Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
I think you'll need to explain this to me? Why would anybody risk losing their rights over some stability? Why would anybody in the west want to curb press freedom? Why is there even a single percentile in that column?
I think it depends how far you extend 'freedom'. Should they be allowed to print, say, my medical records or bank statements, if they somehow fell into some reporter's hands? Should they be allowed to bug my phone or break into my e-mail account on the off-chance of finding some juicy scoop? I don't think so - but I seem to recall at least two of those four examples have taken place in the UK in recent years. I think those should be illegal - so if you consider banning that to be a restriction on the press, then yes, I do support *some* limitations on press freedom. That certainly doesn't mean I want the press muzzled or media censored, limited to parroting the government line - indeed, I dislike and oppose the BBFC, BBC and the UK's new anti-pornography law for those reasons - but I don't think the freedom should be absolute. The question, at least as reported, seems a little too vague to me.

That said, at least a majority preferred freedom - and it's worth noting that the countries disagreeing there, like Russia, India and Singapore, have rather different historical experiences with government control! (Odd and sad that Russia seems accepting of a 'strong' government, rather than rebelling against the bad old days, but this seems to be a reaction to bad experiences immediately after the USSR's breakup.)