Academics Take On Government Net Censorship 274
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "There's an interesting article from the BBC today about a group of academics at the University of Toronto who are working to investigate and break down government-imposed censorship of the Internet. Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures? Incidentally, one of their people was responsible for the previous Slashdot discussion of 'five fundamental problems with open source'."
internet censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there really a difference between the two? Fundamentally, the acknowledgement of "human rights" is a system of belief, born out of our culture. Certainly there have been plenty of cultures which have not accepted any of the principles which we want to "defend" today.
On some level, the concept of "human rights" is a claim that our cultural beliefs are better, and more right, then those that do not agree with them.
Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got. And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others. What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger. Nothing else.
We ought to see this for what it is, and stop feeling bad about it.
They are not imposing values (Score:5, Insightful)
the preserving culture argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. If what Saudi citizens find out about other places via the Internet causes them to reject their Islamic culture and heritage, then perhaps it's a culture and heritage not worth preserving in the first place.
There are plenty of countries that are online, for the most part uncensored, and are able to maintain their culture. Next lame attempt at an argument, please?
Canadian TV censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Different cultural standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is not real is the suggestion that human liberty and freedom is culturally dependent. That is a lie used by repressive governments to justify policies that really only serve their own interests.
There have been many attempts in Western nations to repress individual rights because of the "common interest", and these rightly strike us as barbaric. No reason to apply different standards to other countries just because they are different.
However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly, your statement disproves itself. There must be a standard of objective absolute truth, because if there was not, then it would be objectively, absolutely true that objective truth does not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore there exists at least some truth that is objective (ie. true in all places, at all times, for all people). Whether or not human rights are one of the objective truths is a separate matter.
The only thing worse than a do-nothing academic (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
All cultures have similar kinds of internal conflicts, and the most classic one is between the individual and the "state", or the larger group.
And all states go through phases where they try to assert more control over the individual than is healthy. An extreme case would be North Korea. Such excessive control is so uneconomical that we eventually get a balance of power in which the state provides individuals with liberty in return for taxes and basic obedience.
When we seek to "impose our standards" on other states, all we're doing is saying: "hey, it's pointless to kill your dissidents and hang your thieves, pointless to ban women from education and turn religion into a tool of mind control..." We say this because we've been through it, and know that it's bad stuff.
Misguided (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. If Islam was a dying thing, like say the aboriginal cultures in Australia, then perhaps there would be an argument there. But religions are always passing converts back and forth. At the moment, IIRC, Islam has some of the highest conversion rates TO it. Which means "Islamic culture" is really in very little danger of going away, and there's no need to "preserve" it.
Plus, cultures are evolving things. American, Chinese, Islamic, whoever. Compare the governments in the Middle East around 1500 to what we have today. You could easily make the arguement that getting rid of the Princes and opening the country up is REALLY preserving Islamic Culture. (preserving it from the corrupt clerics, of course) It's all just a front for cynical politicians to control their populations in the name of God. As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese have more moral justification, since they're just operating under the "It's my party..." defense.
(disclaimer: respects all religions, disrespects all hypocrits)
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the North Koreans who are horribly tortured for speaking out, or even being merely accused of speaking out.
Tell that to the Chinese students who wanted more freedom and met up with an army of tanks!
You sir are an idiot.
Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions and to exercise control over their own lives. Yours is just a pathetic excuse for the complicity our governments have in the oppression of those in other countries.
You will be assimilated (Score:5, Insightful)
Resistance is futile.
Re:Different cultural standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I look at the issue of censorship and morality, and their various catalysts such as "cultural identity", "security" and "happiness" as a farce.
This reminds me of a true story. I have a dog. My neighbor has a dog. The difference between our pets is that I let my dog out. I make sure the dog is aware of the danger of the traffic on the street and I've taken care to make sure she understands the dynamics of her world. The neighbors on the other hand, never let their dog out his fenced-in yard. They don't walk him around the area; they "protect" the dog from the street by keeping him sheltered.
About a week ago the dog got out of the yard and was hit by a car and killed.
There is no security when you shelter people from the real world.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:1, Insightful)
Not everyone in China wants what they have or had a hand in it. The same with the former Soviet Union (don't like it? Off to the gulag with you sir!).
Of course, you seem not to care about the pains people go through, the horrifc punishments for dissent, and the desire that people have to be free. You are a sad person.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, take this true or false question.
T/F: This statement is false.
Re:Canadian TV censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea is that because the Canadian music industry is smaller, and its harder for Canadian artists to tour, etc. and reach the same fame as foreign (read: US) ones, they need to be protected, because if Canadians artists aren't supported in Canada, they're less likely to be supported anywhere.
The result, however, is that lots of Canadian "filler" artists end up popping up - they're pop music that sounds like all other pop music, but it's CANADIAN filler. Other times, artists that make it in the US are WAAAY overplayed here (think, Avirl Lavigne, ALL THE TIME.) And, on occaison, there is a good Canadian artist/group that for some reason, can't seem to get a international record deal but does well in Canada.
Personally, I think that if Canada really wants to support its artists, they should do it willingly - that is, there'll be a demand for Canadian music. Perhaps TV/radio stations should make a voluntary industry pact, where stations can agree to Canadian content terms, and if they do, they can display a logo or something on their ads. If Canadians really care, they'll support the stations that have the logo; if not, then Canadian arists will have to prove themselves on the same terms as ones everywhere else, even if there is a bit of discrimination.
Tim
Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
"trying to impose their own beliefs on people" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a post-modern simpleton, who believes that everything is constituted by belief, that one belief is as well-founded as another (because none are founded at all except in social practice), and that suffering from ignorance should be the accepted plight of children born into particularly ignorant and anti-scientific cultures
Because the only other alternative is to wipe out the ignorant, religious savages as they get better at coming after us to enforce their own anti-scientific, anti-human (as we know it) belief sets. And as much satisfaction as some of us might take in battles fairly won against truly evil (because ignorant) populations, surely the satisfaction is sweeter if we can transform them to something approaching civilization (even as we are only approaching civilization, and have not reached it yet - witness the Bush anti-science agenda).
Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you.
Re:Misguided (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that most people really think of what any given culture is and has been historically. Culture has ALWAYS spread, mingled, and intermixed, more or less to the extent that any given era's technology allows it to. How else is the Spanish word for money - "dinero", so similar to "dinar," a common name for currency in the Middle East?
Take another example. What could be a more solidly cultural experience than food? Then ever wonder why Italian food has generous portions of noodles, an idea they got from China, and tomatoes, native only to the Americas?
Sure, the Italians CHANGED the way they're prepared, and they mixed the two in a way that only they, at the time, could think of. But that proves my point.... a more recent example is Japan. Japan's economy and culture have undergone EXTREME westernization in the past 100 years, and 50 years especially. Now in Japan they have western style dress, and music, etc., but they've also put a Japanese "spin" on it.
Cultures aren't these unique little things that exist in isolation - cultures are made to mix, spread, mingle, and combine in the way that the people in the cultures see fit. And don't forget that cultural values help determine what cultures "see fit" to mix.
Tim
to quote anime... (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote some other famous philosopher, "the only constant in the universe is change". Cultures, religions trying to resist change are fighting a losing battle. Now, it's granted that certain things are more likely to change than others, but that's up to the people who believe in them. Humans, like every other organism on this earth, are constantly evolving, adapting, changing to match their environment.
With this in mind, it's counter-intuitive to try to be static, resist change. Especially when the only method you have to resist change is to deny it, ignore it, and even prohibit it. Censuring the internet is simple evidence of this: Governments in countries like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc, wish to "preserve" their existence by denying the existence of other ideas. From the beginning they should have known it was a losing battle.
The trend towards enlightenment through education seems to be unstoppable.Sure you have occasional hiccups (like the dark ages) but in the end, "change is the only constant" and those who oppose change, or the possibility of change that knowledge brings, are fighting a losing battle, and they know it.
Re:the preserving culture argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:most people in the world are against censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
once its peadophiles it has begun and it will only get worse - not defending them at all but go after people who access the stuff not block access to it (seems like the best policy) censoring even one site is a first step on a slippery slope
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Islam is the fastest growing religion on this planet [beconvinced.com], so why worry about the Internet?
2. Muslims live and thrive in countries with open access to the Internet (like US, Canada, India); if they are just fine with it, what's wrong with Saudi citizens having open access to the Internet?
This censorship by the Saudis wouldn't have anything to do with trying to preserve the royal family's hold on power now, would it? Naaahh.. I didn't think so.. ;-)
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not in any way endorse complicity with such governments. Read my last sentence again. I do not presume to know what "every sane person wants", and I am naturally skeptical of such claims (religious fundamentalists will also tell you what every sane person believes), but I know what I believe, and I know that those beliefs are, at least to some extent, shared by enough people and resources that those beliefs are mighty.
The only justification we have for stopping Hitler, or Bin Laden, or Hussein, is because we want to, and because we can. Nothing else.
When I equate human rights with imposing our culture on others, I do so not say that we should stop protecting human rights, but that we should stop being ashamed of imposing our cultures on others.
We do impose our culture on others. And we should. It is better (in our opinion).
But what is implicitly being said... (Score:3, Insightful)
That does not imply that they have to listen, that they have to embrace the concept of human rights any more than we have to embrace the wonders of "strong leadership".
If a society can only exist under censorship - to keep them uninformed of the alternatives, is that right? I don't think so. That goes for countries and sects alike, seeking to cut off their members' contact with the outside world.
The problem comes when you try to impose it on them - as is the case with Bush now down in Iraq. Perhaps the majority of people in Iraq want an islamic state, that they have heard our Western ideas and rejected them.
From our point of view, they are making a big mistake. But I believe it is also their right to make that mistake. You can only offer them choices, not force them to choose what you want. Not without becoming what you liberated them from.
Kjella
Re:Misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it would not be a valid argument. If exposure to ideas and information outside the culture results in the collapse of that culture, then it wasn't worth supporting in the first place. That culture deserves to die and be replaced with something more robust.
Max
Re:Banned channels (Score:4, Insightful)
CNN & CNN Headline News. The first (and I thought biggest) US news network. Shows zero Canadian content, and has never been "banned" by anyone.
Add in the fact that the vast majority of sitcoms, dramas, documentaries, movies, sports, and commercials are from the US. And when I say vast, I mean VAST. I think the average Canadian might see one episode of a Canadian sitcom a month, if that. I haven't seen one personally for years, because I rarely watch the CBC or CTV.
One of the biggest Canadian broadcasters, Global, broadcasts the Superbowl every year. A 100% US sport, league, etc. Almost every movie I've ever seen on television comes from the US. We get each and every one of your insipid "reality" TV shows. We have nightly NBA/NFL games in-season. The Canadian versions of Discovery/TLC/etc mostly show US-produced content. Even Space (our sci-fi channel) shows only US content. Well, unless Canada had a burgeoning 50's monster movie industry that everyone forgot about.
If there are bans going on, they sure as hell aren't very successful. Even if there are, it's trivial to set up a DirectTV dish, and contrary to what tinfoil hatters would say, the government DOES NOT CARE. There are at least a dozen of these dishes on my street, and no government official or police officer has once said word one about it. In fact, we have a cop on my street, I'm pretty sure if there was some sort of "ban" going on, he'd have busted them by now.
Don't even TRY to compare CanCon rules to what goes on in places like China or the middle east. You don't go to jail here for watching "unapproved" content.
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different cultural standards... (Score:3, Insightful)
What you mean to say is that well-educated people the world over realize that human liberty and freedom are in their interests. I'm sure the well-educated urban residents of Turkey don't want an Islamofascist government in power, but the uneducated, poor rural masses vote the way their local Mullah tells them to. After all, he couldn't be wrong, he speaks for Allah. And by no means is this kind of problem limited to Islamic countries - it's just tempered here in the West by a generally decent to mediocre educational system.
Look at the way people in New York City vote... now look at the way people in rural Alabama vote. Populist fear-mongering, religious zealotry and other anti-democratic forces exist in the US too, and they are part of our mainstream media and government as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Ashcroft and so on. Leaders who think too much and analyze the details or specifics of a situation are derided as "wafflers".
Don't for a minute put too much trust in the forces of democracy. Democracy without education is just pure mob rule. Read Plato sometime - you'll realize the Greek word "tyrant" generally referred to a popularly chosen leader who exercised absolute power with the permission of the masses. Sometimes this was a good thing and sometimes it wasn't. It scares me that we accept democracy as an absolute good here in the US without realizing all the prerequisites required to make democracy a working system. And sometimes we forget that the majority isn't always right - just because people get what they want doesn't mean they get what's good for them.
Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right?
I.e., we know better than you. And we know better 'cause we are better. And we are better 'cause we learned better. And we know we learned better just because.Right?
Re: Is there a difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just as a matter of clarification `objectively true,' when talking about moral judgements, does not mean `true in all places, at all times, for all people.' In moral philosophy, this is what `absolute' truth means. `Objectively true,' on the other hand, simply means that there exist standards upon which everyone does or should reasonably agree for determining the truth of any statement in its domain.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:5, Insightful)
China is poised to become the most economically powerful nation in the history
of the world. You had best care very deeply about goings on in China.
I can only assume this display, "The Chinese people PUT their Goverment in Power PERIOD..."
is an innocent expression of ignorance, and not a troll. If every single
person alive in China during the revolution were still living, they would only
comprise about %25 percent of the population. Seeing as the revoltion ended
in 1949 [photo.net], this is not very likely. But let's, for the sake
of argument, say they are all living. That leaves one billion living human
beings who were born and raised under the rule of a totalitarian regime.
Were you alive when The Peoples' Army crushed the protesters in Tiananmen Square?
Try this one [othilamedia.com], this one [worldbunk.org], this one [peking.org], or this one
You asked "...WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ?" You should care because if you are
ever in a position where you feel it is your duty to oppose a dictator,
you better pray you get more help than they did.
Utter poppycock (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I don't think the Saudis or Chinese are blocking the Net just because they're afraid of "Friends" or "Entertainment Weekly." And even if they were, I do not believe this would justify censorship. People should be free to make their own decisions what culture to adopt, not forced into it by the government.
Accepting human rights pretty much takes the ability to completely define culture out of the hands of any given authority. If your belief system demands a general authority then the global culture will always be a horrible shock.
Yeah, well, tough. I'm not a cheerleader for the way in which the USA often acts abroad, but I have no qualms about saying that our overall principles of individual liberty and cultural/religious pluralism are superior to those of repressive nations where authority is all-important. Although I personally find the practices of, say, Wahabi Islam to be oppressive and absurd, I don't have any problem with Saudis continuing to follow it, but I refuse to enable their government to force it upon the populace. And, on the flipside, I think Falun Gong is a joke, but I don't think the Chinese government should be beating, imprisoning, or killing its practitioners.
"To preserve", vs. "to perpetuate" (Score:2, Insightful)
Impose beliefs? (Score:2, Insightful)
People who don't want to circumvent censorship aren't being forced to as the writer seems to be alluding to.
"Here, have this censorship circumvention doodah."
"Noooo!"
"Well, you're getting it anyway!"
"Noooo, I want to use the censored version of Google and be unaware as to the state of my government!"
Re:so guess they would be fighting for janet jacks (Score:3, Insightful)
I strongly disagree.
Governments maybe be elected by the majority (where there is actual elections, unlike in Saudi Arabia), but they are there to represent and protect everybody, not just said majority.
That's where the concept of human rights exists, though. I guess that in some places they could actually consider freedom of speech a hurtful thing and in good faith - from their point of view - restrict it "for the good of everybody".
Re:This is all political BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. Kiddie porn and snuff films are not censored. They are images of illegal activities and prosecuting their distribution is censorship in the same way that making murder illegal is oppressing your right to free speech.
Censorship is nothing but mind control (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the west, particularly in America, there is a concept known as freedom of speech. We hold the right to speak one's mind as a fundamental freedom that exists independently of whether the government protects or even acknowledges it. What most people don't realize is the fact that it implies and is dependent upon an even more basic right, and that is the freedom to make up one's mind. The freedom to think for oneself. The freedom to choose what one believes is the foundation upon which all liberty rests. After all, what use is the ability to express your thoughts and ideas when those are being determined by someone else?
Censorship is an attack upon freedom itself. The idea that by fighting it you are somehow imposing your views upon someone else is one of the most despicable lies I've ever heard, and one of the most perfect examples of the pot calling the kettle black.
It is censorship itself that seeks to impose beliefs upon people. Those who fight it work to ensure the freedom of others to make up their own minds and decide for themselves what they are going to believe.
Any culture that depends upon protection from outside influences and ideas in order to survive is a culture that is doomed to perish, and should. The reason is because the degree to which a culture must be so protected is the degree to which it is based upon lies.
A culture is a set of defining values, beliefs, and ideals held in common by a group of people. A culture is therefore valuable and beneficial to the degree to which it reflects objective truth and contributes to the well-being of those who are a part of it. Those who believe that cultures are somehow inherently precious or valuable are missing the point. The very purpose of human culture is to ensure the survival of the individuals who belong to it. Culture exists to bring individuals together and unify them as a people for the added benefit of all who are a part of it. If a culture does not do this, or does not do this as well as another culture that is competing with, then it should and will either adapt or perish. There is nothing tragic about this. The exposure to and subsequent adoption of new ideas that are more closely aligned with reality, and therefore improve the lives of everyone so exposed, is nothing to cry about.
I fully support this group's efforts to fight censorship. I don't think they go far enough however. Graeme Bunton seems to think that Saudi Arabia censoring the internet in order to preserve its islamic culture is a valid endeavor. I don't. Ideas should stand or fall based upon their own merit. Cultures, being made up of ideas and beliefs, should be held accountable to the same standard. As I said before, if a culture has to be protected from outside influences in order to survive, then it is a culture that is to that degree based upon lies. As someone who seeks to know and live with the truth, I see no reason to protect lies no matter who it is that believes them or why.
Lee
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
a) You have still not said what, outside your personal morality and beliefs, makes this so.
b) So you are saying it is wrong to attack a country if the government has popular support? Say that they decided to kill off 5% of the population, and the majority supported it (because majority is what you mean by "the occupants of that country", right? I want my current corrupt leadership removed, but I don't suppose that justifies anybody going to war against my country.)
I Was Surprised At Some Of Their Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of their exercise is that members of a given culture (their governments) have imposed their beliefs on the people of that culture. It is up to the PEOPLE to decide what the "culture" is - NOT the government.
In any event, there is NO culture worth "preserving" if it cannot "preserve" itself, by definition. (And the Iraqis are proving and preserving daily by shooting US troops.)
These people need to get straight on this or their efforts will be half-hearted and useless.
Re:so guess they would be fighting for janet jacks (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because that would be an example of the majority imposing their will on the minority. In other words, mob rule. The government should take steps to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet in forcing this belief upon others, you seek to rule them instead of letting them rule themselves, violating the very principle you claim to advocate.
My question wasn't nearly as transparent as you think.
Re:Reap what you Sow (Score:3, Insightful)
Because first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, and did nothing.
And then they came for the black men, but I was not a black man, and did nothing.
And then they came for the women, but I was not a woman, and did nothing.
...
And then they came for me, and there was no-one left to defend me.
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, most people don't get shot in the back of the head. They've learned to keep their head down, never to speak up, never to try to get ahead, never to try to question. It's only people who try to determine the course of their own life who have problems. Wonderful. And yeah, sure, it's not like the only thought in their heads are of oppression. I'm sure most days they just want to get home to dinner.
Does that mean they've got government they like, or merely that they've learned to avoid pissing anyone off?
I'm not advocating that everyone follows US values as you imply. I'm merely advocating that people get to choose how they want to live their lives. If they freely choose (minus unjust persecution should they decide otherwise) to be part of the religious majority, let them. But if they don't have a choice it's evil of you to imply that they somehow picked their situation. It's the new-age party line; "Interference is evil, *they* choose to live like that."
As for most people not wanting freedom of thought for others, tough. That's simply their stupidity in not realizing that their good and normal thoughts are someone else's heresy. If they want to be allowed to follow their stupid little religions they have to accept my godlessness and vice versa. Otherwise we'd be nothing but a collection of third-world hell-holes murdering each other over what flavour of god we had. Besides, I think the fact that the governments in these countries are cracking down on sources of outside information proves that the people are not happy to be told what to think, despite what their leaders would like to suggest.
I'm sure the muslim women who are stoned to death for being raped choose to be there...
Re:Is there a difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
When we vote for president in the US, we, too, must choose from the best of the bad choices they give us.
rights are a cultural imposition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, no one can fight against the absence of rights they consider the norm because rights have no basis and no universality among human beings. So these folks consider seeking to guarantee the rights of others in other culture as "cultural imperialism". To be consistent, if rights are the gifts of society, then the society may take away what it gives.
I can only hope that if we lose some of our rights in the US that some "cultural imperialists" rise to our aid! Rights are derived from the nature of human beings. They are not free arbitrary gifts of the state to be granted or withheld by its whim. Persons who do not have certain inalienable rights are living under some greater or lesser degree of tyranny against their own nature as human beings. Any who wish to help them gain and keep their rights should be applauded rather than being sneered at as "imposing their culture".
Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people" (Score:2, Insightful)
Without science, we are inclined to think that things are the way they are because of their history rather than because of their structure, and history induces terrible bias: You don't get truth in the sense of having an understanding of any predictive value, you get simple self-justification.