A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jan - 30 Jun 2008

We all know what happened to Susan Sarandon for speaking out, and her husband, and we all know that this is not the way Americans truly want to be. Free speech is a wonderful thing, it's what we fight for, but the minute it's unpalatable we fight against it for some reason. --Ashleigh Banfield, 24 Apr 2003, Landon Lecture at Kansas State University

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

2008, January 01: A report of protesters being arrested

By Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. On 31 Dec 2007, eight protesters, members of the Iowa Occupation Project and Voices for Creative Nonviolence, arrived at the Locust St. campaign office in Des Moines, Iowa. The were there in part to await his reply to a letter delivered in Oct 2007, that asked for his pledge to:

• completely withdraw from Iraq within 100 days of assuming office;
• halt all military actions against Iraq and Iran;
• fund the rebuilding of Iraq as well as health, education and infrastructure needs in the U.S.;
• as well as the highest quality health care, education, and jobs training benefits for veterans of the Armed Services.

They also carried banners protesting the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and engaged in a noisy protest by singing Auld Lang Syne, chanting, "Who would Jesus bomb?", and reading names of some of the Iraqis and U.S. soldiers killed in the misadventure. Candidate Huckabee apparently had someone call the police, and three of the protesters Robert Braam, Mona Shaw and Kathy Kelly, were arrested on charges of trespassing. It was not reported as to whether he had answered their request.

By municipal officials. On this day, Wei Wenhua, a construction company executive, happened on a confrontation between city inspectors and villagers who were protesting the dumping of waste near their homes. A scuffle developed when the residents tried to prevent trucks from unloading the rubbish. According to a report by China's Xinhua news agency, when Wei took out his cell phone to record the protest, more than fifty municipal inspectors turned on him and attacked him for five minutes. He was pronounced dead on arrival at a Tianmen hospital. It was also reported that: Qi Zhengjun, chief of the urban administration bureau in the city of Tianmen, lost his job over the incident, and that police have detained 24 municipal inspectors and are investigating more than 100 persons. The swift action by the government is considered to reflect concerns that the incident could spark larger protests against authorities, whose heavy-handed approaches often arouse resentment.

By Comcast Corporation. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin announced to an audience at the International Consumer Electronics Show, that the FCC will investigate complaints that Comcast actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online. A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars had asked the agency in Nov 2007 to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data. Two groups have also asked the FCC to fine the company -- the second largest internet provider in the U.S. -- $195,000 for every affected subscriber. Associated Press found in an investigation that Comcast did in some cases hinder file-sharing by subscribers who used BitTorrent. Comcast denies that it blocks file-sharing, but did acknowledged that it was "delaying" some of the traffic between computers that share files. The company said the intervention was necessary to improve the surfing experience for the majority of its subscribers.

Peer-to-peer file-sharing is a common way to illegally exchange copyrighted files, but companies are also rushing to use P2P for the legal distribution of videos and games. If ISPs hinder or control that traffic, it makes them gatekeepers of internet content. See the source article for more background.

By Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. On this day the watchdog group issued a Media Advisory titled Humbled in New Hampshire?. The group examined the ongoing, wholesale failure of the American press to provide information instead of sensationalism in its coverage of the campaigns by presidential hopefuls. Moreover, rather than accepting the fact that their predictions had failed to materialize and admitting it, the press then blamed their erroneous statements on abstractions. FAIR called them to task for their failure in journalism:

Leading up to the New Hampshire primary, the storyline on the Democratic side was the disastrous state of the Clinton campaign. Her loss was a given; it seemed the only considerations were the margin of defeat and whether or not she would even continue running at all. [...]

Clinton, of course, won the primary--surprising the pundits and contradicting the polls that journalists unwisely use to set the tone of so much of their coverage. In the aftermath, the media were left asking what went "wrong" with the numbers. [...]

As the media mea culpas start to pile up, it's worth considering the unspoken implication--that if the vote had gone the way the polls were predicting, then the press would have been doing a fine job of covering an election. But journalists should not be gamblers, betting that they will be vindicated by voters' choices that are inherently unpredictable. Reporters should strive for coverage that holds up no matter what the results are.

FAIR then went on to examine the historical aspect of this brand of yellow journalism, and then asked a hard question of the corporate press:

Former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw offered some helpful commentary during the coverage of the New Hampshire primaries, suggesting to MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews that reporters put less emphasis on trying to predict outcomes and spend more time covering actual policy:

BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to do?

MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: Well, what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

BROKAW: No, no we don't stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they're saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

Matthews' response is illuminating. Does a political junkie who hosts two national television programs really not have any idea about how to cover politics other than talking about strategy, fundraising and polls? Do campaign journalists really have so little interest in the actual policy positions of the candidates?

By Gene Policinski. See the entry on the Vanity Licence Plates page.

By Ronald K.L. Collins. A First Amendment scholar, on this day, he had published at the First Amendent Center web site a piece titled New e-book may 'kindle' fires of regulation ... or of freedom. In it, he points out that the "e-book reader" Kindle. A new technology, it is differentiated from other book reading devices by having cellular-like access to the internet; specifically: "continuous wireless connectivity via EVDO broadband service, the kind offered by advanced cell-phone carriers." The issue this raises is the likelyhood of content regulation attempts by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. That body administers the law governing cellular phones and other wireless devices under the Communications Act of 1934 as amended. As Mr. Collins points out: "if history is any guide, it will only be a matter of time before some well-meaning lawmaker or some ardent advocacy group suggests that the use of the 'public airwaves' justifies regulating e-books as we do some other mass media."

By the American Civil Liberties Union. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Annalee Newitz. In this piece, Ms. Newitz, who is the Technology Reporter at Alternet.org, examines the evolution of the commentariat into an increasingly mainstream information forum.

Six years ago I wrote a column titled "Blog Anxiety," which was all about how bloggers make me nervous and jealous with their lightning-fast news cycles. I bemoaned my inability to commit words to public record without waiting for editorial oversight and without waiting for publication day (inevitably several days if not weeks after I had written those words).

I talked about how bloggers can cite sources they've talked to informally and how they seem blissfully unburdened by concerns about injecting a personal perspective into their writing. That was before It All Changed. And by "It All Changed," I don't just mean that I became a blogger, which I did. More profoundly, I mean that blogs themselves have changed.

They are not the subterranean upstart media without rules anymore.

Ms. Newitz then went on to illustrate how the corporate press, such as The New York Times, has become a part of the evolutionary movement. She also voiced her concerns, however, about how, as the commentariat increasingly becomes the mainstream, it might also increasingly adopt the substandard journalism of the corporate press that encourage so many citizens to abandon that format.

[RE: blissfully unburdened by concerns about injecting a personal perspective into their writing; makes me glad I generally keep my editorial comments separate from my reporting. --MN]

By Dr. Steven Running. A professor of ecology at the University of Montana, one of the lead authors of the report on the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a winner of the Nobel Prize. His talk before the high school students of Choteau, Montana, pop 1,781, was cancelled when some parents complained that the presentation would be one-sided. School superintendent Kevin St. John, who should have sought out a speaker to present the argument that there is no global warming, reportedly claimed that there simply wasn't time to explain that Dr. Running was a "leading scientist" instead of an "agenda-driven ideologue." He was reported to have maintained, however, that "academic freedom is very important here, and science education is very important here." One student at the local high school was quoted as saying in reply to the cancellation: "I don't feel there is another side. Global warming is not a controversial issue, it's a fact."

By the State Supreme Court of New Hampshire. On this day the court overturned the child-pornography conviction of Marshal Zidel. He was a photographer at Camp Young Judea in Amherst, NH, where authorities say he superimposed pictures of 15-year-old girls onto images of naked adults. He was convicted in Jun 2006 and sentenced to up to seven years in prison. In its decision, the court ruled that the sexual images created by combining the faces of underage women with adult women's bodies are not child pornography partly because they did not involve sexual acts by actual children. His conviction was also overturned partly on the grounds that images were not deliberately distributed. The court cited the 2002 ruling Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in which the U.S. Supreme Court said federal child pornography laws went too far in trying to ban computer simulations and other fool-the-eye depictions of teenagers or children having sex. That ruling allowed that such "virtual pornography" is protected as free speech.

By Jay Rosen, Tomdispatch.com. On this day, this excellent critical review of the American corporate press was posted at Alternet.org. In it, Mr. Rosen paints a picture of the press as a mindless beast which spins a web of consequences. The central theme of the piece is summed up quite nicely as: the media is a mindless beast. Mr. Rosen also points out the many ways in which corporate and indy journalists, and members of the commentariat such as myself, frequently misrepresent the media as a mindful beast out of necessity. This piece is a must read for any student of mass communciations.

By District Court Judge Edgar Barnes and Superior Court Judge Russell Duke, respectively. On 20 Oct 2007, a group of activists numbering approximately fifty, gathered outside the gates of the Blackwater Worldwide private military base at Moyock, N.C. The protesters reenacted the Nisour Square shooting of Sep 2007; they staged a "die-in," involving a vehicle painted with bullet marks and blood, stained their clothing with fake blood, and dramatized the deadly shooting spree. Some of the demonstrators marked Blackwater's large welcome sign with red hand prints. It took only moments for the local police to respond to the protest, the first ever at Blackwater's headquarters, and in the end, seven of the protesters were arrested. All seven were charged with criminal trespassing, six of them with an additional charge of resisting arrest, and one was also charge of injury to real property.

Judge Edgar Barnes was reportedly so outraged at the first of the defendants to appear before him that day, that he cleared the court following his conviction, and the other six activists were tried in total secrecy -- secret to everyone except the prosecutors, sheriffs, government witnesses, and one Blackwater official. No spectators, no family members, no journalists, no defense witnesses remained.

On 24 Jan, Superior Court Judge Russell Duke heard the appeal of the convicted parties, and he did grant them an open trial at least, but despite the violation of the right to face one's accuser in open court, he upheld the conviction instead of overturning it. In the end he sentenced the activists to time served, which was the lightest sentence he could have issued.

[I rather think the "Blackwater 7", as they have come to be called, based their defence on all the wrong issues. They tried to use their trial to have Blackwater tried instead. They should have stuck to pointing out that they were not trespassing with the intent to commit a crime, and if they used the kind of fake blood anybody can make up -- with corn syrup and red dye #7 and a few other liquids -- then there was no damage to the sign, since the fake blood would have washed right off, and no crime was actually committed. There was no mention whatever of how they were supposed to have resisted arrest, but it was a peaceful protest, the "resistance" probably consisted solely of non-cooperation ("No, I am not going to walk to the squad car, you'll have to drag me"). See the source article for more background. --MN]

By the Denmark national library. The royal library in Copenhagen has declared twelve editorial drawings of the Prophet Mohammed to be of historic value and is trying to acquire them so as to preserve them. The cartoons originally appeared in the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, and after publication in a number of western newspapers in 2006, there was rioting in several countries with theopolitical states. Denmark's embassy in Damascus was burned, and diplomatic missions in severa l oth er countries were attacked. The library agreed to take possession of the caricatures on behalf of the museum of Danish cartoon art. Several of the artists have agreed to donate the works, but the museum might have to buy some of them, and one has already been sold to a private buyer.

A library spokeswoman, Jytte Kjaergaard, said the cartoons were not likely to be displayed and that the decision was not intended to be controversial. She is quoted: "We are not interested in an exhibition, we are interested in them being kept safe for future generations because they have created history in Denmark. This is the obvious place to keep them because we have all the security measures in place. It would be very difficult for a private person to come in and sabotage them because to see them for research purposes you will need a letter of consent from your university professor. They will be treated like any rare book." However, there are those who like to see the cartoons in an exhibit regarding freedom of expression. Ervin Nielsen, who is the director of the Danish media museum, is quoted: "If the library acquires them, we would like to show them together with media reports about the publication and the protests against it."

The Danish Muslim Society, which headed the original campaign against the cartoons, sees this as a further provocation, but the group's spokesman, Kasem Said Ahmad, said they would ignore it as part of a new strategy: "We will not be holding any demonstrations as we got nothing from the Danish courts when we tried to sue the newspapers. We will ignore all provocations in future."

By the supposedly pro-democracy and pro-freedom, Afghani government under Hamid Karzai. Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, a student of journalism, was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded and distributed a report from a Farsi website. The report stated that Muslim fundamentalist claims of the Quranic justification for the oppression of women were misrepresentations of the views of the prophet Mohamed. He reportedly distributed the tract to fellow students and teachers at Balkh University, in order to provoke a debate on the matter. As a result, he had a complaint lodged against him, was arrested, was tried by religious judges, and was sentenced to death. His friends and family say that he was not allowed legal representation during his trial, and on 31 Jan, the Afghan Senate passed a motion confirming the death sentence. This same body also attacked the international community for putting pressure on the Afghan government, and urged Karzai not to be influenced by outside non-Islamic views.

On 01 Feb, The Independent UK launched a campaign to overthrow this monstrous injustice and egregious human rights violation. It also reported, in the source article, that the theo-political establishment had issued threats against dissenters. Qayoum Baabak, the editor of Jahan-i-Naw, said Hafiz Khaliqyar, a senior prosecutor in Mazar-i-Sharif, had warned journalists that they would be punished if they protested against the death sentence.

[See the source article for more background, particularly concerning the petty politics and the frightening level of fanaticism involved. --MN]

By a group of journalists, academics, and media-watchdog groups; to whit:

• Ann Simonton, Coordinator and Founder, Media Watch;
• Judy Rebick, Professor of Communications and Culture, Ryerson University;
• Isabel Macdonald, Communications Director, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - New York (FAIR);
• Dr. Fiona Jeffries, Instructor, Communications Department, Simon Fraser University;
• Dr. Jenny Burman, Assistant Professor, Communication Studies, McGill University;
• Avi Lewis, Filmmaker and broadcaster;
• Naomi Klein, Author and syndicated columnist;
• Steve Anderson, Coordinator, Campaign for Democratic Media;
• Dr. Yasmin Jiwani, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies, Concordia University;
• Derrick O'Keefe, Editor, rabble.ca;
• Marshall Soules, Media Studies Department Chair, Malaspina University-College.

The complaint, filed with the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission, is being brought against CBC TV, CBC Radio, CKNW, CTV, and Global TV on the grounds that despite numerous clarifications, including by legal experts, broadcasters have consistently failed to provide coverage that is accurate, comprehensive, fair, full, and unbiased by reporting falsely that Mr. Laibar Singh "came to Canada illegally" or that he "was illegal" in Canada prior to his taking sanctuary in Jul of 2007. Complainant claims that the decontextualized and/or inaccurate information has fuelled ignorance in the public sphere, and has had a negative influence on the perceptions of Mr. Singh and of all asylum seekers to Canada. Some comments from members of the group are:

• Isabel Macdonald: "By inaccurately stating that Laibar Singh 'entered Canada illegally,' when in fact he came under a prescribed channel that many asylum seekers choose, and by leaving out essential context about laws pertaining to asylum seekers, broadcasters have used the public airwaves to fuel ignorance rather than to inform the public."

• Marshall Soules: "The media must be held accountable for reporting misleading, incomplete, and inaccurate information. This is especially important when that reporting contributes to biased perceptions of refugees and immigrants who contribute so much to Canadian society. The media are failing in their duty to the public A trust, and the CRTC has a clear responsibility to investigate this failure."

• Judy Rebick: "The repetition of an inaccuracy in the media is one of the worst examples of how media framing can impact on legal proceedings. The impact of the falsehood that Laibar Singh entered Canada illegally cannot be overestimated. This error must be corrected and the media held accountable. A man's life may be at stake."

• Ann Simonton: "The biggest problem with media inaccuracies has to do with situations such as this, when real humans are being hurt by what the media says."

• Naomi Klein: "Public perception has been informed by often careless reporting. Letters to the editor, web comments, and callers on radio shows have argued that Laibar Singh's deportation should proceed based on a perceived 'illegality,' a claim fuelled by inaccurate news reports. The media is responsible for informing the public in an accurate, full, and fair way, and they have betrayed that trust, while contributing to false public perceptions of Mr. Singh."

• Dr. Fiona Jeffries: "The news media has an enormous influence on framing public debates and it is vital that it adheres to its own stated commitment to accuracy and responsible reporting of the facts. This complaint seeks to hold the news media to its public responsibility."

By the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals. The court issued an amended opinion on this day in the First Amendment law suit of Dible v. City of Chandler. Ronald and Megan Dible began operating a pornography-for-cash web site in Sep 2000. It featured teaser pictures of Megan Dible and offered more explicit photographs and other materials once they were paid for. The police chief learned about the site by Jan 2002, and the story made the local press. Dible's then supervisor recommended his dismissal, contending that then-Officer Dible had allegedly provided false or misleading answers to investigators looking into the situation. He had denied being involved in such a business during a formal interview. He was fired, a state board upheld the firing in Apr 2002, and the couple filed a suit in state court alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. The action was later removed to federal court, and U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg granted summary judgment to the city and its police chief. The decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit, which originally affirmed the ruling in Sep 2007, and then issued its amended opinion on this day. See the source article for more background.

By the State of Hawaii. An Associate Press article posted to First Amendment Center on this day reported that the Hawaii legislature is considering a proposed shield law would attempt to protect both traditional news reporters and Web-based journalists. Neither of the proposals, H.B. 2557, S.B. 2473 and H.B. 1986, specifically protect bloggers or internet reporters. One measure shelters all reporters who meet the vague requirement that they have "complied with and met applicable standards of journalism ethics", while another bill broadly defines a journalist as anyone who gathers news and regularly distributes it to the public using various media, including the Internet. Jeff Portnoy, representing Malia Zimmerman of Hawaiireporter.com, allowed as to how lawmakers will have to clarify who qualifies as an authentic journalist, and that they will also need to debate exactly which government bodies the news media would be protected from.

[Peter Carlisle, a Honolulu Prosecutor, said he was worried that such a law could be abused by people who make spurious claims that amateur video recordings, photographs, or Web sites qualify them as protected journalists. While this is a valid concern on the face of it, it is equally spurious of him to suppose that the courts will be unable to recognize baseless claims. Moreover, some people will seize upon any excuse, and there are already plenty of issues upon which to seize. However, he was also quoted as saying, "I just don't think a [shield] law is entirely necessary." Unfortunately, the source article did not offer any cogent viewpoint he might have as to why not. --MN]

By Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), and open-government advocates. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Human Rights Watch. On this day the organization condemened China for failing to carry out promises to increasingly respect human rights and civil liberties in the face of the 2008 Olympics. Sophie Richardson, the Asia advocacy director for the group, is quoted: "Beijing has given virtually no signs that it intends to keep the promises made to the international community in exchange for hosting the Games. On the contrary, we have witnessed a systematic effort to silence, suppress and repress Chinese citizens who are trying to push the government into greater respect for fundamental rights." The organization cited the follow examples:

• March 2007: poet and political essayist Zhang Jianhong, was sentenced to six years of imprisonment for publishing more than one hundred "articles defaming the Chinese government and calling for agitation to overthrow the government."

• April 2007: writer Yan Zhengxue was sentenced to three years in jail for having "used the internet, discussion forums and speeches to publish distorted facts, attack and vilify the state power, and incite subversion of state power and overthrow of the socialist system."

• July 2007: activist Yang Chunlin was arrested for his involvement in a petition, "We Want Human Rights, not the Olympics," which was signed by farmers protesting land seizures. He was reported to still be awaiting trial as of this day.

• August 2007: dissident writer Chen Shuqing, also a member of the banned Chinese Democratic Party, was sentenced to four years of imprisonment.

• 30 January 2008: leading human rights activist Hu Jia was formally arrested. He had become a principal source of information about the situation of human rights defenders inside and outside China. He was taken away by the police from his home on December 27, 2007, shortly after he gave testimony via webcam to the European Parliament in which he expressed his desire for 2008 to be "the year of human rights in China." Hu Jia, who has so far been denied contact with his lawyers on the grounds that his case involves "state secrets," faces up to five years of imprisonment.

• 04 February 2008: writer Lü Gengsong was sentenced to four years in prison for "inciting subversion against state power."

Human Rights Watch also said that the repression of dissidents and human rights activists has broadened in recent months to include systematic intimidation, surveillance, and confinement of the close relatives of dissidents. Such tactics keep the dissidents' cases out of sight and prevent relatives from mounting legal challenges.

• Since the arrest of Hu Jia on 27 Dec, the police have confined his wife and fellow activist Zeng Jinyan, and their 2-month-old daughter to the couple's home and cut their telephone and internet connections.

• Yuan Weijing, the wife of jailed blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng, is under permanent surveillance and has been prevented from traveling;

• Ye Guozhu, the brother of activist Ye Guoqiang who is currently serving a four-year prison sentence for organizing protests against Olympics-related forced evictions, is also under police surveillance, and was detained at least one time under subversion charges.

Human Rights Watch also noted a host of serious and uncorrected problems linked to the Olympic preparations, including:

• forced evictions,
• land seizures,
• suppression of petitioners,
• closure of migrant children schools,
• heightened internet censorship,
• and the use of "hard-strike" anti-crime campaigns to prepare the eviction from Beijing of undocumented rural migrant workers, beggars, vagrants, and sex workers.

Ms. Richardson is further quoted about the state of affairs: "Repression will only increase through the opening of the Games unless foreign governments, the International Olympic Committee, and national Olympic committees make it clear to China that such abuses are a threat to the success of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. International silence in the face of these Olympics-related human rights violations is tantamount to giving the Chinese government a green light to intensify its pre-Olympic crackdown."

By Google News. Inner City Press has run stories spotlighting wrongdoing and malfeasance within the United Nations Development Program since Dec 2005. Bea Edwards of the Government Accountability Project said that the indy news site is: "the most effective and important media organization for U.N. whistleblowers." She is further quoted: "Current whistleblower protections at the U.N. are grossly inadequate", and, [Inner City has] "reported the arcane tactics of silencing the free speech of employees of conscience in the U.N. system." In Nov 2007, during a press conference at which Google announced its partnership with the UNDP to achieve anti-poverty goals, Inner City Press editor-in-chief Matthew Lee asked why the Internet company hadn't signed a global human-rights and anti-censorship compact -- elements which are in the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals.

On this day, Mr. Lee received an e-mail from Google News: "We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users ... When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News." According to Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker, on Feb. 1 someone e-mailed Google a complaint about Lee's Web site, alleging that Inner City Press was a one-man operation, thus violating the Google News ground rule that news organizations it lists must have two or more employees. When Mr. Lee received the e-mail, he responded immediately, noting that Inner City Press was accredited by the U.N. and that it was mentioned frequently in other media as an important U.N. watchdog. A representative answered that Inner City Press would be restored to the news service as usual, but that the process might take a couple weeks. As of 13 Feb, Inner City Press stories stopped showing up on Google News, something which Google attributes to a technical error. Mr. Lee is not the only person at the paper, but those others, from one to several, are volunteers, not employees.

As to the source of the complaint, Mr. Lee, and GAP, quickly pointed the finger of suspicion at the UNDP. Bea Edwards, GAP's international-program director, commented: "The question is, is what user sent the complaint? And it's probably not too hard to guess. We would guess the complaints came from the UNDP." Google refused to identify the complainant, citing privacy concerns. UNDP spokesman David Morrison called allegations of the agency's involvement preposterous. For more background, see Google Censors a Site That Exposes United Nations Corruption, at AlterNet.org, and Journalist Who Exposes UN Corruption Disappears From Google, at CommonDreams.org.

By Gene Policinski, First Amendment Center vice president/executive director. In this commentary on the Montclair State University fiscal fight between student journalists and the student government, Mr. Policinski offers four lessons to be learned from the confrontation.

By the Bush adminstration. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By justice and human rights minister Symphorien Mutombo Bakafua Nsenda. Mr. Kayombo is an investigative reporter for the privately-owned monthly Les Grands Enjeux. He was arrested on 09 Jan while interviewing the secretary-general of the ministry of mines, in that official's office, and was charged with blackmail and "disparaging an official". The latest issue of Les Grands Enjeux, which is a quality magazine produced in South Africa and distributed in Kinshasa and Lubumbashi, had an editorial about alleged hidden commissions being paid in an "enormous financial rip-off" and "clientelism, complicity and dictates from the political authorities in questionable and clearly unfair deals." Les Grands Enjeux had financial backing from businessmen in Katanga who felt they had been swindled by officials who manage mining contracts. Mr. Kayombo was arrested by plain-clothes police when he went to interview the ministry of mines secretary-general Christophe Kaninio, at the latter’s invitation to verify information he had obtained.

By U.S. District Judge John Houston. On 21 Apr 2004, students at Poway High School observed a "Day of Silence" to raise awareness of mishomonist bigotry against homosexual students. On that day, Tyler Harper wore a T-shirt that read on the front, I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned, and on the back, Homosexuality is Shameful, Romans 1:27. He refused to take the shirt off when asked to by a teacher and was sent to the principal's office for the rest of the day. He subsequently sued. In 2006, The 9th Circuit court ruled that the T-shirt infringed upon the rights of other students more than asking Mr. Harper to remove it infringed upon his. Mr. Harper, and his younger sister, Kelsie, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which, in 2007, refused to hear the case on procedural grounds.

On this day Judge Houston reaffirmed the earlier decision and upheld the Poway Unified School District policy on hate speech. He was quoted from his opinion: "interest in protecting homosexual students from harassment is a legitimate pedagogical concern that allows a school to restrict speech expressing damaging statements about sexual orientation and limiting students to expressing their views in a positive manner." One of Harper's lawyers, Robert Tyler, said in reply to the decision: "It appears to be a double standard. Why is it acceptable to tell [students] of faith their views are not as valuable as the view of any person opposing them?"

[I have to say that I agree with Tyler on this one; setting aside that this ruling appears to fly in the face of Tinker v: Des Moines, I would state unequivocally that it violates the Ninth Amendment. Moreover, I cannot construe the tee-shirt caption as either harrassment or fighting words in that the sentiment is couched as a statement of personal belief: it is an "I" statement, not a "You" statement. --MN]

By Nebraska governor Dave Heineman. He vetoed a bill, L.B. 39, that would have required petition circulators to be residents of the state and at least 18 years old, and which also would have barred circulators from being paid on a per-signature basis. The bill was a response to what is described as the messy petition year of 2006. Some tactics used by petition circulators during that year were criticized by Secretary of State John Gale and others as being too aggressive and even underhanded. Mr. Gale also said some circulators were too young. People who opposed the restrictions said freedom of speech was at risk, and also that such measures could hinder the initiative process, which is often called the second house of Nebraska's one-of-a-kind, one-house Legislature. This means that the iniative process serves We the People as a direct check and balance, in a legislature where there is no other body for that purpose. Governor Heineman applied that reasoning in explaining his veto. State Senator DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln, who sponsored the bill, said she would attempt to have the veto overridden.

In 2006, petition groups gathered signatures for thirteen proposed ballot initiatives. There were reports of circulators for some measures getting paid more than five dollars per signature, and a debate over the proper conduct of petition circulators was also prompted by so-called "petition blockers", people who sometimes harassed and intimidated their fellow citizens to keep them from collecting or giving signatures.

[I haven't seen the language of that bill, but the first thing that occurs to me is: I wonder how long it will be until they prosecute some underage high school student for circulating a petition against a school policy. --MN]

By Saudi Arabia. Web journaler Steve Benen, of The Carpetbagger Report, commented at his site on the theo-political state's crackdown on "immorality" on 13 Feb. He quoted from his source:

"As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration, especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women," Sheikh Khaled Al-Dossari, a scholar in Islamic studies, told the Saudi Gazette, an English-language newspaper.

Every year, officials with the conservative Muslim kingdom's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice clamp down on shops a few days before February 14, instructing them to remove red roses, red wrapping paper, gift boxes and teddy bears. On the eve of the holiday, they raid stores and seize symbols of love.

Mr. Benen then went on to state that citizens circumvent the censorial efforts of the government by way of a thriving black market in roses, and that florists sometimes make deliveries in the middle of the night.

By Islamo-fanatics. A gang of fourteen men attacked the Gaza City premises of the Young Men's Christian Association centre before dawn on this day, and blew up its library, burning down the building and the entire collection; reportedly after removing any books of non-Christian interest. The Gaza YMCA was also open to Muslims, and it contained a school, a sports club, and a hall for weddings.

According to Palestinian terrorist sources in Gaza, the attack was carried out by Hamas and its ally, the Popular Resistance Committees. Sheik Abu Saqer, who is the leader of an Islamic outreach movement called Jihadia Salafiya, and that recently announced the opening of a military wing to enforce a Sharia, told WorldNetDaily that the YMCA had Muslim children in its nursery program. He is quoted: "Gaza is Muslim, more than 99 percent are Muslim. We don't need any of these missionary institutions. They have only one goal -- to convert our sons and daughter to Christianity." Mr. Abu Saqer said that feels some sympathy for parents who can no longer send their children to the program, but: "Let them send their children only to sharia Islamic nurseries where they will teach the principles of the Quran." He also accused the leadership of the Gaza Christian community of "proselytizing and trying to convert Muslims with funding from American evangelicals", and then blamed the victim for the violence he was perpetrating: "This missionary activity is endangering the entire Christian community in Gaza." He is also quoted as saying that Hamas "must work to impose an Islamic rule or it will lose the authority it has and the will of the people." WorldNetDaily reported in Nov 2007 that Christian leaders in Gaza were intimidated into attending and then expressing support for a speech in which the territory's Hamas leader urged the worldwide spread of Islam.

By Steven Spielberg. A film director, he withdrew from his role as an artistic adviser to the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2008 Olympic Games, over dissatisfaction with China's not doing enough to press for peace in the Darfur crisis. China is believed to have influence over Sudanese leaders as it buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil exports. China also sells weapons to the theocratic government and defends it in the United Nations. More than 200,000 people have died in Darfur in a conflict between rebels and governemnt supported militias. Mr. Spielberg's decision drew angry criticisms from the state-controlled media. Although the Chinese government has not criticized him directly by name, expressing only "regret" over the decision, it often uses the newspapers to make statements it does not want to comment on officially.

[Criticism by the media and the public focused largely on Spielberg's "politicizing" of the Olympics. I suppose the public, at least, could be forgiven for not knowing how the government of China politicized human rights by promising to clean up its act, and by then reneging on those promises. Furthermore, China has a vested interest in supporting violence in a country with a regime to which it sells military weaponry, and whose ideology is as contemptuous of human rights and civil liberties as theirs is. --MN]

By the State of Egypt. Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, a web journaler who posted under the pseudonym of Kareem Amer, was sentenced to four years imprisonment on 21 Feb 2007; three years for ostentibly "inciting hatred of Islam", one for supposedly defaming President Hosni Mubarak. A brief synopsis of his activities as an independent journalist includes:

• Arrested for the first time in October 2005 for posting anti-religious comments on his blog (www.karam903.blogspot.com), he spent eighteen days in detention and his computer hard drive was seized, but no charges were laid.

• Before his second arrest he contributed often to online discussion forums; his goal, after finishing his studies, was to create a human rights NGO that would defend Muslim women against all forms of discrimination and violence.

• He was arrested again in late 2006. At the hearing, on 01 Feb 2007, he was accused of apostasy by Mohamed Dawoud, a lawyer appearing in an independent capacity, who called for the "maximum sentence for him who has insulted, God, His Prophet and the Koran."

• He was awarded the Reporters Without Borders / Fondation de France prize in the Internet category on 05 Dec 2007.

In a posting to its site to mark this anniversary of perfidy, Reporters Without Borders said that in letters to his lawyers he has spoken of being "shut in an isolation cell for 10 days" and of "physical torture hushed up by the prison doctor, who has altered my medical record."

By the government of Pakistan. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) the official, state Internet regulatory body, ordered all Pakistani ISPs to block access to YouTube until further notice. Supposedly because of the amount of "non-Islamic objectionable video". The activist organization Don't Block the Blog, a group of Pakistani web journalers who combat censorship, believes the order was prompted by two videos. One is described as anti-Islamic by Reporters Without Borders, the other shows voters describing the fraud they witnessed during the 18 Feb parliamentary elections, and which was won by the opposition Pakistan People's Party.

By the Supreme Court of Japan. In 1999, Takashi Asai, president of a film distribution company in Tokyo, carried his copy of the book of photography into Japan through the Narita Airport. Customs authorities there forbid him from bringing the book into the country, saying it fell into the category of publications considered likely to damage morals, with import thus prohibited under the Customs Tariff Law. The book contains twenty close-up photographs of male genitals on 19 pages, as well as images of flowers and people. Five of the photos were judged to be obscene in a Tokyo High Court ruling that year. During the week of 10-16 Feb, Japan's Supreme Court ruled that the images of male genitals are not obscene. Presiding Justice Kohei Nasu said in the ruling: "The photo book is edited from an artistic point of view. Judging the book as a whole, it can't be regarded as an obscene publication."

The majority of justices pointed out that Mapplethorpe had won high acclaim as an art photographer, that the photo book was edited to allow an overview of the whole body of his work, and that the images in question constituted a very small portion of the whole. The ruling marks a final defeat for the government in the case, and legal experts said it was the first time that the Supreme Court had overturned a lower court ruling on whether a work was obscene. The ruling is being seen as indication of a shift in societal attitudes towards greater tolerance of non-mainstream art.

By Wellington City Libraries and the Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Society of Authors (NZSA). Touted as a new thought-provoking event by the government of Wellington, the eight day long series of readings, displays, and a celebrity debate will focus on the theme of banned, restricted, or sanitised children's books. Wellington City Council's Social Portfolio Leader, Councillor Ngaire Best, described the event thusly: "Libraries play an important role in providing the public with open access to a range of materials. This event will examine if, in some places and at some times, the impulse to protect children from accessing some materials has been taken too far."

[Looks to me as if a kaffee-klatsch has been organized by a bunch of people who don't know that there is a difference between censorship and selection, or that children will pick books to read that are in their interest range. At least that's the way it was reported. Personally, I'd say that it is pretty obvious that the impulse to "protect children" has been taken too far, and the debate should be on where to draw the line, and who should do the drawing. And the answer to that last one is: the parents of the individual child. --MN]

By the Book and Periodical Council and the Freedom of Expression Committee. The theme for this year is: Celebrate your choices, contemplate the challenges.

By Annalee Newitz. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By assailant or assailants unknown. On 17 Feb, Shihab al-Timimi, the chief of the Iraqi Journalists' Union, had just left the union headquarters in Baghdad to head to a nearby art when gunmen opened fire on his car. He passed away on this day after having a stroke. The Committee to Protect Journalists quoted al-Timimi's nephew on 25 Feb as saying that al-Timimi had received multiple threats; including calls on his cell phone and home telephone, some six months ago, warning him that he would be killed if he did not step down from his position.

By Alex Gibney. Winner of the 2008 Academy Award for the Best Documentary Feature, the film traces the final days of a young Afghan man named Dilawar (no last name). In 2001, he was arrested by the U.S. servicemen and taken to the Bagram Air Base prison. Five days later he was dead; beaten and tortured to death by the United States military. Alex Gibney gathered eyewitness accounts of the event from the very low-ranking soldiers who beat him to death. The film shows the simple village that was his lifelong home and features people there who speak about how Dilawar had volunteered to drive the taxi; an important source of income for the village. Dilawar had been fingered as a participant in a rocket attack on U.S. forces. He was identified by some Afghanis who were later proven to be the attackers themselves. Mr. Gibney uses the tragedy to open up a searing and compelling indictment of U.S. torture policy; from Bush and Cheney through Donald Rumsfeld and John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memo.

Taxi to the Dark Side can be seen in theaters, but will almost certainly not be seen on television at a time and place inconvenient to the Bush adminstration. The Discovery Channel, the television network that had bought the TV rights to the film, is owned by John Malone; he is described as conservative mogul, and as owning Liberty Media, one of the largest media corporations on the planet. Mr. Malone had reportedly just gotten approval to swap extensive stock holdings in Rupert Murdoch's empire, News Corp., for control of the DirecTV satellite television system. At the time Discovery told Mr. Gibney they would not be airing his documentary, the two businessmen were waiting for approval for for the Federal Communications Commission to approve the deal.

Home Box Office (HBO) managed to buy the television rights so the film will find its way to those households that subscribe to premium TV channels, but not at any time to serve the ideal of democracy and the principal of freedom of speech and information. As Discovery wrote to a critical member of the public, "In its first pay-TV window, HBO will debut the film in September 2008. We are proud that Taxi to the Dark Side will make its basic cable debut in 2009 on Investigation Discovery." So Discovery will show the film, just on one of its smaller side channels and only well after the upcoming presidential election. Mr. Gibney is quoted as commenting: "Well, it turns out that the Discovery Channel isn't so interested in discovery. I was told a little bit before my Academy Award nomination that they had no intention of airing the film, that new management had come in and they were about to go through a public offering, so it was probably too controversial for that. They didn't want to cause any waves. It turns out Discovery turns out to be the see-no-evil/hear-no-evil channel."

By Alex Comfort, and Dr. Charles Silverstein And Edmund White, respectively. Randy Jackson challenged the presence of both books in Nampa Public Library, in 2005. In 2006, the library board voted to keep the books, but did move them to a higher shelf to make them less accessible to children. Mr. Jackson was not satisfied with that, and since then two new members were elected to the library board, so he is renewing his efforts to have the books removed. The political situation appears to be that another vote on the issue could go either way. Board Chairwoman Rosie Delgadillo Reilly, who voted to keep the books hasn't changed her mind; she is quoted: "These books are widely circulated in the Treasure Valley. It's not something that only we have. We feel strongly we live in a diverse community and the collection should be open to everyone."

By Philip Pullman. It was reported on this day that the books would remain in Dufferin-Peel Catholic District school libraries, but that they should not be on elementary school curricula; Program Superintendent Marianne Mazzorato pointed out the books are advanced reading material and do not generally appeal to elementary students. However, the books were to be branded with warnings that they contain criminal ideas. Each one is to carry a sticker on the inside cover -- purportedly to warn readers -- that "representations of the church in this novel are purely fictional", and those descriptions are not reflective of the Roman Catholic Church or the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[This is probably a stupid and pointless exercise given that the books were to be weeded out of the elementary school library collections because they were not being loaned often enough to warrant keeping them. That decision had been made before film production and the challenge to the series, and it was the foundation for the decision to remove the series from district curricula. I say above that the stickers are purportedly to warn readers, but I think they will, in reality, serve only to warn the ultra-self-righteous, dumb-ass reactionaries who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality that reading the books will frighten them. --MN]

By an internet service contractor in collusion with the Treasury Department of the U.S. government. Steve Marshall is an English travel agent living in Spain and selling trips to tropic climes to Europeans; including trips to Cuba. In Oct 2007, some 80 of his Web sites just suddenly stopped working. The sites were in English, French, Spanish, had been online since 1998. Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com, were literary, some, such as www.cuba-havanacity.com, discussed Cuban history and culture. Still others were purely commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists. Mr. Marshall commented about the incident in a telephone interview: "I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at all. We thought it was a technical problem." The problem was that the web sites had been put on a U.S. Treasury Department blacklist and his American domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall said eNom told they did it after a call from the Treasury Department; the company, says it learned that the sites were on the blacklist through a web journal. Either way, the registrar shut the sites down without notifying him before hand, and has further refused to release the domain names to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, the contractor took his property and interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business over the last several months through a European registrar, and his servers have been and still are physically located in the Bahamas; outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

Treasury spokesman John Rankin referred a caller to a Dec 2004 press release concerning Mr. Marshall's company; it apparently alleged that his company had helped Americans to evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and that it was "a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people." It added that American companies must stop doing business with his, and furthermore freeze its assets. Mr. Marshall said he had no interest in the American market as: "They can't go anyway." Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University has studied the blacklist and said that its operation was quite mysterious; he is quoted: "There really is no explanation or standard for why someone gets on the list." Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name registrars are based in the U.S. gives Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), control over a great deal of speech which might not be hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or conflicting with any U.S. rights. She is quoted: "OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech disappear."

By the People's Republic of China. See the entry on the Chinese censorship page.

By the National Communications Council of Gabon. On 31 Jan this year, the French daily Le Monde reported on an investigation into the ownership of five luxury residences in Paris, which had been bought by the leaders of five different countries in Africa, including President Omar Bongo of Gabon. Tendance Gabon, a private semimonthly, reprinted the article under the headline: Omar Bongo busted by French investigators. Shortly after the edition hit the newsstands, Director Edwige Anyouzoa was summoned to the council, and where she faced a nine-hour long hearing. The council subsequently decided to inflict a three month long publication ban against the paper for having spread "a campaign of denigration" against President Bongo. The council also alleged plagiarism; a bogus charge given that the article was republished under the original author's name. According to Ms. Anyouzoa, the ruling was also linked to an editorial in the same edition that raised questions about disparities in the council's treatment of media affairs. The council's decision is final and cannot be appealed.

Research by the Committee to Protect Journalists inidicates that this ruling is the twenty-third suspension of a news outlet by the council since 1998. Joel Simon, executive director of the CPJ, commented about the situation, "We call on the government to abandon such heavy-handed tactics to silence critical journalism. We urge the council to lift the suspension against Tendance Gabon immediately." The CPJ has concluded that Gabon's independent media remains weakened by a combination of censorship, political and financial pressures, and internal divisions; government subsidies and the infusion of money from wealthy politicians lead many publications to self-censor.

By the government of Israel. Deputy foreign minister Majali Wahbe told Army Radio on this day that foreign ministry has held discussions about the news outlets reporting and decided to impose an official embargo on the Qatar-based station. The ministry claimed that Al-Jazeera, in cooperation with Hamas, was inciting the Palestinian nation with broadcasting what Israel believed was a 'staged candlelight protest' that followed the regime’s decision to cut electricity and gas supplies to the Gaza Strip. Ministers will refuse to do interviews with Al Jazeera reporters and visa applications from the network's staff are to be denied. Minister Wahbe also announced the regime’s plan to launch an Arabic language channel which would reflect Israel’s viewpoints. The heart of this action appears to be that Al Jazeera had reported factually on the death of some one hundred twenty or thirty Palestinian civilians in Israeli miliatry strikes on Gaza, but had allegedly not reported on the deaths of five Israelis in relatiatory rocket strikes. However, Bureau chief Walid al-Omari argued that his reporters had covered a Palestinian shooting in Jerusalem the week previous to this one, in which eight Israelis were killed.

In an editorial at ArabNews.com, Tariq A. Al-Maeena commented:

It seemed the Israelis were miffed at Al-JazeeraÆs incisive coverage that reported the upsurge in violence that saw more than 130 Palestinians killed in Israeli military strikes on the territory. Five Israelis had also died, including one civilian killed in a barrage of retaliatory rocket fire from Gaza.

The Israelis have long been known not to take too kindly to any organization or individual reporting on the truth if it does not portray them as angels. And what they are do ing in Gaza and the occupied territories is akin to the actions of Nazis in the last century. So boycotting the Al-Jazeera comes as no surprise.

Al-Jazeera is the people's overwhelming choice in the region for news and features, and when it comes to reporting on the crisis in Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine, this channel leaves its rivals in the dust for its unadulterated brand of journalism.

By Reporters Without Borders. The organization held a twenty-four hour long protest against cyber-censorship on its website on 12-13 March. The group reported that 21,843 Internet users participated in the protest, brandishing placards with anti-censorship slogans in virtual versions of nine countries: Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, North Korea, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. More than 100,000 people connected to the Reporters Without Borders website during this period.

By the Minstry of Defence of Great Britain. The National Union of Teachers in Great Britain had accused the MoD of violating the 1996 Education Act, which aims to ensure all political issues are treated in a balanced way. The issue was generated by a lesson plan drawn up by the MoD to teach about the illegal invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. The Union believes that the instructions, designed for use during classroom discussions in general studies, or in personal, social and health education (PSE) lessons, are arguably an attempt to rewrite the history of the invasion. A "Students' Worksheet" accompanyin the lesson plan, stresses the "reconstruction" of Iraq, noting that 5,000 schools and 20 hospitals have been rebuilt, but there is no mention of civilian casualties, while in the "Teacher Notes" section, it promotes the party line that the "invasion was necessary to allow the opportunity to remove Saddam Hussein" -- a contention that is well-known to be a falsehood -- but fails to mention the lack of United Nations backing for the war. For a brief overview of some the misrepresentations and outright propaganda included in the lesson plan, See the source article, British Teachers Told to Rewrite History of Iraq War, reprinted at CommonDreams.org.

By Claire Voeux, with the assistance of Benoît Hervieu, of Reporters Without Borders. On this day the watchdog organization released a report dated for 18 Mar, titled No surrender by independent journalists, five years on from "black spring". The report states that not only has indy journalism recovered from the human rights violation, but has rebounded. The report opens:

Five years ago, between 18-24 March 2003, police arrested 90 opponents of the Fidel Castro regime, 75 of whom were then sentenced to prison terms ranging from 14 to 30 years for "damaging Cuba’s territorial integrity and economy". Among them were 27 journalists. At the time it looked like this "black spring" would put an end to independent journalism in communist Cuba. But it didn’t work out like that at all.

Today, most players agree that there are as least as many independent journalists in Cuba as there were before March 2003, which was seen as the high noon of the era of the free press. More importantly, the quality of their writing has improved. News agencies were created and networks forged.These were the conclusions of a special correspondent for Reporters Without Borders who carried out an on-the-spot investigation in the last week of February 2008, coinciding with investiture de Raúl Castro as head of state. Those interviewed were independent journalists, political opponents, families of imprisoned journalists and foreign correspondents.

Unfortunately, the situation continues to be dire for nineteen of the twenty-seven indy journalists who were arrested and who remain imprisoned under reportedly horrific conditions, and the eight who had been released were used as political bargaining chips in diplomatic negotiations. These political machinations were touched upon very briefly in the press release.

By the government of Gambia. On this day it was reported at the IFEX web site that Gambians have been unable to access the online "Freedom Newspaper" since approximately the 9th or 10th of March. The Gambian newspaper is based in the United States, and has been rather critical of President Yahya Jammeh and his administration. This censorship seems to be the result of a story published on 09 Mar, that state-run GAMTEL, the country's telecommunication company, was on the brink of total bankruptcy due to mismanagement. Freedom Newspaper has accused GAMTEL of blocking the IP-address for the web site. Under the regime of President Yahya Jammeh, the Gambian media has suffered great oppression. Critics of the authorities are systematically pressured into withholding their views, and journalists criticizing the government are often forced into exile. Gambian media are reported to be severely oppressed by the government of President Jammeh. Critics of the authorities are systematically pressured into withholding their views, and journalists criticizing the government are often forced into exile. It was also reported that Ebrima Manneh, a reporter has been missing since 11 Jul 2006, and on 16 Dec 2004, Deyda Hydara, Editor in Chief of The Point, was murdered by persons unknown.

By Jeff Cohen. In a piece titled Iraq Winter Soldier Hearings: Victory for Independent Media, published on this day at CommonDreams.org, Mr. Cohen illustrated the outright necessity for a media independent of corporate or government control in a free society. The media criticism centered around a series of government hearings at which former U.S. servicemen testified about the on-the-ground results of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. These hearings are named for similar hearings held in 1971 concerning the non-war of the time that was going on in Viet Nahm. Mr. Cohen wrote:

In 1971 at age 19, I had a life-changing experience when I met dozens of Vietnam veterans who'd descended on my hometown of Detroit to testify at the "Winter Soldier" hearings organized by Vietnam Veterans Against the War. [...]

Virtually every soul in that Detroit hotel banquet hall wept openly at the heartfelt, bone-chilling revelations pouring out of the Vietnam vets struggling with bloody memories and post-traumatic stress. But no one outside that hall could see or hear the proceedings. No TV or radio networks covered the event.

This weekend at the National Labor College near Washington D.C., a new generation of vets convened by Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) presented powerful hearings - "Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan" - that were more extensive and perhaps even more emotional.

Thirty seven years later, I again found myself sobbing at testimony from solemn young Americans returned from needless war, grappling with shattered lives over brutalities against civilians and prisoners they'd witnessed or participated in.

But I was nowhere near D.C.

This time, I watched the dramatic testimony - often buttressed by photographic and video evidence -- live online at www.IVAW.org. This time, I caught hours of coverage on Free Speech TV, the national satellite network that broadcast the panels of testimony and featured interviews with vets and their families in between panels. This time, I received regular video news feeds in my email inbox from The Real News Network. (The hearings were also televised on 20 public access channels from Fayetteville to Palo Alto, and in public gatherings from Florida to Alaska.)

On my car radio, I listened to the proceedings live on the Pacifica network, which broadcast the hearings to affiliates nationwide - along with call-ins and email from listeners, including Iraq vets and soldiers not as critical of the war.

Such powerful first-hand accounts - if heard by the American public - would threaten continued funding of the Iraq occupation. But national mainstream outlets in our country, unlike big foreign outlets, largely ignored this weekend's proceedings.

[...]

But thanks to the Internet and the growing capacity of independent TV, radio and web outlets, a significant minority of Americans had access to these proceedings. And the archived hearings are now available to anyone anytime with computer access.

[...]

Winter Soldier II shows that it's not enough to criticize corporate media. Even more important is to take advantage of new technologies to keep building independent media.

Jeff Cohen is the founding director of Ithaca College's new center for independent media; in 1986 he founded the media watchdog organization Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

[Addendum (28 May 2008:) On 19 Mar, FAIR issued an Media Advisory titled Keeping Death Off the Books. This advisory reveals how the American corporate press has been failing to cover the deaths of so-called private contractors. FAIR states that in one piece of sporadic reporting, the New York Times stated that the number of casualties among these American civilians is twenty percent that for American service personnel.

On 30 May, FAIR issued an Action Alert titled Why Are Winter Soldiers Not News?. In it, the group points out that the Winter Soldier hearings had still received almost no coverage whatever by the American corporate press, and certainly none by any major newspaper or television outlet. --MN]

By the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Liliana Segura of AlterNet.org. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the Cuban government. Access from within the country to the most popular Cuban web journal has been blocked, which action is seen as signalling an apparent government crackdown on a new generation of critics; cyber-dissidents. Generacion Y reportedly received 1.2 million hits during Feb 2008, but Yoani Sanchez, whose journal it is, said Cubans can no longer visit her web page. Attempts from the island to view desdecuba.com/generaciony, and two other Cuban logs which are on the same server in Germany, result in an error alert, although the site can be viewed outside Cuba.

Analysts say the crackdown underlines a determination to keep tight controls in place despite some cautious moves towards economic reform and greater openness by Raul Castro, who was appointed president by his brother Fidel. As the most-read Cuban web journaler, Ms. Sanchez was seen as a litmus test for government tolerance for dissent. She commented about the action to the Florida newspaper Sun-Sentinel: "I think this action is directed at a phenomenon that was getting out of their hands. I don't think they're coming after me personally. I think they're moving against a phenomenon of which I am a part." Her husband, Reynaldo Escobar, who is a journalist, commented that he was surprised the clampdown had not happened sooner: "It's interesting that at a time when people are waiting for the government to lift restrictions, they would apply more restrictions."

Critical journalers apparently occupy a grey area in Cuba. Neither legal nor illegal, they form an underground network that vents frustration at the economic situation and the lack of individual freedoms. Old Havana, for instance has just one internet cafe, a state-owned enterprise that charges 2.50 (USD?) an hour for the use of a computer. This amount is a third of the average, Cuban monthly salary. While Raul Castro has urged greater candidness over corruption and inefficiency, and has eased restrictions on the sale of electronic goods including computers, in her postings Ms. Sanchez said these minimal changes were hardly enough to break the sense of suffocation and stagnation.

By Smith Haven Mall security agents and the local police. Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, Long Island, New York State, was confronted by mall security for having disturbed shoppers at the mall in Lake Grove with his T-shirt, which had what they described as "graphic anti-war images." Here is a photograph of Mr. Zirkel in the allegedly graphic tee shirt:

The shirt reportedly also has three splotches, meant to simulate blood splatter, and the word ENOUGH, probably on the back of it. The local police department said in a release issued on 30 Mar that Mr. Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop and to turn his shirt inside out; he refused to do so and also wouldn't leave the property. Mall security placed him on "civilian arrest" and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively resisted attempts to bring him to a police car. According to Mr. Zirkel, he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie and several other dissenter when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their shirts. In both instances, his resistance was entirely passive. He simply refused to cooperate and would not stand up for the municipal police, requiring them to bodily pick him up and place him in a wheelchair so they could transport him to the squad car. Mr. Zirkel was charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest, and subsequently released on bail.

A spokeswoman for the mall owner, Simon Property Group, did not immediately return calls for a comment from the local paper, Newsday. John McEntee, a Uniondale commercial litigation lawyer did comment for the paper that: generally speaking, a mall has the right to control what happens on its property.

[Generally speaking, a mall is a limited public forum, and it seems clear to me that Mr. Zirkel and his group were singled out not for being disruptive, but for an exercise of silent speech involving an opinion that is unpopular among less than thirty percent of the population. Free speech principles are meant to protect the speech of the minority, it would seem mind-boggling, on the face of it, that they should be necessary to protect the speech of the majority, but I am coming to the opinion that the majority of Americans don't give a rat's ass about the illegal occupation at all. If so, then anti-war dissenters are probably in a minority of the same percentage size as the supporters. Either way, this is an act of suppression against free speech that was not disrupting anything at all. The above photograph was copied from a web journal entry at the AlterNet.org PEEK log, and is mirrored here without permission. For a comparison of the above tee shirt against images that are truly graphic, see my Postcards From Iraq page. --MN]

By the State of Colorado legislature. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By the Bush administration. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By The Thomas Jefferson Center For the Protection of Free Expression. Announced in conjunction with Thomas Jefferson's birthday, this year's recipients are:

• Sarpy County (Nebraska) Attorney L. Kenneth Polikov
• Donald Washington, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, and Grace Chung Becker, Acting Head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division,
• Lancaster County (Nebraska) District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront,
• The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles,
• The Scranton (Pennsylvania) Police Department,
• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
• CBS Radio and MSNBC,
• The 2007 Managing Board of The Cavalier Daily,
• Ronald M. Zaccari, Valdosta (GA) State University President,
• Brandeis University Administration,
• Principal Karissa Niehoff, Lewis Mills High School (CT), and Paula Schwartz, School District Superintendent,
• Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV),
• The Texas Democratic Party, and
• the second Lifetime Muzzle ever awarded goes to The Federal Communications Commission.

For brief explanations of the various behaviours by these recipients, see the Center web page.

By Rep. Peter King, (R) New York State. The Free Speech Protection Act, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on this day, is a U.S. federal movement to protect American writers and journalists from Libel Tourism or Libel Terrorism as it is also sometimes called. As a law, this measure would offer protections similar to those in the New York State Libel Terrorism Protection Act. This proposed law would also allow the defendant of a foreign libel action to recover damages from the plaintiff, including:

• the amount of the foreign judgment,
• legal fees and costs, and
• lost income attributable to the foreign action.

Moreover, if the defendant proved the plaintiff brought the action as part of "a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights", damages could be tripled.

[While the manifest function of this proposed law is to protect Americans from SLAPPs filed in foreign countries, it has the latent function of also preventing Americans from filing SLAPPs against Americans in foreign countries. If it passes it could be a double whammy for freedom of speech and information. Off the top of my head I would say: The corporatocracy ain't gonna like this bill. --MN]
(see 11 Oct 2006; 01 May 2008)

By Prison Legal News. This nonprofit publisher is alleging that Department of Correction Commissioner Harold Clarke, and other prison officials, have refuse to add it to a list of vendors who are approved to send books to prisoners. Prison Legal News is an independent, mail-order publisher based in Seattle, Washington, which publishes a monthly journal of court decisions and other issues that affect the rights of prisoners; it also distributes books on the legal rights of inmates. The corporation distributed books to Massachusetts prisons until 2003; that year a policy was adopted that required vendors get approval to send books to prisoners. Paul Wright, the editor of Prison Legal News, said he has written letters to Clarke and other prison officials asking to be put on the list. He is quoted as commenting: "We haven't gotten anywhere with them. I think some of it is the hostility - that they don't want prisoners to know what their legal rights are." The suit, filed in federal court, seeks unspecified damages and an order prohibiting the Department of Correction from maintaining the policy.

By the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, et al. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By culture minister Mohammad Hossein Safar Harandi. According to a report in Agence France-Presse, and which was carried CBC News in Canada, the minister advised authors looking to have their work published in Iran to respect the theocracy's censorship. He is reported to have said:

• "Censor pages which are likely to create a dispute.";
• that publishers and writers "are aware of the vetting code";
• that literature should reflect "religious, moral and national sensitivities";
• that literature should avoid "an excessive portrayal of a man and woman's private relationships";
• that literature should not "subject our youth and adults to descriptions of intercourse";
• and that Iran "should not allow opposition to God to be reflected in the media."

All publications in Iran require pre-approval by the government, and the publishing industry has increasingly, since 2005, complained of tightening censorship under the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Recent to this, the Tehran Publishers' Association complained about the lengthy and seemingly arbitrary prior restraint process in a letter. The theocracy banned thousands of books in 2006 and introduced the strict restrictions on publishing that are in place as of this writing. At the time, the culture minister called book publishers "assistants for evil."

By Freedom House. This survey has studied media independence in 195 countries and territories since 1980. The report for this year concludes that press freedoms have suffered a six-year decline, and that journalists are working in increasingly hostile environments in almost every region in the world. There were changes in the status of press freedoms in five countries, four of them downwards:

• Benin: "free" to "partly free."
• Central African Republic: "partly free" to "not free."
• Egypt: "not free" to "partly free."
• Guyana: "free" to "partly free."
• Niger: "partly free" to "not free."

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet.org technology writer. On this day a piece by Ms. Newitz, titled User-Generated Censorship, was published at Alternet.org. In it, Ms. Newitz examines the phenomenon of allowing browsers to social networking sites to complain about how they are supposedly offended by content on a web page. She wrote in part:

Thanks to new, collaborative, social media networks, it's easier than ever for people to get together and destroy freedom of expression. [...]

Here's how it works: let's say you're a community activist who has some pretty vehement opinions about your city government. You go to Blogger.com, which is owned by Google, and create a free blog called Why the Municipal Government in Crappy City Sucks. Of course, a bunch of people in Crappy City disagree with you -- and maybe even hate you personally. So instead of making mean comments on your blog, they decide to shut it down.

At the top of your Blogger blog, there is a little button that says "flag this blog." [...] In theory, this button would only be used to flag illegal stuff or spam. But there's nothing stopping your enemies in town from getting together an online posse to click the button a bunch of times. Eventually, your blog will be flagged enough times that Google will take action.

And this is where things get interesting. Google has the option of simply shutting down your access to the blog. They rarely do that, though, unless it's a situation where your blog is full of illegal content, [...]. Generally what Google does if you get a lot of flags is make your blog impossible to find. Nobody will be able to find it if they search Blogger or Google. [...]

This is censorship, user-generated style.

By the State of New York. Libel terrorism, AKA Libel Tourism , was circumvented by New York state with the enactment of the Libel Terrorism Protection Act on this day. This is the practice of libel plaintiffs filing claims against American journalists, in foreign courts that offer few, if any, of the free speech protections available in the U.S. This law is a result of one such case.

Rachel Ehrenfeld has been fighting to protect her assets from a libel judgment entered against her in England in 2005. The judgment was obtained by Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian financier. Ms Ehrenfeld had stated in her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed -- and How to Stop It, that Mahfouz and his family financially supported al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorist groups. She was ordered to pay 10,000 pounds sterling -- approximately USD 18,000 at the then exchange rate -- to Mahfouz and to each of his two sons, to publish an apology, and prohibited from republishing the statements in England and Wales. Ms Ehrenfeld refused to pay or to apologize. Instead, she launched a counter-attack against the ability of libel plaintiffs to enforce foreign judgments against American authors, reporters and broadcasters.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act serves two principal purposes:

• Plaintiffs will have no incentive to bring foreign claims against defendants who live or maintain assets in New York. The act -- which amends an existing statute prohibiting the enforcement of other foreign judgments in the state -- provides that a foreign defamation judgment cannot be enforced in New York unless a New York court determines the defamation law applied by the foreign court affords "at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by both the United States and New York Constitutions."

• The act establishes that New York courts have personal jurisdiction over "any person who obtains a judgment in a defamation proceeding outside the United States" against any person who resides in New York -- or is amenable to jurisdiction in New York, has assets in New York, or may have to take action in New York to comply with the judgment, provided the publication at issue was published in New York. This new jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the libel defendant seeks an order declaring the judgment unenforceable.

The reason for that second point is that Ms. Ehrenfeld had attempted to obtain an order from a U.S. court declaring that the British judgment was unenforceable in the U.S. When she filed her action, Mr. Mahfouz moved to dismiss it on grounds that the U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction over him. After being referred the question by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the New York Court of Appeals agreed with Mahfouz and dismissed Ms. Ehrenfeld's suit. The act effectively reverses that ruling.

Some comments about the new law are:

• State Assemblyman Rory Lancman: "Today we act to protect our journalists and authors who fearlessly expose terrorism's enablers from trumped up libel charges in courts in overseas jurisdictions which don't share our commitment to freedom of the press, and in doing so we also protect all New Yorkers against the scourge of terrorism. Today we reaffirm New York's place as the free speech capital of the world."

• Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau: "Terrorism and terrorist financing are matters of vital interest to all New Yorkers, in no small part because New York City remains a target of significance for international terrorists. New York authors must have the freedom to investigate, write and publish on terrorism and other matters of public importance, subject only to limitations that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This legislation will help to ensure such freedom."

• Governor David Paterson, on ratifying the act: "Although New York State has now done all it can to protect our authors while they live in New York, they remain vulnerable if they move to other states, or if they have assets in other states. We really need Congress and the President to work together and enact federal legislation that will protect authors throughout the country against the threat of foreign libel judgments."
  (see 11 Oct 2006; 16 Apr 2009)

By the Tomah School District. The district was sued in Mar this year by the Alliance Defense Fund, on behalf of a Tomah High School student. ADF alleged that an art teacher gave the student a zero on an assigned drawing of a landscape because the student included a cross and the words "John 3:16 A sign of love." The teacher cited a class policy that prohibited any expressions of violence, blood, sex or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit alleged the student was treated unfairly because of his religion.

Lori M. Lubinsky, the district's attorney, said in a statement that the policy had been in place for more than a decade. It was meant to keep gang symbols and other "negative expression" out of student artwork. She is quoted: "Tomah art teachers had the best of intentions when they put the original policy in place. They implemented the policy to keep students from being exposed to potentially offensive satanic or gang-related beliefs ... the art teachers did not receive any complaints from students who appreciated the policy."

[That this policy was and remains vague and overbroad is revealed in the counselor's use of the term "potentially". I repeat, as I so often must: There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. For more on why this rule was unprintably stupid and utterly asinine, see my commentary, The Biggest Lie In America Today, from Sep 2003. --MN] --MN]

By the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case against Dr. Steven Kurtz, a professor of Visual Studies at the University of Buffalo and a founding member of the award-winning collective Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), in which he was originally accused of biologically-based terrorism, was thrown out when it finally arrived in court after four years. Unable to produce evidence of any hazardous materials in bacterial cultures that were for an art exhibit, the FBI reduced the charges against Doctor Kurtz to mail and wire fraud. He determined to fight the charges, and when the case came before Federal Judge Richard J. Arcara, the judge ruled to dismiss the indictment.

[It was not clear at the time of the report whether or not the government dumb-asses were going to appeal, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they remained firmly wedded to their rank stupidity. One question -- at least one question and a big one at that -- remains. Patricia J. Williams, who is a professor of law at Columbia University, questioned whether the Kurtz-Ferrell Affair might be part of a larger government reaction against expression in the arts that is critical of the government. This is a "on the one hand, and then on the other hand" type of question. I think on the one hand that it would be conspiracy theory to conclude that this was a deliberately censorial action against speech that is critical of the government. I firmly believe, on the other hand, that this action is very clearly symptomatic of a power stucture that is consistently contemptuous of human rights and civil liberties. As I have said elsewhere in these pages, a command will take on the character of its commander. This persecution -- not prosecution -- is perfectly in keeping with subordinates who are merely following the example set by their superiours. Which is why it will not surprise me in the least bit to see those dumb-asses appeal the judge's ruling. --MN]

By Representative Mark Kirk. A Republican congressman who who is seeking re-election, he held a press conference on this day at a library in his Chicago district. The focus was on his platform of what he called the "dangers" of the virtual world to children. His comments are seen as another attempt to garner support for the the Deleting Online Predators Act, a bill which failed to pass the Senate after an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives, and which he reintroduced last year. According to a press release, his rationale for this censorial action is: "Sites like Second Life offer no protections to keep kids from virtual "rape rooms," brothels, and drug stores. If sites like Second Life won't protect kids from obviously inappropriate content, the Congress will." At the event, he also released a letter to William Kovacic, Federal Trade Commission Chairman, asking him to "take action to warn parents of the similar dangers and sexually explicit content found on Second Life. "

Linden Lab, which created the networking service, reportedly released a statement saying, "Members of the Second Life community, including Linden Lab staff, actively monitor against minors accessing the (adult portion of the) service." Mr. Kirk apparently replied to that by saying that company officials have acknowledged that it's possible for teens to get into the adult portion of the service, and vice versa. The Deleting Online Predators Act would require schools and libraries that receive federal E-rate funding to certify that they've put in place a "technology protection measure", filtering, on all of their computers that "protects against access to a commercial social-networking Web site or chat room, unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision." NB: All of their computers; not those designated for use by minors alone, but those reserved for use by fully franchised adults as well. Moreover, it appears that the definition of commercial social-networking Web site is broad enough to sweep up web-journaling services, as well as any site with public profiles, from Amazon.com to Slashdot to Yahoo. The bill would also require the FTC to issue a "consumer alert" outlining the potential "danger" of such sites because they can be accessed by child predators.

[Heh. Imagine that. Young adults chafing at stupid and pointless "grown up" restrictions on their lives and choices are finding ways to circumvent those baseless and needless regulations, so some pompous-ass mucky-muck feels that he needs to make a federal crime out of it. See my commentary on an underlying issue. --MN]

By American Library Association. The list of the ten most challanged works over the 2007 year is:

1. And Tango Makes Three: Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
2. The Chocolate War: Robert Cormier
3. Olive's Ocean: Kevin Henkes
4. The Golden Compass: Philip Pullman
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Mark Twain
6. The Color Purple: Alice Walker
7. TTYL: Lauren Myracle
8. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings: Maya Angelou
9. It's Perfectly Normal: Robie Harris
10. The Perks of Being A Wallflower: Stephen Chbosky

New to the list are The Golden Compass and TTYL; not on the list from previous years are The Bluest Eye and Beloved, both by Toni Morrison. The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom compiled this list from four hundred twenty reports that had been submitted to the OIF, of challenges to materials in school curricula and on library bookshelves.

[Be it noted that as of this writing the ALA continues to fail to condemn, or even to acknowledge, the seizure and burning of private collections of books by the government of Fidel Castro, and the imprisonment of private citizens for lending out those books to their friends and neighbours. A situation which remains unchanged under Raul Castro. I am wont to believe at this point, that the ALA is in the grip of "dog-in-the-manger-libertarianism"; a policy of "freedom for me but not for thee". --MN]

By Barry Nolan. A former "Hard Copy" host whose career in television spans decades, Mr. Nolan was appalled that the New England chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences was presenting its Governor's Award to Bill O'Reilly. At the New England Emmy Awards banquet, held on this day, Mr. Nolan distributed copies of a six-page compilation of controversial quotations from Mr. O'Reilly, along with salacious pages from a sexual harassment lawsuit that had been filed against him. Mr. Nolan mounted his protest in objection to Mr. O'Reilly's bullying style, and claimed the commentator frequently bends the facts in order to get across what Mr. Nolan says are venomous opinions. He reportedly stated: It's not the type of journalism that should be recognized in the profession for excellence, and is quoted by ABC News: "I just thought it was appalling. It had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He's entitled to his opinions. But to give the highest honor that this organization that I belong to can bestow strikes me as something that shocks the conscience."

As a result of this criticism, he was fired from his position as co-anchor on the network's program Backstage.

[Libertarian media critics generally see Bill O'Reilly as a mouthpiece for the right-wing smear machine. I have seen nothing that can refute that viewpoint. Although I haven't been looking for any such evidence, either. --MN]

By Adrienne Kinne, former U.S. Army Sargeant. On this day a piece by Amy Goodman, titled Justice for Dead Journalists, was reprinted at AlterNet.org. In it, Ms. Goodman reported on the whistleblowing by former Sargeant Adrienne Kinne, about fullscale civil liberties violations by the U.S. military intelligence service, and of one piece of military ineptitude or conspiracy which the U.S. government has been fighting in the criminal courts of Spain. Ms. Kinne worked in military intelligence for 10 years, from 1994 to 2004; trained in Arabic, she translated intercepted communications. Ms. Goodman wrote that during an interview she conducted, Ms. Kinne stated that she saw the Palestine Hotel on a list of potential targets, and she knew that it shouldn't have been because of the nature of some the intercepted communications she had access to. She reported the error, but was told that it was none of her concern as it was outside the scope of her assigned duties. Ms. Kinne stated intercepted communications from jounalists in Iraq, made to friends and fa mily, included some originating at the hotel; which interceptions she felt, were unconstitutional and illegal. U.S. military intelligence also spied on humanitarian, non-governmental organizations such as Doctors Without Borders and the International Red Cross on the specious grounds that members of these organizations might by chance report on a cache of NBC weapons, or one of their satellite phones might be stolen and then used by terrorists.

By George W. Bush jr. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the Bush White House. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Arturo Islas. It was reported at a Florida news outlet that Ms. Arebia Ramsey, who son is in sixth grade at Okeeheelee Middle school, is challenging the presence of this book in the school. Ms. Ramsey apparently claimed that the pages are laced with profanity and references to sex which are too graphic to be read on television, and that it encouraged intolerance and hate. Her principle objection appears to be that her son, twelve years old as of this incident, was exposed to information about the source of babies, and that the description of the birth was too graphic. She is quoted:

"This woman is giving birth, and for my 12-year-old to read this book, and to understand for the very first time reading this, where a baby comes from, it describes it as the woman's uterus fell out. She was bleeding a lot. And the monster between her legs, is this the way we're describing a newborn?"

It is not clear if "describes it as the woman's uterus fell out" is a reference to the placenta, the afterbirth, being expulsed, which is a normal part of the birth process, or a reference to a prolapsed uterus, which is a complication. Ms. Ramsey further commented, "If he would be suspended for using these words that are in here, or referring to things in this book, why is it okay for it to be on the shelves for him to read?" Palm Beach County School District was not available for comment, but Ms. Danielle Dubetz, the reporter who covered the story, found the policies for library materials selection on the district web site; which policies say in part:

Library media that is sensitive or mature may not be appropriate for all readers in a school but remains a part of the collection to address the needs of some of the reading community if it meets the selection criteria of the school.

Ms. Ramsey reportedly finds this libertarian principle unacceptable; she is further quoted: "If this isn't a book for a young child, it shouldn't even be in the school." The district has a review process in place, and if she chooses, Ms. Ramsey may file an Instructional Materials Reconsideration Citizen's Request.

By Brent Runyon. An article link posted at LISNews.com on this day points to a report saying that parent Bonnie List, who's daughter is a student at Umatilla High School in Florida, was attempting to have The Burn Journals removed from the school. The Burn Journals is an autobiography; the narrative viewpoint is the author's as a troubled eighth-grade teenager. Ms. List's position is basically that the book's subjects, sex to suicide, are too serious for the minds of young adults to be able to deal with. Two young adults at Winter Park High School, where the book is also available in the library, did not agree with her stance:

• Kevin Smith, sophomore: "That's real life, you know? That's just pure real life, and some people can't take that, but a lot of people are mature enough to read that sort of thing."

• Danielle Smith, senior: "Lots of kids go through that every day, and it's just reality of life, and it's your choice if you want to read it or not."

Ms. List, however, apprently believes that any right for young adults to make any their own choices is not an option; she is quoted as saying: "I would rather the book to be pulled off the shelf." As of this writing, Lake and Orange County have review process policies in place.

By Sarah Wildman. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

On this day the National Post -- which had published numerous editorials about the censorship action involving Maclean’s Magazine, the Canadian Islamic Congress, and various human rights commis­sions -- published the editorial, "Finally, Good News on 'Human Rights.'". This was after the Canadian Human Rights Commission declined to hear the CIC’s complaint. The editorial reads in part:

News reports from the past few months has [sic] turned the phrase "human rights" into something of a joke. On the one hand, a group of Muslim activists has gone before three separate human rights commissions in a high-profile bid to censor critics of militant Islam—realizing the worst fears of critics who, years ago, predicted that "human rights" would become an instrument of thought control. . . .

But good news is at hand. On Friday, it was announced that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dis­missed the complaint filed against Maclean’s magazine by Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). . . . [But] the very fact that human rights bureaucrats presume to sit in judgment as to what can and cannot be published in this country is appalling in itself.

What is needed now is a . . . root-and-branch reform of the Human Rights Act . . .

Appendix G1: Censorship by President GeeDubya and company
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

Appendix G2: George Bush religious initiatives and cover-ups
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

Appendix G3: Actions to shield George Bush from free speech
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

Appendix G4: 21st Century COINTELPRO operations
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

For information about the history of the flag       amendment and the veterans who oppose it       see the ACLU site: