Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

The “All Access” Pass

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Cartoon

Cartoon from "Under the Jacaranda Tree"

According to the results of a recent survey by BBC World Service, 4 out 5 adults around the world believe that having access to the Internet is a “fundamental right.” I completely agree. I’ve written before about the Internet as a public utility, and I consider equal access one of the cornerstones to a modern world where opportunities and resources are spread out for the masses rather than coveted by a few. However, when people talk about Internet access, they can be talking about (at least) two different things. “Access” can refer to the ability to go online, in a strictly technical context, or it can be related to censorship. The technical side of Internet access is doable–it is a tall order, but doable. For example, satellite technology has allowed countries lacking land telephone lines to move on to cell phones. But censorship is an entirely different issue, and one which is key to the question of access. After all, if someone can only view websites which are in line with one agenda, can they really be said to have access? If having access, in all senses of the word, is a “fundamental right,” shouldn’t all people worldwide have the unfettered chance to view whatever they want online?

Like free speech in general, this can be a fuzzy area. I think most of us can agree that child pornography and bomb-making instructions do not really need to be available, but in principle those websites should be allowed to operate freely. As always, drawing the line is hard. Here in the US, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently reaffirmed the American government’s commitment to protecting free speech online around the world. However, both the United States and, by way of another example in the Western Francehave taken steps towards a porn-free Internet. So who are we to condemn other countries for taking action against items which fall under their definition of obscene? (For a quick rundown of other instances of ‘net censorship around the world, see this 2002 articleby Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute.)

When it comes to global policy, one might turn to the United Nations for guidance. Secretary Clinton mentioned in her speech that Internet freedoms are included in a resolution to the UN Human Rights Council. However, the United Nations track record regarding foreign policy and Internet censorship is no clearer than the United States. In November of 2009, the UN held a forum on Internet governance in Egypt, but UN officials demanded that an anti-censorship group remove a poster shaming China for its firewalls–effectively censoring their own anti-censorship conference. In January of 2009, a resolution crafted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference was presented to the UN General Assembly, which asked all other UN member nations to ban the “defamation” of religion (though it was opposed by many nations, it was ultimately adopted). A resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council in April of 2008 was criticized by other human rights groups for its perceived emphasis on limiting free speech rather than protecting it.

Throughout the world, what one person thinks is freedom might be someone else’s idea of destruction. Bringing Internet access to more homes and communities around the world is a good thing, but with that, we will eventually have to figure out how we can get along and share a planet of readily-accessible resources and ideas. Until and unless this is addressed, we’re not living with true Internet access.

–Emily Long

This entry can also be found on IFC’s Make Media Matter blog, where I am a regular contributor.

Can China be media literate without Google?

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

The news that Google threatened China to cease operations and search result censorship in the country due to the possible hacking of email accounts by the Chinese government belonging comes as no surprise. China has a long history of censorship, and for a while now, certain Google searches have returned blank results. Back in March, YouTube and Facebook were banned. Possibly China’s sole source of true investigative reporting was Caijing, the financial newspaper, but back in November its founding editor, Hu Shuli, resigned along with other senior staff. The reported reason for Hu’s resignation is that she was offered a tenured position at Zhongshuan University, but questions remain as to whether she has simply been sidelined by a government growing increasingly nervous over her reporting.

So, again, no surprise that Google is censored, and has been since Google.cn was started. But what is surprising is that in recent months, China has been taking steps to incorporate media literacy into its educational institutions.  In November, days after Hu’s resignation, British, Japanese and Chinese scholars gathered in Beijing and formulated an action plan to incorporate media literacy with existing primary school curricula.  The forum itself was organized by the University of China. Just three days ago, Li Xiguang was announced as the head of a new journalism academy in Chongqing; Li also happens to be known for his recommendations to the Chinese government for increased transparency, and his Tsinghua International Center for Communication (TICC) is the designated as the training base for government spokespersons. He also plans to bring his existing media literacy course from TICC over to the new academy.

Given these steps, it will be especially disappointing if China wants to continue censoring Google results and hacking Gmail with zeal, prompting Google to remove itself entirely from the country. A decision to stop censoring Google (and YouTube, and other sites) would fly in the face of China’s deep-seated policy towards free speech, but do the people of China really believe media literacy is possible without the embrace of an open Internet? Obviously, Google and YouTube were still being censored during the forum in Beijing and when the announcement was made about Li Xiguang; perhaps the hope that this was a herald of change in Chinese media policy was sheer naivete. News literacy is an essential component of media literacy, and without it, progress seems unlikely.

Every blank screen that shows up after a search for “Dalai Lama” is like a light bulb reminding the Chinese people who is in control (though, I’m sure if you ask them, it is not easily forgotten). In Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles, television screens went blank when the station was not allowed to broadcast a documentary about alleged prisoner abuse in Belfast. This was done in favor of running a comedy program; everyone who tried to watch at that time was alerted to the fact that something was being kept from them. During political unrest in Fiji last summer, the Sunday edition of the Fiji Times was published blank, except for a statement announcing that content had been censored.

The power of blank can be great, and surely Google knows that. I don’t blame them for perceiving their Chinese operations as a waste of time and money if they will continue to be censored and have their systems hacked by the government, and I would be very surprised if they do not carry out their threat to leave. It won’t be long before the people of China are left without even a blank from Google, and the dream of media literacy slips further away.

–Emily Long

Land of the Wired? FCC and Free Internet Access

Monday, December 1st, 2008

In this economy, just about everyone is looking to cut costs that aren’t necessities.  Maybe that means cancelling a few magazine subscriptions, downgrading a gym membership or opting for a smaller cable package–but what about the Internet?  Depending on the quality and speed of your connection, the cost for having Internet in your home can run a rough average of $50/month, or $600 each year.  And that’s not even factoring in any data plans you might have for a smartphone.  What if you didn’t have to pay for Internet or Wi-Fi at all?

Sure, you’d save money, but under the plan being discussed at this month’s FCC meeting, your connection would also be a little bit slower and a little bit censored.  Part of the deal is that the content would have to be porn-free, and free of any other content that might be deemed unsuitable for children.  This makes sense to an extent, since of course a government agency doesn’t want to be seen as an enabler for inappropriate material.  According to lobby group M2Z Networks, if you decide to pay for the premium service to get a faster connection, you can turn the filter off, which is not too different from parental control options that exist with most other service providers and some browsers.

I’m for free Internet, but I also believe that with it must come a better understanding of filters.  It is too easy for a filter to act as the only form of online oversight in the home, and parents have to know that they don’t always work.  Most filters (including the one that the FCC would use) operate based on key words and phrases which are found in domain names; for example, a filter might block anything from a domain with the word ’sex’ in the name.  However, this can work against certain websites that are largely undeserving of being censored for young people.

Case in point: In college, I produced and directed my university’s production of “The Vagina Monologues,” which ran simultaneously with hundreds of other productions of the play around Valentine’s Day.  Sponsored by Eve Ensler’s V-Day Foundation, each production raised money for charities dealing with domestic abuse, rape, HIV/AIDS and the like.  All the producers and directors could communicate with each other through emails and a discussion board.  One day, I read about a woman producing the show tried to visit the V-Day website at a school library, only to find it was blocked by the school for containing keywords that triggered the university’s filter.  This was problematic for her in terms of getting information she needed to produce the play, providing details about the show for ticketholders, gaining additional sponsorships and more.  The irony, of course, was that her university was essentially blocking her proactive efforts to combat sex crimes.

So, yes, I’m for free Internet.  I really believe that in our modern world, the web is becoming more and more essential to gaining vital information for finding health care, applying to school, finding a job and managing your finances.  A computer lab is virtually useless if none of the machines can connect to the web.  Some wireless providers fear that free services will threaten their very existence, but I think it will only encourage them to be more innovative and adapt to change, just like every other industry.  However, with free and open access comes great responsibility in learning how to use it.  That responsibility lies squarely with schools, parents, librarians and other role model figures.  If all runs smoothly, free Internet and wi-fi could come to you as early as this summer.  Will you be ready?

For more on filters and having a positive online experience, please download our freeLAMPlit resource guide, “A Beginner’s Guide to Going Online.”

–Emily Long

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License