Slashdot Mirror
The Futility of Censorship
Artist Muntadas created "The File Room" (discussed in Steven Wilson's book Information Arts: Intersections of Science, Art and Technology as an archive of censorship, a living record of society's ceaseless efforts to control culture and values. The site uses the Web's global scope to collect and store essays, speeches and artistic works from all over the world which have been subject to censorship, from the Republic of Korea's criminal code to high school newspapers to art exhibits in rural areas city halls. "The File Room" classifies its growing holdings by location, date, media and so-called grounds for censorship.
Anybody can contribute new examples of censorship by filling out a short form on the site, which is also part of an art gallery in downtown Chicago.
The strange dichotomy is that the more censors try to curb information, the bigger and richer "The File Room" grows. Sadly, the site makes clear that the United States -- the creator of the modern idea of free speech -- has become one of the world's most ubiquitous censors. "The File Room" literally feeds off censorship, its archived categories growing all the time -- explicit sexuality, language, nudity, political/economic/social opinion, racial and ethnic, religious, sexual/gender orientation and numerous others. Many of these battles involve the so-called protection of children. The access to information and opinion the Net has given kids is one of the most terrifying ideas of the 21st century.
Beautifully organized -- with sections on visual arts, film/video, print, broadcast and electronic media, public speech, personal opinion, even commercial advertising -- the site has become a trove of ideas, opinions and artworks. It also carries an emotional punch. It's truly moving and outrageous to see some of the works (and thoughts) people and institutions are still trying to kill off. What a curious time -- the most sophisticated and open information machinery in history spreading like wildfire, and narrow-minded idiots all over the planet trying to turn back the clock. There are countless governments and institutions who still believe they can impose their views and values on their children and the rest of the world, if only they can practice censorship.
Online rights is a seminal issue, but the smaller fights sometimes obscure the new and much larger reality. Censorship as we used to know it is no longer a viable option as long as there is a World Wide Web.
The idea that the 'net can't be censored by anyone is WAY too optimistic. Yes, governments will have a hard time doing it because there's always some other government that makes it legal. But there are a lot of coprorations (AOL-TW, M$, etc) who are more powerful than governments, and will eventually manange to force the replacement of IP with a protocol which only lets you see what they want you to see.
Its nice to be able to distribute political pamphlets (for instance) anonymously without fear of retribution or censorship, but its even better to be able to do it in a major newspaper or website and claim authorship knowing you have the freedom to do so.
My gut tells me a government totalitarian enough to curb free speech on the Internet could find ways around these tools and sites. Implementing the death penalty for anyone caught writing an anti-government editorial would have a chilling effect on free speach, simply because like all software, there will be bugs. Would you trust FreeNet enough to protect your life?
The more you know, the less you understand.
It's the first two words in the subject line that makes censorship on the web difficult. It transcends state and country boundaries. You can access content from servers almost anywhere in the world from the comfort of your home or office.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
It was only the other day that Slashdot posted an article about Cisco et all having a field day in China.
Surely, if the Chinese can control the Internet so well, other people can.
Granted, China is a completely different place to Europe and the US - speaking out against the Chinese government will get you on the frontpage of the newspaper, but for reasons entirely different than would be the case in other countries.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Censorship arises out of what I will say is a postive desire to protect our collective consiousness. Think of information as food. You can eat a steak, an apple, or some draino. Is it wrong to label the draino as toxic? I don't think so. Now is it wrond to make Draino unavailable to the public? No, it provides a function, and almost all information does.
Let us face the facts that some information, in the minds uncritical people, is dangerous. What is important is the discussion on the possible uses and function of this information. An attempt to censorship is a dialouge, and is an important freedom of expression itself.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
interesting that you should mention this, since, while you are reading this, a certain software giant is test marketing a theoretical product called (try not to laugh) the secure PC. The "features" advertized by samesaid giant include "keeping critical documents safe from any type of hardware or software related damage" and other related claims. It's described as a combination of hardware and software technologies. I suspect that the hardware in question is CRPM hard-drive technology in the new IDE spec. It is only a matter of time before everything you are capable of accessing on the net is on a pay-per use only basis, because your computer won't let you download something unless you can prove you paid for it! after one viewing, it's gone, and you have to pay again.
Somebody who things the 'Net makes any kind of control impossible has never read Lawrence Lessig's "Code".
I agree. I love when JonKatz makes these sweeping predictions about how the world is becoming a better place/global community/free society all because of the net.
JonKatz thinks that the net makes censorship virtually impossible...obviously he's never surfed the net from China or Saudi Arabia, or most other countries for that matter. He only sees things as it is in the US, because we have the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately, *only* we have that.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
but not possible.
Two items:
1) What is censorship and who defines it, as well as what it should be applied too? This has been tackled through out human history. Only in the "information age" has it been tackled so much by so many people, countries, religions, and ideologies.
Censorship, at it's core, is the masking of ideas and concepts that mainstream majority deems counter to their own standards of "right" or moral "good". This is a rough definition, but sound none the less. You could refine this based on situation, replacing majority with words like "those in power" or "the moral majority" or a litany of other things.
Censorship takes so many forms. From "understandings" in free societies that frown upon certain ideas and their expression by others, to formal laws and punishments or activities that curb "dangerous" thought or action that would otherwise upset the accepted norm or vision of society/government/organization that a group holds.
In the US we have a right to be free from censorship, or so the ideal goes. The reality is that a great deal is censored daily and that censorship is a common allowance in our laws dating back to the articles of federation and the constitution itself. This is not wrong, rather a political necessity.
Why is necessary? Free thought and ideas that run counter to the needs and stability of a nation, religion, or culture are always censored. Moral and ethical censorship follow the same preceipt, if for different stability issues. Censorship serves a purpose.
The problem lies in determining what should and should not be censored, at least in open cultures and societies. Should comments and ideas that run counter to sexual norms be allowed? Should that which exposes change to meet the needs of a minority group be allowed? Etc...
I think it boils down to the simple fact of who gets hurt by ideas and actions stemming from them? I would think that 99%+ of you here would agree that censorship of pedophilic ideas and materails should be banned (censored). Far less of you feel that way when confronted with free thought on politics or law, for instance the concept of anarchy and the "anarchist state" (you may not agree, but our general "rights" as citizens allow us to explore and understand these thoughts and ideas at a bare minimum, if not act on them in a way that threatens the current government and the nations stability).
The democracies of the world, in varying ways, are extremely "free" of censorship, when compared to other types of governements and political organizations. This does not mean that the US is free of censorship, nor could it be and hope to exist. Counter culture ideas and concepts are constantly filtered out by censorship (law making and punishment of "crime") to ensure a level of stability in the governement and society it is built upon.
Indeed, you can extend this to the concept that all crime and their associated punishments is a cycle of censorship. Society deems murder incorrect and puts into place laws and punishment towards the individual who perpetrates such activities. This curbs the spread of murder (okay, so this is a upfront and simple example, but you get the point).
2) Technology is the great equalizer. For every technical innovation that can assist in censorship efforts, a counter technology is developed and made public to ensure that censorship in the "information age" is not entirely viable. Only with penalty against the individual can censorship enjoy any practical advance (crime and punishment).
I've only ever seen slashdot remove comments from its site twice, both DMCA related. So the other day i was surprised to find 3 of my comments deleted, and replaced with an explination which said:
/.'s fault. Its that ****ing pig-****er Bush's fault. I'm gonna **** that ****. Ok, i can understand why a threat to the president of America could be dangerous - the secret service need to know whats going on. But why censor it? is that not protected speech?
"This comment has been removed since it was clearly in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871 (Threats Against The President) and / or Section 875 (Interstate Communications: Extortions / Threats). You can Read More Here. We're sorry to have to do this, and while we don't necessarily agree with this, it is still the law. When the Secret Service gets involved, we don't have many options. We appreciate your understanding in the matter. Please call (202) 406-5000 if you have any questions."
slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28127&cid=3023341
Now, don't get me wrong, its not
Let me put it another way: If i throw a brick through the whitehouse window saying "Die Bush" on it. That is a threat to be taken seriously. I would be a threat, i should be arrested. Now, if, i write an comment on a web site a thousend miles away, that tells people what i think of a certain someone, it is my right to free speech.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Now, I firmly believe real censorship is wrong.
However, when you widen the definition too much then you lose the battle when something that really is censorship comes around... For instance, the ACLU has supported the same suits the Christian Coalition has. However, for a good amount of people, they see some of the cases they suppport and then decide it's *all* a bunch of nuts.
But I digress...
(I can't believe I'm posting in a Katz editorial...)
I wish people would read the First Ammendment before they reference it. The Constitution guarantees you the right to not be stopped by the government from speech ("Clear and present danger", fire in theatre, laws aside).
It does not guarantee you a podium, your right to buy a podium, or an audience.
If you are using the equipment owned by even the government - a library or school - and they limit what you can "hear" or "say" over their equipment, feel free to disagree with it, say it's pointless, a bad idea, etc.
But don't say it's censorship. The only legitimate Constitutional gripe I think anyone has for these type of things is if they would filter unevenly, esp. regarding religion - i.e. let pages promoting Islam come through but ban pages promoting Buddhism.
As for ISPs...
They are corporations and as such have one goal - making money for their shareholders. And before anyone wants to generally comment on corporations being evil, I suggest they dump any 401(k) plans they have.
ISPs are going to make policies to keep members from posting things that are going to harm their image, which affects the bottom line when they can.
I'd think that often they might do so not because of policy but fear of being sued by anyone "hurt" by a customer's speech. Of course the gov't can legislate they have to apply any such policies equally as a civil rights issue.
But the bottom line is this - it is not censorship when a private group tries to stop speech. If you have the right to say "I think I should be able to say X" then doesn't someone else have the right to say the opposite?
If they resort to illegal means you can call it vandalism or property destruction but that's something else. It is also not censorship when the owner of the computer or network connection you are using, public or private, limits speech access, especially if it's done equally.
It is censorship if the government makes a law or enforces the idea that you can't make or receive certain speech on your own time with your own capital. And that's about all it is.
********************
I object to Intellect without Discipline.
Another fun one is when people try to control the definition of words. You'll see a lot of that in the media as well.
For instance, you'll see a certain amount of hypocrisy in the way people throw around the word "terrorism". If it's violent acts with disregard for loss of innocent civilian life, how does one not then apply the word to some of our allies (or even our own military), who don't have such a great track record when it comes to collateral damage? Never mind the School of the Americas...
Then the politicians start trying to tell us what the words mean, and start throwing around judgements like "evil" or "terrorist haven". An interesting sidebar, for insance -- we consider Iraq a huge threat, both evil and a haven for terrorist activity. I don't necessarily dispute that point, but one thing I'm wondering: in the past decade, have Iraqis killed more Americans than Americans have killed Iraqis?
Interesting how that works out, but don't worry, it's all about the "defensive war" now, we have to hit the enemies before they hit back. Unfortunately, in case you weren't listening, Osama Bin Laden's been using the same logic to justify his attacks on the WTC&P, except in that case, he has some historical context to work with. And not that we need to justify ourselves to him, but we do need to see this from the point of viw of Mr. and Mrs. John Q Muhammad whom we're imploring to love us while we bomb their neighbours, using logic that rings about as hollow to them as Bin Laden's does to us.
I mean, why don't we just admit that we only want certain nations to have all the power and be done with it? Why hide behind silly definitions that our comrades will already believe because they want to believe, and our enemies won't believe because (a) they see them for the silly definitions they are, and (b) even if they weren't silly they wouldn't want to believe them anyway...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
This is one of the worse and most overused cliches, almost as bad as the constant use of "For the first time since ..." Ideas change over time and what's acceptable follows. At one time what was very much acceptable may not be now, in reference to within the USA. I have examples of newspaper comic strips which were syndicated and widely distributed in the 1930's which would herald a flood of outrage letters to features editors if run today, simply because they may depict a child getting drunk. Very much the same, Foster Brooks was funny as a drunk on TV, but that's unacceptable now, but lovers talk of jumping from bed to bed and not knowing who the father is, etc. is now acceptable, at least to network censors.
One of the primary reasons, IMHO, why there's the appearance of so much censorship in the USA is because there are a lot of people coming up with ideas. Rather than out in the field or factory all day, and coming home too tired to care, americans have lots of leisure time, also it is one country which has embraced the internet rapidly, bringing millions into it. Trolls or artists, that's up to the reader to decide. Censorship is usurping the readers freedom to decide, perhaps acceptable in cases regarding children, but it's the symptom of subcultures populated with people who don't consider who may be in their audience (or are just to damned to care) and despotic people who would project their own set of values on everyone. As hard as one extreme pushes, equally hard the other pushes back. The context of the battle changes, but the field remains the same and always will.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When the issue of internet censorship pops up (which of course is unfortunately frequently), i always find myself wondering why it's not ok (or in many cases "legal") to say on the internet what is perfectly ok or legal to say in person.
If i was to say "G.W.Bush sucks cause i don't like his haircut." to a friend of mine on the street while hundreds of people walk by, that would not be a crime, or worthy of censorship. In fact, nobody would give it a second thought. Granted, that sentence is rather ridiculous, but content aside, i'm trying to make a point. Now if i were to post that same comment on the internet, on my own personal web page, am i still allowed to do that? Am i defaming Bush? Am i going to be censored? Maybe, it all depends who sees it and who takes offense. I find that rather incredulous. I can stand on the street, and speak defamation and obscenities to all who pass by yet all that will come of it will be those who agree or get a chuckle out of my ranting, or those who think i'm a social deviant or want to beat me up. Still, i CAN say it. I just can't write it. Is it the perception that the internet is no longer individual voice but rather it is in fact a form of mass media?
Lets say i do the exact same thing, i stand on the street spouting off all my ill-gotten opinions on whatever subject i like, to hell with political correctness. Only this time, a local news crew shows up and broadcasts my rant. Should i be silenced then? What if it were a national news crew? I think the likelihood of someone seeing my rant on national news is far more likely than someone finding my one little page among the endless quagmire of web pages.
My point is, it's ok to think freely. It's okay to voice your opinions freely - but on a small scale. Our freedom to express our ideas was curbed long before the net came along. It's all about how many feathers you ruffle, and to whom those feathers belong.
You piss off 1000 average joes in downtown Chicago, so what. You piss of one person that for whatever reason decides to have you silenced, well... it could be the 1st or the 1001st person you come across. So to what lengths do our freedoms really exist with respect to free speech? Is the censorship on the net really a new brand of restriction on our percieved right to free speech, or is it just the line that was always there resolving itself into something more distinct, more perceptible to us all? I'm arguing it's the latter. I'm arguing that our right to free speech is just local at best. We can think whatever we want, we can say whatever we want, just so long as we say it quietly.
There is an exception to that rule, and while this exception has become the agent of many a revolution for good, i'd argue that it's become the agent of tighter censorship on us all. That exception is that it's okay to speak out, IFF you can find enough people that agree with you. You want to end slavery? Fine, so do a whole bunch of other people. Great, speak out, slavery's gone. Phew - dodged a freedom bullet there. But wait, now we've gone and reinforced the idea that you can't speak out against anything unless you can get a bunch of people that agree with you.. You can have free speech, but not as an individual. I think that idea has very ominous ramifications, and this is what we're seeing now on the net. An individual or small group cannot post ideas that will ruffle feathers, else, you face censorship. Welcome to the new age, America.
In the USA one is protected from GOVERNMENT censorship ONLY, not the censorship by one's next door neighbor nor the censorship by the contributors to the local art gallery. The government is by the people. If you are the only one in town who views pr0n as art and the other 99 people view it as filth, and the town leadership represents the 99%, you will have to defend your right. This may take your time, your money (in hiring an attorney to defend you, or to fight whatever local statute you've had your collection siezed, possibly court fees) and you may ultimately lose any goodwill among your neighbors. So it's not just a matter of law, it is financial and political.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That's a bullshit argument if I ever heard one. I hate to be the one to invoke Godwin's law here, but it 's the best example I can think of. You're basically saying that you wouldn't place any blame on I.G. Farben for supplying extermination camps with Zyklon-B, because after all, "freedom isn't taken away by companies, it's taken away by the Government"
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
If censorship on the internet is so futile, explain this, this, and others. Right here on slashdot itself. Not to mention the rampant censorship that happens every day all over the internet.
Foes of various content generally go directly to the ISP hosting the offending material. (Just ask the guy running this site.) That gets things shut down really quick. Just because it's not always the government shutting something down, doesn't mean that is doesn't qualify as censorship.
Futile indeed. Having been censored myself on occasion, I'd hardly say the efforts were as such.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
Don't kid yourself. As someone who moved to USA from europe, there is more censorship here by a huge margin.
:(
Where else is asshole censored on tv?
Fear of being sued enforces self-censorship
So much for the "land of the free".