminating certain kinds of information.
Thats why certain groups in the US argue that dissemination of certain speech constitutes “hate speech”.
…And, as others have noted, that is why this President has done his best to avoid giving information to the public, be it through FOIA disclosures, increasing the number of things that are classified (such as tests of the missile defense program), etc. This is a President more intent than any in recent memory in keeping information under control.
Should it worry us? You bet!
I agree. I am worried about this particular President.
Huh? What countries? What information?
Yes, please tell us.
Name just a few, since there are many.
Well, Hitler and Stallin did pass explicit laws against the use of Esperanto…
Germany criminalises holocaust denial and (I think) the advocacy of Nazi ideals or policies.
The United Kingdom and Ireland and I have no doubt several other countries ban or criminalise various forms of incitement to racial hatred and the like.
For a brief period Ireland banned the dissemination of information on abortion facilities (although this was done by the courts on constitutional grounds, not the legislature, and was reversed by popular referendum).
But Hermann may have been thinking of something quite different. I don’t know whether he would consider the government of Ireland, the UK or Germany to be oppressive.