User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive
 

On the corporation’s side we find four speakers.

Clarin’s lawyer (a newspaper). He believes that the law is redundant because an anti-monopoly law regulating all market areas already exists.

Translation: we don’t want more regulation because it limits us. Besides, more regulation means more paperwork which translates in higher expenses, this is, lower profits.

Comments: it is obvious that the existing anti-monopoly law is a paper tiger. It has no teeth and therefore the corporations feel comfortable with it. They don’t want a new law that will interfere with their business.

 

Spokesperson Consumer’s Committee. He believes that there is no reason to limit certain voices because there is room for all of them, particularly in the Internet era.

Translation: this is useless bureaucratic horse manure. Politicians are thinking in old-fashion ways and whatever they are doing is not going to work.

Comments: this guy is close to reality. At least to some part of it.

 

President International Association’s of Radiobroadcasting. He is of the opinion that the law breaks owner’s constitutional rights and it is a great step backwards for the freedom of speech, pluralism and diversity.

Translation: the law is bad because owners will lose lots of money when they are forced to sell.

Comments: it is clear that this person is there to protect owners. As to the question if he has a legal valid argument, clearly not. The rest of the argument is just nonsensical filler with politically-correct words.

 

A lawyer stated that if there is plenty of smaller owners with no resources they will only repeat state news and the freedom of speech will be diminished.

Translation: I am defending the big guys because that’s where the money is.

Comments: how exactly will the freedom of speech be diminished if there are no other news? The freedom of speech is supposed to be the right of people to express their opinions. It has nothing to do with the capability a company may or may not have in broadcasting them. Sneaky guy….

 

Spokesperson Iberoamerican Democratic Observatory’s. Limitations to media are limitations to freedom of speech.

Translation: I don’t have a clue what I am talking about, but obviously I am biased on this topic.

Comments: need we say more?

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

Continue to Freedom of disinformation – worth fighting for - Part 3

 

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It