Fiefdom of Speech

2013 ,    »  -   84 Comments
Ratings: 7.34/10 from 32 users.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 19 of that states that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression.

This right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information on ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human documents, but let's look at today's world. Isn't there a widening gap between what's said and done? This documentary, "Fiefdom of Speech," looks at how and why the self-acclaimed western guardians of human rights and civil liberties are trampling on their own people's basic rights of seeing and hearing alternative views by taking Iranian channels off the airwaves.

The behavior of the UK government was simple straightforward panic, and it's exactly the same in Spain and in France. They are shutting down the thing which is providing more accurate information. This is a kind of informational war which is waged against Iran; the matter is that several centers of power want to deprive people of alternative sources of information.

The main issue here is to prevent your information from getting to the American public. They can't prevent you from broadcasting to Iran, but they can prevent you from getting your information to the American public because they know you'll say things that Americans cannot say.

Munich-based media regulator BLM announced it was removing Press TV from the SES Astra satellite. Eutelsat S.A. stopped the broadcast of several Iranian satellite channels. Hong Kong-based AsiaSat took all Iranian channels off the air in East Asia. Spain's top satellite company, Hispasat, ordered its satellite provider Overon to take Iranian channels Press TV and Hispan TV off the air.

Iran's Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Gholam-Hossein Dehqani condemned the move as a blatant violation of international laws and the principle of freedom of speech. Addressing the 35th meeting of the UN Information Committee, he urged the UN body should provide the public with timely, unbiased, and transparent information. UN Information Committee passed a resolution called "Public Information Policies and Activities" condemning the Western medias' hegemony over the world.

More great documentaries

84 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Lenny

    This belongs in the conspiracy section. This is Press TV, Iranian anti-American and anti-western propaganda in lowest and ugliest form. This is the type of garbage they feed the ignorant masses in the middle east and later people in the west are "shocked" that they hate us so much. This is why they hate us -- that's exactly what propaganda does -- and it's an absolute disgrace that Americans buy into this garbage.

  2. Regen

    It couldn't possibly be the fact that we have a global empire setup throughout the world? That civilians are routinely killed by accident, or that we can't just let sleeping dogs lie.
    Imagine if any other country in the world invaded the US, Wrecked your s*it, set up the government they want, then never left. The entire south be up in arms (I should know, i live there).

  3. Aleksandar Daic

    Yes ...switch to FOX immediately ...they are the objective ones (irony in case anyone missed it).

  4. jonathon wisnoski

    Ya, while it is extremely easy to poke holes in the non-existent free speech of Western nations. But focusing on one source of information and claiming that it is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth seems rather propagandish.

  5. John_Dread

    And "western" propaganda and omissions -distortions of the truth are better? You're being a bit biased here buddy.

  6. oQ

    There are numerous great documentaries on press tv.

    The media of all countries should be allowed to post what they feel is their view of the world.

    We authorize the US to do it, even though we know how much rubbish comes from them.

    Freedom of speech is freedom of speech for every journalists wherever he/she stands.

  7. wald0

    Why does it have to be either this complete b.s. or Fox, isn't there some middle ground here you're overlooking? The truth is both sides do it, all sides do it, your side does it, and my side does it- its just in fashion at different times to point out a certain country and pick on them as if everyone else is innocent and would never do such a thing. Everyone is so busy trying to claim the high ground we will never fix this problem, this common problem that may be the common ruin of us all.

  8. Aleksandar Daic

    My side? I don't have a side. I don't think in a "we vs them" mentality pattern and if you really want to solve anything , become the change you want to see.

  9. Harry Nutzack

    it's funny. i'm about as opposed to theocracy, holocaust denial, "second class status" for women, and the dissemination of pure propaganda as one can get, yet i feel "press tv", or ANY other media outlet has a right to be heard. sure, their coverage has bias, but ALL coverage has bias. "clean hands media" sounds awesome, but exists NOWHERE. i want to be able to hear, and view, all sides, every POV, from most mainstream, to most extreme crackpot, and then have the luxury of sifting it all in my own skull, thus allowing me to draw my own conclusions. to silence a POV is to deny ME that ability. if the likes of alex jones, FOX News, and the other frontmen of PURE fantasy are not silenced, why should Press TV be?

    the ONLY solution i see is iran forming a partnership with other states, and setting up their own sat network. there are enough "lesser nations" to make the expense small enough for each to make it viable. i have little doubt russia, china, or even japan would be willing to launch their sats. the use of such 3rd party nations would insure the sats aren't weapons, spy devices, or other nefarious mechanisms. is "free to air" format still in existence? that would seem an ideal format, and would eliminate having to market receivers.

  10. systems1000

    You say that you don,t have a side,but I bet you really do.The side that your money is coming from.Unless perhaps your a begger.

  11. Cracker122049

    We don't have to worry about another country invading us,our very own government already has. They view us as the enemy now,and more and more real Americans view them the same way!

  12. xxDarkSidexx

    It's the media and freedom of speech thats put us in this big $hit hole that we live in, media and freedom of speech has made the people we are today, you can all sit there and say "no i make my own mind up" but deep down you/we all follow what the media saids, it gives us all the emotions we carry today, if your clever enough you can stay in the middle, but the way i see it in todays world, it's love for the bad and hate for good.

  13. dufas_duck

    With political correctness and a biased media, freedom of speech really comes down to 'you believe what we tell you or else...' and by the way, don't say something we don't like, you'll lose you job, be ostracized, and be smeared by the same media that told you what to believe.....

  14. thinkagainagain

    PressTV pretends to be the champion of free speech?

  15. Regen

    I completely agree.

  16. Harry Nutzack

    Michelle, using any "proxy" won't work against uncle sam. the internet is their baby from day 1. your traffic hits their mainframes before it gets to your isp. if you do it on the internet, you may as well be doing it in the pentagon parking lot on a stage with a 1000 watt amp.

  17. ogger151

    WOW ! As an American I can truly say you are full of it. I watch Presstv and find there not any more bias than U.S. news and sometimes less. Considering we have sanctioned them to death they quite nice in there opinions.

  18. AprilOneal

    OK, I only started watching and my first observance is that she talks just like a robot..... just sayin'.

  19. AprilOneal


  20. Pysmythe

    Oh, what the hell, here's my feedback on that: Looks like the deck is Marshall stacked against us.

  21. TheDanishViking

    @Mr. Nutzack

    You seem to be in the know:

    1) Can the NSA link my identity to this specific comment?
    2) Isn't there anything you can do stay to block out the NSA?

  22. Harry Nutzack

    1. if you're an average internet user, yes, of course they can
    2. nope, aside from not using the internet, or a telephone

    now, should you worry about it? not really, no. which isn't to say you shouldn't be disturbed by the trend, but unless you're genuinely "up to no good", it really shouldn't affect your life at all. just realize anything said "in the aether" is akin to saying it right to the face of a cop. it can, and will be used against you, but ONLY if you give them reason to. grumbling about the state of the world is no problem. advocating, encouraging, or enabling illegal activity is a problem.

  23. Harry Nutzack

    i'm more a peavey man myself

  24. TheDanishViking

    1) Not that I do not believe you, but do you know exactly how it is done? Is there some "electronic trail" leading back to the internet connection in my apartment? And what if I am sending this from a public wireless network?

    2) I am not sure I agree completely with your view on surveillance. I am actually a little worried. For example, in a world where the government has access to all information then how is it possible to perform critical journalism about the government? To build a case against someone you need privacy.

  25. terrasodium

    The real dangers of total data collection is that peoples habits are changed to reflect a constant feeling that you are being watched and behaviors are modified via conditioning under those stresses a la skinner box, political correctness becomes in-trained . I've been looking into wireless mesh networks and the potential for a freer net service appears tenable if enough individuals take minor effort and time to configure the process.

  26. terrasodium

    Do you have any thoughts on the story of the American journalist Micheal Hastings?
    Edit; did you notice my comment to Harry re. the wireless mess network?

  27. terrasodium

    No need to hire every fourth person to report to the stazi under this rubric of data collection, an unprecedented time in history we are living in. it's a dictators dream system , unless we hold the system to consequences for their trespasses.

  28. TheDanishViking

    I was not familiar with either Michael Hastings or "mesh networks". From what I understand the mesh network is based on connections via radio-waves and thus not through a telecommunication company (that will give up the information to the government). Seems a little complicated but perhaps not?

  29. DigiWongaDude

    1) Vlatko and Disqus knows your email and IP think they've got info the NSA doesn't? If you were to comment here as a guest from a public access point, then you are somewhat under the radar...if you left your smartphone at home.
    2) I agree with you here. If a system has all your information they can build a case out of it. They can create motives, and use snapshots of data taken out of context, to suggest intentions or behaviour. If however you chose to hide yourself deep inside networks, instead of openly voicing your opinions, you will potentially dig yourself in to a hole. Think about that. For example, any encrypted data automatically gets flagged (one of the factors qualifying NSA snoops). Now I know you'll say most internet data is encrypted, which is true these days, but if you were to send email that you encrypted yourself? That will shine a light on your activity (from my understanding). However, it could also be that this simple act of encryption is the brass ring of snooping power.

  30. pwndecaf

    Do you mean in 1's and 0's?

  31. terrasodium

    Collecting data via independent repeater sources of mess networks will decrease (make difficult) the potential of the personality profiling net users for the "marketing information" gatherers. Not the final solution to the data mining problem , but it is a direction that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

  32. TheDanishViking

    1) I am very interested in the technical details here. To get my email either Vlatko or Disqus would have to either willingly share information with the NSA, or they could be "hacked" by the NSA (I guess the NSA has the authority to hack into anything?)
    But what if was using a fake email address created only for the purpose of posting anonymously on this site and, secondly, I was using my laptop in a public network (I don't own a phone)? How could they find out my identity?

  33. Michelle

    I have heard that the feds can get data off of hard drives that have been formatted several times. My isp won't let me change my IP address so I know I am a sitting duck at home.. What if I use a public wifi connection or the library's pc or something? Will the NSA still get me? Maybe I should spend a lot time on the fox news website just to make them think I am being a good girl. Oh no Mr Bill!, they've already got me for even asking about this. AAAHHHH!

  34. Lenny


  35. Lenny

    Not really. The most powerful propaganda isn't bellicose and violent, it's subtle and manipulative, just like this documentary.

  36. Lenny

    Maybe I should have been clearer in my last post. I'm not excusing America, I'm just pointing out (obvious) media bias. Fox is biased when it comes to 99% of the civil issues in the States. CNN, PressTV, RT and al-Jazeera are all biased against Israel. American Thinker, Fox and Breitbart are biased against Muslims and the LGBT community. Huffpost is biased against conservatives.

    There's bias everywhere. I was just calling out PressTV's bias because I think it's important to watch these documentaries as objectively as possible.

  37. Guest

    That was literally Osama bin Laden's objective from the start. Congratulations on playing right into his plan.

  38. Harry Nutzack

    it still requires a mac address, macs are unique, fixed, and "cooked" into your device. it's the addy any network uses for establishing you "in network" ip, and verifying that ip is indeed yours. it's a "fingerprint" which only changes when you switch out the network card itself, and then it becomes a new fingerprint. that mac is shared along the stream (which is why it is included in the data packet reflected when you perform a "ping"). you use a mac once in a way that leaves a footprint back to you as an individual, it then becomes incredibly easy to recognize that traffic as "terrasodium/john smith 123 jones ln, anytown USA". you CAN'T hide on the net, that's how it was designed from day 1. the protocols of communication were designed to lead back to the individual machine. you could run a "sterile box" and a "dirty box" (dirty being the one you conduct identifying tasks on, sterile being the one that is not id'ing you specifically), but unless EVERYBODY on your individual network does the same, it just becomes "process of elimination" (everybody else is id'd, terrasodium and sterile NEVER appear at the same time= terrasodium is the sterile user). you can also become a cash user of internet cafes, and NEVER do anything that specifically id's you, but such a schema is highly impractical (and improbable).

    when you use the internet, you use a system designed by the military for secure communication. "secure" in this case meant to insure no unauthorized access. that can only happen by insuring you can specifically id each machine, and user. this is the very reason they "gave" us the net, it became "big brother". by legislating it into a commercial hub (as opposed to just information sharing), it was guaranteed that ALL who use it will identify themselves specifically. it's why "uncle" needs all the decryption keys. you can pretend to hide, it does NOT work. if you do come up with a method of "hiding", they will engineer a crack, and that failing, legislate it out of existence, and/or brand you a "terrorist" and put you on ice.

    the NSA came into existence for a single "mission": interception of communications. that's all they do, or have ever done. hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent over the decades keeping them 5 or 6 steps ahead of the wave in comm tech. ANYTHING you have access to, they had long before you even heard of it. if it uses a commercial technology, they have the workaround. the ONLY "defense" is the realization that all said on the internet is screamed in their ear. DON'T say stuff you don't want them to hear.

  39. terrasodium

    I'm Spartacus!!!!!!

  40. Harry Nutzack

    lol, exactly. now, for the average person (not engaged in ANY nefarious conduct), it really makes NO difference. people aren't scrutinizing your communications, that would require half the planet working full time. computers are parsing patterns of conduct. the NSA really cares not what porn you watch, what docs you comment on, or even what side of the political spectrum you gravitate toward. they do all this sniffing to find the 1/1000 of a percent of the population engaged in unauthorized "nation building", stealing ideas from corporations, and competing on a major scale with their "black funding programs". the other use is a high tech extension of the "pinkerton dossier system" of law enforcement. by being able to lay hands on the habits of all, if they ever become a pain in the @zz, i have dirt to use as leverage. i can blackmail you, destroy your marriage, get you fired, discredit you in hundreds of ways. if i need to, i can shut you up, or make you tell lies. i can use you to get to somebody else you know. i can get you to "rat". i can get you to "play ball". it's a legacy of j edgar hoover. the final use is "defining effective spin". by knowing what floats your boat, and what raises your hackles, i can mold situations to get you to support, or condemn. this doesn't even require me to specifically ID you, i just need the data points to be unique to you.

  41. Pysmythe

    Sold my stack long ago. My public days are over. But I've got a little kick ass Peavey Vyper sitting right here next to me. Wanna head to the Washington Mall and bang out 'Jesus Built My Hot Rod' until it drives all the tourists crazy? Actually, I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out why there aren't about 5 million severely pissed off people permanently camped out there right now, but that's another story, I reckon.

  42. dewflirt

    You'll be on cctv from your home to the cafe, unless you have a teleporter :)

  43. Harry Nutzack

    panem et circenses explains the lack of the 5 million. they'd miss "dancing with the stars"

  44. Pysmythe

    Exactly. Or Honey Boo Boo, goddamnit. Maybe someday...? Seems to me if you could get all these different factions, from baggers to hippies, on the same side of some critical issues, the corporate news whores would at least have a harder time playing the division card.

  45. Cracker122049

    Lenny,I sure hope that you don't think that this is all Osama's idea what is happening to this country today.It was started way before Osama came on the scene!Perhaps you need to do a bit more research before accusing me of playing into any thing.If anyone has been played it is you.Unless you are very old ,which I'll bet you are not,this started before you were even born.But it is nice to see that at least aware that things are going wrong.

  46. Pysmythe

    And that is exactly why our government is beholden to whatever these bastards want to do, and why that lying prick Alexander is one of the most powerful men on the planet. Did you ever read any of James Bamford's books?

  47. terrasodium

    I ask in all seriousness, where did you get that idea?

  48. Wayne Siemund

    The problem is, Iran does not have a long history of freedom of speech and that weighs heavily on the believability of Iranian TV.
    Supporting this condition are reporters who use half truths and personal bias in their presentations.

    They appear to be no different than the corporate news of the US.
    Until they fix this no one can take them too seriously.
    This blame documentary tends to fall on deaf ears.

  49. mrmikemrmike

    "Iran does not have a long history of freedom of speech", really? Please cite your sources.

  50. Pysmythe

    Right on. I've read a little bit about that kind of thing. Seems like that's the major difficulty, simply getting enough people willing to do the little bit it takes to make it work efficiently. If mesh is anything like the infamous Tor browser, the more people who used it, the better it would respond.

  51. Harry Nutzack

    therein lies the rub. both extremes make all issues so incredibly personal. even debate is completely stifled. dare to diverge, and be branded "red menace" by the right, and "corporo-fascist lackey" by the left. point out revisionism and hypocrisies by either, and risk random roadside vivisection. i sincerely believe both extremes desire the division, if only to avoid a perception of having "sold out" to their equally rabid peers

  52. Harry Nutzack

    never even heard of bamford. my favorite example of the "pinkerton method" at work is former NY governor elliot spitzer. after decades of faithfully serving the machine, he dared buck it by suggesting some on wall street be held criminally liable for our economic collapse. suddenly his taste in high priced DC call girls became "must see TV". i can imagine what other sword of damacles they mentioned was dangling over his bald pate to inspire him to abdicate his throne, lol. the same system was how dillinger was eventually set up for execution in that alley (they blackmailed "the lady in red" with deportation for her convictions related to prostitution, and though she cooperated fully, deported her anyway). those dossiers kept hoover in command of the fbi from its inception, until the day he died near 5 decades later. pinkerton taught him well, it would seem

  53. Pysmythe

    When this whole Snowden thing broke, a few days later I started checking out some of the comments on Yahoo articles about it, fully prepared to be grimly pissed off yet again. I don't know if you're aware, but my guess is about 80% of the posters over there are pretty hardcore conservatives (flag, beer, deer grills, bibles, bad spelling, and pretty much screw gay and women's rights), so I was very surprised to find out how overwhelming the support for Snowden's actions was. I can honestly say that it had to be very close to 90-95% approval after a couple of hours of browsing all those comments. So... what makes me a little curious is that at the very same time I'm reading all this from THESE people (the enemy!), the mainstream news (msnbc, no less) is telling me that something like 56% of Americans don't have a problem at all with this level of surveillance... Now, I'm not a math whiz, but something about that seems a little bit off, because the lib sites I frequent far more often probably have even higher percentages in favor of Snowden. So, like, what rancid butthole did they yank this number out of, from polling 56% of the goddamned Heritage Foundation? I know it's a dream, that it'll probably never happen, but if we COULD somehow set aside some of our political differences, I believe it's possible we could get at least SOMETHING major done, say, one big ticket item we could all agree on, for a start. Some kind of common ground. But, whichever it might turn out to be, like a lot of people were saying back when Occupy was in full swing, I really do feel it needs to be taken to the Mall in Washington, as well (in the hundreds of thousands), just like all those Egyptians have taken it right back to the Square in Cairo. Make it a scene so big, it couldn't possibly be brushed aside... or spun much. And if the U.S. decided to "call in the drones," or approximations thereof, etc., and show its true colors regarding peaceful (if boisterous and passionate) demonstrating against the status quo, and a more healthy democracy, hell, it ain't like anyone anywhere would be surprised by that, is it?

  54. Harry Nutzack

    the thing is, you really can't lay too much credence at the feet of web rants, no matter which set of cranks spew them. yahoo is indeed a hotbed of conservatism to the extreme, but had those same revelations come forth during the bush presidency, the idea would be praised to no end there. i honestly believe the poll numbers, as the majority of america really has no clue whatsoever. so long as they are told "it's a method to find THEM...", no matter who "THEM" is, they are perfectly fine with anything, up to mandatory proctological examination.

    take a peek at what happened when Occupy was in full swing. the protestors pretty much castigated those who were universally seen as villains. even the most foam flecked lips of the right wing find the monetary parasites as contemptible as a "black bloc" anarchist would. but, because the protest mostly involved "IPhone hipsters", and was portrayed by the bobble heads of Fox as some form of "red plot to pollute our fair country with neo-leninist indoctrination", those from the right viewed it as absolute heresy. the message no longer matters, the demographics are all that count.

    now, let's carry that a touch further, and imagine we somehow managed to gather left, right, and centrist together in "common cause". then the specter of dilution of message rears its ugly head. the various cranks of both extremes would attempt to use the venue as a bully pulpit for their pet peeves to the point of the core protest being lost in the shuffle. the "god back into our government" contingent would spew hellfire. the "we're here, we're queer" contingent would try to make it all about gay marriage. the "2nd amendment nutters" would be displaying arms and scowling at all. the "gaian tree huggers" would be holding mock funerals for pine cones. add a pinch of "tealiban", and a dash of "black bloc", and the result is (on the great id10t box, at least) an incohesive mish mash of cranks competing for "face time", bickering amongst themselves, and eventually a free for all brawl. by highlighting the discord, the networks are able to spin "the valiant jack booted thugs grudgingly wading in to restore order". it's the formula that allowed "occupy" to be portrayed so poorly, but with the "added bonus" of polar opposites at each others throats.

    our culture has become one of "me first drama queens" on all sides. NOBODY can restrain themselves from pontificating on their individual "over-arching problem". the successful mass protests in our history were the result of the entire body of protestors staying "on message". that's what won civil rights, that's what shut down the viet nam war. the only protests where that happens anymore are single issue, homogenous body ones.

  55. TheDanishViking

    Fair enough. But back to the technical details. It was recently revealed that Facebook provides the NSA with user-information all the time. And so do the telecommunication companies. So why dont we just ask the polticans to make a law that says that private companies cannot pass information on to the NSA? Sure, they might do it anyway but that would be a start, right?
    Also, for a good laugh see this one on the Guardian homepage:
    just one quote: " ...our highest-held principle of upholding and defending the constitution and respecting civil liberties and privacy..."

  56. Harry Nutzack

    facebook is in the business of sharing user info, it's the only thing that actually generates income for the site. our pols are kept in line by the "pinkerton dossier system". the "dirt" gathered on them is used to control their actions. if they were to stand against the dirt gatherers, they could just kiss their careers good bye. look at elliot spitzer (former NY governor). our political system is "machine politics" at its worst. membership in that "club" is only allowed to those who can be controlled, with that control provided by heaps of dirty laundry that will be aired if they ever "go rogue". the telecomms are licensed by that corrupt system. what you envision as a solution would be a formula for all of those involved to lose their bread and butter.

    the pols will pay lip service to "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" after holding closed door meetings to "sort the issue out". the citizenry will go back to their bread and circuses, content that their elected reps are working with their best interests as a priority. the small minority of dissatisfied dissidents will engage in the group masturbation of "social media activism", and be satisfied they have done their bit to "save the world" while sipping a starbucks latte.

  57. Imightberiding

    Although this doc did not present anything the majority of us are not already aware of, I found this to be very interesting & thought provoking. Unfortunately it also provokes my frustration, anger & blood pressure.

    The hypocrisy of the U.S., Britain & the West on the whole is nothing less than criminal & never ceases to disgust me. Grrrrrrr! Ahhhhgg!

  58. TheDanishViking

    He he... Obviously you are not a big fan of the activists.:-)
    I watched "Client9" the other day. I agree - great doc.
    US is facing a cross-roads these years with respect to balancing the
    power between the politicians, the so-called "military-industrial
    complex" and the banks. Again and again your politicians seem to lose
    the battle and, I guess for this reason, many Americans are growing very
    cynical about US politics.
    For example, remember when Obama ran for
    president the first time? He made the huge mistake of announcing that
    he was going to shut down Guantanamo. Nothing happened - they could have
    moved the camp and given the inmates blue jumpsuits instead of orange.
    In that way at least the president could have saved face. But they
    didn't even do that. Because they don't have to. Just shows you who are
    in charge in this constant "war on terror".
    So I understand your
    negative attitude, but I honestly do not see any other way than keep
    pushing the politicians in the right direction ... even though I know it
    sounds naive.
    So here is my proposal:
    "No internet company,
    including Facebook, Google, the telecommunication companies or banks, can
    share or store user-information without a signed permission from each
    specific user." Pretty simple, right?!;-)

  59. Aleksandar Daic

    It is sad that for your money income is = side you choose...are you kidding with me? You think that if for example I work as a janitor in public school I should defend Minister of education? Or if I work for Coca Cola, which is a USA company, I should support USA forign policy? Don't be silly...

  60. Harry Nutzack

    your machine identifies itself as an individual, no matter where you use it. if you use any "sterile machine" (library, internet cafe, mission specific laptop, etc) to connect to any unique account you have already been associated with, you have identified yourself. i can think of a few techniques that would allow one to exploit public wifi spots that would be horrifically inconvenient, and would still not allow you to do much else but post to "sterile accounts". unless you are actually engaging in some mischief, that really is no viable option. if you ever slip up and use a "dirty" method to contact the "sterile" spots (even a single spot, a single time), you have just thrown your effort on the bonfire.

    but, be honest with yourself now, do you actually do ANYTHING on the net that would interest the gov? they aren't going to "round up" folks for watching al jazeera docs. they aren't going to flag you for surveillance over expressions of dissatisfaction. for the overwhelming majority of us, the worst case scenario is our opinions are used to quantify how to "construct spin" to influence our decisions. otherwise that electronic dossier of activity just gathers cobwebs, waiting for the day you actually graduate from "grumbling drone" to "national security risk" (or method to get to one).

    i have a natural curiosity that has led me to use the web to collect info on subjects that i am certain have raised numerous "flags". i have never tried in any way to "hide my tracks" in doing so. the "flags" would, without a doubt, be well deserved from their perspective. i also have a history that would warrant suspicion over those flags. yet no black helicopters follow me. no sedans laden with "men in black" sniff at my boot heels. no government entity of any kind disturbs my tranquil status of "unimportant herb". nor will they ever. i don't advocate activity that could be perceived as a threat, quite the opposite. i don't disseminate potentially dangerous info to cranks, malcontents, and nut jobs, quite the opposite. i don't personally associate with folks that do either, not out of fear, just personal taste. if my checkered provenance is so innocuous as to pass muster, the vast majority in this country are absolutely "under the radar" and always will be.

  61. spikebat

    I got your joke........thought it was killer....

  62. terrasodium

    Re February 13 2003 Fox news v, Akre (whistle blower reporter}

    In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals
    court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does
    not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a
    "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to
    report honestly.
    edit ,,, the "you" I mentioned was a generalized we them me , everyman type "you"

    There is no law that says news media must report the truth, and if media pulls out a ratio of 6 out 10 people are ok with the state of surveillance it would indicate that if you are on the fence and not into research that you'll be in the majority and safe in your non-stance repeating of said poll results ,,,AKA Edward Bernays PR tactic #23 .... 6 out of 10 prefer.............non- decision accepted ... most folk will proceed to power down processor and maintain sleep mode

  63. terrasodium

    Harry , give me an address and I'll send you an entire case of "good food" that you previously confessed to enjoy in an earlier post(laughed with empathetic comprehension) for special occasions , I believe your insight and ability to convey them so effectively deserves a promotion to a moniker of the simpler, more sale able media ready pen name , I'd like to suggest the pen name , Ballfro

    edit; was considering changing mine to Mudfizz

  64. terrasodium

    The mentioning of mesh networks was not to hide any identifications for nefarious or malicious intent of uses of the net , the mesh will open and keep open a medium of communication exchange without reliance on a central hub(s) and avoid potential shutdowns of a hub(s) (remote possibility of ,but still plausible) and put the link capabilities in individual ,readily available personal devices that are already in hand and on most desktop, most will need no hardware mods to achieve moderate successful com links, anything shy of an e m p event would not disrupt the network.

  65. Pysmythe

    Yes, I vaguely remember hearing something about that at some point, and I know Fox has not been allowed to broadcast in Canada due to its "inability" to accurately report the news, although someone on this site said a while back that that may be about to change. I haven't been naive enough for a good long while now to believe any of the major news outlets don't work from an agenda, but I would have expected just a little more honesty from msnbc regarding these poll numbers. And, indeed, perhaps they were being truthful. Maybe those numbers weren't skewed, somehow. But over at Yahoo, the posters were not only ranting about Obama, but a nearly equal number were raising all kinds of hell about Bush, too. They were essentially calling both out as two sides of the same coin, with Obama taking a lot of well-deserved flak for being ANYTHING BUT a President who has increased transparency, which, of course, was one of his great big bullsh-t campaign promises, as it has turned out. For example, you'd find a statement like "Both Bush and Obama have undermined our rights. Bush was about as bad as a st-pid man can be, and Obama is being about as bad as a smarter one can. So which do you think could be worse?" And then you wouldn't find more than 1 or 2 coming to Bush's defense in 10 or 12 replies, and the like versus dislike count would read about 700 up, and 5 down. I saw this over and over again, this harsh criticism of both presidents, and was quite surprised by it on those sites. That's why I suspect those polls are "inaccurate," and that both sides of this extremely politically polarized country have more in common than they usually realize, or want to admit to. Probably MOST people are aware, to one degree or another, that both are just playing us against one another in the service of their own interests, their own elites, which in this country amounts to ONE monied and powerful entity, to all intents and purposes... whatever song and dance they do on social issues, for example. The people of this country have come together in the past in enough numbers to effect great changes, and I'm confident that they COULD do so again, but also that they had better hurry. I don't have much surplus money, myself, and I'm still raising young children, so I can't really afford to hang out at the national Mall with a placard all by myself. But if and when protesters, from both sides, start turning up there (or in New York) on issues that I can agree with, I will figure out a way to join them.

  66. Pysmythe

    Ballfro, lol. What about H. Ballzack, since he writes so well, and with such obvious joie de vivre?

  67. Pysmythe

    A poster over at AlterNet put up these percentages from a poll conducted by Newsmax that I thought you might be interested in. On the whole, I agree with you that there really isn't anything for the ordinary citizen to worry about, but it's the potential inherent in the programs that irks me, that option of "connecting the dots" that could be used to make Eliot Spitzers out of any one of us, should someone feel the need arise.

    Do you believe that former NSA employee Edward Snowden is a hero or traitor?

    Yes, he is a hero - 24,429(66%)

    Yes, he is a traitor - 12,268(33%)

    Is it acceptable for the NSA to spy on Americans to stop terrorism?

    Yes, acceptable - 9,434(24%)

    No, not acceptable - 28,794(75%)

    Do you trust President Barack Obama and his administration to oversee the NSA's spying activities?

    Yes - 3,505(9%)

    No - 34,889(90%)

    If you had a choice between more spying and less terrorism, or less spying but greater privacy, which would you choose?

    More spying, less terrorism - 8,734(22%)

    Less spying, more privacy - 29,440(77%)

  68. dmxi

    what is 'fiefdom of speech '....a typo or a play of the word thiefdom ?

  69. systems1000

    Then lets take it one step farther. Most like to grandstand by critizing the top of our food chain just as long as we are smug in the fact that said criticism will not get us fired,or worse.

  70. GiMiK

    do you understand how to use google? look it up.

  71. illuminatilizardperson

    I could suggest an experiment for you to try; stand in the middle of a public square in Tehran, with a sign that has a cartoon depiction of Mohamed, and holler, " Mohamed was a liar, and and a fornicator. Allah was simply a delusion created by his sick mind!", and collect the resultant data. Good luck.


    Yeah and for that we should send someone over there with millions of dollars and have them start a revolution to replace their Democratically elected officials with our selected puppet regime ? Oh you say their elections are not fair and rigged? So what were going to do is okay ... okay then i'm almost done watching storage wars Florida edition and some sucker paid $500 for a locker full of missing voter shades, LOL

  73. oQ

    It is appropriate to say Where is Waldo?
    Are you ok? Too busy or just fed up with TDF?
    Your comments were always appreciated by the number of Like.

  74. Joshua Marks

    Excellent review of recent fronts in the battle for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the many manifestations this battle expresses itself in - journalist deaths and threats, corporate and international legalities, plutocratic control, and political hegemony.

    "Someone" is clearly afraid of open and diverse channels of expression and freedom of thought.

  75. Fabien L'Amour

    Interesting but I can't help but puzzle if American, British, French, German and Spanish channels are available in Iran...

  76. mrmikemrmike

    Really... You can try that in Time Square too. It could get interesting. Or you could yell "Fire" in a theater.
    C'mon now, really. Just for asking to cite a source on LONG TIME history. Hmmm... Pretty sad. Yet understandable from any creature with a forked tongue.

  77. Fabien L'Amour

    Any packet your computer sends has an IP address, they can locate where it came from then they could require or hack camera surveillance footage at that location or set up surveillance there if they think you will return. They could also require the IP you used to register that free email to try to locate you. They can also try to send you an email you will open with a bugged 1 pixel image in it to try to locate you. It's a lot of work so unless you are suspected of planning a serious crime, I doubt they would bother. It took a while to locate the murderer that hacked his gay lover to pieces then posted the video of the murder. If you are on the run, stay offline and use cash...

  78. bluetortilla

    Great expose!
    The most chilling line came at the end when the dapper gentleman suggested the powers that be may even get control over the Internet. Just before he said I was thinking dumbly, 'well, Press TV can at least stream its news. Heck, I don't even own a TV.' The Internet, as we speak, is by far the greatest revolution in disseminating information. Better learn as much as you can now!

    The coolest thing about this (aside from opening with an article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is that we (or at least I) can sense from the attitudes and speech the first wedges challenging the current world balance that is dominated by an imperial U.S. and a supportive Western Europe. Muslims, Hispanics, Africans, and Asians will all have stronger and stronger voices from now on, not out of the use of terror or through wars that cannot be won, but by sheer demographics and an unstoppable economic rise. No one can predict government in the future, but it doesn't seem likely at alll that we will continue to dominated by the will of a single corrupt nation.

    It is no secret that mass media news has been nothing but blatant propaganda from the very beginning. Believing in what the news tells you and/or reacting emotionally to it may make you appear to be extremely stupid, but the sad fact is that most of us are quite simply brainwashed automaton freedom wannabes like Wilson Smith. People, out of fear, just don't get the truth that living by your principles- especially in the face of danger- is the only way you will ever have life.

  79. Gita

    Please please don't let them deceive you with this propaganda. I'm an Iranian. For now I'm not going to discuss the continuous organized ignoring of even the most basic aspects of human rights in this country. I just address the subject mentioned here. You should know that one of the usual ordinary duties of the police force here is to actually invade people's houses to confiscate or destroy their satellite dishes and other related devices. And as if it is not enough we are subject to the relentless invasion of parasites and satellite jamming which you may know are really dangerous, harmful and unhealthy. In conditions like this it would be a sad joke for Iranian politicians to rant about human rights and freedom of speech and such! By the way, whatever happened to some of the Iranian governmental satellite channels (the subject matter of this doc) was not political at all. It was just due to some financial and legal obstacles resulting from the international sanctions on Iran which prevented international companies all around the world from having commercial relationships with Iran. Don't let these sensationalist dirty tricks fool you.

  80. Derek Seymour

    good to know! Freedom of speech is our right!

  81. Black Scholar

    America is a Police State; We are a TOTALITARIANISM COUNTRY

    Keep living you'll see;

  82. Bilbo Bagginski

    Given that it's a culture with a tradition that spans across the last 7,000 years... I'd hate to be the one to bring it to your attention that at least a nice chunk of those years, probably longer than your country's been around, had been full off free speech. Call me crazy, but I find the western approach to world's history... shallow. Imagine a place... outside of your country, where people had more freedoms than you... and still do. Unreal innit?

  83. Loxley Smithett

    This is bogus...if Iran wants to be treated as equal in the global community, the country should consider reading UN Human Rights and following the Charter. Iran is not secular and the message they broadcast is not objective.

  84. kevin hayes

    Ok let me get this straight, some islamic fundamentalist woman in a patriarchal oppression headscarf is going to school me on free speech? You gotta be kidding me right? Why doesn't she get real, and school me on real things islamic, like why many islamic men are homosexual pedophiles and why thats acceptable to her?

Leave a comment / review: