This post on the ACLU's Safe and Free section of the website discusses something very similar to the concepts discussed in Little Brother. It discusses anti-terrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense, which say public protests should be regarded as "low level terrorism." Since when is voicing an opinion and exercising the right to assemble considered terrorism? Maybe it would be if those protestors were using violent threats and weapons to get their point across to others. The post on the website discusses the pattern of the Department of Defense in monitoring protests as low level terrorism. "Examples of this shameful pattern can be seen in the Pentagon’s monitoring of at least 186 anti-military protests, the FBI’s surveillance of potential protesters at the Republican National Convention, the Fresno County Sheriff Anti-Terrorism Unit’s infiltration and surveillance of Peace Fresno, a community peace and social justice organization and the covert surveillance by the Maryland State Police of local peace and anti-death penalty groups." Peace Fresno? An organization promoting peace and social justice is terrorism?
Not only does this go against our Constitutional rights, but as Michael German, a member of ACLU's National Security Policy Counsel, says, "Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than respected, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe and less democratic." Free speech is our right, and exercising this right should be respected. By making us afraid to exercise our rights, the Department of Defense is doing what terrorists do- implementing fear.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Blog Post #4
Warning: The article includes a picture that may be offensive.
This article talks about a man's Flickr.com account being completely deleted after he posted some not-so-decent comments on the official White House's Flickr photostream. Shepherd Johnson's flickr account, along with his 1,200 pictures, was deleted without warning after he posted his politically charged comments. In one if his comments, he included a link to another flickr user's Abu Ghraib torture photo.
While I think he may have gotten out of control, posting so many comments within a short amount of time, I still think his intellectual freedom rights were broken. Yahoo, the owner of Flickr, issued a statement arguing that Johnson disregarded the online community's guidelines, and if a person does so, Yahoo maintains the right to take action against them. The article did not state whether or not the other user with a tortue photo was deleted from the website. However, if Yahoo believes that the photos Johnson posted in his comments were offensive to others, then the other user should have been reprimanded as well.
This situation is similar to political protests. We have the right to protest... there are numerous protests against the President and against the Abu Ghraib torture events. There are protests concerning the release of the Abu Ghraid photos. The government cannot simply "delete" these protests, can they?
How far do intellectual freedom rights extend? Can someone truly say what he or she wants to whomever he or she wants and not be censored?
This article talks about a man's Flickr.com account being completely deleted after he posted some not-so-decent comments on the official White House's Flickr photostream. Shepherd Johnson's flickr account, along with his 1,200 pictures, was deleted without warning after he posted his politically charged comments. In one if his comments, he included a link to another flickr user's Abu Ghraib torture photo.
While I think he may have gotten out of control, posting so many comments within a short amount of time, I still think his intellectual freedom rights were broken. Yahoo, the owner of Flickr, issued a statement arguing that Johnson disregarded the online community's guidelines, and if a person does so, Yahoo maintains the right to take action against them. The article did not state whether or not the other user with a tortue photo was deleted from the website. However, if Yahoo believes that the photos Johnson posted in his comments were offensive to others, then the other user should have been reprimanded as well.
This situation is similar to political protests. We have the right to protest... there are numerous protests against the President and against the Abu Ghraib torture events. There are protests concerning the release of the Abu Ghraid photos. The government cannot simply "delete" these protests, can they?
How far do intellectual freedom rights extend? Can someone truly say what he or she wants to whomever he or she wants and not be censored?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Blog Post #3 - 6/9
I found an interesting article from the New York Times dealing with censorship and internet filters in China. The article talks about a video circulating on the internet about a “mythical” creature called the Grass-Mud Horse. The video features a song aimed towards children about the Grass-Mud Horse, that is courageous in the struggle against the evil River Crab. At first, the story of the Grass-Mud Horse is innocent. However, in Chinese, “Grass-Mud Horse” sounds almost exactly like an obscenity. Chinese intellectuals argue that this song was created purposefully to counteract acts of censorship from the Chinese government, which can be interpreted as the evil River Crab. Since the videos and idea of the Grass-Mud Horse has infiltrated the internet in such an expansive way, government filters have a difficult time censoring all of the web pages. You can read the article here.
In my opinion, so long as filters and censors exist, there will be people who find ways around them and stand up to the censors in order to promote and maintain their intellectual freedom. If this occurs, when do the people who censor decide to stop? There is no true way to interpret what a person says. Most likely, the song is meant as a protest to censors and the government, but maybe it isn’t. Who can truly say? If censors purposely look and search for items, web pages, opinions to filter, or purposely search and dig for reasons to filter something, theoretically, they will eventually end up filtering everything, leaving nothing left for anyone. However, this will never happen if people are fighting against censorship, especially in discreet and witty ways, such as the song of the Grass-Mud Horse. The article even states that a pro-democracy group, Charter 08, that is often filtered, could possibly be referred to on the internet as “Wang” in the future. “Wang” is a common surname in China, and attempting to filter the word “Wang” by separating the surname from the moniker for Charter 08 will be nearly impossible. Some people may think the way these anti-censorship groups are going about things is immature. However, in such a censored society as China, any way of fighting against filters and censorship is a good and powerful way.
In my opinion, so long as filters and censors exist, there will be people who find ways around them and stand up to the censors in order to promote and maintain their intellectual freedom. If this occurs, when do the people who censor decide to stop? There is no true way to interpret what a person says. Most likely, the song is meant as a protest to censors and the government, but maybe it isn’t. Who can truly say? If censors purposely look and search for items, web pages, opinions to filter, or purposely search and dig for reasons to filter something, theoretically, they will eventually end up filtering everything, leaving nothing left for anyone. However, this will never happen if people are fighting against censorship, especially in discreet and witty ways, such as the song of the Grass-Mud Horse. The article even states that a pro-democracy group, Charter 08, that is often filtered, could possibly be referred to on the internet as “Wang” in the future. “Wang” is a common surname in China, and attempting to filter the word “Wang” by separating the surname from the moniker for Charter 08 will be nearly impossible. Some people may think the way these anti-censorship groups are going about things is immature. However, in such a censored society as China, any way of fighting against filters and censorship is a good and powerful way.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Blog Post #2 (6/2)
I was watching a newscast on ABC Chicago, and they were discussing a new feature – “Wounded: Stop the Violence.” They interviewed a young man, Miguel Perez, who has a violent past. He visits schools around Chicago and discusses his past and how he overcame gang violence and drug use. School administrators allow him to do this, even though he includes the gritty details of his past. He is welcomed into these school because his overall message is positive as he teaches children about the negative consequences of violence. The intent of this feature is not directly related to censorship, but it got me thinking.
There are many books available to children that discuss these same subjects, yet they are challenged and sometimes banned. What is the difference between a man speaking to children about his experiences with gang violence and drug use and a book discussing those same subjects? The newscast showed clips of the man speaking, and the audience contained children of all ages. How do school administrators and parents decide if something sends a “good” or “bad” message to children? If these students were given a book, such as Autobiography of My Dead Brother by Walter Dean Myers, which discusses gang violence and how a young man overcomes such violence, would the parents accept it as educational material as they accept Perez visiting the schools with his life story?
Perhaps it is the reality of the issue to which parents or teachers do not object. Reading a book can leave a lot to the imagination, and seeing an actual person discuss a violent past brings a sense of grounded reality to the subject. Personally, though, I believe it is all the same. Reading a novel like those listed below can teach a young reader about many things, including the negative consequences of violent behavior. While there may be parts of the book that are offensive, the overall message of each is positive, hopeful, and very relatable to a variety of young adults.
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
Durango Street and Scorpions by Walter Dean Myers
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
Party Girl by Lynne Ewing
There are many books available to children that discuss these same subjects, yet they are challenged and sometimes banned. What is the difference between a man speaking to children about his experiences with gang violence and drug use and a book discussing those same subjects? The newscast showed clips of the man speaking, and the audience contained children of all ages. How do school administrators and parents decide if something sends a “good” or “bad” message to children? If these students were given a book, such as Autobiography of My Dead Brother by Walter Dean Myers, which discusses gang violence and how a young man overcomes such violence, would the parents accept it as educational material as they accept Perez visiting the schools with his life story?
Perhaps it is the reality of the issue to which parents or teachers do not object. Reading a book can leave a lot to the imagination, and seeing an actual person discuss a violent past brings a sense of grounded reality to the subject. Personally, though, I believe it is all the same. Reading a novel like those listed below can teach a young reader about many things, including the negative consequences of violent behavior. While there may be parts of the book that are offensive, the overall message of each is positive, hopeful, and very relatable to a variety of young adults.
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
Durango Street and Scorpions by Walter Dean Myers
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
Party Girl by Lynne Ewing
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Blog Posting #1 (5/26)
Mahoney, Jill. “Is The Golden Compass Pointing Away from God?” The Globe and Mail. 6 December 2007: A3.
This article discusses the potential censorship of Phillip Pullman’s The Golden Compass, as well as the other books in his trilogy, by a Catholic school in Canada. The Golden Compass is about a young girl who sets off on a journey to an alternate world to find her friend and her father. She struggles with the “Authority,” which many believe is a symbol of the Catholic Church and God. The article states “Catholics interpret The Golden Compass and two other books that comprise a trilogy as a denunciation of organized religion dominated by a distant, imposter God, which they say does not condemn modern religion (Mahoney, A3).” However, I believe that the definition of modern religion differs from person to person, group to group. Does one religious group have the authority to define modern religion and define what condemns it? As Dr. Rowan Williams states in the article, “the series should be used in religious education because learning about other spiritual perspectives nurtures a more mature faith (Mahoney, A3).” Even though he believes the book promotes a different religion, he does not believe censoring it is the solution. By reading the book, children will widen their knowledge about different religions and their own faith.
In my opinion, novels do not promote anything. Most children will read a novel, such as The Golden Compass, and will appreciate the fantasy aspects of it. They will enjoy reading about the adventure and the journey of the main character in search of her friend and family. Most children will not read this book and believe it is promoting atheism or demoting organized religion. While parents and teachers should teach their children about the different aspects of life, including religion, they should also teach them to decide for themselves. By deciding that a book is bad for young readers without giving them a chance to weigh in their own opinion, adults are prohibiting access to intellectual material. Young readers are protected under the Library Bill of Rights, and should have access to any material, regardless of the way adults perceive that material.
This article discusses the potential censorship of Phillip Pullman’s The Golden Compass, as well as the other books in his trilogy, by a Catholic school in Canada. The Golden Compass is about a young girl who sets off on a journey to an alternate world to find her friend and her father. She struggles with the “Authority,” which many believe is a symbol of the Catholic Church and God. The article states “Catholics interpret The Golden Compass and two other books that comprise a trilogy as a denunciation of organized religion dominated by a distant, imposter God, which they say does not condemn modern religion (Mahoney, A3).” However, I believe that the definition of modern religion differs from person to person, group to group. Does one religious group have the authority to define modern religion and define what condemns it? As Dr. Rowan Williams states in the article, “the series should be used in religious education because learning about other spiritual perspectives nurtures a more mature faith (Mahoney, A3).” Even though he believes the book promotes a different religion, he does not believe censoring it is the solution. By reading the book, children will widen their knowledge about different religions and their own faith.
In my opinion, novels do not promote anything. Most children will read a novel, such as The Golden Compass, and will appreciate the fantasy aspects of it. They will enjoy reading about the adventure and the journey of the main character in search of her friend and family. Most children will not read this book and believe it is promoting atheism or demoting organized religion. While parents and teachers should teach their children about the different aspects of life, including religion, they should also teach them to decide for themselves. By deciding that a book is bad for young readers without giving them a chance to weigh in their own opinion, adults are prohibiting access to intellectual material. Young readers are protected under the Library Bill of Rights, and should have access to any material, regardless of the way adults perceive that material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)