Remains of Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers arrive at Dover Air Force Base, April 5, 2009. Photo: Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

April 6, 2009: For the first time in 18 years, Americans saw news coverage of coffins returning from war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Near midnight on April 5, the body of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers arrived at Dover Air Force Base after he was killed by an explosive in Afghanistan on April 4. With the permission of his family, news media were allowed to photograph the flag-draped coffin as it was unloaded by the military honor guard.

The photography ban was lifted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February 2009 after years of debate. The ban was put in place in 1989 by Dick Cheney, who was at that time Secretary of Defense. In a moment of great embarrassment for the Administration, major news media outlets televised a split-screen of then-President George H.W. Bush joking at a White House press conference alongside live video of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. Debate around the ban concerned issues of privacy, politicization of the war and First Amendment rights. Arguments were made that prohibiting photos of the dead downplayed the war while inhibiting the national mourning process, and counter-arguments were made that the photos were disrespectful to family members, and that it would be inappropriate for the images to be used in a political debate.

But President Obama was elected under a banner of government transparency, and Gates ordered a review of the policy. It was found that as long as family members approved in advance, media were free to capture and publish photos of the dead returning from war. As Gates told reporters in advance of the final decision lifting the ban, “If the needs of families can be met and the privacy concerns can be addressed, the more honor we can accord these fallen heroes, the better.”

Obviously, the tobacco industry is not happy. Without branded packaging, it will be far more difficult for consumers to differentiate between brands and types of cigarettes. For example, when I look at a rack of cigarettes in a store, I know that the Marlboro cigarettes with gold are Marlboro Lights, I know that the ones with red are Marlboro Reds, the greens are menthol and so forth. Most of us can tell pretty quickly the difference between Camels, Parliaments, Newports and the rest, but a rack full of cigarettes that all look essentially the same would be dizzying, and would diminish brand loyalty. (Disclaimer: I started smoking at age 17. I quit seven years ago.) This is all on top of Australia’s existing limitations on tobacco advertising, which are pretty harsh. For example, according to tobaccoinaustralia.org, absolutely no international or sporting events in Australia have been allowed to carry tobacco sponsorship since October 2006. For my part, I cannot begin to imagine what a NASCAR racetrack would look like without cigarette advertising, but that is the case in Australia.  With this latest measure, then, the government is essentially amputating the last limb of tobacco advertising in Australia (not counting arguably more discreet promotions, such as stars smoking in movies).

Let’s consider what would happen if this measure were taken in the United States. The backlash from the tobacco industry would be harsh, especially in an economic downturn. I imagine we would hear opponents talking about how our country is rooted in a culture of tobacco, beginning with settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth. The “babysitter” argument would also be made, where people bemoan their government for trying to make choices for them about their personal health and lifestyle. Further, just as the New York City subway ads against sugary beverages and smoking have been called overly graphic, there would be those who complain that the federally mandated packaging is just gross and they shouldn’t have to look at closeups of cancer-ridden lungs while they pay for their groceries.

But there would also be people like me, who would claim that education is the key, and that if the number of smokers continues to rise, then our current programs aren’t working. I do not think we will live in a world where tobacco is fully banned; we will always have smokers. We can, and should, take other measures which restrict tobacco advertising, particularly to people who are underage. However, from a media literacy perspective, I fear that Australia is going too far. I think it is more valuable for us to have branding and be taught to make our own decisions as consumers, just as it is my responsibility to learn how to read a nutrition label. While I am glad that I can go into any bar or restaurant in New York City and know that I won’t be faced with second-hand smoke, I do think that this is a decision best made by the independent establishments. Then it’s up to me to choose which of those places I want to patronize. People smoking around me does impact my health, but the presence of branded cigarettes behind a counter does not. Taking them away removes my responsibility to make my own informed decisions, begins to smack of censorship, and frankly makes the world a little too baby-proofed for me.

–Emily Long

Cartoon from "Under the Jacaranda Tree"

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.

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

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