It's not just about the social media, it's about the limits of the speech

Statue of Johannes Gutenberg at Strasbourg
(Picture I)  

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/its-not-just-about-social-media-its.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

In the trial against MV-lehti and Ilya Janitskyn, is the question about the right to write about thigs, what would be not tolerated in the old fashion media, and at the same time the court is metering the limits of the writings in social media. And at the same time would somebody looking for the decision about the writer of social media right to use the name "magazine" in their homepages.  But also we are facing the problem of the journalism, what is the very complicated thing.


Normally freedom of speech is meaning, that every person has right to make that kind of writings what he or she wants, but there would be no answer, what to do when if the opinion of the writer is against the opinion of the line of the magazine. And it is problematic because the journalist is in the similar relationship for the employer as the normal worker. So if the employer wants, the content of the text should follow the line of the magazine or media house.


But is the case, where the head journalist wants that the henchman changes the content against freedom of speech? And what to do, if some journalist would make the publications same time in the magazines like MV-lehti, what are actually the social media channels? Here we must also ask another question about the publications like MV-lehti, and that is very complicated: should that channel mention, that there is a "Facebook-style" channel, and would the persons, who own that channel also have the responsibility to moderate the writings, what are published in that media.


And what to do, if some journalist would write to those social media- magazines in their free time.  That means that nothing limits the journalists work when that person is not in the office. The big question is,  would that cause the divorcing if those writings are against the line of the workplace? Those are difficult questions, and there would not be right answers for this kind of things.

Picture I

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Statue_of_Johannes_Gutenberg_on_Place_Gutenberg%2C_Strasbourg.jpg

Why must we have superiority for other persons every time, when something goes wrong?

https://sites.google.com/view/socialbehaviorsandselesteem/etusivu

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/why-must-we-have-superiority-for-other.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When we are thinking about threats, the weak persons would normally treat to another people. Their purpose is to raise their weak self-esteem and inability to talk with other people about threats and violent behavior. Weak persons are unable to hear critics about themselves, and they are also unable to handle social situations. They are normal persons, who would always want to show their superiority to other people, and that means, they are unable to handle the social situation without looking the object downwards. They are always right in every case, and if they are in superior position for other person, they would show that to everybody. Weak persons are always want to talk with superiority and officials, if they are sometimes feel that they are right. 

People with bad self-esteem always call the boss, because they want only to show how important they are. And who cares about the person, who were responsible for the thing, what caused the violent situations. They want to show, how wealthy they are by using expensive jewelry and clothes. And of course those persons want to hear only things, what pleases them. And if the person, who is the target for hate is not even responsible for the thing, what caused the hate is same to those persons. The first thing, what those users of very expensive clothes make is to call the boss in the situation. 

This is the major problem in the everyday life. We all want to hear something, what we like. And if somebody doesn’t please us, we feel angry and hate. Sometimes I have thought that sometimes we are all those persons in expensive clothes. If some young person would make something wrong, we are lower tolerance level than with adult people. When some youngster yells to us, we would feel angry, and then we think that some 15 years old youngster is bad person. We cannot accept the situation, that some bicyclist would make scratches to our car, because this person just drives the cycle beside of our car. 

We want to call this persons parents and then call the police, who would give punishment to that youngster. But when some other adult makes the same thing to our car, we would accept the offer to repaint that piece of damaged painting. But why we must always be so adult, that we want to get some person in the court, because we want to show superiority for that person? Why we ever tell anything to some person self? Why we always must get authority from some official or superiority person, when we have some problems? The law says that we have not to tell anything to the underage person, but is it easier to give punishments behind the back? About need to be superior for other persons is clearly seen the situation, where some handicapped person makes some jobs. 

We want to see that the work, what this person does is somehow worse than our own work. This is the very interesting situation because the persons who are handicapped makes usually the same missions than so-called ”normal workers”, but their salary is normally extremely low. When some underage person would get punishment, would it be better than this person knows the reason for sending behind the bars? This might be the good thing that the person can change the behavior, but the most interesting way to get punishments is that the person would lock in some room, without telling the reason for that. 

And the learning of behavior needs that the person would know, why the punishment would given. This is the only thing, what makes person to understand where the target of the punishment made wrong movement? The philosophy of punishments is that they would be given for some reason. And when the punished person would know the reason, can this person fix the actions or behavior, and this is impossible if that person would not know the reason for punishment. But if the punishment would be automatically given, would that cause the situation, that this person doesn't even care about the behavior. 

If the punishment would come behaves that person good or bad way, would this person lost the care of the behavior. When I sometimes think about the situation, that the person would get punishment without the reason, would this also be the similar situation, that person would not be told about the reason for punishment. In some protective works the policy is, that if some person would not make the jobs well immediately, when this person came to work, the result would be kicking off. And in those cases the reason for kicks is almost ever mentioned to that person.

https://sites.google.com/view/socialbehaviorsandselesteem/etusivu

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/why-must-we-have-superiority-for-other.html

Why North Korea wants to talk with the west?

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.fi/p/why-north-korea-wants-to-talk-with-west.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Why Kim Jong Un wants to talk with western world is a question, what is interesting about many people in the East and West. One thing what might make that leader interested to talk with the western world might be that the government of North Korea would notice, that the war might cause military take over or rebellion in that land. Another thing might be those leaders have been understood, that the nuclear strike to other nation would cause nuclear war. And that would be the end of North Korean infrastructure even if those nukes would destroy some cities in the United States.


Those attacks would cause revenge strikes to North Korea and those revenge would cause many deaths in that country, including many members of that government. But there could be one reason, what made the leader of that closed country start talking with the West. That reason could be that North Korean nuclear weapons would not act as they should in the war. Of course, those weapons could destroy civilian targets, but are they sharp enough to destroy military infrastructure like command bunkers and missile silos, what has the key role in the nuclear strike.


And the question is, how many warheads, and how ready to use the North Korean nuclear arsenal is? If those weapons were not tested properly, they might have malfunctions, and if the explosive segments would not work precisely right time, would the effect of nuclear explosion leave much weaker, than predicted or in some cases, those nukes would not even explode. And of course, the war might cause very bad damages for both sides infrastructure and the human sacrifices could be very large scale. And if 50% of people on both side of the war in Korea would die in that conflict, could that be too much even for that leader of North Korea.


https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/miksi-pohjois-korea-on-yhtakkia-kiinnostunut-neuvottelemaan-kolme-teoriaa-kim-jong-unin-aikeista/6876616#gs.gC49Trg

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.fi/p/why-north-korea-wants-to-talk-with-west.html