Securing views Berg

Democracy is a complicated solution. Not only are there so many people are allowed to think, but it is also true that all those who think the "wrong" can think what they do with impunity. Not only that, freedom of speech also means that they also may express their "wrong" opinions, again with complete impunity. Now, however, we have a decent majority who agree with Churchill that democracy is the least bad of all the governance of a country and democracy without freedom of speech is actually a sham democracy. Without freedom of speech - no real democracy!

Press Subsidies exist to protect freedom of expression. 1965, the state subsidize the press to ensure that the press is still there and slow down the development of newspapers that had begun. The directives to the latest report (Press Committee 2004 - report published as SOU 2006:8) regards press subsidies can be read that you should include:

The starting point for our work has been that the system of government
of representative democracy will be deepened and strengthened. According to
Committee believes it is the function of the system of government
not enough that citizens be guaranteed basic democratic
rights such as freedom of expression, information and freedom of the press.
A vital and necessary form of government advocacy requires
that citizens have access to and an active part of forums such as
keeping the following three tasks: 1) information task; task
to provide citizens with information to allow the free and
can independently take a stand on social issues, 2) review the task;
the task of acting as autonomous agents, and review
that public power exercised under the law, and 3) forum task;
task to have different opinions and cultural expressions
be heard. From this perspective, play the media a
central role in our democratic system. The state should work to
mass media market conditions are such that citizens
can be given access to a variety of media which fulfill the three
mentioned tasks.
The Committee believes that newspapers still play a
very important role in empowering people to stay
informed about and involved in issues of importance to society
and that there is no reason to believe that the daily press
importance in this regard will be reduced for the foreseeable future.
The subscribers to the daily press is and will be a major source
for citizens to inform themselves and participate in an on state system
important and vital advocacy.

So if the press subsidies intended to ensure a diversity of opinions within the framework of freedom of expression, it feels outright hypocritical to speak out when you do not like the advice. A requirement in law must also be some kind of predictability and equal treatment principle. One can not deny certain classes of speech, or treat them differently just because they represent views that differ sharply from one's own. Yes, even undemocratic opinions must be able to be expressed in a true democracy. Otherwise it will be a "majority dictatorship".

The conclusion: either you agree to Journal of the support with transparent principles, which may also lead to political extremism can get press support (but therefore also come under the microscope and could be held guilty of an offense in the observations, which might have passed unnoticed in the context of the smaller editions lack of press support had led to) or you feel like you press subsidy is a political dinosaur that outlived its usefulness and should be killed before it submits to more misery.

I can highly recommend reading one of the reservations on the report from the Press Committee 2004 (SOU 2006:8), see page 433 of Birgit Friggebo (fp) and Mats Johansson (m)

It is not the job of the state, with about half a billion a year by
taxpayers' favor certain private media on the expense of others.
To cover the cost of privately owned media production should be on a
högkommersiell competitive market may be a matter between
producer and consumer.

and

Although diversity argument can as media explosion
considered obsolete. There is no shortage of diversity in opinion forming
in the Swedish public debate as a whole, as this study also
states (p. 140):
In view of the computerization of society and the increasing scope
of the Internet appears nowadays costs for an individual to
publish and distribute information electronically as affordable.
From a cost perspective, it would no longer be any
real obstacle to the individual to be heard and reach out to a large
number of people. Profession formalization of the media also means that today's reality
is different from the support the launch. Today deleted
news work for a long time from other values ​​than during the time
particularly the Social Democratic newspapers were politically oriented.
The documented left dominance in the press corps
and the political correctness conformism is in this sense an
more diverse problems than ownership.

Undoubtedly, the fact is that there are trends in words and expressions. The word "man" as an impersonal euphemism for "I" was a long one I hung up on me. Now rife with mischief "I feel" as a substitute for "I do". Why this? One can be held accountable for what they think but not what you know. Is it so simple that it is expressing the same thing: A cowardice to which items stand for what you do and think?