Sunday, February 18, 2007
Transfer Orange Voicemail To Computer
The Constitution of Colombia is clear ...
Interpretation in Wonderland Jorge Orlando Melo
The Constitution is clear: even if they threaten public order, economic stability or personal honor, you can not use censorship.
Until 1991 the Colombian constitutions recognized the freedom of press, but left a gap that would restrict it. A long history of censorship in 1991 meant that seek to avoid it altogether. The government project Gaviria said "It prohibits censorship" and explained, to reduce the risks of interpretation or misrepresentation, "the exercise of freedom of expression shall not be subject to prior checks but later responsibilities in order to avoid economic panic, protect life, privacy, dignity, personal honor and public order. "
Constituents Alberto Zalamea, Augusto RamÃrez Ocampo, Misael Pastrana Borrero and others were clear: there should be no censorship. The proposal that the government could establish a limited time to avoid economic panic, or other serious cases, was rejected. Finally, the Framers adopted a formula sharp and clear, that they thought would prevent any prior restraint of information: "There will be no censorship." And to suppress and punish the evil that could occur was established following a proposal of the constituent Zalamea, that the media have "a social responsibility."
Thus, our Constitution is clear: anyone can publish anything to prohibit, in any case. Any ban or condition is a form of censorship and violates the constitution. But as journalists are not saints, and potentially affect other rights, individual or social, the law may punish them afterwards. It is as if instead of saying that people do not steal others are hands tied, had said that they steal from another shall be punished.
In the case of other fundamental rights, the letter simply states, without defining how to resolve the conflict that may arise between them. Where those affected are children, said their rights had priority. Left to the legislature or the judges the task of regulating the conflict of rights or to decide in individual cases which had priority. With regard to freedom of expression is not left this possibility even if it endangers public order, economic stability or personal honor, you can not use censorship as a means to protect those rights. Will have to seek other remedies, to establish penalties when journalists violate the rights of others.
The reason for this is that they wanted to defeat a tradition of misrepresentation which had led to legally restrict the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. And he acknowledged, as the paper said in Article 20, freedom of information was the core budget of democracy. Indeed, behind the total rejection of censorship is the idea that this limits the ability for citizens to form their opinions freely and, therefore, undermines the very foundations of democratic participation.
So you have to wonder if when the Constitution says "No censorship" a judge can say, "Yes there will be censorship, when what is published affects the rights of others" or "I shall be no censorship, if it causes economic panic "or" I shall be no censorship, if published incite crime. " In such cases, the judge is saying that the Constitution is wrong to prohibit censorship as bluntly as that, and being corrected, it assumes that it is wiser than she. O claims that when the Constitution says "No censorship" to say "yes there will be censorship, in certain cases." That is, states that the term means the opposite of what anyone reads it.
In Alice in Wonderland, a blighted ovum and presumptuous, Humpty Dumpty, Alice replied, protesting because he uses the terms with a meaning that does not have: "When I use a word, 'said Humpty Dumpty, in a tone of voice rather scornful mean what I say ... no more, no less.
"The question is, 'said Alice," whether you can make words mean so many different things. "
"The question-Humpty Dumpty-settled is who is in charge ... that is all."
The question, it seems, is whether some judges Colombians live in wonderland. Jorge Orlando Melo
Taken from El Tiempo Sunday 18 February/2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment