Silvio Berlusconi has come out into the open at last." Hurray sincerity "you might say, or" holy rhetoric. "During the Assembly of Promoters of Liberty, which makes it somewhat grotesque, the premier argued that press freedom is not an absolute right. And now this is a contradiction with the first word freedom: then it would be better called promoters Semi-Liberty, Freedom or ad personam. In truth his words do not say anything again. The freedom, first to all the print status of Berlusconi are quite unpleasant. To accept and recognize the full freedom mean for Mr. B, a slow and inexorable decline accompanied from much of public awareness. And that Mr. B knows this and brings water to his mill, keeping in spite of everything, the (false) image of a promoter of liberty. Must come to understand the words, in their deepest meaning.
Mr. B stated that the gag on freedom is not putting him and his majority with the draft bill on wiretapping but the press, "a press sided with the left and prejudicially hostile to the government. A press that uninformed which not only distorts reality, but systematically tramples on the sacred right of citizens to privacy, calling itself the 'free press' as if it were an absolute right. But in a democracy there are no absolute rights, because each right comes up is always a limit in the other priority rights and equally deserving of protection. "
Good. It is apparent now that the prime minister does not believe much in the absolute freedom of the individual, but both in his personal liberty, which seems almost a principle illiberal. But hardly the average voter can understand a concept so simple. Berlusconi is a star on television and unfortunately the current state of things, ordinary people are bound to him by an adhesion mechanism that makes her unconscious briefly and unconsciously adhere to his words. In fact, many Berlusconi, repeating the words of their "idol" rather than trying to own.
The second thing that is clear, this has long been known, is the aversion to the color red. Usual sing-song: all that is outside its control is the result of a conspiracy (sometimes international: see foreign newspapers) of the left. He managed diligently to create a fear unconditional towards the left, a witch-hunt atmosphere that also offers shelter from the most sensational scandals. Just say the magic word: conspiracy. And yet there are people who believe blindly.
Finally there is the vain attempt to storyteller public opinion: "A press that misinformation that not only distorts reality, but systematically tramples on the sacred right of citizens to privacy, calling itself the 'Freedom of the Press 'as if it were an absolute right. " That sacred right to privacy! But what people are talking about? There are those who can really believe that your phone is checked, that their lives are put through a sieve? What you try to defend here, are not ordinary citizens, those who have a life of calm and quiet, or so-called "clean", but rather, that of citizens who are also public figures. You can talk about privacy in that case? You can talk about privacy when it comes to procurement, corruption or other crimes that affect you the privacy of an individual, but profit from the lives of others? Actually, the intimacy is never touched (apart from depressing gossip magazines but they are dear to the Prime Minister). Here, privacy should be synonymous with "intimacy" and not obfuscation. If a public figure, elected by the citizen, has committed misconduct that goes against the interest of the citizens themselves, then it is right that that citizen is informed of this. This is the freedom of information, which is reflected in the freedom of the press that the prime minister rejects competent relativistic principle and personal use at his discretion. In short, as a citizen has never been deprived of his privacy? Actually someone I would think. I can think of some soap operas to news coming out again in the summer: Sollecito, Franzoni and other yellow from TV (not to mention Barbara D'Urso!). Ordinary people put in the spotlight, followed throughout the course of his judicial conduct. In that case, what is the boundary of the much-coveted privacy? And news of raids in place of the tragedy: "Madam, her son died tragically, how do you feel? That guy was?" Those are not considered a breach of privacy? No, and this because they are violations not harmful to the political control. Privacy is becoming more like a roguish neologism: privacy is all that is dirty and hide. And it is just an example of the TV premier, just think of the many crooks exposed by Striscia la Notizia argue that claiming their privacy. And what usually meets the journalist? - But she has cheated the people profiting from misfortune, such as privacy? That's precisely: what privacy. It's the exact same question that arises in the face of political scandals that try to hide as the citizens' right to privacy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment