The case around the statements Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, is conducive to rescue an important theoretical debate in the field of view. We begin by noting that the idea of \u200b\u200bopinion is initially associated with the Latin expression opinio, which refers more to an idea into action. In this sense, the sense of opinion is closer a form of perception of reality. There is a 2nd way to understand, which is associated to a question moral or custom, in this circumstance the opinion is a form of social pressure. The liberal thinker John Locke, was the one who pointed out that the opinion rather than a form of knowledge is a mechanism of social approval or censure.
On the other hand, we find the idea of \u200b\u200bthe public, which as is well known is also the product of the liberal revolution. Before the bourgeois revolutions, given from the British Liberal Revolution of Cromwell in the seventeenth century, the only truly public was the sovereign, the King. Other subjects of society under the old regime were not public, hence the category of subjects. Will be the revolution of liberal thought which enter and merge the idea of \u200b\u200bpublicus, which is a Latin derivation of populus, meaning "the people." Public opinion was associated with the idea of \u200b\u200bdisseminating ideas, thus building a representation where the debate of ideas should escape state control, and thus is socially acceptable to talk to the defense of freedom of expression is ensured by the limited control that they have state structures on the instruments - newspapers, magazines, other-information. This will confuse the one hand freedom of expression and freedom of information. Freedom of expression is a philosophical principle of freedom from point of view of the human condition, but the liberal doctrine itself began to discuss the need to establish accountability to the expression of thought. It was not possible to accept, given the interests of companies that bought the press, especially in the late nineteenth century and throughout the course of the twentieth century, freedom of expression without any responsibility on other key issues such as ethics and morality.
Around the freedom of information, is associated increasingly with the expansion of the public sphere and increasing citizen participation, but this tip to confuse one another. Freedom of expression freedom of information has limitations that derive from ethical considerations. They can express opinions lightly, particularly around the discussion of the political agenda without a decisive test of the claims made. This is crucial in the debate on the public agenda and political agenda that happens in our country. It is common to observe how the media - print, audiovisual, and journalists or opinion makers, issue statements full of irresponsible and do it shielded in freedom of thought, which was - and is-a substantial principle of democracy. But it should be pointed out that freedom of thought must be sustained over liability in the nature of the statement "We can not simply support the issue of a set of concepts and categories without any validity or theoretical or practical strength. In the case of Alvarez Paz, has the right to express a way of seeing the reality of the country, but when it happens to make allegations that have legal implications, should be accompanied by evidence. I can not, lightly, use this space to charge someone unless it is able to prove what I said. To do otherwise is a great responsibility. What happened is another occasion to generate a debate on freedom of expression and information in our country. And I say that is an occasion more, as what happened with the termination of the concession to RCTV was another time. The debate, as now, focused on that medium is the representation of freedom of expression and information, when both are characteristic of the human condition. Can not confusing
followed an argument that arose from the eighteenth century as a defense against the enormous power of the state before the public. It is at that moment, where is the idea that print media - newspapers, are the epicenter of the right to information, but at the time when there were still huge obstacles to the consolidation of political rights was understandable that argument, but today three ( 3) centuries later, where dynamics are so many different channels of participation so varied, can not continue arguing about trivia. As is well known, Article 57 and 58 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic, establishing the right to express their ideas with the responsibilities required, and it is precisely this limitation which is under discussion with the Alvarez case Peace.
Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment