Information gives emphasis to the importance of free communication and freedom of expression without resorting to prejudices or biases against the others. Besides, the freedom to speak in public is the right thing and it is indispensable for the academic progress of the society that prohibits from engaging acts against speech curtailment and speech deprivation.

Information is vital to one’s living and progress. It gives a signal to the person concerned that there is mankind. The people regardless of races are exchanging notions from one another – to exercise communicative roles in the community.

Sharing information with others and informing the latest updates of the world today give emphasis to the significance of global communication, i.e. free communication and freedom of expression. It relinquishes our rights from “self-seclusion and self-inhibition” to help people unfurl their inundating mind streams and open out into something that results in a rich harvest of ideas from them.

The isolated beauty and tranquility of the place connote open communication and progress. With the ambiance of the surroundings, you can feel figuratively the essence of reaching out to other people and do communicate with them around the world through “vital and candid information.”

Communication serves as a bridge between the family and the community – working together for a unified stand on the issue and for a solid foundation to come by the common goals and for the amelioration of one’s life.

It is likened metaphorically to an open beach because it is very important to all of us in this planet who ought to shun from putting a gap; otherwise, open communication will vanish into thin air and a covert communication channel will be thwarted at once without question.

The main reason for this is that people have the right to be informed and they have to share with one another regarding the issues and other things that can be beneficial for everybody in order to reach ultimately for “the common good.”

Communication is something that can bridge you between the unknown world and the known world with sufficient information to dish out. Likewise, it’s about expressing and conveying your thoughts, emotions, notions and concepts with another human beings.

The ideal outcome of the event will animadvert upon itself and it will boomerang to the concerned persons if things are not properly addressed. It reciprocates best communication skills that can aid in keeping one’s head and confidently taking charge of unfamiliar situations.

People are more likely to listen to you, whatever you have to utter, if you can express yourself well, and this is particularly useful in influencing and negotiating significant personal, social and business matters.

To elaborate further about communication as an advantage over the other sub-categorized implications and cognitive-voluntary schema with communicative approaches, the opposite sides are taken into account.

Say for instance, a communication as regards the utilization of idiomatic expression like “between the devil and the deep blue sea” which figuratively emphasizes its true color and veritable sense of implicit meaning. In this expression, if you are between the devil and the deep blue sea, you are in a scenario where there are two equally unpleasant options or alternatives.

For example, “When the new product didn’t take off, the management was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: develop a new marketing campaign or drop the product.” In this open communication, as well as distinct scenario of the two comparable objects, each object will liken metaphorically to a different perspective. It comes in handy in working out the involution or rising actions and dealing with difficult people.

Open communication is said to be fathomed, unparalleled, and incomprehensible closed-doors’ gaps that sometimes implicate many dimensions, from something that is facile or so simple and something that is more complicated. It is “something” that is potentially complex to comprehend the pros and cons of a subtle and particular human being’s intervention.

To enlighten anew about the open communication and open alternative views, communication itself mainly connects to the human mind. It carries a heavy burden with consciousness and sub-consciousness.

The open mind is also susceptible to “a lack of conviction.” Too many conflicting viewpoints can enter an open mind and cause indecision and unfair treatment. With regard also to any standpoint, it is indispensable now and then to conceal the mind from reality and connect it to the real world where individuals do utterly communicate, disallow any more input, make a decision and act.

Perhaps, more important than having an open mind is having a mind that is capable of being open or closed. The hinges of our mind are our capability to act upon. We can decide to accept or reject information depending upon the fair judgment, trials and animadversions from the people around. It might be local or international.

Finally, communication is something that can bridge you between the unknown world and the known world with sufficient information to dish out both temporal and spiritual matters, including information that should be dished out with correct acceptance and unmistakable honor to divulge and pin down with laurels.

Last week the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published a half-page letter entitled “No Need To Panic About Global Warming” above the center fold of its Opinion page. The letter was signed by 16 prominent scientists and claimed, among other things, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.” Such a stark assertion would be devastating to the consensus on climate change if it were true. But it is not true. Data published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show that global warming is real and well-documented:

This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880…This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average.

While the NOAA report used selected official data sets, the well-known global warming skeptic Richard Muller initiated the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project to re-examine all available data from around the world. The analysis changed his mind. On October 21, 2011, he summarized his conclusions about the reality of climate change, also in the WSJ, in an article entitled “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism“:

We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the [official] average of 0.64ºC.

The press needs to be open to all streams of opinion. But we learned from the Iraq War, which was based on faulty arguments about weapons of mass destruction, how important it is for the press to note and contradict statements that are demonstrably false. Is it too much to expect the WSJ to have referred to its own October 21st article? A simple note at the end could have alerted its readers to the questionable nature of the statements in the opinion piece it just published so prominently. Instead, the WSJ appeared to endorse the misleading arguments in the “anti-panic” letter by that very prominence. Is some unhealthy editorial agenda at work here? The future of climate change reporting in the WSJ should allow us to answer that question.

At this point in time, we’ve demonized about every other thing a person might accidentally enjoy. We’ve kicked the habit, helmeted the motorcycle rider, belted the driver and passengers in a car (don’t get me wrong, I’m all for seatbelts and had car seats, as well, but it is a fact, that if you don’t chose to do that, you WILL be chosing major fines and, eventually, loss of your license), and vilified the marijuana user. Air travel is now as much fun as getting kicked in the groin. We are reminded daily that whatever you do in your life, it directly affects others around you. After all, second-hand smoke can kill you, right? (Oh yes, I’m not a smoker, before you get the wrong idea about that, as well). 

Do you think I’m exaggerating or would you like to hear more? When my father was a young man, he crossed the land on a fine horse heading for California to start a new life. He didn’t take much with him. He and his brother traveled together and slept out in the open. There was no cost to stay in a national park because that system of parks didn’t exist. We got the park system because of the abuse of the lands by people, and yes, that abuse really did happen. I can remember how trashed the land was before we started the beautification projects across the land. The desire in our hearts was to continue to allow public access to our parks, to preserve some of that beautiful wild country for our kids and grand-kids. We also put in place a limit on how many fish or deer one could take. In fact, there were bag limits instituted on every single game creature. This was all done to preserve the creatures in nature–the balance. It is something I have been wholly in support of. However, by charging an access fee for public land, in essence what we really did was adjudicate how much fun a person was going to be allowed to have and charged for it. Charging outrageous fees for access to the parks also limited access to the haves. No longer was public land an asset that could be used by those out of work, as they were in the days of the depression. I’ve yet to decide exactly what is supposed to happen to the people foreclosed upon and out of work, but rest assured, there is no way those “shiftless bums” are going to able to use the big wide open public lands. Those are OURs, dagnabit!! It wouldn’t matter, apparently, if the people who were homeless were elderly and had worked all their lives, public land, owned by the people, would is, in many places, off limits to the “masses yearning to be free.”

Another change I’ve noticed that is not necessarily for the better is that it used to be hunting and fishing was one way to reduce the cost of food. Without venison, elk, and trout, our family of seven could never have survived. My father worked very, very hard, but we supplemented our diet with wild game. We also grew our own vegetables, saved the seed, and planted the next year. After all, the poor could afford to shoot a deer and dress it out, and unless you lived in England, there was no longer a “king’s forest.” All of the kids where I grew up learned how to fish and hunt as a matter of survival. Today, if you can buy a rifle, it costs a mint. The license also costs a mint. You have to take time off from work, so that costs you too, and if you don’t know how to dress out a deer (and unless you were raised in hunting family, you probably don’t), having the animal professionally dressed will cost you the earth. Thus, hunting your own meat will wind up costing you more than steak purchased from a store. Fishing licenses also have gone up. The logic of how this all came to be makes perfect sense, in order to protect the land and ensure no-one takes too many fish or deer, you must have laws and people to enforce those laws, thus there are license fees, etc. It’s logical. It’s just another little note on how much harder it is to be poor than when I was growing up, and how we are, quite simply, not as free as we think. In a way, we have returned to the days of the king’s forest, have we not? We, The People, are the public and supposedly, we own the land and the creatures thereon. The truth is that the government holds the land and enforces which of the public–who pays for the land–can use the “public” lands. Just trying to discuss the way it works makes my head swim.

The problem as I see it, is the more we seek to protect our treasures for future generations, the further away from access by those same future generations we get. It takes money to get a parks pass. There are even noise ordinances and limited access after a certain time of night, as some of my friends who were holding a drum circle discovered, to their chagrin. My father could no more ride across the country these days, sleeping under the stars, perhaps seeking lodging at farmhouses along the way, in pursuit of his fortune than fly to the moon. I’m sure he’d get arrested as that creepy dude, get harassed (or ticketed) for the mess his horse was making, and, anyway, there are no hitching posts in front of the public ale houses these days. Perhaps I should say, he actually might be able to sleep under the stars, but not without paying a lot of money and risking several city ordinances in places where he might be labeled as a homeless vagrant!! 

I’ve thought about this very hard, this idea of freedom. I’ve watched with interest the various Occupy Movements across the face of the country as the occupiers insist that they have a right, a RIGHT to speak freely on subjects near and dear to their hearts–like greedy and corrupt bankers, greedy and corrupt politicians, wrongful foreclosures, etc.; however, during all these protests, which seemed to me perfect examples of the public exercising the very right to freedom our young men and women have fought and died for, there has been an overwhelming objection by our “representatives” who claim the protesters have no right to protest, claiming there are laws in place that limit how long they can stay in one place. Our people, young and old, have been arrested and attempts made to silence them. We’ve seen them maced and handcuffed, and all of this has been done in the name of the public. It certainly was not done in the name of freedom.

So I ask you, all of you, are we indeed free in America? You may point to the fact that I’m able to write this article and say, “yeah, look, you’re writing aren’t you? Isn’t that freedom of speech.” To that, I would have to say, “yes.” This is a form of free speech, and so far, we still have it. I bet, however, if I took this same article and read it in front of the courthouse, preferably using a bullhorn, or in the middle of a public street (paid for by my tax dollars), I would bet you that someone, if they were uncomfortable with it (or me), would soon be telling me I needed a permit to make my speech. They would be wrong (check the constitution), but that would not keep them from jailing me for awhile, or arresting me and apologizing later. How do I know this? I’ve seen it happening to our children during the end of last year and extending into this one.

We cannot claim freedom anymore if we are belted in, scanned, and watched by cameras. We cannot claim freedom in a world with GPS monitoring in our phones and our computers. Sometimes I think the only place where I am safe from scrutiny is in my bathroom, and even then I’m not sure, especially since I took part in the occupy movement and have become more politically active. 

I must say that I am relieved that SOPA and PIPA went down to defeat, though I recognize, as many other people do who make their living through the arts and music, the need for good copyright protection and will hold out the hope that answers the very real problem of piracy of intellectual property. Overall, I am glad I can still take out my anger at the loss of our various freedoms, and the problems with the status quo, on my computer. I get to yell and scream and tell others how very unhappy I am about how the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the working middle class is really the “Nouveau Poor.” With other freedoms gone, we can continue to hope that our last bastion of free speech won’t be hijacked by Big Brother, finally snuffing out any idea that freedom and free speech can exist in such a technologically advanced world where you are under the eyes of satellites from the moment you leave your home to when you return home. 

I didn’t do well in the last market crash, so I look over job listings for contract work.  Yesterday I saw a posting for a project coordinator/proofreader.  The first line of the job description read: One of the countries fastest growing multi-channel marketing agencies … instead of One of the country’s …. 

The hiring company’s website showed a contact email address, so I sent them an email identifying the error.  A corporate VP in a distant city kindly replied (to my astonishment) and explained that the company’s proofreaders confine their work to customers’ documents.  In other words, if a document doesn’t affect the bottom line, no one proofreads it.

Photo by Adrian Pingstone from Wikipedia (Public Domain)

Should Internet content writers follow the model of this company?  Perhaps they should.  Each and every piece of writing you publish should have a goal.  If you can accomplish this goal without proofreading, maybe you shouldn’t proofread.  For example, if you are writing for search engines (bot fodder), errors may not make any difference in how high the search engine puts your article on the results list.  If you want human beings to forward a link to their friends or to link to your article from their blogs, you may want to correct errors.

Fact Checking

This morning telegraph.co.uk published an article about Leonid Ksanfomaliti’s claim that he’d found evidence of life on Venus in photographs taken by the space probe Venera-13.   The author of the article identified Venus as “the red planet” and stated the planet’s gravity was 9 times that of Earth.  Commenters pounced on these errors, and the paper quickly corrected them.  

The view from Venera-13. Photo from Wikipedia (Public Domain)

If you make statements whose errors could be corrected by an extra minute reading Wikipedia, human readers may bounce to a better article.  They may also fail to link to your article.  You may have to resort to black hat SEO techniques to acquire backlinks.  A few minutes of fact checking can help you avoid the need to generate deceptive backlinks and the risk of getting caught cheating.  On the other hand, you may be writing for true believers who won’t let facts stand in their way.  Once again, it may be a question of the goal of your writing.

Writing Badly is a Right

…everything is given to us by the party and the government and only one thing is taken away: the freedom to write badly. –Isaac Babel

If you publish online, you will slip up and publish errors.  Sure as Brin and Page misspelled googol as google, you will encounter readers who think all your content should come down or that you should never write for publication again because of the errors.  No possible pardon is possible, they think, for those who confuse Mars and Venus.  Only authorities with credentials should write, etc.  I argue against this position by reminding everyone that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and that even someone as inaccurate and syntax-challenged as George W. Bush deserves the right to speak his mind.

George W. Bush from Wikipedia (Public Domain)

Moreover, even bad articles may do good.  Recently I’ve read some Chinese blogs.  I don’t know Chinese at all, so I either have to wait for translations or read with the aid of translation software.  After struggling with a particularly scrambled machine translation, I asked myself some questions. What if this were as good as it gets?  What if I lived in a country with aggressive Internet censorship?  What if only articles with mangled text and misspelled keywords could slip through to tell me about life outside my country?  In that case I would feel privileged to read even bad articles.

Image via Wikipedia

Freedom of Speech is the right to voice their opinions without interference from the state government or censorship. This extends to unpopular opinions and criticisms of the government or government leaders. Freedom of speech is a recognized human right as defined by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although this speech is not allowed in countries such as China, Burma and North Korea because the government has emphasized that nobody may oppose the state. This is because of sparked fears that free speech may start a major protest or a complete overthrow of the government.

Governments have become even more and more tyrannic through the deprivation of this basic right that is commonly given to those in free societies. Many people fear the government and therefore do not excercise this basic human right and therefore seclude themselves with no outlet to their own beliefs and opinions. The internet has become the main outlet to these opinions, with considerable amounts of censorship circumventing tools such as VPNs, Proxies, Censorship resistant networks and anonymous browsing solutions such as TOR. The internet cannot be stopped, and governments can only deprive their own population from these opinions and thoughts of others.

There are limits to the freedom of speech, such as hate speech, which is the reason the Westboro Baptist Church is banned from entering the borders of Canada. The limitations of free speech may be from legal sanctions or complete social disapproval. Free speech cannot harm others or defame them in any way, and is enforced by the principles of a free society. Freedom of Speech is to make a point, to express yourself, in any form of communication from the internet to fine art to video games. The subject of Free Speech has sparked several movements, major protests and civil wars including the Egyptian revolution.

Freedom of Speech has its uses in a free society, but is a luxury in countries of tyranny where any tin-pot dicator can buy easily buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment to jam foreign shortwave radio signals or secretly spy on browsing activites from second world countries.

Censorship does not just affect the people, but the culture as well. Culture has been censored enough to start personality cults such as in North Korea, where continued propaganda to it’s people have created a new “religion” where Kim Il Sung, the eternal dead president, controls the weather based upon his mood.

In conclusion, free speech is a luxury in other countries facing tyranny from the government.

Besides, the freedom to speak in public is the right thing and it is indispensable for the academic progress of the society that prohibits from engaging acts against speech curtailment and speech deprivation.

Information is vital to one’s living and progress. It gives a signal to the person concerned that there is mankind. The people regardless of races are exchanging notions from one another – to exercise communicative roles in the community.

Sharing information with others and apprising the latest updates of the world today give emphasis to the significance of global communication, i.e. free communication and freedom of expression.

Finally, it relinquishes our rights from “self-seclusion and self-inhibition” to help people unfurl their inundating mind streams and open out into something that results in a rich harvest of ideas from them.

Freedom of speech is a basis human right. People have fought and died for the right to free speech. However as we begin our journey through the 21st century – which incidentally is the most selfish period of history ever – we have to ask, how much freedom do we really need?

I am all for freedom, liberty and the rest of the trendy bollocks that litters Twitter and all the other social media.

What people fail to see is that the greedy west is on a slide into anarchy – which is great if we take it all the way. We can’t have a partial anarchy.

You are probably wondering what I am taking about – I will explain.

Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a fair democratic society (Stop laughing) have a system in place to have ones voice heard and represented.

In a democracy, we elected others to be our voice. To champion our causes and to ensure that society lives in safety. The elected are also there to make the decisions we are unable to or don’t wish to. This is the basis for democracy.

Now in theory if we as a collective don’t like something or want change, then we press our politicians to enact this change. Sometimes we have to come out and remind them now and again that they are our representatives. That is the nature of democracy.

Now back to my initial point. At this time of our history we want it all. We want changes to be made yesterday, bypassing the democratic process that our ancestors fought and died for. The people want some form of an anarchic/democracy hybrid, which doesn’t work. It scares the politicians and it silences the smaller voices. No longer will a politician strive to make the world a better place or make an unpopular decision for the greater good without fear of upsetting the large vocal majority.

We have to decide what we want – total anarchy where it will become everyone for themselves or are we going to stick with democracy and use the system correctly, thus having some clarity amidst the online chaos of wannabe politicians.

Also if we stop trying to change the world via our Twitter accounts, we can then concentrate and ensure that the elected are doing things for us instead of the corporate world.

Rant over.

There has been much talk lately about control of Internet content , with lobby groups within America pushing this agenda as a bill in congress.

Whilst I agree in principle with the rights of artists to ownership of there material.

 It is a fine line between observing rights and giving away the freedom we have on the net to free speech and expression.

We all draw experience knowledge and intuitive information from the collective consciousness and express it in our own unique ways.

I believe that the Internet has in itself become another link into the dreamworld of the unconscious and an extension of the collective and in so doing connects humanity in a more physical sense.

Visual,audible and kinetic senses are added to the intuitive to bring about real change in the world as we have seen dramatically in the last year. 

The witch hunt which began with wiki leaks. which I believe had little to do with security and more to do with the fear of an awakening world population  and now the bills around Internet copy write are just a way for the corporations which can no longer control information through their puppet news agencies to wind back  free speech and thought.

It is to late .

People are thinking and conversing.

The world is changing as it needs to if humanity is to survive 

I am sure everyone has heard the news recently, but the American Congress has been trying to pass a bill that would force websites to remove links to websites with copyrighted material.  The problem with this is that it places an unfairly large burden on websites such as YouTube, Google, and Wikipedia.  If this bill comes into effect it could incur major costs towards websites such as this, since they would have to filter through thousands of links and remove any with improperly used copyright material.  This can also be looked at as a threat to free speech, because companies could block the links to sites that are properly using the material just because they do not like how the website uses the material.  This would give large corporations even more power over the media, not to mention the fact that they already have control over the news companies they sponsor.  The internet is the last method of spreading news that is not largely controlled by corporations, and SOPA threatens that.  If we do not stand together now to stop this, when will we.  There are already over 1.5 million signatures towards petitions stopping this bill, and more coming in by the day.  Believe that the people behind this that need to realise that the even though it sounds good in theory, the world is not that simple.  This reminds me of a situation in one Canadian school recently.  This school put a ban on balls (soccer balls, footballs, baseballs) just because several kids got injured.  Just like this scenario, a politician looks at the people who are doing something wrong, and end up punishing everybody for the actions of those people.  In conclusion, if this bill gets passed, it is a threat to free speech, and will cause a huge amount of damage to legitimate websites.