6/24 Germany and U.S.: Child Pornography & Censorship

The Dawning of Internet Censorship in Germany

Appeals Court Backs Prison for E-Mail Obscenity (this article is part of the Wired Threat Level blog)

For this week's post, I was torn between discussing two censorship news items, but both have similarities that provide insight into current censorship issues on the internet. The first concerns internet censorship in Germany, where the parliament voted to install internet censorship architecture. The second case involves censorship of e-mails deemed obscene, as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided not to rehear the case of a man authoring and emailing pornographic fiction. What struck me about these decisions limiting our intellectual freedom is that they were both made in an effort to combat child pornography.

In Germany, to fight child pornography, the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation will create lists of child pornography sites, and then Internet providers will allow the government to block them using the "secret censorship architecture." The article referenced didn't go into details about the technology behind this censorship architecture, but it did indicate that there is strong mainstream opposition to it based on the possibility that it will lead to more censorship of other objectionable content. The article mentions that German politicians are already inquiring about censoring gambling sites, first-person shooters, and Islamist web pages. This move by Germany brings to mind the recent announcement from China that computers would need to have software installed that would block pornography (though China also reversed its decision). That democratic Germany is being compared to China underscores the seriousness of this decision. The one heartening thing about this case is the fever pitched opposition, with an e-petition of over 130,000 signatures making the rounds on the internet.

The other case occurred in the U.S. and now makes emailing obscene sexual fantasies a federal crime. The man in the case Dwight Whorely did in fact possess child pornography and was convicted because of it. However, the Justice Department also decided to charge him with possessing obscene Manga under the Protect Act, and also convicted him of authoring and emailing to internet friends a pornographic sexual fantasy involving children, with prosecutors using an older statute that outlaws the possession of “any obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print or other matter of indecent character” as defined by a jury. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided 10-1 not to rehear the case, but the one dissenting judge (a George W. Bush appointee, to my surprise) wants the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying: “I am hard-pressed to think of a better modern day example of government regulation of private thoughts than what we have before us in this case: convicting a man for the victimless crime of privately communicating his personal fantasies to other consenting adults."

I think it appalling the freedoms being lost in the name of protecting children. Concerns for the safety of children seems to make those who are elected and appointed to protect our freedoms ignore the consequences to intellectual freedom that their decisions create. It is also easy for public opinion to support the erosion of freedoms when it comes to laws created to keep predators from children, or apparently even punishing them for thinking about children in sexual ways (as shown by the above court case). This is anecdotal but kind of relates to how we become blinded by our concern for the safety of children. I've always had a problem with the television show To Catch a Predator. I question how healthy it is for a viewing audience to encourage entrapment and the ruining of lives that we know nothing about except for that which the television network allows us to see, and also all done by a television show that is just looking for high ratings. But when I bring up such issues with those who watch, I usually only get fierce defense of the show and the quick labeling of such people as predators who get what is coming to them. When it comes to children, people will probably justify any measures to protect them.

With all the censorship news articles I've read about in this class, I am amazed how much has to do with children, and specifically child pornography (sexting, the Iowa child pornography manga conviction etc). I think maybe our society needs to stop living in fear, but I wonder whether our society has fundamentally changed as we are constantly told to live in fear of threats like terrorism. Hopefully people start coming to their senses about these child pornography issues. If it is not actual photographs/video of child pornography, please, let's not punish people for the private thoughts they might have about children. If there are no victims, let's not throw people in jail. If we are so concerned about child pornography, let's solve it in ways that don't involve "secret censorship architecture," that phrase alone should frighten anyone that has a modicum of unwillingness to let go of his/her intellectual freedom. If we let our fears control our reasoning, we will probably just end up living with even more (fears of government surveillance, censorship of constitutionally protected speech).

6/17 High School May Pull 'Vibe' Magazine

According to a recent news article, there is an effort at a high school in Wisconsin to pull the magazine Vibe from shelves. The complaint didn't come from a parent but rather the principal who had received a complaint about the magazine from a board member. The principal is also on the review committee for deciding whether to keep the magazine. What I like about this coverage of the issue is the reading specialist Christine Frinak and IMC director Jeanne Anderson's strong stance supporting intellectual freedom and opposing the removal of the magazine . Anderson explained that a student requested more music magazines and that she chose Vibe, after doing research and finding it was on ALA's recommended magazines for high school students. Frinak reminded the committee that the content may not "look like a lot of the people who live here" but that students should have access to all points of view. A concerned parent and also a school board member asked if the magazine was worse than the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, which is kept behind the counter, and Frinak explained it is only behind the counter because it would get stolen. One of the most questionable arguments made against the magazine was that prisons don't allow the magazine. That a school is compared to a prison is troublesome, as such a comparison shows the lack of respect for the intellectual freedom of students.

Ultimately, the magazine was called mysongynistic, and the concern for how women are treated seemed to be the focus of why it should be pulled. In the "product description" of Vibe magazine on Amazon, it states: "Covering a culture that is frequently misogynistic and homophobic, Vibe is both women- and gay-friendly, and surprisingly broad in its interpretation of who's cool enough for hip-hop: Elton John (for his Grammy duet with Eminem), maverick senator Jim Jeffords, and Seattle Mariners baseball star Ichiro Suzuki." I wonder if the opposers of the magazine have more of a problem with the culture that is represented than the magazine, as Frinak felt the need to point out that even though the people in the magazine may not look like locals, it still represents a point of view that should be heard. Sometimes hip-hop culture can be mysonygistic, as noted in the above quote, but unless the magazine is openly promoting misogynous viewpoints, the magazine can't be faulted for the very content that it has to cover. I also find it troubling that the principal is on the review committee, since he made the complaint. Administrators should be more confident in the selection abilities of its media specialist, otherwise, the specialists may begin to censor when selecting for fear of administrative complaints. I also wonder if the principal only acted because a school board member complained about it (but that is all conjecture). I would like to hear a student point of view on this matter so that they can relate how the content actually affects them.

6/10: Amazon Banning Rapelay Games

In February, Amazon banned a game called "Rapelay," which had users direct a  character to sexually assault a mother and her daughters and also to rape many other female characters. The game was supposed to  be sold only in Japan, but it was being sold on Amazon through a third party seller. Amazon UK and US agreed to ban these games because so many customers objected to it. Recently, a feminist blog pointed out another game that is being sold on Amazon that involves sexual assault. They asked their readers to contact Amazon to ban the game from being sold. 

I can see how there was a strong protest against these games, and I would never want to play one. But I am wondering if banning them is the right thing to do.  We draw lines for freedom of speech, such as making illegal child pornography, but I don't believe these games should be targeted for censorship.  Amazon, as a business, had its own interest in mind when removing the games, but the effort by customers to ban the game is troubling.  Games that allow users to violently maim and murder are allowed to be sold, and yet games involving sexual violence are banned. It seems there is a double standard for what we consider acceptable in the way of video games. I'm sure that we all agree that violence in all forms is unacceptable, so having one type banned does not make sense. Also, the item was being sold on Amazon through a third party. They were not being sold at a local family store in plain view of everyone. The nature of the game is sickening, but having them allowed to be sold online only through a small vendor seems like a good compromise. There are people who are against pornography and wouldn't want them to be sold in stores, so they are sold in their own venues, away from the view of the general public. The same could be offered for these types of games. 

It seems like there have been supposed links made between video games affecting the behavior of its users; however, until there is hard evidence of that, than I don't think we should just ban thing we just don't agree with.  Luckily, this is just one vendor caving into the will of its customers and has not become legislation. 

    

6/3: Protesting Ayers Speech

I found an article about an event that happened early in May but raises interesting questions about free speech at public libraries:

http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=27063&zoneid=3 

The article concerns a public library dealing with protestors who were protesting the library's hosting a speech by former 1960's anti-war activists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn. They were part of the group Weather Underground and have been labeled as terrorists because their group bombed empty offices at the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon in the 70's. Ayers was especially a controversial figure during Obama's campaign, as Obama's opposition tried to link the two and characterize them as "pals."

The couple, Ayers and Dhorn, are on a national book tour promoting their book "Race Course: Against White Supremacy." According to the article, The Enoch Pratt Free Library were going to host the couple and were already receiving protests about the event. The library handled the response well, saying that they "welcome them [protestors] as well, as long as they are not disruptive to our patrons and to the program, they are welcome to sit in and participate in the program." They also state, "We don't have to judge whoever the author is, or whatever their background is. We believe that is what our patrons can do."

The controversy over the speech reminds me of the protest against Obama's speech at Notre Dame that made headlines. However, in this case, the issue is with a library, not a university, inviting a controversial person to speak. And when it comes to censorship issues, there is much attention given to how librarians handle challenges to books but not to speakers. But as the Enoch case shows, speakers at libraries can cause just as much opposition, and maybe even more since a speaking event would be well-publicized.

That Enoch Pratt library is willing to host a controvesial author is admirable, but I wonder how many public libraries would do the same. This makes me think of the article, "A Dirty Little Secret: Self-Censorship," in which librarians are censoring themselves by not choosing controversial materials. I wonder how often this happens at public libraries and whether libraries should establish policies for hosting authors/speakers so that they are not being biased in their selection. And if a library hosts an author/speaker with a controversial viewpoint, should the library then host a speaker/author with the opposing viewpoint? For example, I know of a library that did a display for Gay and Lesbian Pride Month but then also featured a "family" dispay the next month to show balance. Should the same happen with featured speakers/authors? These are just some of the questions with regards to handling intellectual freedom issues when it comes to speakers/authors/events/programs featured at the library.

5/26 Post: Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act

Bill Would turn Internet Flamers into Felons

Trolling Someone Online? Bill Would Slap You with Jail Time

The current event item I want to talk about is the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act that has been introduced in April by US representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA). The articles above show the internet backlash against the bill, as it is now being dubbed the Censorship Act. The language of the bill is thus:

"(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The major problem that critics have is that the language is vague and broad. What could potentially be included as causing "emotional distress" through "electronic means" could be angry text messages sent to an ex-boyfriend or a forum post telling someone to go kill themselves over an opinion about a news article. To defend her bill, Sanchez states that her bill is akin to stopping a person on the street who is telling a defenseless child to go kill him/herself. However, the bill is not limited to children, so her analogy is a poor one.

In my opinion, hostility on the internet is just the way of things. The internet does afford anonymity, and so people will say things on the internet or electronically that they might not in person. I feel that this quote from ALA's Freedom or Read statement is apt for this situation:

"Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of accelerated change. And yet suppression is never more dangerous than in such a time of social tension. Freedom has given the United States the elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversy and difference."

Even though the freedom to read statement has more to do with publications and not electronic discourse, this quote seems appropriate in that if the bill were to pass it would in fact leave our society "less able to deal with controversy and difference." How can people discuss controversial issues and differences electronically, if they would fear that someone may take so much offense at what they say that it would cause "emotional distress"?

Even though the bill is not library specific, I do believe that if this passes it would have a profound affect on the way information professionals must interpret free speech. It will make speech through "electronic means" very different than through print or verbal means. Everything is going electronic these days, with library collections going digital and libraries encouraging the web 2.0 phenomenon of social/community networking. I know of libraries already afraid to allow user comments on their websites, this bill would certainly create more fear about such efforts.

In maybe a more practical aspect of this issue, libraries that offer patrons access to their computers and the internet may have to worry about people using the computers for internet "flaming" or "trolling," activities that the above articles suggest would be illegal. This would increase the cases in which authorities would request personally identifiable information about patrons.

Of course I don't want this bill passed, but if it does, librarians would need to be well-informed about its implications.