How I see it, Part 11; Censorship for the protection of the public

This article is in response to how the internet is being blocked from showing the latest execution of journalist Steven Sotloff.

Right now, because ISPs in the US and the EU are trying to block the latest execution video of Steven Sotloff, the web is abuzz with calls that the video is fake, those who've claimed to have seen the video are saying that the execution is not real for a number of reasons.

The reason for this censorship differs widely depending on where the internet is accessed. In the case of the US, blocking of the latest video is to protect the public from viewing disturbing and graphic material that will cause adverse effects to the public if shown. I can't speak for the reason for the censorship in other places, but the amount of censorship now found in the US has been coming and the level of censorship we see now is a result of other who are making a determination for the rest of us.

This has 2 adverse reactions that are already found on the web as we speak.

First and foremost, there are scores of comments found all over the web that the latest video of Steven Sotloff is fake. Those who claim to had seen the video say there was not as much blood found as in other previous beheading videos.
How do they know?
Just because the amount of blood gushing out might not be as much as seen in other videos, especially ones filmed during the Iraq war, but that doesn't take away from the message that the islamic state wants to convey to us, their intended audience. Like in the James Foley video, although we didn't see the actual beheading take place, the still image of its aftermath made no mistake that it was real and it did happen. However, since we are being shielded from watching this video, how are we to know if the video is real or fake.

Next, lack of social transparency and blatant censorship is now leaving the public in the hands of 2 completely different groups of people; the mainstream media who use the news of the video to feed the public what they want the public to know and those who are challenging this by claiming that what ever shown in the mainstream media is fake- who is in the middle? Us.

Why can't we make the judgement for ourselves without having 2 distinct voices telling us to think one way or to think the other?
Aren't most of us educated and have experienced enough to make our own conclusions?
The new battlefield is not in Iraq or Syria, the battlefield is on the web, on the TV and the tools being used is what they want to show us and what they want to keep from us. Then there are those who know we can't see the truth and what they do is use this lack of resource to say that the government is lying to us and is stirring up fear and hysteria simply by pointing out things we can't see.
To both of them, this is what I have to say about the matter.

If you want me to think a certain way, show me the proof?
If you say the video is fake and you want to point out how it is fake and why it is fake, show us the proof. To the other side, if you want me to believe ISIS is capable of this, show me the proof. If you want my and others unwavering support to your efforts in fighting isis and the islamic state, show us the proof.
Can't you see the common link in what I am challenging both sides to do?

On the one hand, they want me to believe the video is fake and that the government is using propaganda to press the public to support an effort in fighting an army we know was being trained by the US until at least June. Obama has gone on record as saying he has no strategy on how to fight isis, yet they are using the mere existence of this video to galvanize public support for an all-out effort that might include 'boots on the ground' in which Obama promised won't be considered. Yet, a video is said to be circulating on the net showing the beheading of an American journalist.
The US used the same tactic in its case to push for war in Iraq in 2003. There was no real proof and back then, no one thought about asking the government for any video or photographic proof of their argument. The result? 8 years of war with no objectives reached yet killed over 4500 Americans. For what? So Halliburton could secure a monopoly in the oil market by securing Iraq's oil fields. Again, objective failed.

Now the government is using revelations of a latest video that is supposed to show the brutal beheading of a journalist who risked his life and was aware of the consequences when he was captured last year. They say blocking the circulation of the video is for the public good and to show respect for the life of the person who gave his life so the rest of the world can know the truth.

By blocking the video and by intimidating internet service providers of websites and web portals who try to brave the storm by allowing the final act of a journalist; showing first hand the brutality of the very people who were told are our allies.

By not showing the video, we are disrespecting his memory by pandering to the fear that isis wants us to feel.
So in regards to the media war, they won.


And by preventing the world from knowing the truth, the enemy already wins.

Loading...

Added:

By: Paul Snieder (290.20)

Tags: Steven Sotloff, isis, islamic state, us, censorship, fcc, intimidation

Location: United Kingdom

Liveleak on Facebook

Advertisers