This story hasn't had a lot of press, but the US recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Basically it allows the army (that's right, the army, not the police) to detain any US citizen it believes a threat to national security.
If the US keeps going down this path, the implications for PR are huge.
PR relies completely on free speech. Without it, PR is not PR, it's nothing more than propaganda - messaging approved by the powers that be and nothing else is permitted.
The fact that so few media outlets are covering this story really makes you wonder just how free the media are any more (or if the major outlets are too close to the people they are reporting on). The good news though is that it's nearly impossible to kill free speech at this point because of the Internet, so even if mainstream outlets play down stories, those seeking out information will find it if they look online.
Yet, with SOPA ready to pass (the Stop Internet Piracy Act) in the US, one has to wonder how much longer the Internet will be free from the control of politicians. The Act essentially allows the government to dictate to ISPs what sites they would like shut down. Now, technically this power is only suppose to be used in cases where Internet piracy is unfolding, but realistically, once you open pandora's box you can't really go back.
Once the processes are in place, it will be very simple to start requesting sites be shut down for other reasons such as unpopular political views and opinions. Will the ISP's vet every request? And what if the government kicks them some favourable legislation on the business end in return for them loosely interpreting SOPA and simply adopting the policy of shutting down any site the gov requests without challenging the request?
In an Orwellian future, PR would become a drastically different beast. Instead of being the vehicle through which ideas are spread, it would become much more about ensuring that an organization is not saying anything that might get it in trouble with the government. PR would become far more about ensuring that messaging is in-line with what the powers that be want to hear and which they deem acceptable.
We aren't there yet, but the legal obstacles that have prevented this to date have been removed, so the danger now exists. It's scary to think of a future where that's the role of PR, to serve the empire if you will.
I can say if it ever comes to that, it's not a career I would continue to be a part of.
PR should in one way or another be about inspiring the world to move forward towards a better, more dynamic future.
It should never be employed in the service of some dictatorial framework for controlling society.
Should they deem you a threat (or suspect you to have any connections with anyone who might be a threat) they can bust down your door at three in the morning, swoop you up, take you away to some detention center and hold you indefinitely. You get no access to a lawyer, no day in court, nothing. You will simply disappear.
Not sure what the US laws are right now regarding torture, but you can be assured interrogation will be part of your stay.
Not sure what the US laws are right now regarding torture, but you can be assured interrogation will be part of your stay.
Anyway, I found this ad that MTV is running interesting. Government should take note that the youth don't buy in to this 'you have to be my master to keep me safe' baloney.
If the US keeps going down this path, the implications for PR are huge.
PR relies completely on free speech. Without it, PR is not PR, it's nothing more than propaganda - messaging approved by the powers that be and nothing else is permitted.
The fact that so few media outlets are covering this story really makes you wonder just how free the media are any more (or if the major outlets are too close to the people they are reporting on). The good news though is that it's nearly impossible to kill free speech at this point because of the Internet, so even if mainstream outlets play down stories, those seeking out information will find it if they look online.
Yet, with SOPA ready to pass (the Stop Internet Piracy Act) in the US, one has to wonder how much longer the Internet will be free from the control of politicians. The Act essentially allows the government to dictate to ISPs what sites they would like shut down. Now, technically this power is only suppose to be used in cases where Internet piracy is unfolding, but realistically, once you open pandora's box you can't really go back.
Once the processes are in place, it will be very simple to start requesting sites be shut down for other reasons such as unpopular political views and opinions. Will the ISP's vet every request? And what if the government kicks them some favourable legislation on the business end in return for them loosely interpreting SOPA and simply adopting the policy of shutting down any site the gov requests without challenging the request?
In an Orwellian future, PR would become a drastically different beast. Instead of being the vehicle through which ideas are spread, it would become much more about ensuring that an organization is not saying anything that might get it in trouble with the government. PR would become far more about ensuring that messaging is in-line with what the powers that be want to hear and which they deem acceptable.
We aren't there yet, but the legal obstacles that have prevented this to date have been removed, so the danger now exists. It's scary to think of a future where that's the role of PR, to serve the empire if you will.
I can say if it ever comes to that, it's not a career I would continue to be a part of.
PR should in one way or another be about inspiring the world to move forward towards a better, more dynamic future.
It should never be employed in the service of some dictatorial framework for controlling society.
Comments
Post a Comment