Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Censorship Your Rights Online

Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places 243

Posted by CowboyNeal from the sticking-it-to-the-man dept.
museumpeace writes "CNN is carrying an AP story from France on the release of guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments to get out their stories without getting caught. "Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.' Makes me proud to be a developer of communication software."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places More

Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places

Comments Filter:

  • practicality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CupBeEmpty ( 720791 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:27PM (#13627034)
    I am truly, before anything else, a proponent of personal freedoms. I know that this is definitely something that is common in technology communities. I am really heartened by an article like this.

    The only question is how much impact will a blog have on a repressive government like China (or worse N. Korea... if blogging is even possible there). Will the next Thomas Paine be a blogger?
    • "The only question is how much impact will a blog have on a repressive government like China"

      Maybe it will help keep Congress from giving them Permanent Normal Trade Rela... er, nevermind.

      • Re:practicality? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CupBeEmpty ( 720791 )
        Well free trade may be the thing that really blows China open a little. People with a lot of technology and consumer comfort tend to be the ones that get pissed off about things like... repressive government. While people struggling to live are more worried about things like... food.
        • Unless the government and the Beloved Party is painted as the provider of all those creature comforts. People only really care about freedom so long as they're free to get their creature comforts, then they're done.

    • Re:practicality? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by antifoidulus ( 807088 )
      If anything this will make it worse in North Korea, the government will see what is happening in places like China and make sure nobody but the elite of the elite even get internet access at all, let alone unfiltered access. China can't keep up a high level of policing as more and more people get internet access, the sheer numbers make it impossible. However propaganda is still valuable there. It seems that most people won't get upset if you tell them that the government is blocking something for your ow

      • Re:practicality? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CupBeEmpty ( 720791 )
        If anything this will make it worse in North Korea, the government will see what is happening in places like China and make sure nobody but the elite of the elite even get internet access at all, let alone unfiltered access.

        The sad thing is that this may be true. While Thomas Paine may have had an easy time of printing leaflets against the rule of King George despite any crack downs by the government, internet access requires a lot more infrastructure in most cases. With more requirements for expensive

        • Re:practicality? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by antifoidulus ( 807088 )
          Well, they would also have to well....
          a) have electricity unless we are planning to have them use them for only 2 hours
          b) know how to use a device they have never seen before in their lives
          c) be literate, a lot of North Korean kids are skipping school to go help their family forage for food. Obviously North Korea does't release reliable statistics on literacy, but my bet is that it's dropping, and of course, it's in the governments best interest to let it drop for all but the smartest of individuals(s

      • Re:practicality? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hcdejong ( 561314 )
        It's already 'worse in North Korea'. Internet access is very restricted there, right now.
        In NK, it's cellphones rather than the internet [strategypage.com] that are breaking the government's stranglehold on communications. The fact that it's China that's providing the tools, is ironic, to say the least.
    • Will the next Thomas Paine be a blogger?

      If the next Thomas Paine is a blogger, how will we find him/her through all the spam? Honestly, the internet as a publication option is becoming less and less viable with all this white noise...
    • So maybe I should move to a different country and start protesting about the DMCA or any other law I don't like.

  • choice quote (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jest3r ( 458429 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:27PM (#13627038)
    "We can write freely in blogs," writes Arash Sigarchi, an Iranian journalist who was nonetheless sentenced to 14 years in prison for posting several messages online that criticized the Iranian regime. I guess freedom has a different definition over there ...

    • Re:choice quote (Score:2, Insightful)

      by masklinn ( 823351 )

      I guess they can write freely as in their words aren't checked and they are not in prison before the publishing.

      They can at least get their rants read before getting their ass pounded (which is why they get in both cases anyway) which is somewhat of a progress.

      • The nature of the Internet makes it extremely hard to destroy information once it's gotten in sufficient circulation. If they handed out a newsletter, well the government could literally round up and destroy every copy. Just like 1984, now it never existed in the offical view, and there's nothing to prove otherwise. However if it gets online, and on foreign servers, there's shit they can do. Arresting and killing the author doesn't stop their words from being circulated for people to read.
    • He wasn't posting anonymously. His site [sigarchi.com] clearly states his name.

      His use of 'freely' stems from this:
      "As I have already mentioned, if you want to print a book, poem, story, or even newspaper or magazine in Iran, you have to obtain permission from the authorities. Very many writers and journalists are affected by this.
      But if you want to publish a story, poem or essay in a newspaper or magazine, it will be censored. So many Iranian writers publish their views in blogs, at less cost and they are not forced to c

  • Deaf ears? (Score:4, Informative)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:28PM (#13627040) Homepage Journal
    The problem may be more keeping the content accessible, once you've sufficiently annonymized yourself so you can keep publishing. Because for every One blogger in an oppressive country, there will be 3 government workers with the task of silencing that person, and making sure anyone who reads the subversive material will be afraid to pass on the information to others.

    ""A call for free elections ... has a maximum online life of about half an hour," Pain writes of censorship in China."

    We don't know how lucky we are to be in areas that still have an essentially free [although lackluster] press.
    • The only solution is international pressure. No internal opposition to an authoriarian regime will survive if it does not receive support from abroad. For example, in Poland in the eighties people were publishing illegally books. When caught, their equipment was confiscated and they received some jail sentences -- but that was just about everything the government did to them. Why they were not killed? Because the West would make a ruccus about it, Radio Free Europe would make a ruccus about it and Polish co

    • Re:Deaf ears? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by glesga_kiss ( 596639 )
      essentially free [although lackluster] press.

      A commercial media is not free media [wikipedia.org]. Our media is more limited than you are aware; no big consipiracy, just the nature of the beast.

  • Interesting Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:28PM (#13627041)
    "Bloggers are often the only real journalists in countries where the mainstream media is censored or under pressure"

    I am not sure U.S is that much better with our journalists. We should rename TV to the propaganda box.

    • Re:Interesting Quote (Score:5, Informative)

      by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:35PM (#13627060) Homepage Journal
      "We should rename TV to the propaganda box."

          If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences. And there are differences, although on some stations it's hard to tell with some Canadian broadcasts trying to use the American "non-news" model.

          We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time. People who lie that much do not belong on a regular cable channel on a show that claims to be fair and balanced. It'd be ok if he was on the Comedy Network, but so many people think he's seriously telling them the truth about whatever he's talking about. They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press.

      Perhaps we just need to teach our children to think more critically, instead of asuming that every white guy in a suit on TV knows what they are talking about if they either praise Jesus, or Bush.
      • "teach our children to think more critically" of what they see in our media...

        This is a great idea, being debated in Victorian education (Australia) at present [abc.net.au], with divisive strawman arguments against it (e.g. "educating from the back of cereal packets instead of classics","moral relativism will result in social destruction" )
      • "We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time."

        I personally would much rather have MORE Bill O' Idiots on. Bill is in fact a shit head and more then a little dull. That said (at least when I used to watch his show) he asked people very pointed questions. Sure he was clearly slanted, but I would take slanted and willing to ask real questions and press people when they start spewing PR speak over 'objective' and lobbing softba

      • Re:Interesting Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SQL Error ( 16383 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @12:08AM (#13627160)
        If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences.

        So you've noticed the CBC's sometimes oblique approach to the truth?

        We need to start demanding more from our journalists

        No. We need to fire all the journalists and get some reporters.

        and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.

        What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time. They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.
        • CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia. They cover important stories for Canadians, and even if they don't end up interviewing people you might agree with, they still talk to people, and give normal people air time as fairly as possible. They also do in-depth coverage of usually the top story, AFTER the rest of the news has been read, so you don't have to sit thr
          • CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia.

            Well, duh.

            a) Nothing ever happens in Canada.
            b) Canadians don't care about runaway brides in Georgia. Instead, you get wall-to-wall coverage about lovelorn mooses in Manitoba.

            As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining.

            It's the public's fault?

            Yes.

            So?

        • What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time. They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.

          An interesting aspect of "freedom of speech" in the Western world: the constitutionally-protected "freedom of speech" only gets concretized if you have enough money to get to the media. In other words, this "freedom of speech" only gets as far as somebody's money

          • In your view, then, "freedom of speech" means "right to force other people to distribute what you have to say"?

            Right protection precisely means "not preventing you from". Possibly freedom of religion means you have a right to sacrifice chickens if you want to; it certainly doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy chickens for you to sacrifice.

      • Re:Interesting Quote (Score:4, Funny)

        by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @12:16AM (#13627179)
        "We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.... They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press."

        Something about that doesn't quite add up, I just can't put my finger on it...

        Its like there is some contradiction in there, some blatant example of hypocrisy...

        Oh well, its late, maybe I'll get it in the morning.

        • It is late, so I'll give you the night to sleep on it.
          http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163127&cid=136 27274 [slashdot.org]

          Consider this:
          Bill O'Idiot works for the government but the public either isn't aware of that, or they don't care because they don't know that their government would mislead them. Would it still be a free press if this government shill has so much air time disseminating government propoganda [lies]? Perhaps. But if anyone tries to contradict him on air he simply has to tell them to "SHUT UP"
          • Even if your little conspiracy theory is true, it doesn't matter. Under a free press, you don't get to choose who gets on the air and who doesn't. Thats really the definition of a free press. You can't ban him from the airwaves just because you disagree with him on something. Thats called censorship.

            BTW, it truly is sad that when its time for you to come up with the name of a journalist, the best you can do is Jon Stewart. He hosts a parody news show on Comedy Central, not a real one.

      • The funny thing is that John Stewart, who is on Comedy Central, happens to be far more accurate than Bill O, ever was. --and he is hilarious at the same time.

        I'm not sure Comedy Central would have him!
    • When was the last time you saw something pro-Bush or pro-Iraq on CNN? How much did the networks spend on Cindy? How much time did they spend trying to implicate Karl Rove in the CIA leak? How much time have they spent on New Orleans, and with what slant? When was the last time you heard the virtues of capitalism, individual freedoms, or individual responsibility extolled on TV?

      Your political views are the way they are due to the input you receive from your media, etc. I doubt you just stumbled onto a
      • Karl Rove was involved. He confirmed Valerie Plame's identity. This came out after MONTHS of denials that he had nothing at all to do with it. Whether he committed a crime or not is up to the special prosecutor.
      • Well, the only thing I ever see on CNN is ads for hotels, animations of the CNN logo, poorly done weather reports, more hotel ads, more CNN logos, a few more hotels, and by then I'm usually hunting for something more worthwile to watch or I've switched the TV off.

        I still haven't figured where the "news" come in, I've certainly never seen any on CNN.
        But I have to agree that none of the hotels seemed to be especially pro Iraq or Bush(or anti- for that matter, as hotels go, they didn't seem to have much of an

  • Meanwhile, in the US, bloggers cry out for freedom (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sattwic ( 545957 ) on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:45PM (#13627092) Homepage Journal
    How about freedom of press and free speech for bloggers right here in the US??

    WASHINGTON--Political bloggers on Tuesday urged federal regulators to keep the Internet as free as possible from campaign finance laws.

    At a public hearing convened by the Federal Election Commission, both liberal and conservative political commentators lauded the brand of freewheeling online politicking that has characterized recent elections. The FEC is under a court order to extend campaign finance rules to the Internet, and the Democratic commissioners voted not to appeal.

    Online politicking should not be subject to onerous federal rules, Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said. "We're all agreed about that." But, Weintraub added, "What is the best way for us to regulate bloggers?"

    Radio and TV stations generally are immune from campaign finance laws unless their "facilities" are controlled by a political party or candidate.

    One option, suggested by Republican Commissioner Michael Toner, would be to extend the same logic to say the "facilities" of Web servers should immunize political speech online.

    http://news.com.com/Bloggers+plead+for+freedom+fro m+election+laws/2100-1028_3-5767156.html/ [com.com]
    • "How about freedom of press and free speech for bloggers right here in the US??"

      The best part about freedom of speech in the US is that politicians and regulatory bodies are only one layer of protection. It isn't exclusively the job of the president or the congress to protect your speech. That isn't to say that they shouldn't be watching out for your freedom of speech, but simply that they are not the only line of defense. There are other layers of protection of freedom of speech that exist.

      This law is a
    • Okay, the rules the FEC are working on here are not on whether or not you can have a political blog, they are more involved with how you finance that blog. Trying to cover loopholes which allow unethical donations (read: bribes.)

  • Just some links if you want them... (Score:3, Informative)

    by l3prador ( 700532 ) <wkankla@gmaTOKYOil.com minus city> on Thursday September 22, 2005 @11:48PM (#13627108) Homepage
    I figured I'd just point these links out... I immediately went and looked for them, so I figured others might want be curious too...

    Handbook (PDF): http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/handbook_bloggers_cyber dissidents-GB.pdf [rsf.org]
    Reporters without Borders (English): http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20 [rsf.org]

  • Thought (Score:2, Interesting)

    by aitikin ( 909209 )
    So now with this available to us all, what's to stop someone from anonymously posting something that's believable yet fake? Isn't it posible that someone could make something up that's so horrible it would make the "news" and then the "news" would carry the story and people would demand an investigation into it? Almost a Wag the Dog type thing? The only things someone would need is a hatred, an imagination (which is getting harder to come by, granted), and these methods. Am I way off with this? P.S. I
    • Having a free press is good and fine, but it's only worth anything if you have some reason to believe you're getting signal and not noise. Or at least that you're getting a reasonable signal to noise ratio.

      If you can just say anything anonymously, don't have to put your reputation on the line, and don't have to check and document your sources either... well, let's put it like this: we've already been there. It doesn't take paranoia or conspiracy theories to imagine a potential outcome, since we have plenty
    • You're absolutely correct to be concerned. Some bloggers do lie, just as some lobbyists and journalists lie, and it's up to us as readers and up to editors of blog-recommendation sites as editors to be careful.

      But the public revelations of US torture in Abu Ghraib are the result of websites and bloggers. What has been the core of US federal response to them? Forbidding digital cameras amoung prison guards....

  • Kudos to Reporters Without Borders (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sundroid ( 777083 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @12:20AM (#13627200) Homepage
    These guys at Reporters Without Borders got guts -- on their website, they put the names and photos of the heads of states where there is no press freedom and call them "Predators of Press Freedom". Check it out at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1087 [rsf.org]

  • Item #1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @12:50AM (#13627290)

    guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments

    #1 Do not use a yahoo email account
  • their respective government just puts a halt to stores selling the book?
    • You can download it as a PDF, or have sympathizers smuggle the book into the country.
      • "You can download it as a PDF"

        Uhm, downloading a book that goes directly against the policy of the government, from a government controlled internet access, is less than wise methinks :)

        But yes, you could have somebody bring you the book. But that means it won't be available to the masses so easily as in other countries.

  • Simple Answer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @01:29AM (#13627390)
    Simple answer.

    Blog on Freenet.

  • Censorship? Whats that?! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rale, the ( 659351 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @02:24AM (#13627547)
    Reuters article [reuters.co.uk] quote:
    "PARIS (Reuters) - A Paris-based media watchdog released a handbook on Thursday to help cyber-dissidents and bloggers avoid political censorship in countries as far apart as China, Iran, Vietnam and Cuba."

    Xinhua article [xinhuanet.com] quote:
    "BEIJING, Sept. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- A Paris-based media watchdog released a free guide Thursday to help bloggers and cyber-dissidents avoid political censorship in countries as far apart as Iran, Vietnam and Cuba."
    • Setting aside the hypocrisy and the almost-plagiarism[*], I'd like to point out that the original was a bit incongruous -- China and Vietnam aren't very far apart. The edited version is less grating.

      [*] The Xinhua article does include the word "(Agencies)" at the bottom... maybe that's an attribution...
  • Use Tor. You're helping people like the ones talked about in the article when you do.

    HJ
  • I wonder if it's okay to post the book on a website or P2P network, so people can get at it from countries that have www.rsf.org blocked.
    The English version states a 'standard' copyright message (C 2005 RSF), nothing more. Since copyright usually implies 'no reproduction', I assume I'm not allowed to. It would have made sense to include a statement that explicitly allows copying and printing the PDF.

    The PDF files themselves can use some improvement as well. The UK version has registration marks, is 'printed

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close