In the U.K., the history of regulation, certainly regulation of the media, is one in which, time and again, successive governments lacked the 'bottle' to enforce the powers that were available to them.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not a big fan of regulation: anyone who likes freedom of the press can't be.
The media is comparable to government-probably passes government in raw power.
Our existing media system today is the direct result of government laws and subsidies that created it.
The rules are all wrong today. The mandate of the media really does pre-date the founding of the United States.
Unfortunately, the media, which are not at all reluctant to act in their own self-interest, have succeeded in equating reform in the public mind with further restrictions on just about everyone else's freedom of political speech.
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
Thinking about free speech brought me to media regulation, as Americans access so much of their political and cultural speech through mass media. That led me to work on the FCC's media ownership rules beginning in 2005 to fight media consolidation, working with those at Georgetown's IPR, Media Access Project, Free Press, and others.
I have a very specific definition of censorship. Censorship must be done by the government or it's not censorship.
Regulation is necessary, particularly in a sector, like the banking sector, which exposes countries and people to a risk.
Wikipedia has experienced censorship at the hands of industry groups and governments, and we are - increasingly, I think - seeing important decisions made by unaccountable, non-transparent corporate players, a shift from the open web to mobile walled gardens, and a shift from the production-based Internet to one that's consumption-based.
No opposing quotes found.