Friday, February 08, 2008
MEDIA PASS AT THE ECMA 2008 ALL HAVE TO DO WITH FREDDOM OF SPEECH!!!!
That's absolutely wrong, not having access to a computer is very much a 'right' specifically for free speech. That's why libraries were the first places to have public access to the internet.
Charles wouldn't need to be supplied with a computer because they are available at the library for free. He got one because people liked what he was doing. However, imagine if libraries DIDNT" have net access, that is a HUGE blow to the rights of free speech of the homeless.
But I don't remember Charles ever saying "I have the right to get a free ticket". What he said, basically, is that they refused his request for one, worse, ignored him, therefore he's using his right of free speech here to essentially say whatever he wants about the issue.
Access to technology is a BIG issue in the human rights arena, you can go to CIGI online and read their paper on how the lack of technology infrastructure is having a hugely detrimental effect on developing nations. This is so important that we are even seeing governments and NGO's investing money into getting computers and net access even to places that aren't even getting adequate food-thats how important it is.
It is very much a rights issue, as the above post says. You can look at any issue from water to energy-when you define rights by only 'who can pay' to get them you aren't talking about human rights, only commerce.
It can easily be argued that Charles 'has a right' to attend. THis is a public exhibition with legislation being written in order to favour the event-thats another word for 'subsidy' on top of any potential taxpayers money that may be going to it. Charles definitely has a unique position in the community, his is virtually the only place where people can access what goes on in the community-people from out of town, people with disabilities, etc.
It's pretty clear that with his camera Charles is doing a public service, the hundreds who come here can attest to that. The situation would be different if, say, there were some other person doing exactly what charles does but perhaps with a little less 'flair', shall we say.
It's about the rights of people to know what goes on in their community. If this were a cayleigh in some guys house, then the argument can be made that its nobodies damn business. However, that's not the case. Government is clearly involved, which means the public has the 'right' to be involved, and in a case like this the only opportunity is through charles (at least to have a historical record-if it were being recorded and put on youtube or something then that would be different).
Besides, all this came about simply because 'they' were too rude to answer an email. If you aren't going to answer your email, don't put the damn link there in the first place, or at least tell Charles to go take a flying leap.
This isn't to bash the ECMA, I have no idea what their reasons are and I am glad such an event exists and would never boycott it no matter what Charles says (although he did even say that others shouldn't boycott it-what a charitable fellow!)