½Å°úÇÐ/öÇÐ
Ãʽɸ®ÇÐ/ÀáÀç´É·Â
UFO/½Å¹°¸®ÇÐ
¿ÀÄÃƼÁò/¹Ì½ºÅ͸®

°úÇÐÀû, ºñ°úÇÐÀû ÀÇÇÐ
µ¿¼­¾ç ´ëüÀÇÇÐ

âÁ¶·Ð/°úÇÐÀû »ç½Ç¼º
âÁ¶·Ð/öÇаú Á¤Ä¡

½ºÄÎƽ½º/±âŸ ÁÖÁ¦
KOPSA ¹Ú¹°°ü

 

´ëÁ߸Åü ¸ð´ÏÅ͸µ
Áú¹®°ú ´ä

Åä·Ð¹æ¹ý
Åä·Ð»ç·Ê

¿¬±¸È¸¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ
¿¬±¸À§¿ø °Ô½ÃÆÇ

 

½ºÄÎƽ½º/±âŸ ÁÖÁ¦
   
  CSICOP ȸÀåÀÇ ¹Ìµð¾î °Å´ë±â¾÷È­¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¸Þ¸ð
  ±Û¾´ÀÌ : kopsa     ³¯Â¥ : 01-03-21 16:38     Á¶È¸ : 4821    
CSICOP ȸÀåÀÇ ¹Ìµð¾î °Å´ë±â¾÷È­¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¸Þ¸ð

2001³â 3¿ù 12ÀÏ CSICOP¿¡¼­´Â ½ºÄÎƽ ¸ÞÀϸµ ¸®½ºÆ®¸¦ ÅëÇØ CSICOP ȸ
Àå Æú Ä¿Ã÷ÀÇ ¸Þ¸ð¸¦ º¸³» ¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù. ¹Ìµð¾î ±×·ìÀÇ °Å´ë Áý´ÜÈ­¸¦ ¹æÁöÇÏ
´Â ±ÔÁ¤ÀÌ ¹ý¿ø¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¹«È¿È­µÆ°í À̸¦ ¿ì·ÁÇÏ´Â ¸Þ¸ðÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¿ø¹®Àº ¾Æ
·¡ ÷ºÎÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù.

¹°·Ð ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ±ÔÁ¤ÀÇ ÆóÁö´Â ÀÚÀ¯ ½ÃÀå ¿øÄ¢, Çå¹ý»ó ¾ð·ÐÀÇ ÀÚÀ¯ µî°ú °ü
·ÃµÈ °ÍÀ̶ó°í º¾´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ÃÊÁ¤»ó Çö»óÀ» °è¸ùÇÏ´Â ½ºÄÎƽ½ºÀÇ ÀÔÀå¿¡
¼­ ¸¹Àº ¹®Á¦¸¦ °¡Áø °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±â¾÷ÀÇ °Å´ëÁý´ÜÈ­´Â ¿µ¸®Ãß±¸, °æÀï°ú °ü
·ÃµÈ °ÍÀ̸ç À̵éÀº ½ÃûÀÚÀÇ Èï¹Ì¸¦ ²ô´Â ¹æÇâÀ¸·Î ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» Æí¼ºÇÒ °Í
ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. À̵éÀÌ À̲ô´Â ´ë·Î ½ÃûÀÚ´Â ÃÊÁ¤»ó Çö»óÀÌ°Ç ¹«¾ùÀÌ°Ç ²ø·Á°¡
´Â ÇüÆí¿¡ ÀÖ°Ô µË´Ï´Ù. 

»ç½Ç»ó ½ºÄÎƽÀÇ È°µ¿Àº ½Å¹®, ¹æ¼Û, ÀϺΠÇÐÀÚµé°úÀÇ ´ÙÅùÀÌ ÀüºÎ´Â ¾Æ´Õ
´Ï´Ù. Á¤Ä¡ÀûÀÎ È°µ¿µµ ÇÊ¿äÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÇÕ¸®·ÐÀÚÀÇ ¿ªÇÒµµ ÇØ¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×·±
µ¥ ÇöÀç  °­¹Ú»ç´Â ȸ¿øµéÀ» ´ÜÇÕ½Ãų ½Ã°£µµ ¹Ìµð¾î¿¡ ¾î¶² ³»¿ëÀÌ ¿À¸£
´ÂÁö È®ÀÎÇÒ ½Ã°£ ¿©À¯µµ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. ±× »ç±â ´çÇÑ Ã¥(¹Ì½ºÅ͸®-¿ùµå¿Í °ü
·ÃÁö¾î ¿Ã¸®°í ÀÖ´Â ±Û ÂüÁ¶ÇϽʽÿÀ)À» ¿ø»óȸº¹Çϱâ À§ÇØ ÀÌ ¸¹Àº ½Ã°£
À» ¾²°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

¾î°¼­ °­¹Ú»ç°¡ ÀÌÁ¾È£ ¹Ú»çÀÇ ±Ù¿øÀûÀÎ ¹®Á¦¸¦ ÁöÀûÇÏ´ÂÁö ÀÌÇØÇϽñâ
¹Ù¶ø´Ï´Ù. ÀÌÁ¾È£ ¹Ú»çÀÇ ¸ðµç °ÍÀÌ ÀÌ°ÍÀº ¾Æ´Ò °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ±Ý¹ø ¹®
Á¦´Â ´Ü¼øÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Ù°í º¾´Ï´Ù. °úÇÐÀÚ°¡ À߸øÇÏ¿© º¥Ã³±â¾÷¿¡ ÇÇÇظ¦ ÁÖ¾ú
´Ù¸é ±×°Íµµ À߸øÀ̶ó´Â ÀνÄÀ» °¡Á®¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í °ü°è¿¡¼­ ºÎÁ¤Á÷ÇÑ,
ºÒ¼º½ÇÇÑ ÇàÅ´ ¿ë¼­ÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. °úÇÐÀÚ¶ó°í À̸§À» ´Þ¾Ò±â ¶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï
´Ù. ÀÌ°ÍÀÌ ¹«¾ùÀ» ÀǹÌÇÏ´Â Áö´Â ¾ÕÀ¸·Î °è¼Ó ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ¿Ã¸®°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.   

...............................................
Federal Appeals Court Overturns Caps on Ownership, Further
Undermining Democratic Freedoms
by Paul Kurtz

responses should be sent to:  busterhl@centerforinquiry.net

  In an incredible decision a Federal Appeals Court rescinded FCC
regulations which limited media conglomerates from controlling more
than 30 percent of the cable- and satellite-TV market. It also lifted the
ban on broadcasters  owning TV stations that exceeded 35 percent of
the total national  viewership, or from dominating more than 40 percent
of the programming.

  These regulations were based upon the 1992 Cable Television
Consumers Protection and Competition Act that empowered the FCC to
set ownership caps. The new FCC chairman, Michael Powell, has
indicated recently that he thought that there should be few if any limits
on ownership - and that the "free market" alone should decide the
limits.

  The court decision was hailed by spokesmen for AT&T and
AOL/Time-Warner, the two largest cable operators in the United
States. An AOL representative said that the ruling was "a great day
for cable operators' First Amendment rights."

  This is a form of doublespeak, for it guarantees unprecedented power
for huge conglomerates to further dominate the free market of ideas.
What about the First Amendment rights of the rest of Americans
whose outlets for expression will be further narrowed? The Court's
decision will undoubtedly set off a new wave of consolidation; and will
further limit diversity at a time when the scientific and rationalist
viewpoint is all too rarely heard in the mass media, and when
programming appeals more to popular entertainment than to accurate
scientific information and education.

  The United States already lacks adequate forums for scientific
naturalism and humanism. There is insufficient opportunity for
skepticism to challenge untested pseudoscientific, paranormal, or spiritual
claims. This is a sad  day for the ideal of the open society. By having
fewer and fewer alternative voices heard in the media, democracy is
bound to suffer.
.................................................
(2001/03/22/07 ÃÖÁ¾)