看看明珠国家的言论自由

问题多

uh.. I was referring to your previous post, and hoped that you could elaborate on how this la ...
UWB 发表于 2010-7-9 20:09

right to freedom of speech is one aspect of human rights.

UWB

right to freedom of speech is one aspect of human rights.
问题多 发表于 2010-7-9 20:12

    com'on. don't give me definition like that. Let me rephrase my question, How is the corporate social responsibility involved in this?..

UWB

and look, as a CNN senior news editor, what you twit (hence can be read by a large audience)  ...
UWB 发表于 2010-7-9 20:11

    let me try to be a bit more specific. She was not just twitting about the passing of anyone, not her uncle or some neighbour down the street.
This particular individual is in fact closely related to her job.

She said later herself, it was poor judgment. She probably could have phrased it differently, like her colleague in the UK. and not to be slaughtered by it afterwards.

问题多

com'on. don't give me definition like that. Let me rephrase my question, How is the corporate ...
UWB 发表于 2010-7-9 20:14

    haven't i already mentioned it?
corporate social responsibility has a large chunk about human rights.

freedom of speech is part of human rights.

therefore, corporate social responsibility also takes care of freedom of speech.

CNN has violated her freedom of speech, because she loses her job for what she said. she only made the comment outside work. she is not on duty when she tweets.

UWB

haven't i already mentioned it?
corporate social responsibility has a large chunk about huma ...
问题多 发表于 2010-7-9 20:21

hey.. i didn't expect just a A belongs to B belongs to C explanation- that's what we the geeks do . I'm sure you know more than that.

and how did you know she made this outside work? she was twitting about her work!

问题多

hey.. i didn't expect just a A belongs to B belongs to C explanation- that's what we the geeks d ...
UWB 发表于 2010-7-9 20:35

i do know more than that, but i have to get paid to write more. hehe.
i wouldn't consider discussing with people outside universities about human rights is my work, even if that is my research area.

UWB

i do know more than that, but i have to get paid to write more. hehe.
问题多 发表于 2010-7-9 21:13

    write first, we can discuss the payment later

柞里子

and look, as a CNN senior news editor, what you twit (hence can be read by a large audience)  ...
UWB 发表于 2010-7-9 20:11

你得先看看合同。如果合同有不能表达与CNN不同的意见，则CCN可以根据合同将她解雇。
当然，这并不是说，CNN就是对的。
这牵涉到另外的问题：CNN是否有，是否应该有这样的雇佣政策？
作为独立新闻媒体，CNN是否有，是否应该有只允许某种报道，不容忍其他报道的政策？
如果有，CNN是否原意公开承认这一点？
如果CNN公开承认这一点，CNN是否还有资格以独立媒体出现？


即使在CNN与此人之间存在这样的合同，也不等于说这样的合同就合法。
合同的合法与否，得以法律来衡量，不是说签署双方自愿签字就一定合法。


认为这人既然是CNN的高级新闻编辑，就没有权利在公众场合表达其个人意见的看法，属于想当然耳。

希望两位都用中文。公摄摄友不懂英文的不乏其人，而且正好可能是很有兴趣于此者。呵呵

问题多

write first, we can discuss the payment later
UWB 发表于 2010-7-9 21:59

   关于公司社会责任和人权的话题，我已经作了一个课题了，也写完了，pay也拿到了。再写还得另付费。嘿嘿

问题多

你得先看看合同。如果合同有不能表达与CNN不同的意见，则CCN可以根据合同将她解雇。
当然，这并不是说，C ...
柞里子 发表于 2010-7-9 22:04

如果她tweet的内容是热烈拥护美国在伊拉克杀人数字又创新高，她不但不会被解雇，而且还有可能拿奖金。

柞里子

如果她tweet的内容是热烈拥护美国在伊拉克杀人数字又创新高，她不但不会被解雇，而且还有可能拿奖金。 ...
问题多 发表于 2010-7-9 22:28

积极支持你们接着掐。
俺只能冒个泡就得走。
俺没合同也得忙。唉唉。什么世道！

问题多

积极支持你们接着掐。
俺只能冒个泡就得走。
俺没合同也得忙。唉唉。什么世道！ ...
柞里子 发表于 2010-7-9 22:32

别乱写啊，交之前送公社书记处政审，通不过就别发表了，总比发表了让人给穿小鞋强，嘿嘿
想想这位女编辑，也是真倒霉，就没有能够用上中国绿霸，否则黑斯巴拉四个字儿肯定没法出去就被敏感词了，还至于为这点事情丢了工作。哎，还是当愚民好啊。

UWB

你得先看看合同。如果合同有不能表达与CNN不同的意见，则CCN可以根据合同将她解雇。
当然，这并不是说，C ...
柞里子 发表于 2010-7-9 22:04

    There is no such thing as unbiased news media.  CNN has its own editorial stance, just like Fox news or NBC or the BBC.
And it's totally pointless to discuss the legal details unless you've actually read the contract signed between Nasr and CNN, and in fact understood what the fine prints meant.

I'm not proficient in the language of your choice. So take it or leave it.

UWB

关于公司社会责任和人权的话题，我已经作了一个课题了，也写完了，pay也拿到了。再写还得另付费。嘿 ...
问题多 发表于 2010-7-9 22:26

    sigh .. not "corporate social responsibility and human rights"! There are plenty of books on that. I'm asking about CSR and the freedom of speech!..
Is it too much of a challenge?

不道

这个事件有两个要点，
第一要点就是“推特”是否构成公开宣扬
第二要点是该编辑的言论是否“政治正确”。

广泛地讨论“言论自由”或者“公司的社会责任与人权”有点太悬空。这个事件如果上述两个要点的任何一个改变了，整个事件都会发生极大的变化，例如，如果该编辑仅仅是在自己的私人笔记或者私下交谈里提及上述观点，或者，她的观点不够边缘，而是赤裸裸地支持某个没有争议的“反动政治”观点，比如种族歧视什么的。。。

你们接着掐。。。