Net Neutrality

What a great conversation in class this last Thursday! We really raised a lot of questions (and did not get to raise others) about political speech and issues of control, security and the limits of dissent. I am sure we will continue to explore these questions more... One thing that struck me was the discussion of control over the spaces where free speech can happen. Or, as Cass Sunstein suggested in the film Some Assembly Required, a classic way that people in power control dissent has been to control where dissent can happen.

So, in the spirit of that conversation, I wanted to share the really interesting video clip I read about on Chuck Tyron's blog, The Chutry Experiment. It's about the concept of net neutrality, which the folks at Google define as

"Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet."

We will be exploring the question of how controlling where speech/expression happens is and has been an important issue in free speech, including on-line. So, two filmmakers, Susan Buice and Arin Crumley, whose film Four Eyed Monsters is about this concept, have included it on their website to be shared around the net. I found this really provocative. Click the link below to view this film. What do YOU all think?

Browsing the blogs

So, being under the weather isn't all that bad! Its raining today and I can sit down and look over last weeks blog posts for my free speech class. I have to say, I am impressed at how some of the students in the class are using this medium to great advantage--sharing links, ideas, stories, inviting responses and generally raising questions. So far so good. Others are a little slower to embrace the medium. I hope they will experiment with it more and give it some time. In the meantime, I thought I would share some of this week's posts that caught my eye.

Militant Otter's blog, Confessions of an Angry Blogger, contains an interesting mix of political analysis and in your face opinionatedness (is that a word?). The recent post about the city of Boston, the "lite brite" hoax, and Cartoon network is worth a look. Has the "war on terror" forced us to this? Of course, there are likely many sides to this story I am sure, but nonetheless its great food for bloggers of all stripes.

Rory's Ramblings highlights something we will be touching on this semester--what happens when active military just say no to the going to Iraq? This issue really goes to the heart of free speech and responsibility and the legal/ethical debates that such situations raise. As Rory states on the blog:

"On the one hand, as American citizens, we pride ourselves on our First Amendment right to protest our government's actions. On the other hand, to what extent do members of the military retain that right? By refusing to go to Iraq, is he exercising Free Speech responsibly or is he breaking a commitment he made voluntarily?"

These are really great questions that made me think a lot about all the free speech and responsibility issues that this war is raising. I was reminded of last spring, when Pablo Paredes, also in the same position as the soldier described in Rory's Ramblings, came to CSUMB and we went to see him speak as a class. What a powerful experience. I also recently watched the film "Sir, No Sir" about Vietnam soldiers who refused to engage in the war once the real story behind what was going on became clear. The film does a great job of getting us inside the issues from those soldiers' points of view and the consequences of their actions. I think I may show some of this film in class. This post reminded me of how important these debates are, especially now. I hope we will engage with those debates in class.

Finally this week, Escribitionist128 is making full use of the linking capacity of blogging. A recent post focused on The Free Expression Policy Project, a site I know well. I'm glad Escribitionist chose to share this with us--since it is an extremely relevant site for this class. Maybe some good project ideas for the seminars would come out of browsing around such a site.

Looking forward to this weeks discussions... and blogging. I am learning and thinking a lot.

Secrets

Jenny Holzer's light projections of poetry and declassified documents illuminate landmark New York City buildings, September 29 - October 9. Courtesy of t_a_i_s_ photostream.

Yesterday's mock seminar was quite good--a nice example of what I hope seminars will be in HCOM 310! If we had continued working through the issues, I would have liked to see us refer to the day's reading a bit more; perhaps an opening summary discussion--what did we read, what questions did we have, what initial insights were gained--would have set that tone. Still, I thought the group did a great job of getting us thinking about what good seminar practice might look like.

The subject of the discussion--secrecy and the government--is such a large issue, especially as we sit here in a time of war. Open government is important to me--whether at the local level, state or national level. For me, a lot of it has to do with accountability. I want to know just what kind of policy, especially one that may involve war and violence, is being carried out in my name as a U.S. citizen. At what point is should the CIA, the U.S. military, or our political leaders reveal what they are doing? The current administration has certainly been less than forthcoming about a lot of things. It does beg the question of why we should just trust them.

An organization named OpenTheGovernment.org recently published a "Secrecy Report Card" for 2006. The summary of the report found a "troubling lack of transparency in military procurement, new private inventions, and the scientific and technical advice that the government receives, among other areas." The full report is available from their site. It made me think a lot about the reading for yesterday. While it might be necessary for governments to have some secrets, I suspect that in the name of a "war on terror," a lot of information is being withheld for other reasons.

Anyone else following this trend??