RTMark is a group of culture jammers applying a brokerage-system that benefits from "limited liability" like any other corporation. Using this principle, RTMark supports the sabotage (informative alternation) of corporate products, from dolls and children's learning tools to electronic action games, by channeling funds from investors to workers. RTMark searches for solutions that go beyond public relations and defines its "bottom line" in improving culture. It seeks cultural and not financial profit.
Strategies and Policies
RTMark is engaged in a whole lot of projects, which are designed to lead to a positive social change. Projects with roughly similar intent, risk, or likelihood of accomplishment are grouped into "fund families", like for example "The Frontier Fund". This fund is dedicated to challenge naive, utopic visions of the "global village", focusing on the implications of allowing corporations and other multinational interests to operate free of social context.
RTMark pursues its projects through donations by individuals, which can invest in a certain fund, whereby an exact specification of how the donated money should be used can be made. RTMark has repeatedly gained attention through its projects, especially with its spoof websites, like the ones of Rudy Giuliani and the WTO, or its campaign against eToys, which prevents the Internet art group etoy from using the domain etoy.com.
TEXTBLOCK 1/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438659283
Regarding the dimension of their financial and human resources commercial media companies are at any rate much more powerful players than their independent counterparts. Still those reply with an extreme multiplicity and diversity. Today thousands of newsgroups, mailing-list and e-zines covering a wide range of issues from the environment to politics, social and human rights, culture, art and democracy are run by alternative groups.
Moreover independent content provider have started to use digital media for communication, information and co-ordination long before they were discovered by corporate interest. They regularly use the Internet and other networks to further public discourse and put up civic resistance. And in many cases are very successful with their work, as initiatives like widerst@ndMUND's (AT) co-ordination of the critics of the participation of the Freedom Party in the Austrian government via mailing-lists, an online-magazine and discussion forums, show.
TEXTBLOCK 2/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611734/100438659198
There is no society - in the past or in the present - free of censorship, the enforced restriction of speech. It is not restricted to authoritarian regimes. Democratic societies too aim at the control of the publication and distribution of information in order to prevent unwanted expressions. In every society some expressions, ideas or opinions are feared. Censored are books, magazines, films and videos, and computer games, e.g.
In defence of its monopoly of truth, the Catholic Church published a blacklist of books not allowed to be read: the Index librorum prohibitorum. As indicated by the fact that every declaration of human rights - including the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights and the
To a high degree the Protestant Reformation was made possible by the invention of the printing press. Now those who were capable of writing and reading no longer needed to rely on the priests to know what is written in the Bible. They could compare the Bible with the sermons of the priests. This may be one of the reasons why especially in countries with a strong Protestant or otherwise anti-catholic tradition (with the exception of Germany), free speech is held in such high esteem.
There seems to be no alternative: free speech without restriction or censorship. But censorship is not the only kind of restriction of speech. Speech codes as politically correct speech are restrictions, sometimes similar to censorship; copyright, accessibility and affordability of means of communication are other ones. Because of such restrictions different to censorship, we cannot think coherently about free speech independently of issues about social justice. Many campaigns for free speech, the right of free expression are backed by the concept of free speech as unconstrained speech. That is perfectly well understood under the auspices of regimes prominently, which try to silence their critics and restrict access to their publications. But the concept of free speech should not solely focus on such constrains. Thinking of free speech as unconstrained speech, we tend to forget to take into account - to campaign against - these other restrictions. Additionally, free expression understood in that way offers no clue how to practice this freedom of expression and what free speech is good for.
In liberal democratic societies censorship is not justified by recurring to absolute truth. Its necessity is argued by referring to personal integrity. Some kind of expression might do harm to individuals, especially to children, by traumatize them or by disintegrating personal morality. Some published information, such as the names of rape victims, might infringe some people's right on privacy or some, as others say, such as pornographic images or literature, e.g., infringes some people's right on equality (how?).
For more information on the history of censorship see
TEXTBLOCK 3/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611742/100438658951
Polybius was one of the greatest historians of the ancient Greek. he lived from 200-118 BC. see:
Being the worldwide leader in networking for the Internet, Cisco Systems is one of the most prominent companies of the Internet industry.
http://www.cisco.com