Blog #5

The article I chose for this week's blog comes from cnn.com and it reminds me of some of the issues raised in Little Brother. The article explains a debate on whether or not aerial images that are posted online endanger national security.

Two men Scott Portzline and Joel Anderson want Internet map services need to blur or remove images of sensitive sites. They feel that these sites can be used by terrorists to chose targets and plan attacks. Portzline says without leaving his home he can take a virtual tour of the nation's 66 nuclear power plants. They feel these sites are unnecessarily detailed. Another concern is that terrorists used online mapping programs to plan the Mumbai attacks in Indian last November.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner says that regulating aerial imagery of sensitve infrastructure is impossible and problemate. "Who defines what is sensitive?" he says.

Here is the link to the aritcle: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/05/aerial.images.security/index.html


This article reminded a lot about what was going on in Little Brother, by Cory Doctrow. While they are different situations the question remains the same how far do we go to infringe on American's civil liberties to ensure national security ? What do you think about this article? How would you feel if these images are removed or blurred out ?


I also thought this was an interesting quote from the article another take on national security. An author and terror expert Brian Jenkins said. "People think of security in physical terms, barriers, walls, fences. But myster--that is, creating uncertainity in the minds of would-be adversaries--is an importnat component of security. This (imagery) takes away that uncertianity . It removes all mystery"

This quote makes sense to me, but still is it enough to take away my rights. To me my rights are my security. I mean I may never want to look up the site of nuclear power plants, but I like having the feeling I can do so if I choose too. What do you think abou this quote does it change your mind in anyway ?

Blog #4 Self Censorship

This week’s blog topic comes from an article that is a little dated, it was published in February, but I thought the topic was of interest. Writer Debra Lau Whelon wrote an article for School Library Journal title “A Dirty Little Secret: Self Censorship”. This article talks about how librarians have been caught censoring books themselves from fear of complaints or a book challenge. They have either not ordered the book or put it in the adult collection or another special area to keep it from children or to make it stand out. The article stated :

“Self-censorship. It’s a dirty secret that no one in the profession wants to talk about or admit practicing. Yet everyone knows some librarians bypass good books—those with literary merit or that fill a need in their collections. The reasons range from a book’s sexual content and gay themes to its language and violence—and it happens in more public and K–12 libraries than you think.”

Another surprising quote from the story says that ALA only predicts that one our of five cases of challenged books or materials are being reported. It says when it comes to self-censorship it is almost impossible to quantify because no one is monitoring or collecting stats and there’s no open discussion on the subject.

“In a way, self-censorship is more frightening than outright banning and removal of challenged material,” says author and former librarian Susan Patron, because these incidents tend to “slip under the radar.”

In the article readers will find experiences from well-known authors on how their books have been banned or censored. Judy Blume, Coe Booth, Carolyn Mackler, Lauren Myracle and Barry Lyga all share their stories.

Overall I thought this was a really interesting article and gave great insight into how authors feel about the censorship of their books. It also proved how often this happens which was a surprise to me. My question for you is have you found yourself not ordering a book or placing it in another collection for fear of a complaint or challenge from a patron ?

Here is the link to the article

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6632974.html

Blog 3 - Censorship in China

My blog this week is about another censorship issue that made me feel grateful that America, though sometimes makes mistakes, feels that the Right to Information, Free Speech and Expression are important to its citizens. The article I found was on the New York Times website.
Citizens in China this week were blocked from internet sites such as Twitter, Flickr, Hotmail and Microsoft’s live.com. It was the governments attempt to keep citizens from being exposed to information on Thursday’s 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement. The Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement was held in 1989, and at this movement hundreds of student demonstrators works and ordinary citizens were killed by the Chinese army at a political demonstration.
It is not uncommon for China’s government to censor political material on the Internet. Youtube, blogspot.com, and wordpress.com have all been blocked recently. The government has also censored the newspaper and television. An article on the Dalai Lama was removed from the English- language newspaper, The South China Morning Post, and the BBC World News reports that featured the Tiananmen anniversary were censored from the news programs in China.
The government has not stopped there. They have also arrested several political protesters during this anniversary because of a letter that was released by the protestors. These protesters had been arrested 20 years ago for involvement in Tiananmen Square demonstration. In the letter they address concern about how they experience economic hardship after they had been released from jail after their arrest.
I thought this was a great article to blog about, because it is about nothing but censorship and human rights violations. I really appreciated this article because it showed the long term affects that censorship can have. It showed that it’s not just for one day you can not log into your favorite website, The political protestors that have been arrested have been suffering for years because they tried to stand up for what they believed in.

Blog 2: Turkish Author on Trial For Insulting Islam

While last weeks blog post dissed the FCCs strict ruling on broadcast news, this week's makes me grateful that the FCC has not gone as far as the Turkish Government.

Nedim Gursel, author of the novel "The Daughters of Allah" is facing up to a year in prison if he is found guilty under Turkey's laws of humilating religious values and inciting religious hatred. The author defends himself by stating the book is fictitious and he did not intend to offend. This began in 2006 when a Turkey citizen complained that the novel was blasphemous.

Honestly this article has really opened my eyes. I am so use to our rights in America, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion, I forget that is not always the case in other parts of the world. I guess that makes me guilty of taking our rights for granted. This article has made me realize how much I need to appreciate these rights. I can't even put myself in the shoes of this author. It's hard for me to fathom be careful of everything I say, write, believe, or express for fear of jail time.

France has decided to publish the book later this year.

Also, I wonder how American author's reacted to this news article?

FCC Backs Fines for On Air Explecitives

Last month, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's decision to prohibit "fleeting expletives" from broadcast airwaves. It was a 5-4 ruling that stems from a few incidents where celebrities such as Bono, Cher and Nicole Ritchie have used expletives on live broadcast shows. The articles also referred to a radio station that aired George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” skit. This ruling will allow the FCC to fine broadcast stations when such incidents occur.

I found two articles on the subject one from Fox News. com and one from the Wall Street Journal. Both articles state the FCC proposed this because "the foul language aired during prime time generated a record number of complaints from viewers--many of whom were watching with their children."

I have two major concerns with this ruling. First parents should be held accountable for what their children watch. It should be no surprise to any parent that celebrities can be very political and expressive. They are not afraid to use expletives to get their point across or just to be funny, and most of the time they do so on award shows. If it is such a concern don’t allow the child to watch it or record it and preview it before the child watches it. And how can you complain about George Carlin? Hello, he is known for his foul language. If you don’t like it don’t listen to it!

Second concern, the FCC needs to think about if these few isolated incidents are enough to go through all this trouble and to pass a rule that infringes on the First Amendment. Also how can they choose to limit the broadcasters when the cable and internet are not prohibited?

Overall my point is this we all have choices to watch or listen to other things that do not express this type of language, so if you don’t agree change the channel. Also unfortunately these types of words are everywhere, school, the playground or wherever so children are going to hear them. It is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children that it is inappropriate language and a type of language they should not use.