20
Sep 07

Mo’ Freedom, Mo’ Problems

I got a heads up from Jarice Hanson (participant bio page), a chairperson at Temple University's (my alma mater, BTW) School of Communication and Theater regarding a webconference at WHYY titled Digital Democracy and Freedom of Speech.

The event looks quite interesting, and it is scheduled at a most-convenient time, 1-2:30pm on Tuesday, 10/9/2007, at the WHYY building, especially for those in the Center City (Philadelphia) area. 

To quickly riff on the subject, I understand and expect this conference to have a very US-centric focus, but I suspect conversations regarding digital freedom, at least as we Americans understand Freedom of Speech as enumerated in the First Ammendment (or don't, as the case may be), will most likely affect other nations, such as those in the Middle East and China, where excessive blocking and monitoring, often aided and abetted by prominent US companies such as Yahoo are the norm.

The excessive use of national security exemptions in FOIA, the circumvention of records-keeping and civil liberty safeguards, and others are all blatant attempts to stymie freedom of the press, but what of freedom of speech?  Despite isolated (although far too many) examples of abuses, such as the recent tasing at a John Kerry speech, "Free Speech Zones" at political gatherings, and arrests and detainings based on what t-shirt one wears, I see little formalized institutional censorship, although we're getting there.

That said, there are tremendous threats to digital freedom here in the US, but they often don't come from the government directly to the individual speaker.  No, they come indirectly, via the corporate sphere, the establishment press, intra-governmental agency suppression , other opinion influencers, ideological bullies, our society-at-large, and our own tendencies to self-censor.  In most cases, all it takes is the threat of a libel suit or a DMCA takedown letter to pull content, either by the creator or their ISP.  As illustrated in the Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Guide, many of the concerns of online speech have little to do with the government.  You can't really say whatever you want.

Continue reading →


17
Sep 07

Tim Russert – ImPRESSive?

Valeria Maltoni wrote a short post heralding the power of Meet the Press, giving examples from host Tim Russert as to the power of the medium. 

There is a tremendous problem with the use of Russert as a sterling example of journalism, but as an example of public relations, absolutely. 

Continue reading →


14
Sep 07

Iraq by the Numbers, aka The Shell-Game [Updated: What he really said...]

After the President's 'vision' speech last night, and his attempt to pass the war off on to his (likely-Democratic) successor, it's worthwhile to examine the numbers behind the war, and how much the facts diverge from the "Johnny comes marching home!" headlines appearing across the country today.

iraq_flip-flop_flim_flam1.gif

Very few tell the real story – that nothing has changed, troop levels are the same as they were prior to the surge, that there will be tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers there for years, and lastly that he is handing off responsibility for his war of choice to his successor, absolving his legacy of taint.

Iraq by the Numbers, aka The Shell-Game

AtLargely (via Rawstory) breaks down what Bush said (White House transcripts and video) and a distillation into GOP talking points:

1. We were asked by the Iraqis to help defend them from Al Qaeda, an Iraqi evil that attacked us on September 11, 2001.

2. We defended the Iraqis against Al Qaeda and they were appreciative and vowed to  continue what we started, so our mission to come to the defense of the Iraqi people was a success.

3. But other countries (Iran) and groups (Al Qaeda) keep interfering, killing Iraqis and Americans alike, despite all of our progress.

4. We won't be safe from another 9/11 attack until we secure Iraq, which we cannot do because Iran and Al Qaeda won't let us.

5. Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are the real problem, not our efforts to secure Iraq, which have proved a success.

6. Patriotic Americans will understand this, despite their party affiliations, they understand that until Iraq is secure, we are not safe, and we cannot secure Iraq because of Al Qaeda and Iran.

7. Those in the region and elsewhere better take sides now, because you are either with us  (our energy war) "for peace" or against us – terrorists – who will not have peace.

8. We have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people and an security obligation to our own country to ally ourselves with Iraq as she defends herself from Al Qaeda and Iran.

9. The leaders of Iraq and the United States have agreed to defend Iraq from terrorism from Al Qaeda and interference from Iran, who is likely soon to have WMD to use against the entire region.

10. We must secure Iraq and stop the enemy (any country, but for the present Iran, who controls the global energy market).

 

[1] http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

[2] http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

See chronology at bottom.
[3] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/maps/index.html
[4] http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
[5] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm
[6] http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/IraqbytheNumbers.pdf


11
Sep 07

Unintentionally Funny Inquirer Front Page.

Especially in light of yesterday's post.

Inquirer 9/11/2007 front page


10
Aug 07

Stu Bykofsky is RIGHT. But free speech does have consequences in the marketplace?

AND he should be fired for this nonsense :

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

[...]

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that. *

E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns:

http://go.philly.com/byko.

This last 6-years has been a slow-motion train wreck.  OBL is still on the loose.  The Anthrax attackers are still on the loose.  We're stuck in a quagmire in a war of choice in Iraq, losing a winnable war in Afghanistan, and then contemplating opening a third front of the Great War on Terror in Iran (and Pakistan).

I'm tired of staring into the abyss.  In addition to the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 and the near 5000 (3600 military deaths, and an estimated 1000 contractor deaths) in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can chalk up threats to free speech, habeas corpus, our own privacy, and any semblance for advocacy for the middle class in Washington.  We are distracted from true threats like class inequality, our aging infrastructure, precarious financial environment, and global warming with bright and shiny objects like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, and divisive social wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Although Bykofsky takes the easy way out and (correctly) states that another 9/11 would finally unite us, he's correct, but I hope he's thinking of the wrong outcome.  He thinks that another 9/11 would would cause us to put aside our partisan differences to get "it" done – I'm assuming by "it" he means the War on Islamofacism.  But there's danger in these thoughts.  With the right proudly proclaiming that we are safer BECAUSE there have been no new attacks, another 9/11 might have the complete opposite consequences – reinforces the disgust and despair many of us are feeling towards our media and political institutions.

The next-9/11 will preceed one of two outcomes – either the police state, or the beginning of the American Renaissance, where we cast of the dead weight and corrupt institutions of the past and become the America we thought, hoped, and dreamed we were.

Should Bykofsky get fired?  Should free speech have consequences?  Vote here