The right of reply

Enough is enough. People who proclaim to fight for freedom of expression and free media but censors other's legitimate reply based on their whims and fancy, must realise that on the internet, they cannot suppress peoples' legitimate right to reply and express contrarian views. This blog welcomes all views. ~ Ellese

Censored write by din

1 Comment

This was one of the many write which was censored by the pompous din merican. For your information I had edited a bit especially at the tail end giving a stinging attack on din.

Dear Bean,

Thanks for your respectable write. In return I will reply in kind.

I think I have taken things for granted. I thought the points I raised was a given and was simply rejected because of blind partisanship. You wrote in earnest and in this I think i may have mistaken in not elaborating further earlier.

Now the ban on foreign contributions in domestic politics has become a widespread value. Laws have been enacted in many countries from US, Canada, Japan Spain etc and even India. The values and justification behind these laws are to protect a nation sovereignity and to permit its citizens to select their own leaders. Foreigners should have no right to interfere with a country’s political determination.

These values to me appear sound and reasonable. There’s been instances where foreign companies was involved in determination of chile’s leadership fir example for favorable investment laws and opportunities. See also aftermath of Nixon’s watergate where it was found many US companies do this.

To give example of the extent of a ban please refer to US law Foreign Agent Registration Act and Federal Election Campaign Act. It prohibits any contribution of foreigners in domestic elections whether direct or indirect. A person knowingly accept such contribution commits an offence.
The scope of ban varies. I don’t suggest we go to the extent of India’s but some statement of these values in our laws is reasonable.

So as seen above this is an acceptable value. I think Mahathir makes sense again. Some due partisanship will justify everything for partisanship like some commentators here. I think this is wrong. Thus my earlier statement.

Ps, I’m reblogging here. Please note I started blogging after being persistently denied the right of reply. I’ve been writing a long time without a blog. My current method is I’ll reblog where I think my write will be censored or I think my write is worth mentioning in my blog. Please note that I didn’t reblog all my comments. In any event theres nothing wrong for people to visit you and my site. We cannot be possessive.

Advertisements

One thought on “Censored write by din

  1. This was one of the many write which was censored by the pompous din merican. For your information I had edited a bit especially at the tail end giving a stinging attack on din.

    Dear Bean,

    Thanks for your respectable write. In return I will reply in kind.

    I think I have taken things for granted. I thought the points I raised was a given and was simply rejected because of blind partisanship. You wrote in earnest and in this I think i may have mistaken in not elaborating further earlier.

    Now the ban on foreign contributions in domestic politics has become a widespread value. Laws have been enacted in many countries from US, Canada, Japan Spain etc and even India. The values and justification behind these laws are to protect a nation sovereignity and to permit its citizens to select their own leaders. Foreigners should have no right to interfere with a country’s political determination.

    These values to me appear sound and reasonable. There’s been instances where foreign companies was involved in determination of chile’s leadership fir example for favorable investment laws and opportunities. See also aftermath of Nixon’s watergate where it was found many US companies do this.

    To give example of the extent of a ban please refer to US law Foreign Agent Registration Act and Federal Election Campaign Act. It prohibits any contribution of foreigners in domestic elections whether direct or indirect. A person knowingly accept such contribution commits an offence.
    The scope of ban varies. I don’t suggest we go to the extent of India’s but some statement of these values in our laws is reasonable.

    So as seen above this is an acceptable value. I think Mahathir makes sense again. Some due partisanship will justify everything for partisanship like some commentators here. I think this is wrong. Thus my earlier statement.

    Ps, I’m reblogging here. Please note I started blogging after being persistently denied the right of reply. I’ve been writing a long time without a blog. My current method is I’ll reblog where I think my write will be censored or I think my write is worth mentioning in my blog. Please note that I didn’t reblog all my comments. In any event theres nothing wrong for people to visit you and my site. We cannot be possessive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s