Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts

Monday, January 30, 2012

Twitter Censorship: Choosing Half a Loaf?

"Twitter Switches on the Censors"
Alyssa Danigelis, Tech News, Discovery News (January 28, 2011)

"The social networking site Twitter finds itself between a rock and a hard place in foreign countries where speech isn't always free. On the one hand, Twitter's leadership doesn't want the whole site banned in those countries. On the other, what's a dictatorial government going to do with a social networking site that helps stir up civil dissent? The answer: Ban it. But that's not good for business.

"So the site that helped fuel the Arab Spring last year and briefly brought Iranian protests to the fore in 2009 just announced that it's going to start dancing with the censorship devil. In the past, if a tweet had to be removed from the site for legal reasons -- usually copyright infringement -- it was taken down universally. Now, the tweet can be taken down from one country and still seen by tweeters in other countries...."

'It can't happen here?' America has a pretty good track record for allowing citizens to voice opinions. McCarthyism and the heyday of political correctness are, in the Lemming's opinion, not examples of 'business as usual' in this country.

On the other hand, Congress almost took control of the comics industry. That was the early 1950s:'Public morals' might still work as an excuse to muzzle dissent: although the Lemming thinks that sort of censorship would now be packaged as 'saving the children.' We had a close call about a year ago, when controlling search engine results was marketed as "search neutrality."

This year, the line was "piracy." So far, Congress seems to have decided to wait until folks forget about SOPA and PIPA. Maybe the Lemming's being unfair.

"Different Ideas About ... Freedom"

"...'As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there,' the announcement from Twitter says.

"Any time a tweet is censored, the company says it will notify the person who tweeted it and describe the removal on a Twitter-specific section of ChillingEffects.org...."

There's a joke that was old when the Soviet Union turned into Russia, and a lot of smaller countries. Several, actually, but this one almost applies to Twitter and censorship:

An American and a Russian were comparing their countries. The American said his was better, because Americans have freedom of speech. "I could stand in front of the White House and say, 'the president is stupid!' "

"Ha," replied the Russian. "We also have freedom of speech! I could stand in front of the Kremlin and say, 'the American president is stupid!' "

Like Twitter said, some countries "have different ideas about ... freedom of expression."

Half a Loaf?

Ideally, no country's government would try to keep its citizens from voicing their opinions. But we don't live in an ideal world.

The Lemming thinks that the "half a loaf is better than none" principle applies here. Twitter is probably taking a sensible approach: allowing people in tightly-managed countries access to some service.

In the Lemming's opinion, folks are pretty good at communicating: even when their 'betters' don't want them to. 'Songs of the underground railroad' and spirituals may or may not have been a case in point. The lack of written evidence may be connected to the reason that "composer of jazz" is pretty close to being an oxymoron. And that's another topic.

Songs

Somewhere, some time since folks started working the bugs out using fire without killing themselves, there may have been a culture without music. If so, the Lemming suspects that they didn't last long: and left precious few traces. But that's just an opinion.

A fair number of folks have valued songs for over two dozen centuries:

"Among all men on the earth bards have a share of honor and reverence, because the muse has taught them songs and loves the race of bards."
Homer, The Odyssey (Greek epic poet (800 BC - 700 BC))

"Of all noises, I think music is the least disagreeable."
Samuel Johnson (English author, critic, & lexicographer (1709 - 1784))

Not everybody sees music quite the same way:

"The whole problem can be stated quite simply by asking, 'Is there a meaning to music?' My answer would be, 'Yes.' And 'Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?' My answer to that would be, 'No.' "
Aaron Copland (US composer (1900 - 1990))

"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (English conductor (1879 - 1961))

Wrenching himself back on-topic, the Lemming offers:

Freedom and Other Inconveniences

"The basis of a democratic state is liberty."
Aristotle, Politics (Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC))

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 (US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790))

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791 (3rd president of US (1743 - 1826))

"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other."
Carl Schurz (US (German-born) general & politician (1829 - 1906))

"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered."
G. K. Chesterton (English author & mystery novelist (1874 - 1936))

"The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155 (US jurist (1936 - ))

And that's yet another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

SOPA, PIPA, and a Disapproving Rabbit

You know it's serious, when a rabbit gets involved:

"We Disapprove of SOPA/PIPA"
Disapproving Rabbits (January 18, 2012)

"Hey all,

"We normally keep politics out of Disapproving Rabbits, but as people who create and sell things on the internet (and have had our work stolen), both Sharon and I feel we should join the protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP Act (PIPA), which as you can probably tell by the names, are designed to fight Internet Piracy.

"We feel that the legislation goes too far, gives the government and media companies too much power, and is poorly written. You can learn more about them here, but I urge you to investigate on your own...."

Disapproving Rabbits had planned to take the site down for 24 hours, but that would have been a whole lot of work: since they use Blogger, just like the Lemming. Instead, they turned the background color to black.

Turning this blog's background to black would be trickier, since it's a bit complicated - and uses an antique Blogger template. Excuses, excuses.

SOPA may be a well-intentioned, incompetently-planned, overly-powerful bit of legislation. On the other hand, a free Internet is a serious threat to the power of old-school information gatekeepers. Maybe SOPA isn't as daft as it seems: and represents an attempt to regain control of what Americans are allowed to see and read.

I've posted about information gatekeepers before:Other related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 9, 2012

Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress

This isn't a 'political' blog. Not in the sense that the Lemming says every [insert political position] idea is brilliant, while everyone associated with [insert political party] are satanic traitors with body odor issues.

On the other hand, the Lemming likes freedom of expression, and an Internet where folks can voice opinions: even if some federal official doesn't agree. Maybe SOPA is a wonderful idea, that just happened to get introduced toward the start of an election cycle.

Here's what got the Lemming started this evening:

Blacklisting Pirates and Other Subversive Elements?

"Geeks to Testify (Finally!) About SOPA Blacklisting Implications"
David Kravets, Threat Level, Wired (January 9, 2012)

"Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), a major opponent of the Stop Online Piracy Act, announced Monday he is bringing in the techies to hold a public hearing highlighting the online security implications of a proposed bill that would force changes to internet infrastructure to fight online copyright infringement.

"The announcement came three weeks after a markup of SOPA in the House Judiciary Committee was abruptly postponed amid concerns over its blacklisting element, which lets the attorney general order changes to core internet infrastructure in order to stop copyright infringement.

"The fight pits the big donors of Hollywood against Silicon Valley, relative newcomers to the world of influence peddling. Hollywood argues that millions of jobs are lost a year due to pirate websites, while the tech world argues that the open nature of the internet has created millions of jobs and that copyright holders already have tools to fight illegal downloaders...."

The Lemming is a content provider, and concerned about intellectual property rights. Data, including software, music, and written material, can be copied and distributed online: without the permission of whoever owns the information; and without giving the owner any credit - or profit - which might result.

SOPA is being sold as a solution to online piracy. Maybe it is. But the Lemming is very dubious. Particularly since the folks who seem to be pushing SOPA, like American movie and music studios, do not have a good record where it comes to allowing creative folks to share credit or profit for the content they produce.

Content providers need some sort of legal protection for their intellectual property rights. But the Lemming remembers the 'good old days,' when America was repairing damage done by McCarthy-era blacklists. Today's wannabe blacklisters are a different bunch, and this time it's Hollywood types who would benefit. Blacklists, particularly when created by a government agency with inadequate safeguards for citizens' rights, sound like a very, very bad idea.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, December 30, 2011

SOPA: 20 Reasons Why It's a Really Bad Idea

"20 Ways SOPA Can Affect The Internet"
Info Carnivore (December 30, 2011)

"The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is now before the American Congress, waiting to be passed or not. With online piracy at an all time high, the US feels that it’s become almost impossible to manage traffic across borders. While the Congress ponders over this, the internet population is concerned as to how SOPA will affect the internet...."

The Lemming ranted about SOPA on Wednesday. Normally, there wouldn't be another post about the same topic for - maybe a week or more. In this case, the Lemming thinks a little repetition won't hurt.

SOPA may be well-intentioned, but the Lemming thinks that Congress should stop, take a deep breath, tear the thing up, and start over.

The Info Carnivore post is mostly a 20-point list about SOPA. It's not good news. Here's a sample:

Forget About Online Business, Freedom of Speech

"...1. Death Penalty For Online Businesses: SOPA authorizes sites that are reported for copyright infringement to be cut off from their domain name. ISPs can force advertisers and payment processors to suspend their services to the site...."

That "death penalty" phrase is a bit over-stated. The Lemming has heard or read nothing to indicate that business owners would actually be executed under SOPA provisions. Still, as a metaphor for driving a company out of business, it's appropriate.

"...6. Free Speech Rights Will Be Censored: Online businesses, user-generated content sites and social media sites will try to play it safe and start heavily censoring user content. This can stifle users’ free speech rights, making the internet a risky place to say anything at all...."

"It can't happen here?" The Lemming remembers McCarthyism and political correctness. Moving on.

'Who Needs a Trial?'

"...2. Sites Blocked And Sued For User Content: Sites which host copyright content uploaded by users can be blacklisted and blocked via ISPs, search engines and payment processors. This can be done without the benefit of a court hearing...."

Let's look at #2 again. Sites that host content uploaded by users can be driven offline. Maybe that doesn't sound so bad: SOPA is against pirates, right? Here's the problem: "...This can be done without the benefit of a court hearing...."

Let's look at a hypothetical situation. You wake up some morning, go online, and try to find something on CNET's Download.com. It's not there any more. Google reports that there's no such site. A few weeks, maybe months or years, later, you find out why. Somebody told the SOPA enforcers that something on Download.com was illegal. So the site was taken off the Internet.

Why bother with a trial?

Is that being alarmist? Maybe. But governments, governmental agencies, and officials have been known to do odd things.

The Info Carnivore post discusses what we can expect from SOPA:
  1. Death Penalty For Online Businesses
  2. Sites Blocked And Sued For User Content
  3. Copyright Holders Can Sue Sites
  4. Social Media Held Accountable
  5. Small Tech Companies To Suffer
  6. Free Speech Rights Will Be Censored
  7. Downloading Free Content Will Become Risky
  8. Legitimate Business Will Be Held Liable
  9. Open Source Sites May Shut Down
  10. DNS System Will Be Undermined
  11. Internet Speeds May Slow Down
  12. Downgrade Attacks Will Increase
  13. Use Of Illegal Web Proxies Will Increase
  14. Emergency Proxy Servers May Be Made Illegal
  15. Streaming Sites Will Be Penalized
  16. Online Album Sites Will Shut Down
  17. Browsers Will Be Penalized
  18. ISPs Will Infringe On Privacy
  19. Legitimate Links Can Be Deleted
  20. Browser Ability To Generate Fair Links Will Be Impacted
Pirated intellectual property is a real issue, one that should be addressed. But SOPA doesn't look like a solution.

Whether SOPA is an ill-considered effort to show how busy Congressional incumbents are, or an effort to grab control of what commoners may say or see on the Internet: SOPA looks like a really bad idea. For everybody except whoever winds up running it.

A tip of the Lemming's hat to danielsnyder1, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this post.

Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming

Will you sleep more soundly tonight, knowing that the American Congress is protecting you from big, bad pirates? And those dastardly delinquents who wantonly post photos of kittens online?

The Lemming won't.

Beware: Congress is in Session

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
(Gideon J. Tucker in Final Accounting in the Estate of A. B. (1866))

Particularly with a presidential election coming up in 2012, quite a few incumbents are wondering if this is the year when their constituents get fed up: or whether their party will hang onto whatever they grabbed in the last election.

With everyone from the top chair-warmers to the least-senior member of the House hellbent on either getting their own butts replanted in Congress, or helping their party reelect someone else - there's likely to be some weird legislation proposed, to show how hard the folks in Congress are working.

Like SOPA. The Stop Online Piracy Act. Beloved by record labels, movie studios and TV networks.

SOPA, Censorship, and Congress

It's not that the Lemming doesn't like Congress. For what it's worth, the Lemming is fairly confident that quite a few members of Congress stay sober for days at a time, and really believe that they're doing something constructive with other people's money.

SOPA is (probably) intended to protect the intellectual property rights of MGM, Warner Music Group, and CBS.

So far, that's not a problem for the Lemming. Who knows? Content providers at the other end of the influence spectrum might benefit: at least as a side effect.

Copyright, and other intellectual property rights, are important to the Lemming. But so is freedom of speech.

Let's look at what our betters in Washington are up to:

From Talkies to File Sharing Sites

Back in the 'Good Old Days,' someone wanting to see a motion picture had to go to a theater and pay for a ticket. The theater owner, distribution company, and movie studio brass all got a piece of the action. Truck drivers, concession clerks, and yes-men got a few cents on the dollar, too, in their paychecks. Then big, bad television came along.

As movie moguls adjusted to broadcast television: cable came along, and once again 'civilization was threatened' by something new. Somehow, we survived.

Then the Internet descended on entrenched corporate bigwigs.

Information Age technology and social structures have made it possible for folks to share enormous amounts of information: quickly; efficiently; inexpensively; and without the permission of America's traditional information gatekeepers. (See "What is an Information Gatekeeper?," Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009))

The Lemming likes the Information Age: particularly since the Lemming isn't quite on the same page, ideologically or otherwise, with America's 'better sort.' And that's almost another topic.

Protecting Hollywood From Movie Lovers

The dark side of Information Age technology is that almost anyone can, with very little specialized equipment or training, copy anything that's 'digitized:'
  • Books
  • Movies
  • Software
  • Photographs
  • Music
  • The inside of a bubble gum wrapper
  • Anything
Some of that information is, or should be, protected by copyright, trademark, or other existing intellectual property rights laws.

As a result, folks who once paid for a ticket to see a movie, or sat through a minute of commercials for every two minutes of programming, can now - legally or not - download pretty much the same movie for next to no cost.

Here's how SOPA is supposed to work, to protect MGM and other copyright holders:
  1. Force ISPs to block access to Domain Name System servers to infringing foreign sites
  2. Force search providers to make such sites that have been flagged as infringing undiscoverable
  3. Force payments processors to shut down the ability for infringing sites to make money
  4. Force Internet advertisers to cease doing business with an infringing site
  5. Prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order
    (Source: ReadWriteWeb)
Okay: SOPA will give us a Federal bureaucracy with the power to stamp out file-sharing sites, keep Google from showing us websites that the folks in Washington don't think we should know about, and keep money flowing into a few corporate offices?

Who could possibly find a problem with that?

Protected From the Wicked, Wicked Web?

It's been quite a few years, since the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority joined forced to 'save the children' from the wicked, wicked Web. The Lemming isn't making that up, by the way. (Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 9, 2008))

The point of that reminiscence is that, when old-school folks see something new coming: quite a few try to get 'the government' to protect them from folks who have kept up with the times. It's understandable, maybe: but that doesn't make it right.

Intellectual Property Rights, Censorship, and the Lemming

About once a month, the Lemming has a guest post on another blog: but apart from that, what the Lemming posts or publishes is either a sort of micro-review, like most of this blog, or original content with the occasional cited quotation.

The Lemming is a 'content provider,' so intellectual property rights are important to the Lemming. Some effort goes into writing a post, or making a picture: and the Lemming thinks it's reasonable that whoever created the organized information should be rewarded. Or at least acknowledged. That's why the Lemming puts links to wherever the text or pictures in micro-reviews came from.

Then there's the 'I stole it fair and square' school of thought, whose adherents seem peeved when someone objects to publication-without-credit. Or payment.

Maybe the Lemming's old-fashioned after all: but it seems that acknowledging authorship or other creative credit isn't unreasonable.

What seems to be worrying folks about SOPA is censorship.

That's not, the Lemming hopes, what SOPA's supporters want.

But the Lemming remembers the 'good old days' when 'dirty' movies and shows were "banned in Boston." And there were odd views in 'nice' television, about pregnancy, and double beds.

A few decades later, and we had 'thought police' on campus, and legal sanctions against "hate speech."1 All of which isn't censorship: just ask the folks doing the censoring, and they'll re-educate you.

The End of Civilization?

Even if SOPA passes, and America gets 'protected' from photos of kittens and bunny rabbits, and pirated movies: life will go on. The Lemming thinks that, given the value Americans and others put on showing photos of their rabbits, sounding off on Congressional shenanigans, and passing jokes along - after a few more election cycles, and maybe the equivalent of the Army-McCarthy Hearings, a new set of Congressional twits will undo some of the damage.

The Lemming also thinks that we'd all be better off - with the possible exception of a few old-school studios and networks - if SOPA doesn't pass.

A few quotes from news and views, the usual links to related posts, and the Lemming's done.

GoDaddy, Boycott, and SOPA

"Reddit Users to Target Supporters of SOPA in Congress After Successful Boycott of GoDaddy"
Tech, Forbes, (December 28, 2011)

"When GoDaddy.com revealed that it was a supporter of the internet censorship legislation bills SOPA/PIPA, Reddit users and a few big names in the internet business including Wikipedia decided to boycott the web-hosting company.

"They threatened to pull their domains, stop using GoDaddy, and get their friends and associates to do the same.

"Within a couple days, GoDaddy had reversed its position despite the fact that it had helped write SOPA and was exempt from its rules and regulations. The boycott had been a wild success, forcing the company's hand much quicker than anyone had anticipated...."

Somehow, the GoDaddy connection with SOPA has captured old-school journalists' attention. Understandably, perhaps, considering the GoDaddy's sexy commercials. Imagine! Using attractive women to market something!

The Lemming uses some of GoDaddy's online services: but not because of their commercials. The Lemming went through the usual 'due diligence' process, and found that GoDaddy had a very favorable benefit/risk/cost ratio.

Moving on.

Beware the Foreign Pirates?

"Online piracy a hot issue for Congress in January"
Mike Snider, USA TODAY (December 28, 2011)

"A hot issue awaits Congress when it returns in January: online piracy.

"Both houses have bills to combat copyright infringement of movies, music and other intellectual property on rogue, non-U.S.-based websites.

"Powerful interests are facing off over the proposals: Content creators, led by Hollywood and the music industry, are pushing for the most stringent measures. Opposing them are tech and electronics giants.

"Sixteen tech companies, including Google, PayPal and Twitter, took out newspaper ads this month charging that the bills would 'give the U.S. government the power to censor the Web using techniques similar to those used by China.'..."

Okay, the Lemming acknowledges that USA Today cites some of SOPA's downside. But - "online piracy;" "rogue, non-U.S.-based websites;" "Content creators, led by Hollywood and the music industry;" "tech and electronics giants?"

Sorry, but the last that the Lemming heard, the real "content creators" still don't get paid all that much when a studio condescends to use what they've created. Yes, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have done pretty well. But most screenwriters, musicians, actors, and all the rest of the folks who actually create what the studio's marketing department sells?

Intellectual property rights are important: but so, in the Lemming's opinion, is the notion of rewarding the flunky with the ideas: not just the guy in the corner office.

SOPA: There's More than GoDaddy Going On Here

"On Eve of Net Boycott, Dump GoDaddy Exodus Begins"
Perry Chiaramonte, FoxNews.com (December 28, 2011)

"It's a boycott of viral proportions.

GoDaddy.com, one of the largest domain registrars on the Internet, stands to potentially lose thousands of customers on Thursday, Dec. 29, after the company gave and then repealed its support for a controversial bill before Congress that many fear could heavily restrict the web.

"On the eve of what has been dubbed 'Dump Go Daddy Day,' imgur.com -- pronounced "imager," it's one of the largest image hosting sites in the world, responsible for an astonishing 28 terabytes of bandwidth and nearly 200 million page views today alone -- has already changed its registry entries, foreshadowing the potential negative effect of a boycott set to begin Thursday morning.

"GoDaddy.com originally supported the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) -- which opponents say will hinder free speech and infringe on first amendment rights -- but quickly recanted its position when the call of a boycott circulated.

" 'The outcry kind of forced our hand,' imgur founder and owner Alan Schaaf told FoxNews.com. 'I'm against the SOPA act and imgur as a company is against it. We just feel it is terrible that GoDaddy.com would support this legislation.'

"SOPA would make websites responsible for illegal copyright content uploaded by any user, making it difficult if not impossible for companies like Imgur, YouTube, and Facebook to operate...."

Taking a deep breath and counting to 10: the Lemming repeats what was previously reported. GoDaddy originally supported SOPA. Then, as the online equivalent of an angry mob with pitchforks and torches approached the gates, decided to be sensible.

That's one of the things the Lemming likes about the Internet today: even if all three broadcast networks and The New York Times decide that The Masses shouldn't know about something: Americans can still find out.

We're not limited to what a relatively small number of people, mostly in the New England states, think we should know.

With something like SOPA 'protecting' us? Maybe not.

Related posts:
News and views:
1 Laws against slander and libel were already on the books. What "hate speech" regulation did was allow criticism of the dominant culture's beliefs to be defined as 'hateful.' As a marketing ploy, labeling criticism as "hate" was an effective way to mask censorship.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, December 9, 2011

Lèse Majesté, and Staggering Into the 21st Century

The Lemming posted "Lemming Tracks: 'Sexual Harassment' in the Information Age" about an hour ago. That was about an apparently-daft decision to slap a nine-year-old with a three-day suspension from school. For saying his teacher is "cute." What the kid did was, maybe, inappropriate. Maybe it warranted a three-day suspension.

But "sexual harassment?" Disco is dead, the '80s are long gone, and it's time to get a grip. In the Lemming's opinion, of course. Some folks never left Woodstock, and that's another topic.

Three Day Suspension, Two and a Half Year Prison Sentence, and a Lifetime of Memories

I'm not sure that throwing an adult in prison for insulting a king is 'more serious' than teaching a nine-year-old that people in authority are hypersensitive nitwits. Mr. Gordon's two and a half year prison sentence will last longer: but the nine-year-old will probably remember his experience for the rest of his life.

Anyway, here's what the Lemming saw in yesterday's news:

Don't Dis the King

"American Sentenced to Prison for Insulting Thai Monarchy"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (December 8, 2011)

"A court in Thailand sentenced a U.S. citizen to two and a half years in prison Thursday for defaming the country's royal family by translating excerpts of a locally banned biography of the king and posting them online.

"The verdict is the latest so-called lese majeste punishment handed down in the Southeast Asian kingdom, which has come under increasing pressure at home and abroad to reform harsh legislation that critics say is an affront to freedom of expression.

"The 55-year-old Thai-born American, Joe Gordon, stood calmly with his ankles shackled in an orange prison uniform as the sentence was read out at a Bangkok criminal court...."

"Lese majeste" isn't something you hear every day. Not in 21st-century America, at least. A Wikipedia article says it's French (lèse majesté), that came from the in-house brand of Latin the French used for legal stuff. It means "injured majesty," more or less.

Essentially, offending the king was treason in the 'good old days:' which the Lemming doesn't miss all that much.

Joe Gordon, Thailand, Family and Names

"Joe Gordon" sounds like an old-fashioned, solidly Anglo 'American' name. It's possible that Mr. Gordon did what many other Americans did, to make life easier for themselves: changed his name to something the locals could pronounce and remember easily. Let's face it: most Americans are going to remember "Joe Gordon" more easily than they would something like เจ้าพระยาบดินทรเดชา. Or even กอร์ดอนโจ.

Whether or not someone decides to take an 'American' name is up to the individual: Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar got along fine with his distinctly un-British name. Although the Lemming's noticed that it's reduced to "Chandra" fairly often. The Lemming opined about names and America in another blog:Moving on.

Two and a Half Years: A Light Sentence?

Apparently, the Thai judge is letting Mr. Gordon off easy. Which was awfully nice, considering what a dastardly deed the American had done: dissing the king, and all:

"...Judge Tawan Rodcharoen said the punishment, initially set at five years, was reduced because Gordon pleaded guilty in October.

"The sentence was relatively light compared to other recent cases. In November, 61-year-old Amphon Tangnoppakul was sentenced to 20 years in jail for sending four text messages deemed offensive to the crown.

"Gordon posted links to the banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej several years ago while living in Colorado, and his case has raised questions about the applicability of Thai law to acts committed by foreigners outside Thailand.

"Speaking after the verdict, Gordon said, 'I am an American citizen, and what happened was in America.'...
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

The Lemming could rant about American arrogance, cultural imperialism, and the general ickiness of Yankee warmonger white racist male dominated authoritarian oppressors. But why bother? The Lemming doesn't have a position in American academia to maintain, and isn't trying to be considered 'intelligent' by America's 'better' sort.

Besides, the Lemming thinks that quite a few folks in America are tired of the post-disco 'establishment' in America. And that's yet another topic.

'There Oughtta be a Law?'

"...Thailand's lese majeste laws are the harshest in the world. They mandate that people found guilty of defaming the monarchy -- including the king, the queen and the heir to the throne -- face three to 15 years behind bars. The nation's 2007 Computer Crimes Act also contains provisions that have enabled prosecutors to increase lese majeste sentences.

"The U.S. Embassy's consul general, Elizabeth Pratt, told reporters in Bangkok after the ruling that Washington considered Gordon's punishment 'severe because he has been sentenced for his right to freedom of expression.'..."

The Lemming remembers the trailing edge of McCarthyism, endured political correctness, and doesn't think highly of what either ideological storm did to America. Freedom of expression is precious: even when the other guy says something you don't like. Sometimes, especially when the other guy doesn't agree. And that's yet more topics, that the Lemming's gone on about in this and other blogs.

Goodbye, 18th Century - - Hello, Information Age

Bottom line? The Lemming thinks that America has done well, in part because folks here don't get thrown in prison for criticizing Congress or the President. Not usually, anyway.

The American Revolution (the one in 1776) was an early step in working out ways to run a country without worrying about what some irritable nincompoop with a crown wanted to hear.

A remarkable number of countries discovered that criticizing incompetence, corruption, and unearned privilege didn't bring civilization to its knees. Some countries, like Thailand, don't seem to have read the memo yet.

Yet again more topics.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Lemming Tracks: "Sexual Harassment" in the Information Age

The Lemming will be back, later today, with something lighter.

First, though, there are two items from the news that warrant attention. The first is a followup on the latest lunacy from America's government schools. The second is an example of why the Lemming doesn't want laws that force niceness down our throats.

"Sexual Harassment," When Everyone's Looking

This post is about a "sexual harassment" charge that wasn't decently hushed up.

As for what happened to the principal: maybe forcing him into retirement was a bit extreme; maybe not. The Lemming doesn't have enough facts to have an opinion.

Is it possible that the nine-year-old boy is a big meanie, and is to blame for the principal losing his job? Maybe. Maybe not.

Could the mother of the nine-year-old be seeing her son's treatment from the point of view of a parent? Could be.

Anyway, here's the Lemming's rant on what happened in the Gaston County School District.

Ex-Principal: 'It's Not Fair'

"Principal forced to retire amid 9-year-old boy's suspension"
wsoctv.com (December 6, 2011, updated December 7, 2011)

"A Gastonia principal who accused a 9-year-old of sexual harassment retired abruptly Tuesday night.

"Principal Jerry Bostic told Eyewitness News he retired as of 5 p.m.

"He told the Gaston Gazette the Gaston County School District gave him one hour to decide whether to quit or be fired.

" 'One mistake in 44 years, and I'm not given the benefit of the doubt. I really don't believe I was treated fairly,' Bostic told Eyewitness News...."

Maybe what happened to Mr. Bostic really was 'unfair.' "One mistake in 44 years" suggests quite a few things to the Lemming. Several of which are mutually exclusive:
  • Mr. Bostic
    • Is 44 years old
    • Has been
      • Employed for 44 years
        • Anywhere
        • In the Gaston County School District
          • In a variety of positions
      • A principal for 44 years
        • With G.S.D.
        • In several school districts
  • The 9-year-old's suspension
    • Was Mr. Bostic's only lapse in judgment
    • Something that
      • Didn't happen
      • Wasn't Mr. Bostic's fault
      • Was demanded by School District policy
        • (Remember "zero tolerance?")
Not all of those things could be true, obviously: and the Lemming doesn't have enough facts to have an opinion about how fair - or unfair - Mr. Bostic's dismissal was.

The WSOC TV article clears up one point, right at the end. Mr. Bostic had been with Gaston County Schools for 44 years: 35 as an administrator; 15 at Brookside Elementary.

'Sexual Harassment' and He Said / She Said

The Lemming has done time inside academia, on both sides of the desk. It's possible, in the Lemming's opinion, that folks with the school district are telling the truth. There are other possibilities, too. Back to that WSOC TV article:

"...Chiquita Lockett said her son, Emanyea, was suspended from Brookside Elementary last week for calling a teacher 'cute.'

"The school initially claimed it sexual harassment, adding Emanyea used the word 'fine' in a suggestive tone. School officials said in addition to the comment about the teacher, Emanyea had been warned about calling students bad words...."
(WSOC TV)

Again, the Lemming doesn't have enough facts to sort out what happened from what "the school," Emanyea's mother, and Mr. Bostic:
  • Remember
  • Wish had actually happened
  • Want folks to believe
It's the Lemming's opinion that "the school" would have been well advised to do at least one of the following, before making a public statement:
  • Find out what Emanyea actually did
  • Think about what should be said in the statement
  • Notice which decade we're at
Everybody involved in the "sexual harassment" thing at Brookside Elementary is probably rather tense just now: so it's no wonder that their stories don't match. Or that "the school" seems to have been changing it's version of events as reality intruded.

Which threatens to get the Lemming distracted by the (un) reliability of eyewitness testimony, video cameras, and how not to deal with embarrassing situations. Which is another topic. Topics. Some of which the Lemming ranted about last week:

"Cute," Dictionaries, Sexual Harassment, and Getting a Grip

The word "cute," by itself, can mean quite a few things, including:
  1. Princeton's WordNet
    1. Attractive
      • especially by means of smallness or prettiness or quaintness
    2. Obviously contrived to charm
  2. Google dictionary
    1. Attractive in a pretty or endearing way
    2. Sexually attractive
    3. Affectedly or superficially clever
Saying "cute" in some contexts could, using definition 2B, could be considered "sexual harassment."

On the other hand, coming from a 9-year-old, after too many cases of "sexual harassment" being more about snits than sex: someone in the school district should have checked the calendar to see which decade they were in.

Before someone has a stroke: Yes, the Lemming knows that "sexual harassment" happens. Real sexual harassment. The Lemming also remembers when "she's as smart as a man" was supposed to be a compliment.

Moving on.

"We Regret" - That, the Lemming Believes

There's one part of the school district's collective story that the Lemming believes.

Back to WSOC's article:"...The story went viral with reports showing up on Fox News, CNN and the Huffington Post in addition to papers and blogs across the country.

"But Tuesday, the district released a statement apologizing to the family and saying there was no sexual harassment.

" 'We regret this situation happened. The superintendent has attempted to contact the family to offer an apology to the parents and student. The school system is also sending an official letter of apology to the parents and student,' the statement says in part...."
(WSOC TV)

The Lemming has no trouble believing that the school district's leadership regrets that "this situation" happened. It's almost certainly an embarrassment, joining the ranks of exposed bunglers in education.

Particularly since the folks at Brookside Elementary and Gaston County Schools may not have realized how important it is these days, to get your story straight before blurting something out in public.

From Yellow Journalism and Spunky Girl Reporters to Blogs and Camera Phones

There was a time, not many decades back, when American journalism was a rather tidy affair: a gentleman's club, if you will, 'yellow journalism' and 'spunky girl reporters' notwithstanding.

That was then, this is now.

For the last few years, folks of the 'right sort' enjoyed a degree of protection from The Masses. We weren't likely to hear about a nine-year-old accused of sexual harassment, or a teen girl strip-searched, unless we knew the family or lived in the neighborhood.

Ah, those were 'the good old days.' For some folks.

Information technology, and the social structures developing around it, have changed America's 'good old boy' network: and are in the process of ruining the retirement plans of despots in the Middle East and elsewhere.

On the whole, the Lemming likes the "chaos" that happens when The Masses start learning more than what their 'betters' think is good for them.

"Something That Everyone Needed to See"

Before one last excerpt from WSOC TV, some good news about Emanyea.

Now that they're being watched, the school district won't count the suspension against Emanyea; and he'll allegedly get help with catching up on classroom time missed. That's very generous of them, the Lemming thinks. Also an example of enlightened self-interest.

Meanwhile, his mother has something to say:

"...'This is something that everyone needed to see,' Lockett said, 'just to see what's happening within our school systems.'

"Lockett said she will likely pursue legal action...."
(WSOC TV)

The Lemming thinks that America has seen quite enough silly lawsuits: but in this case, Lockett may have a valid point. If she decides to go ahead with legal action, the Lemming hopes she's got documentation for everything, and a lot of money.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, December 2, 2011

2009 Preakness Beating: Phones, Freedom, and a Ranting Lemming

Freedom is a funny thing. Folks want it for themselves, but aren't always comfortable when others use their freedom. When the uncomfortable folks wear a police uniform, bad things can happen.

From yesterday's news and views:

'Don't Nobody Look!?' 'Nothing to See Here!?'

"Taking Liberties: iPhone, YouTube and the First Amendment"
Douglas Kennedy, FoxNews.com (December 1, 2011)

"The YouTube video shows the 2009 Preakness. A woman lies bleeding on the ground inside Pimlico Race Course in Maryland after an altercation with police.

" 'How many times are you going to punch her, someone yells at the five or so cops, who are holding the woman on the ground.

" 'Was that necessary?' another person screams.

"An officer at the scene can be heard telling bystanders to stop videotaping the incident with their cellphones.

" 'Turn that off,' he says, claiming it's 'illegal' to tape the police in a public place...."

That's where the Lemming got really, really, interested.

If it's "illegal" to tape the police in a public place, the police departments all over the United States must be routinely breaking the law. The television series "Cops" has been running since 1989, broadcasting footage recorded by dashcams.

Of course, 'that's different.' Those dashboard cameras are part of the police department inventory, and are used as a law enforcement tool.

Back to that article.

"Illegal," or Embarrassing?

"...So is it really 'illegal?' It's a question many courts are facing these days with the proliferation of cell cameras and other handheld recording devices.

"Chris Sharp was at Pimlico that day and also pressed the record button on his phone. The woman on the ground was a friend of a friend, and Sharp caught the entire confrontation, including what he calls 'the beating.'...

"...Unlike the YouTube video, Sharp says he caught the initial takedown.

" 'I got the whole thing,' he said as he paced back and forth in the parking lot behind the headquarters for the Maryland American Civil Liberties Union.

"Unfortunately, Sharp said something similar to the police at the scene. 'I told them I got it all.'..."

Sharp, in the Lemming's opinion, made a really big mistake at that part: assuming that his story is essentially accurate.

Telling someone you think is committing a violent crime, that you've got video evidence of the crime, when the perpetrator can hurt you, is, again in the Lemming's opinion, not prudent.

Collecting - and Destroying Evidence?!

"...He says the police then took his camera and erased all the contents, including the video and all his pictures.

" 'After they took my phone,' he said, 'and then gave it back to me, everything was off of it… my personal videos of my son and family and friends.'

"Sharp and his attorney are now suing the Baltimore Police Department, claiming it violated the First Amendment...."

Things get a little technical at that point. Essentially, some folks think that the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to America's Constitution, give Americans certain rights.

Some of them aren't all that much of an issue today, like Amendment III:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Then there's Amendment IV:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A key word there is "unreasonable." The Lemming figures the police officer who apparently erased the evidence he was confiscating thought what he did was "reasonable." At least, using the "I want to do this, so it's reasonable" principle.

On the other hand, Amendment I doesn't mention cell phone cameras, or videotape. Not once:

First Amendment: Cell Phones, No; Freedom, Yes

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which makes sense, considering that video recording devices hadn't been invented in 1791. Those excerpts, by the way, are from:

Freedom ISN'T Conformity

"Freedom" can mean quite a few things, depending on who you listen to. A regrettable number of folks seem to think that "freedom" means, "free to agree with me." McCarthyism and political correctness are two recent examples of that sort of aberration.

It's the Lemming's considered opinion that freedom is the:
  • Condition of being free
  • Power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
    (Princeton's WordNet)
Folks in a society have to agree on some things, like which side of the road to drive on, and whether a red traffic light means "stop" or "go." Beyond that sort of thing, the Lemming thinks that freedom allows folks to make decisions.

Even if they're not exactly what the Lemming decided.

At least, that's the way it should work.

The First Amendment's "establishment clause," and odd notions about religious beliefs - - - is a topic for another blog:

American Police: Sensible, Professional, Mostly

"....[Attorney] Jeon says the police 'harangued' Sharp to give them his phone, claiming they wanted it for evidence.

" 'Then, she says, 'they took the phone and deleted the so called "evidence." They were the ones who broke the law.'..."

At this point, what happened at the 2009 Preakness seems to be a 'he said/she said' situation. Since Sharp's video no longer exists, it can't be used as evidence for or against anybody. That's assuming that it exists, of course.

In a perfect world, everybody on every police force would act - perfectly. We probably wouldn't even need police. But this world isn't perfect, some folks are not safe to be around - and, unhappily, a few of them wear police uniforms.

Please note, the Lemming said "some," and "a few." Each time that the Lemming was detained by the police, they acted in a sensible, professional manner: and that's another topic. The Lemming is also aware that wearing a police uniform doesn't guarantee good behavior.

The Lemming hopes that there were enough witnesses to piece together what really happened: either to exonerate the law enforcement folks involved; or identify a problem before someone gets hurt. Hurt more.

If that video existed, what happened is daft: at a minimum. Seriously: Identifying something as "evidence," and then destroying the evidence?! In front of an interested witness? Without, ah, dealing with the witness later?

Never mind ethics and Constitutional rights: that's daft. And stupid.

"Ridiculous," No: Dubious, Maybe

Back to that article, again:

"...'This is ridiculous,' says Rod Wheeler. 'This lawsuit should go nowhere.'

"Wheeler is a former Washington, D.C., detective and current police advocate.

" 'Police officers,' he continued, 'do not need citizens out there with cameras videotaping each and every move that they make.'..."

The Lemming has no reason to doubt that Wheeler is sincere.

However: being sincere, and being right, aren't necessarily the same thing.

For folks in police uniforms, "...cameras videotaping each and every move that they make...." may be inconvenient, uncomfortable, or embarrassing: but that doesn't make it wrong.

Like the Lemming said:
Granted, that example is a case of the police videotaping themselves.

Wheeler is probably right about police, some of them, 'not needing' citizens recording visual evidence of their activities. The rest of us, though, are arguably better off with citizen video. 'Checks and balances,' and all that. Back to the article, yet again:

Cameras "In the Way?"

"He says cameras get in the way of good law enforcement.

" 'They interfere with the arrests and, actually, that's exactly what happened with that arrest in Baltimore.'...

"...'These individuals were standing back hollering, taunting the police,' he said. 'They were interfering and obstructing the arrest.'..."

Wheeler has a definite point of view. He may be right. The Lemming wasn't at the 2009 Preakness, and doesn't have all the facts. Sometimes bystanders really do interfere with and obstruct legitimate police work.

Sometimes they interfere with and obstruct the activities of uniformed thugs.

The Lemming doesn't have enough facts to form an opinion about the 2009 beating.

Moving on.

"Recording" isn't "Interfering"

"...Sharp says he certainly did not interfere with the police.

" 'I can't disagree more,' he said. 'I was nowhere close to the incident going on.'

"He said he now believes recording the police is an important right that needs to be preserved.

" 'I think we have a right to videotape anyone we want to, especially someone that's a public servant,' he said.

"The ACLU urges anyone with questions about what they can and can't videotape in public to view their video called '"Know Your Rights.' "

Like the Lemming said, every time the Lemming and the police got up-close-and-personal, they acted sensibly and professionally. And, in a few instances, had very good reasons for detaining the Lemming. Not that the Lemming is 'one of those criminals,' and that's yet another topic.

The idea that observing and recording actions done in public is 'interfering' with the actions doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not to the Lemming. But then, the Lemming doesn't get hissy fits over security cameras in a parking lot, or the Highway Patrol using radar to determine how fast the Lemming is driving.

Photographers Should Obey The Law: So Should Police

The Lemming's no great fan of the ACLU, but they put together a pretty good resource, "Know Your Rights: Photographers." (ACLU)

Here's an excerpt:

"...Your rights as a photographer:

"When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society.

"When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

"Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant. If you are arrested, the contents of your phone may be scrutinized by the police, although their constitutional power to do so remains unsettled. In addition, it is possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves (it is unsettled whether they still need a warrant to view them).

"Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

"Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject to public scrutiny, including by citizens photographing them.

"Note that the right to photograph does not give you a right to break any other laws. For example, if you are trespassing to take photographs, you may still be charged with trespass...."

The next part of that page, advice on what to do if a police officer stops you, starts with:

"Always remain polite and never physically resist a police officer...."

That's good advice, in most situations: in the Lemming's opinion.

The Lemming's done photography, professional and otherwise, and had to learn America's rules for photographers. What the ACLU said matches what the Lemming got from other sources. It's also 'common sense.' But that's the Lemming's take on the matter: and the Lemming doesn't think that photographers can do anything they want.

The Lemming also thinks that America's police are:
  1. Generally
    • Professional
    • Competent
    • Focused on public safety
  2. Not perfect
Number two is why the Lemming thinks it's okay to consider the possibility that someone in a police uniform may not have acted properly. Even if that person "collected evidence," and deleted information that showed what happened.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, June 17, 2011

Litigation-Based Business Model, Freedom of Speech, and Intellectual Property

"Bloggers Mull Legal Action Against Righthaven"
David Kravets, Threat Level, Wired (June 15, 2011)

"Bloggers who paid thousands of dollars each to settle copyright-infringement allegations with Righthaven were mulling their legal options Wednesday, a day after a federal judge said the copyright troll had no legal standing to bring that kind of lawsuits.

" 'We're thinking seriously about what to do,' Clayton Cramer, the former operator of the now-defunct Armedcitizen.net, said in a telephone interview.

"More than 100 owners of blogs and other sites have settled with Righthaven for undisclosed sums, and Cramer wants his money back. Righthaven has lodged more than 300 lawsuits across the nation in a courthouse barrage that might not have been legal.

"Cramer settled for an undisclosed sum with Righthaven last year to end allegations his gun-rights site committed copyright infringement for running an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal article. The agreements prohibit either party from disclosing the settlement terms, but Righthaven's suit initially sought $75,000 in damages.

" 'That made their threat demanding $75,000 a credible threat, so we settled,' Clayton said...."

This isn't a political blog. The Lemming doesn't say that one person, or party, is always right - and that anybody who disagrees is stupid. The Lemming is also "apathetic" in the sense of not having the properly-hysterical reactions to the proper ideas. ("About the Lemming")

The Lemming isn't upset because Righthaven wanted $75,000 from a "gun-rights site." Lifting an entire article is, the Lemming thinks, a dubiously-sensible practice, since a blog or website can link to outside articles. Or do what the Lemming does: quote excerpts, link to the original source, and say where the material is from and who created it.

Which is why the Lemming calls these posts "micro-reviews." They're short(ish) reviews of stuff the Lemming digs up.

The Lemming is a trifle concerned that someone may have tried to drive a website supporting the 'wrong' views off the Internet by 'assault with crippling lawsuit.' Freedom of expression is something the Lemming does care about - and folks with money to hire lawyers have, in the Lemming's opinion, quite enough clout as it is.

To Link or Not to Link - That is the Question

Sorry, Shakespeare - the Lemming couldn't resist that one. Didn't, anyway.

Linking without quoting a meaningful excerpt assumes that the original source will still have the article available - at that URL - a week, a month, or a year from publication. Some outfits realize that they lose viewers by shuffling their content or deleting pages - and don't hide or destroy their content. Some editors/bosses/supervisors may think they've got a reason to discourage repeat visits - and that's another topic.

"Pilfering??"

Back to that article:

"...Cramer's reaction was in response to a Nevada federal judge's Tuesday decision that Righthaven did not have standing to bring a copyright lawsuit against the Democratic Underground blog for allegedly pilfering four paragraphs from a 34-paragraph story published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media.

"Righthaven sues on behalf of Stephens Media copyrights, and U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt ruled that such a litigation tactic was impermissible because a 'copyright owner cannot assign a bare right to sue.' (.pdf) The decision, and a similar one in Colorado, has thrown a monkey wrench into the litigation-based business model, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation has declared a 'sham.'..."
(Wired)

Quoting 4/34 of an article - and that's "pilfering??" "Allegedly" or not - that's just a little over 1/8 of the article - which isn't all that much, in the Lemming's opinion. Maybe Democratic Underground claimed - tacitly or otherwise - that they'd created the content.

If "Las Vegas Review-Journal" sounds familiar - a post by the Lemming mentioned them about a year ago. (June 13, 2010)

Intellectual Property Rights and the Lemming

The Lemming thinks intellectual property rights are important. Partly because the Lemming creates content - like this post (the stuff that's not an excerpt from the Wired article), and that picture.

Is what the Lemming writes as valuable, word-for-word, as a Stephen King novel? Or are the Lemming's pictures going to sell like a Mary Cassatt original? Hardly. Not even close. But the Lemming slaps identifying text on images the Lemming makes, anyway - and has fairly standard copyright statements in blogs and websites.

On the other hand, the Lemming doesn't lie wake nights, worried that somewhere, somehow, some nefarious nogoodnik has copied a paragraph of a post and republishing it. The Lemming's got enough to do, just writing these posts.

And making the occasional semi-nifty picture.

Related posts:
More of the Lemming's opinions:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 30, 2011

Lemming Tracks: Iran, Internet, Freedom, and Getting a Grip

Wouldn't it be nice, if people could be protected from bad influences? If children could grow up without ever being exposed to corrupting ideas? If someone would just make sure that people could see or read anything they wanted - as long as it was proper?

The Lemming doesn't think so.

Folks have tried that in America: the 'good old days' before Woodstock, when television censors protected the nation's youth from women's navels; and later, when political correctness was in flower.

The Lemming didn't like it, either time.

Here's what got the Lemming started:

"Iran Vows to Unplug Internet"
Christopher Rhoads, Farnaz Fassihi, Top Stories in Technology, The Wall Street Journal (May 28, 2011)

"Iran is taking steps toward an aggressive new form of censorship: a so-called national Internet that could, in effect, disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world.

"The leadership in Iran sees the project as a way to end the fight for control of the Internet, according to observers of Iranian policy inside and outside the country. Iran, already among the most sophisticated nations in online censoring, also promotes its national Internet as a cost-saving measure for consumers and as a way to uphold Islamic moral codes.

"In February, as pro-democracy protests spread rapidly across the Middle East and North Africa, Reza Bagheri Asl, director of the telecommunication ministry's research institute, told an Iranian news agency that soon 60% of the nation's homes and businesses would be on the new, internal network. Within two years it would extend to the entire country, he said...."

In a way, what happens in Iran, and whether or not Iranians are protected from ideas their leaders don't like, doesn't matter to the Lemming. Not immediately, anyway. In the long run, the Lemming thinks that Donne's "no man is an island" idea is still valid - and that consequences propagate a lot more quickly now, than they did in 1624.

'Be Careful What You Wish For'

Good intentions can be nice - but may have unintended consequences.

For example, in the Lemming's youth, homeowners were warned against putting pennies behind fuses. This was before circuit breakers: when homes had fuses that would blow before an overloaded electrical circuit set the house on fire. Those fuses cost money: which added up over the years. Saving money is, in the Lemming's opinion, a good idea. Accidentally setting your house on fire isn't.

You'll still hear about the occasional daft business owner who sealed a fire exit. Making sure that folks using a service actually paid for it makes sense, in the Lemming's opinion. So does keeping merchandise from going out the back door.1 When people die because they can't get out - that's really bad for business. As well as raising serious moral and ethical issues.

Iran's leaders apparently want to protect their subjects from 'bad' influences.

Back to that Wall Street Journal article:

"...The unusual initiative appears part of a broader effort to confront what the regime now considers a major threat: an online invasion of Western ideas, culture and influence, primarily originating from the U.S. In recent speeches, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials have called this emerging conflict the 'soft war.'

"On Friday, new reports emerged in the local press that Iran also intends to roll out its own computer operating system in coming months to replace Microsoft Corp.'s Windows. The development, which couldn't be independently confirmed, was attributed to Reza Taghipour, Iran's communication minister.

"Iran's national Internet will be 'a genuinely halal network, aimed at Muslims on an ethical and moral level,' Ali Aghamohammadi, Iran's head of economic affairs, said recently according to a state-run news service. Halal means compliant with Islamic law.

"Mr. Aghamohammadi said the new network would at first operate in parallel to the normal Internet—banks, government ministries and large companies would continue to have access to the regular Internet. Eventually, he said, the national network could replace the global Internet in Iran, as well as in other Muslim countries...."
(The Wall Street Journal)

If you're waiting for a rant about 'those people over there,' you'll have a long wait. The Lemming thinks that Iran closing its borders to foreign influences is a bad idea - but the Lemming is a little more worried, in the short term, with folks right here in America trying to do about the same thing.

Americans don't, in the Lemming's opinion, have to worry about a federal agency protecting them from western culture. This is where a fair fraction of the 'beer, bikinis, and designer jeans' stuff is coming from.

It's unlikely, again in the Lemming's opinion, that the powers that be in this country will decide to go with an 'American sites only' policy for Internet access.

On the other hand, there always seems to be someone who's convinced that 'the Masses' have to be protected from something. Generally, it seems, something the wannabe defender doesn't like or can't enjoy.

And that's another topic.

Somewhat-related posts:
1 This isn't a matter of siding with heartless plutocrats against the oppressed proletariat. It costs money to maintain a brick-and-mortar business - nightclub, hardware store, whatever. If some folks aren't paying for what they get - the ones who do pay will have to be charged more, to make up the difference. Which, in the Lemming's opinion, isn't good for the paying customers, isn't good for the business owner, and isn't - indirectly - good for the freeloaders.

And that's yet another topic.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle online store

Pinterest: From the Man Behind the Lemming

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts

Today's News! Some of it, anyway

Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's.
The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not.
The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)

Who Follows the Lemming?

WebSTAT

Family Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory