...but are they any closer? (S640 #5)

"This is how countries that have freedom and democracy get it," said the woman, who asked that her name not be published. "They have to fight and die for it." - from LA Times 6/20/09

For this week's Intellectual Freedom blog post, the subject seemed obvious to me. The major news story of the week is the recent presidential election in Iran. For those who haven't followed too closely, the Iranian President is not the highest ranking official in the country. Neither is he the Commander in Chief of the Iranian military. The position is more of an international spokesperson for the national policies. The Supreme Leader position (held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) was not up for election. Nevertheless, this was an important election as the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very Anti-West instigator who causes tense relations with Israel and Europe. The challenger was Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a more moderate politician who many believed by improve the relations between Iran and America/the West.

The election, which many believed would be very close, provided a surprise result, as officials declared Ahmadinejad a run-away winner carrying two-thirds of the votes. This prompted many calls for more election transparency, as many suggested there was foul play or voter fraud involved to help Ahmadinejad keep the Presidency.

There have been many protests by supporters of Mousavi, and counter protests by supporters of Ahmadinejad. Reports have indicated that military and militia forces have also been involved and violence has ensued. I would not feel right blaming the violence, or even the instigation, on one side, but I believe both sides have overstepped peaceful protest.

Most recently, the Supreme Leader made a public speach validating the election results and declaring Ahmadinejad the winner. He also suggest that no more protest would be acceptable and no challenge can be made to the election results. While some Pro-West Iranians believe the Sea Change they were hoping for is lost, others believe they should continue the protests as it is the only way to (eventually) achieve the goals of transparency and Freedom (see quote from LA Times Article, above).

As an American, with democratic transparency and the Freedom to assemble and speak freely already established and protected, it is hard for me to imagine how those Iranians who feel betrayed and misled can cope at this time. Questions I ask myself: Would I be ready to continue to protest, even at risk of violence? How long can "Hope for Change" last without any evidence? What would I do now, as an Iranian who feels lied to by the Government?

What do you think?

Quick, claim your name! (S640 #4)

In class last week we discussed social networking and other web 2.0 tools in the library and as they pertain to intellectual freedom. This week, interesting news about just these things has emerged.

Facebook, the most used social network on the web, has announced that they will allow users to create their own username (starting 12:01am Saturday June 13), instead of using the randomly assigned number that users have now. That means instead of being www.facebook.com/546787639820 or however it is written now, you can be www.facebook.com/Jamesbell. They claim that this will make it easier to "find and connect with" people. This doesn't translate into easier searching however. There can only be one www.facebook.com/JohnSmith, and there are 50,000 people in the USA named John Smith (to find out how unique your name is, check out http://howmanyofme.com/).

If you are already friends with someone, you can tell them, see me at www.facebook.com/JohnSmith1234, but if you are already friends, shouldn't you just "request" their facebook-friendship? That leaves just one reason to make this change to usernames: non-facebook related advertising. Now, on your business card, resume, personal ads, whatever, you can add www.Facebook.com/John.Smith.Is.The.Man right underneath phone, fax and email. This will make facebook something that can be advertised in areas off the web.

I am not sure if I like this, one of the best things about Facebook is the ability to not be found by people who you don't want to find you. You have to be connected or invite someone to be your friend. But now, if putting your FB username on contact forms and other things, it will become more public. Myspace did this a while back, but I have never told anyone, "hey, look at my myspace page at www.myspace.com/Imnottellingyou". Myspace was always designed as a place to meet new people, not a place to connect with people you already know or knew before, like Facebook was originally. so usernames just help make everything more public.

And this is what brings us to "Intellectual Freedom": Privacy. Yes, there are privacy settings in searches. But what about the privacy from people who do know you? What about how to block being "Friended" by your Mother, because let me tell you, there is no good way out of that pickle! You either Friend her, or you hear about it next holiday. What about keeping the "Networks" you are a part of private from someone Googling your username? I am a private person generally. I like to think that Facebook is just an amplifier for the personality you already have (annoying people in real life are annoying times ten on Facebook, or people who make inappropriate comments in real life now have a venue to make inappropriate comments that ten times as many people will notice). One thing it cant amplify, however, anonymity. Unless of course, I go and cancel my account.

Links:

The Facebook Announcement

Opinion Piece by Douglas Rushkoff

Side Note: Isn't it funny that Blogger (Google owned) refuses to acknowledge that the word Facebook is not a typo for Face book, casebook, passbook, or forsook. Sometimes it isn't just about recognizing the word is correct, but also sticking it to your competitor.

Freedom to Sext - S640 #3

There is a new wrinkle in the recent (media-driven) controversy called "sexting". Loosely defined, sexting is the sending of sexual images from cell phone to cell phone. Often times these images are taken by or of willing participants as a fun or flirty way to get or keep attention from their friends. The great concern in sexting is the discovery that under aged teens participate in this "epidemic". There have been a few cases across the country in the last year where images of under aged teens have been discovered on phones. While some may say the fact that teens are participating in this is disturbing, it does not surprise me in the least. Teens have been pushing (if not breaking) the limits of "appropriate" (define for yourselves) displays of sexuality. To me, the real disturbing trend is that of local prosecutors charging a wide range of crimes against those taking, sending, and receiving these images. In many cases charges as high as Dissemination of child pornography have been threatened, which could result in major prison time and registration as a sex offender.

The new twist on this trend is that some victims/perpetrators are trying to fight back. In a case in Pennsylvania, some teens charged for their sexy self-portraits are suing the prosecutors for infringement of their Freedom of Expression. This will be an interesting case to watch, as freedoms established in the Bill of Rights are put on trial.

It is my opinion that the use of child pornography laws against these teens is ridiculous. CP laws were established as a deterrent to those who disseminated or viewed child pornography to reduce the industry as a whole, in hope to reduce child sexual abuse. While this is certainly a noble cause, the use of these laws against sexting does not deter child molestation, but instead serves as a self-righteous campaign against teen sexuality in general. I don't think sext-ers are wise for sending pics of themselves, but I certainly do not think they are criminals or sex offenders.

More related links:

Blog post on another Sexting case from NCAC

Wikipedia article on Sexting

"What's the matter with teen sexting?"