Pros And Cons Of The Printing Press And Publication Act 1984

Throughout the past there have been countless number of innovations, inventions, and discoveries that shaped the human world. One of these magnificent inventions was the Printing Press. A printing press is a machine for printing ink onto a substrate (print medium) such as paper or cloth. The device applies pressure to a substrate that rests on an inked surface made of movable type, then transferring the ink. Usually used for making texts, the invention and the spread of the printing press are widely considered as among the most influential events in human history, revolutionizing the way people look at the world they live in. Without it, we could still be hand writing all the books we have today. The Printing Press was created around the year 1440 by Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (aka Johann Gutenberg). He was a German blacksmith,

In the past, freedom was not being persecuted for having different opinions and it was a new start, where everyone is equal. Freedom wasn’t in most parts of the world; in fact Freedom House showed the statistic of the freedom of the press from 1987 and 2014 and in 1987 fifty-seven percent of the worlds freedom of the press wasn’t free and in 2014 only thirty-two percent of the press wasn’t free. This show that people are learning the importance of freedom

The Press and Publication Act (2048), a new version of the earlier Press and Publication Act (2039), also guaranteed the constitutional freedom of the press. The Gali Beizzati Ain 2016 (such as in article 3 and 8) recognizes freedom of the press. It says that every human being shall enjoy free press, without any discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex etc.

The government can not censor the press, even if what is published is against the government. The free press helps to protect citizens’ rights and hold the government in check. Also in accordance to the First Amendment, people have the right to join any organization of their choosing and come together as a group, peaceably. The last right that the public has is the right to present the government with petitions or letters that tell of their unhappiness and complaints against the government. This is a right that our founding fathers did not have back in England. When they declared independence from the King, they laid out all of their grievances for the world to see. In contrast, our citizens today do no have to wait for a historical event to vent their frustrations.

The history of the world has undoubtedly been dominated by an endless struggle for power. However, after a brief glimpse into the pages of history it should not take long to realize that the trick to maintaining power lies in the control of information. Even the most fearsome military generals of the past acknowledge the power of the mind and ideas over lethal force. Former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once said “… [Ideas] are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, then why should we let them have ideas.” Stalin’s quote personifies the main concept of this literature review which will be discussing the history of government censorship and its effects that are

A multitude of countries and organizations use censorship for various reasons. However something they all have in common is the one providing the censored material does not want the reader or viewer to know something, whether that be the true state of a country or the real history of a matter. Censorship is a constant tug-a-war between two sides for the truth over a subject. This form of restriction can be observed from the early 1900’s to today’s modern times, and can also be seen worldwide in countries that have little to nothing in common.

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property  freedom of press  allows parties who are not currently in power and whose views oppose those of the current in-power party the ability to freely express their views.

He says, “The classical liberal conceptions of free speech and free press may not be enough to produce a fully informed electorate or to redress the social and economic ills that skew public debate. But as a constitutional matter, they remain the single best defense against overweening state.” He also points out the alternative to private control of speech and the media is state control, which will have a deadly consequence as far as freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the accuracy of the reports are concerned. He concludes his report by saying that the civil liberties and rights may be flawed, but they are our only tool in balancing the powers of the government and the

The printing press likewise made its offer of inconvenience the extent that a few people were concerned. It removed book replicating

Expansion of allowed works – The new law permits the use of nearly all types of works, except materials produced and marketed as digital instructional content.

With freedom of speech can come violence, a common reason for nations and governments to deny this right. Some societies, such as Singapore, agree that by enforcing certain laws that abide the government keep said nation “orderly and relatively crime-free” (Reyes, par. 3). Freedom of speech can also mean

First of all, this is the definition of freedom of the press from lawbrain.com. Freedom of the press guarantees the rights, “to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction or restraint”. Also it is

“A free, aggressive, open and bold press is part of the spiritual core of our Democracy”.

Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.

Although by judging solely from the definition, political expression which covers the matters of public interest seems acceptable, it is undeniable that under the Act 10 of the Federal Constitution, clause 2 has stated that the parliament can impose law to restrict the freedom of speech. Such restrictions are said to protect the security of Malaysia, privileges of Parliament and the public order. Besides, Art 10 (4) also stated that the law can restrict the questioning of any matter, status, privilege and sovereignty. InterNations (2014) has also explained that there are also limitations of civil freedoms