Moral human behavior optimizes the survival and nourishment of the human species. . .
Immoral behavior is a threat to all mankind.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!

Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Corporate Media Cherry Picking the News – No Surprise Here


As reported by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - a nonpartisan media watchdog organization - A sparsely attended Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., on March 31 in support of federal spending cuts received generous media attention. One report (Slate, 3/31/11) suggested there was "at least one reporter for every three or four activists," and a Republican politician joked that there might be more journalists than activists at the event.

An antiwar rally in New York City on April 9 was in some respects very similar. Protesters were speaking out on an equally timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.

The difference? The ratio of activists to journalists. The antiwar protest had thousands of attendees--and received almost zero corporate media coverage.

According to the Nexis news database, the rally was apparently deemed not remotely newsworthy. The local New York Times didn't cover it--though it did have time for the D.C. Tea Party rally (4/1/11). NPR's Morning Edition (4/1/11) and the PBS NewsHour (3/31/11) reported on the Tea Party rally, which was also mentioned a few times on CNN and previewed on NBC's Today show (3/31/11).

Who did cover the antiwar rally? You could find reports from local New York outlets like the news site Gothamist (4/10/11), WABC and NY1, the left-wing Socialist Worker (4/11/11) and a handful of other sites.

What explains the wildly different treatment of the events? The organizers of the antiwar rally say they put serious resources into media outreach, and held a press conference the day before the event (which was reportedly attended by one reporter from Russia Today). The rally was framed as a way to talk about war and the budget debate, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't timely or relevant.

Corporate media has taken the reigns of ‘main stream media’ to become the ‘voice of America’. This is a sad state of affairs for Americans. Citizens who still believe in their right to receive the truth about what goes on in America need to understand that the internet and independent newspapers will soon be our only source of reality reporting.

Since major news media outlets are now owned by corporate America the citizens of this country can only receive a myopic and sanitized view of world events. This defacto censorship of events that are contrary to corporate views undermines First Amendment guarantees.

To all non-profit sources of information I salute you. To all muzzled journalists I applaud your tenacity. To all organizations seeking to suppress minority and dissenting viewpoints I condemn you you.

To all you passive consumers of news who sit in your easy chair and complain about the direction this world is taking, get off your butts and do something about it. Vote, voice your opinion, help those who are out there struggling to keep your freedoms from being trampled on.



Sunday, February 17, 2008

Censorships new arena

Banning books is nothing new, banning ideas from reaching the masses is nothing new. The American education system has been the focal point of freedom of expression and new ideas since the time we began passing on ideas to our younger generations.

Censorship is a permeable fine line between what passes for well written or displayed good taste and gratuitous crudeness. It is a matter of style. Vulgarity can be accepted if it is written well, vulgarity will be banned if it is not.

Who decides what is well written? Every individual, but they need access in order to determine for themselves what they don’t want or do want in their lives.

Lets get a few terms out in the open:
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, internet service providers, and schools to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, websites, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. Individuals and pressure groups identify materials to which they object. Sometimes they succeed in pressuring schools not to use them, libraries not to shelve them, book and video stores not to carry them, publishers not to publish them, art galleries not to display them, or internet service providers not to allow them. Censorship also occurs when materials are restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics.

Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.

Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system. We expect our people to be self-governors. But to do so responsibly, our citizenry must be well-informed.

Libraries provide the ideas and information, in a variety of formats, to allow people to inform themselves.

Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.

When someone takes it upon themselves to determine when censorship is to be enforced they immediately step on the intellectual freedom that is basic to every persons right to choose.

Book banning is a familiar foe of American education and peaks during cycles of political and cultural conservatism. "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself," United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart remarked. "It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."

Free people everywhere intuitively hold a deeply felt disdain for authoritarianism in all of its various forms. Censorship has crept into our ability to freely receive opposing views via the internet. The supposed ‘superhighway’ of information.

Newspaper editors practice censorship daily by restricting what news stories reach the public. They all have dead files where stories considered outside the scope of their newspapers charter are filed.

Internet service providers, by the very nature of their identity as ‘service providers’, have no business censoring anything that passes through their servers.

The owners of these services have the mistaken notion that if they allow objectionable material to pass through their servers then they are somehow associated with the person or persons creating the ‘objectionable’ material.

There are many cases in which censorship is the core reason for a riff between students and teachers, teachers and school boards, school boards and the public, the public and governments.

Charleston, West Virginia high school students recently mounted a protest against parents and the Kanawha County Board of Education for restricting their reading of two Pat Conroy books depicting graphic violence, suicide and sexual assault.

Webb City, Missouri students learned first hand the relationship between banning books and how it increases the popularity of those books. The books in question are from a series referred to as the Alice books. They deal with issues of an adolescent girl's development.

Arlington, Texas school board members have banned cleavage for this upcoming school year because they “think their daughters are growing up a little bit too fast these days” and “our young males are looking at more than their English book, their speech book, their science book.” The new dress code reads, in part, “The display of cleavage is unacceptable. Low cut blouses, tops, sweaters, etc. with plunging necklines are not allowed."

Texas school officials rejected a widely used environmental textbook, claiming it was filled with errors. The author says they're censoring him because they didn't like his green views.

Miami-Dade Florida school board sued by ACLU for removing a childrens book on life in Cuba from its library.

And who can forget the famous 1925 Scopes Trial, in which two of America's most famous attorneys debated whether evolution should be taught in the public schools.

These examples involve what we try to and try not to pass on to our children. They are all in the form of books. But the internet is another story.

Total censorship of the internet is impossible, for now. Given the nature of the internet’s ability to ignore national borders, those seeking knowledge from within, say North Korea and China, can access information hosted by computers outside of their control very easily.

Since governments cannot own the internet, government attempts at censoring content will fail. The human mind’s need to expand will not be cloistered by those who wish to maintain control over them. The current design of the internet dictates that you cannot keep this genie in its bottle.

While there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes "pervasive censorship", organization Reporters without Borders (RSF) maintains an internet enemy list while the OpenNet Initiative categorizes some nations as practicing extreme levels of Internet censorship. Such nations often censor political content and may retaliate against citizens who violate the censorship with measures such as imprisonment.

You can imagine who is on Reporters Without Borders enemy list, but let’s identify them anyway: Cuba, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar, North Korea, People’s Republic of China, Syria, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

These nations are identified by OpenNet Initiative as having filtered the internet for various reasons, ranging from sex videos to criticism of a military’s regime: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Fiji, Finland, France, India, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Can censorship be surgically applied? Not yet. And until it can be this basic tenant of our free society should not be allowed to be exercised by a handful of overly zealous prudes.


Submitted to you for further exploration of censorship and to educate yourself to its ugly pervasiveness, checkout these websites and books:

American Library Association celebrates banned book week every year at the end of September.

Forbidden Library posts a list of books that some people consider “dangerous”.

Banned Books and Censorship identifies some sites that deal with who bans books and why.

Censorship or Education? Feminist views on pornography

Censoring controvery undermines education

Pornography, Obscenity and the Case for Censorship

Book Censorship bibliography

As always, you are encouraged to submit comments.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Phone companies as censors

So, you think you can say anything you want, any time you want over the internet or through text messaging? Not if AT&T and Verizon has anything to say about it.

Read the fine print of your ‘terms of agreement’ and you will find that either company, among others, can terminate your contract with them anytime they want at their discretion.

It is their equipment and they should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

My objection is their ability to access the content of those private conversations in order to determine if they are politically ‘offensive’ to their beliefs.

These corporations are business entities not political entities. If they want to enforce their political bias on their customers then we customers should be allowed to void our contract with them because we don’t agree with their political views.

Verizon blocked text messages from a national pro-choice group who wanted to send it to their customers.

When they were busted Verizon claimed it was a ‘glitch’ in their software and they felt really bad about it. A glitch? Right. A glitch that singularly prevented a pro-choice group from sending text messages to its customers. I’m not buying it.

In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vetter criticized President Bush. They also hid behind a faulty ‘glitch’.

Are these companies telling us that their multi-million dollar, state-of-the-art software is faulty?

Both companies have a history of handing over customer phone records to the National Security Agency. These events were not followed a scapegoat as mundane as a ‘glitch’, they were just flat out denied. As a result of being discovered, they are both pushing the White House for immunity from lawsuits.

The phone companies have placed themselves in a position to determine what we can and cannot say in our supposedly ‘private’ conversations. This is a very dangerous time to for freedom of speech.

Does this smack of Big Brother? You bet it does. Should we worry? Hell yes. Anything that deteriorates our right to privacy or our right to free speech or for that matter any right granted us by the Bill of Rights should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

No communications provider should put themselves in the position to censor or deny any speech we wish to participate in. They should not even have access to the content of our messages.

Network neutrality is an issue that should be supported by everyone or we will soon find ourselves restricted to what communication we can participate in. Also, we may find ourselves giving money to organizations that are practicing politics counter-productive to our own beliefs.

We need to protect our rights to free speech through every forum, including the internet and cell phones. Telecommunications companies are not culpable for what transmissions get sent using their equipment, therefore they should not be worried about what subject matter is transmitted.

One thing I do not understand is that since the very same people that run these companies and sit on their boards do not want their private conversations intercepted or censored, why should they facilitate the governments ability to do it to their own customers?
There is no wealth like knowledge and no poverty like ignorance. -Ali ibn Abi Talib

Transgressions that are tolerated today will become common place tomorrow. -Greg W

"If you are thinking a year ahead, sow a seed. If you are thinking ten years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking one hundred years ahead, educate the people."
Chinese Proverb