Not surprising to me (or anyone who is aware of my love for Finland) was the group of Nordic countries topping the list. Congratulations, Scandinavia, on your transparency. Equally interesting is the high position of the three Baltic nations - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. History will attest to their independent spirit and I think it is admirable that less than 20 years after declaring freedom from the USSR, they are considered to be some of the most open countries to emerge from behind the iron curtain.
The report includes information about how the index was compiled, along with the questionnaire which was used by journalists and media outlets.
In 2005, photographer and educator Ann Mansolino spent some time in Singapore teaching at Ngee Ann Polytechnic University. She experienced first hand the culture of censorship in the country. While researching in the university's library, she found several photography history books that had pages torn out, sections of pages cut out, text whited out, and images covered up. While there was not a specific policy on censoring the texts, it did seem to be common practice. She decided to document these in a series called "Revised Edition." She says:
"Newer books were just benign -- it was censorship through selection. Rather than having photography books on the shelf that might have significant historical images that involved nudity that they'd then have to remove, the library only ordered books that couldn't possibly been seen as objectionable -- like 'Extreme Sports Photography!' or 'Shooting Weddings with your Digital SLR'. The new books did not have substance or support the curriculum, but no one cared, because they were unobjectionable. When I asked if we could have more books on [black and white] photography, as that's what was taught, the librarian just got a really smug expression and said, 'we have NEW books now.' And that was the end of the discussion." (A. Mansolino, personal communication, October 7, 2009)
Mansolino's experience with censored books is just part of a larger problem in Singapore today. The parliamentary republic is run by the People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power since Singapore gained independence from Britain in 1959.
James Gomez's book, Self-Censorship:Singapore's Shame, explains how the PAP uses the people's self-censorship to their advantage and also help to continue cultivating the cycle of censorship. It is a complex system that works on many levels.
While the constitution allows for freedom of speech and assembly, it also gives Parliament the right to restrict those freedoms on the basis of national security, public order or morality. Something so broad as morality (whose morality?) leaves the door to restriction of freedoms wide open.
Some who have spoken out against the government or general policies have been persecuted. The government brings defamation lawsuits, bankruptcy and tax evasion suits against them, and the local news agencies (Singapore ranks 133rd out of 175 in the 2009 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index), further damage the reputation and character of the individuals in the press (Gomez 17). Those images remain with Singaporeans and cultivate the strong fear of any opposition to the PAP.
Mansolino says, "People generally believe that the system overall is working -- they have the highest standard of living in the region, quality housing and health care, no crime, etc -- and are willing to put up with governmental restrictions as a result. They also fear opposing the system - it is a culture of fear...."
For the time being, there is little censorship on the Internet in Singapore (though there are still consequences for expressing personal opinions). Some Singaporeans are using that to their advantage. The Enquirer is all online, as well as sites like singapore-window.org.
Stay tuned for future articles on censorship in Singapore.
Print source: Gomez, J. (2000) Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame. Singapore: Think Centre.
We all love Democracy right? Its one of those things you love without fully understanding what it is, like freedom or hot dogs. So what does it mean when the Council of Europe starts calling for more democracy on the web? This week the Council of Europe will be holding the 2009 Internet Governance Forum in Egypt. While it would be beyond the scope of this blog to point out the irony of holding a forum on e-democracy in a country with a sham democratic system of government, it would behoove us to discuss what e-democracy is.
The internet is recognized to be the means by which everything comes to pass. It can be said that a large number of people in the world effectively live on the internet. Their financial transactions, social interaction, entertainment, learning and working are all done on the internet. So like every aspect of human life, the internet needs to be controlled and it needs to be done in a way that will jive with current governmental/ economic setups, so what else but a democracy?
What does this mean? Are we voting on internet content? e-democracy, according to the Council of Europe, means equal access to content and equal opportunity to produce content. The internet then is an extension of "freedom of expression" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" The country of France went so far as to decide that internet access is a fundamental human right. But will the internet become intrinsically linked to our understanding of democracy?
So what do you think? Is the internet a fundamental human right? What does democracy on the web mean to you? Is democracy the best way to govern the web? Should national governments decide how the internet should be run? Should only national governments with democratic systems be allowed to decide? What about China, who currently hosts the highest number of internet users in the world? What should they talk about at the 2009 Internet Governance Forum?
I once visited the Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, California. It is a beautiful setting featuring not only the gardens, but also art collections and a library. But could I visit the library? No. I was not a faculty member or a doctoral student or a scholar. I simply wanted to look.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not actually try to make my way into the library. I had checked the requirements on the website and discovered that I did not meet the criteria. (I wonder if they would now make an exception for a LIS student.)
So why this odd mix of emotions in my head? I didn’t have any desire to see anything in particular, I didn’t have research to do – I was just a curious man with a desire to see a beautiful building and its collection. As a private library, The Huntington is free to create its own rules for admittance. It just seems odd that it should be titled a library. Libraries now have the connotation that they are institutions which are free and accessible to all. Would a name change to “The Huntington Collection” make it less appealing to me?
The name Huntington Library was most likely applied to the collection when it was still the private library of Henry Huntington; however, the semantic value of the word library makes me believe that I should have the right to visit. Change it to The Huntington Collection, and I am more willing to accept that access may be restricted. Change the name to The Huntington Archives and I then see accessibility as open, but I would also accept that parts of the collection may be restricted. I find it fascinating the amount of power that simple words can have!
So, should private libraries like The Huntington be called libraries? I don’t know that it is a very sensitive topic or even something that anyone would devote a great deal of time arguing. As a linguist, I find issues of meaning to be very interesting and I often wonder if I am alone in my curiosity.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) recently announced the first states to receive funds for a broadband mapping program. California, Indiana, North Carolina and Vermont will all receive the funds as part of the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP).
The plan is to bring grants to each state and territory of the US, as well as the District of Columbia. These four states had the best applications and NTIA is reviewing the rest. The awarded funds will be used to build a national broadband map which will be useful in several ways:
The national broadband map will publicly display the geographic areas where broadband service is available; the technology used to provide the service; the speeds of the service; and broadband service availability at public schools, libraries, hospitals, colleges, universities, and public buildings.
Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed earlier this year, BTOP will be implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in consultation with the NTIA. By February 17, 2010, the FCC must develop a plan to bring broadband capability to everyone in the United States.
Close the broadband gap in America, focusing in particular on ensuring that unserved and underserved areas – whether rural, urban or in between – have access to modern communications services and the benefits those services offer for education, high-value jobs, quality health care and more.
Bring the maximum broadband benefits possible to our schools, libraries, community centers, and medical centers, as well as to our most vulnerable populations and geographic areas.
Improve broadband service for public safety users.
Help stimulate broadband demand, economic growth, and job creation.
Part of the plan is to create a Broadband Map, which will be publicly accessible, and regularly updated. The deadline for the map is February 17, 2011, and officials expect to have an early version of the map up by February 2010. The map will enable the general public to learn where and what quality of broadband is available, and help businesses decide where to invest.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $4.7 billion for the project.
In a press release from the White House, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said, “The Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program will reach the last frontiers of America’s information landscape, and the investments it makes in inner-city neighborhoods and rural communities will spur innovation and pave the way for private capital to follow.”
More awards will be announced throughout the fall.
These programs will help increase access to information for all Americans, whether it will enable them to use broadband in their homes or provide access at public libraries. Hopefully the program stays on track and once the plan is developed, it can be acted upon.
Senate legislation was introduced on June 25th which would require any US government agency or department with a budget of over $100 million to make various research findings available on the Internet. Click here to view the text of the bill. Understandably, the policy does not apply to various pieces of information like phone calls or classified research. It does dictate that non-classified research be made available online as soon as possible after the article has been published.
While I believe this is valuable legislation, I wonder if it goes far enough. $100 million is a lot of money - but so is $50 million, or $10 million. I know that these figures may be small change to the government, but in the real world they are pretty substantial. Perhaps the government would argue that that would be too much information to publish online, but as far as I am aware the Internet does not have a limit to the amount of information that can be published. If the research will already be published in a pear-reviewed journal (as the legislation dictates) then it does not seem like a stretch to add a quick Internet link to a copy of the research findings which can be viewed by anyone with an Internet connection.
I can also foresee the argument that certain topics which require small funding budgets do not have the level of interest required to publish online. 10 years ago, I would have welcomed any opportunity to ease my research on Finnish syllable structure. I realize that the US government probably contributes virtually no (if any) funding to this topic. But hypothetically, a small amount of research that I could have accessed online may have saved hours of cross referencing and trips to various different libraries. I received no funding for my thesis research and I would have happily published my findings online - knowing full well that the interest in the topic may extend to about 10 other people.
I may be naive, but it seems that it should not take legislation to require research findings be published online. Is it actually that difficult? As I stated, I know that there are topics that should remain classified; however, if I came up with a finding that I believed was important or interesting enough to share, why not share it with everyone? It seems like a logical decision.
If you were to enter the Australian government website you would find a bright colored smiley face with the words next to it that read Cyber Smart. A click on this link would take you for a ride to the happy land of multi-level censorship. Censorship, which the Australian government labels "cyber safety," has various Internet control options for children, teens, parents and even libraries.
Australia's government has forcibly erected ISP filters which they claim are designed to regulate and filter inappropriate content mainly for children. There is NOT an opt out option. Internet users can choose to opt out of the filter for child safety but there not an option to opt out of the "illegal content" filter. The question really becomes "who is deciding what is illegal content?"
The government is relying solely on the Australia Media and Communications Authority (AMCA) to provide specific sites for blacklisting. ACMA is also responsible for telecommunication, broadcasting, and radio regulation as well as Spam control.
On February 24, 2009 in a news interview the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, admitted that there is a possibility that the government will block legal as well as illegal content. Currently the Internet content that is considered illegal is Refused Classification and X18+ material, which includes simulated sex (without an age limit), depictions of actual sex, and child pornography. One of the main problems is that sexual content is considered to be on the same criminal level as child pornography. It is highly possible that the censorship program could end up prohibiting news articles pertaining to sex in addition to other sexual content. The AMCA also has enacted the Ruddock-era book ban on alleged terrorist material, which would also limit academic research. Stephen Conroy is intent on expanding the definition of "illegal content" to include suicide counseling information, gambling websites, and material that has been banned by multinational corporations.
In my mind, the largest problem with ISP filters is that by controlling the information that people can access you are controlling their thoughts. I completely agree that Spam and child pornography should be deemed illegal, but I don't believe that it should come with the heavy price of forcible ISP filtering and government censorship of other content. People should have the right and freedom to the access of information. And the most terrifying thing of all, is that this is a government sponsored program that is being backed by conservative and corporate interests.
Sources:
Chow, E. (2008) Australia to Build Great Firewall Down Under.Retrieved from http://www.gizmodo.com
Commonwealth of Australia. (2009) How Filtering Works. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au
Commonwealth of Australia. (2008) Minister Welcomes Advances in Internet Filtering Technology.
October brought the annual Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders. The index is compiled every year with input from journalists and media outlets around the world. 
Posts
