Andrew Bolt Monday, March 05, 2012 at 07:41am <\/p>\n
THE Gillard Governments media inquiry threatens not only our freedom to speak, but to hear and decide for ourselves. But why? <\/p>\n
Its report last week, by retired judge Ray Finkelstein, proposes a super media-cop, funded by government, to police all thats said and written in the media. <\/p>\n
It would even have the power to disappear you - or, rather, your words - by requiring offending artilces to removed from the Internet, never to be read again. <\/p>\n
But what suddenly happened that free speech is thought a threat, needing even more oppressive controls? <\/p>\n
Finkelstein offers five striking instances of wrongful harm caused by unreliable or inaccurate reporting, breach of privacy, and the failure to properly take into account the defenceless. <\/p>\n
Its list is astonishingly thin. <\/p>\n
A minister of the Crown has his homosexuality exposed. He is forced to resign. <\/p>\n
(The NSW minister was found visiting a bath house, is not defenceless and was not forced to resign, but chose to.) <\/p>\n
A chief commissioner of police is the victim of false accusations about his job performance fed to the news media by a ministerial adviser ... He is forced to resign. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Read the original post: Andrew Bolt Monday, March 05, 2012 at 07:41am THE Gillard Governments media inquiry threatens not only our freedom to speak, but to hear and decide for ourselves. But why Continue reading
\nColumn - Stifling free speech won\u2019t guarantee good speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"