Free speech & the Internet... What's the fuss?

What exactly constitutes a violation of free speech online? Consider two recent, and very different cases. In one, a group of college students from Harvard, MIT, Swarthmore, and others posted damaging internal documents about Diebold online. Diebold, if you remember, is the company whose electronic polling systems caused such a panic among voters' rights groups - the machines that incorrectly tallied votes in Cleveland, OH among other places. In the article from PCWorld.com, Paul Roberts, a correspondent from IDG news service, discusses the students' actions:

"One of those who set up a mirror site was C. Scott Ananian, a graduate student in computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of three students to mirror the Diebold document's on the institute's network. After downloading the documents from Why War?'s Web site, Ananian posted links to copies of the documents on his work computer on October 27, making the documents accessible through MIT's connection to the Internet.

Prior to posting the documents, Ananian followed reports about security flaws in Diebold systems, including a July report from researchers at Johns Hopkins University about software flaws in Diebold's AccuVote-TS voting terminal." [read the full article here]

In another case, the EFF started up its propaganda machine, whining about AOL censoring its members for circulating a petition concerning the "E-mail tax" that it is considering. This so-called "tax" is really a fee that AOL is charging legitimate companies who don't want their e-mail deleted as spam. Such companies would get lead billing in AOL users' e-mail inboxes, above non-paid messages from AOL members' e-mail lists. [read the full article here]

Which one is "censorship?" Both companies are protecting their fiscal interests: Diebold has a vested stake in online polling; AOL stands to make buckets of money by charging companies to deliver e-mail past its vaunted "Spam blocker." Both companies are attempting to quash those who stand in their respective paths to additional fortune. Both companies are enraging online free speech activists, many of whom don't understand the nature of rhetoricized speech, that which our founders were protecting. Which case deserves outrage, and which one is just a pointless gesture?

In all honesty, the Diebold case is that which should be a matter of concern. In this case, voting citizens were publicizing a legitimate, documentable concern about the accuracy of voting in the United States. Although their methods were unorthodox, their actions fall well within the purview of the First Amendment: they were engaged in journalistic activity that served the public interest, raising concerns about fellow citizens' loss through inaccuracy of voting rights. The so-called "copyright infringement" that Diebold is using against the students, a part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is a smokescreen. Students were not using copywritten material, such as the Diebold operating software code, to make a profit or cause a loss of profit for personal gain; rather, they were publishing internal documents obtained by unorthodox measures (similar to means that journalists use all the time, but a little more technological) for the purpose of informing the public. Again, a journalistic act that is protected by the First Amendment.

The AOL article is not cause for concern. AOL customers are not publicizing an issue of public concern, instead, they are complaining about the practices of a corporate entity that they voluntarily pay to provide a selective internet service. AOL is not a standard ISP: AOL is a corporate entity that provides an online forum with select options available to members, among which is restricted use of the Internet. AOL users, when they sign up, must agree to the Terms of Service, within which it clearly states that: "You may not use the AOL Network in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair our servers or networks, or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the AOL Network. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to any services, user accounts, computer systems or networks, through hacking, password mining or any other means. We may take any legal and technical remedies to prevent the violation of this provision and to enforce these Terms of Service."

The actions by the AOL members were in violation of the TOS - AOL feels that certain members would benefit from selective paid e-mail advertisements; therefore, anyone interfering with this can be shut down: "We may take any ... technical remedies to prevent the violation of this provision[.]" Is it a crappy thing to do? Yes it is; however, AOL users may, at any time, terminate their AOL accounts and sign up for another service, one less restrictive. AOL served a valuable purpose in the early days of the Internet: people who were not technologically savvy could go "online" easily, with AOL software doing all the hard work. Most DSL or Cable Internet services cost the same as (or less than) AOL, and these ISPs will gladly come to your home and set up your computer to use their services.

Users worried about "e-mail taxes" will always be able to find an e-mail account that does not send commercial e-mail for a fee. Jettison AOL, and your problem goes away. The critical difference is in rights: people have the right to vote. People pay for the privilege of Internet use. You can take your money elsewhere for an ISP. You can't take your vote elsewhere without giving up your citizenship. I'm now officially tired of this, and I'm going to bed.
-------------
currently on miPod - "Way Out Basie" - Count Basie

Updates & News-in-Brief

First, if you have yet to read my "Screaming into a Box" posts [links below], I recommend that you do so, to avoid calumny and/or misinterpretation in any responses you may send my way. The next post or two will refer to topics covered more in-depth there.

Screaming into a box - intro
Screaming into a box - revisited - I
Screaming into a box - revisited - II

I received a number of invitations in response to one of my last posts - most of which involved insertion of an iBook into orifices it was never meant to be placed. If you responded thoughtfully, I happily allow your comment to appear, if not, I moderate it straight into the trash. I welcome intelligent, thoughtful responses, but not flamebait. Don't take it personally: I don't allow my students to hand me thoughtless, rote-response driven trash, I request that they provide evidence and discussion. A. Nonny Mouse, who responds with aggressive, well-thought-out statements, even if we disagree on several points, is allowed in every time.

Second, if you reach this page most frequently via my homepage, you may notice some changes there, as well. I finally updated much of it and posted the base structure, but many pages have yet to be added, so there will be broken links. My links page will be under construction continually, but I invite bloggers and essayists to submit their links to me via e-mail from the contact page. If I read it and like it, I'll post your site. The link to my homepage is http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cbberg/index.html. I'm working on an easy response form through which you can send a link without having to open your e-mail, but my University contains a high number of computer nerds, and the cgi servers are expanding. It'll be a while.

Third, and final - from this point forward, in a number of entries, I'll probably refer to a paper, article, or other document I've created for academic purposes. Because of the limits of the weblog format, there is no possible way to include the necessary information, discussion, and citation involved in a scholarly paper. If you see a parenthetical citation such as the following:
(Berg )
The blue will indicate a link to a document (as I post them on my site) or an e-mail address, at which you can contact me and read the entire piece. I should tell you now that all links, whether noted thus or not, are covered by the same Creative Commons License seen in the right hand navigation bar.
Thanks.
---------
currently playing on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller

Harry Potter - a Hairy Subject in the Bible Belt

Harry Potter

Here in the Bible belt, we have a problem. We actually have a number of problems, but this is one that is particularly irksome. Perhaps its just that I’m an outsider looking in, a recent transplant that doesn’t understand the oppressive mentality of enforced moralistic jargon that tells people to believe one way or stand on hot coals for eternity – which can be quite effective when dealing with easily-led people. I am truly irked by the current crusade against Harry Potter that seems the focal point of life down here whenever a new book or movie about that bespectacled young man appears.

I’m truly surprised by some, who, in fact, rave about the greatness of the Lord of the Rings (the movies, of course – I doubt any of these folks actually read the books) while denigrating a series of children’s books that have a good deal in common, character-wise. The ties are easy to see: look at the four main characters in The Lord of the Rings and the four main characters in the Harry Potter series.

First, we have Gandalf, a wizard, age undetermined, who has great powers and will appear to save the day at the last moment. Compare Gandalf to Albus Dumbledore, a wizard, age undetermined, who has great powers as well and appears on a regular basis to rescue Potter. Next, look to Frodo Baggins. Frodo is an orphan, who inherited a decent fortune from a kind relative: a fortune including a ring that must be used to destroy evil. Harry Potter, Frodo’s counterpart, is an orphan who inherited a decent fortune from his kind parents: as well as a scar from his past that indicates the evil he must destroy. Compare Samwise Gamgee, Frodo’s bumbling but noble buddy, to Ron Weasly – Harry’s bumbling but noble buddy. The primary villains of Sauron and Voldemort both share so many aspects that they need not be listed.

Some of the trouble lies in the fact that many opponents of Harry Potter haven’t read a book on their own that hasn’t been recommended by “preacher” in their entire lives. “Preacher says that Harry Potter is the devil’s tool.” Preacher also tells these people that while Harry Potter, a series of books about a kid trying to survive school with a homicidal ghost following his footsteps, is wrong; the Left Behind books, which describe in detail a wrathful holocaust of five billion people who aren’t Protestant Christians and encourage bigotry against all non-Christians, are just fine.

I don’t have a problem with people who read the books and decide that they are unacceptable for their own children: you have the right, as a parent, to serve as a filter between your children and all forms of media. However, and this is a vast qualification, I do request that before you refuse your children access to something that may encourage them to actually read, you actually read that work, watch that movie, or hear the music yourself before prohibiting it. Who knows? You may discover in those books the same timeless facets of adolescent grief that make them so popular.

It’s striking, really. Fairytales are just fine. The mystical stories of the apocalypse found in Revelation, which scare the hell out of small children, are fine as well. Christian mythology is full of stories that are much more violent, much more frightening, and almost as unbelievable as Harry Potter. Before I’m attacked for my use of the word “mythology,” let me explain (although I’m sure that some people read that word and immediately headed off to their local book-burning revival).

The word “mythology” is accurately used to describe theological beliefs of all sorts that are not believed in by a society. We think it’s just fine to discredit Greek Mythology, even though millions of ancient Greeks believed in it very deeply - deeply enough that their Roman conquerors adopted the views for themselves. We characterize Native American theology as mythology. We call Buddhist and Hindu theology mythology.

What we really mean, but aren’t willing to say, is that we are so egocentric that we will deny all other valid forms of belief because they disagree with our narrow viewpoint. Perhaps the several billion Buddhists or Hindi in the world call our religion “mythology.” Picture this: some dude wanders around with twelve other guys, preaching peace and raising the dead. After he is executed for telling people that they should be kind to one another, he decides not to be dead anymore and gets up, walks around with big holes in his hands, says goodbye to his homies, and then disappears back up into Heaven. This same dude, by the way, who preached love, peace, and all that jazz, will suddenly suffer a schizophrenic personality change when he reappears at the end of the world to kill everyone who disagreed with his peaceful, loving message.

Sounds pretty unbelievable, right? Yet to many millions of people, it is the foundation for their lives. This message of peace, love, and not fucking the neighbor’s wife, it’s actually a pretty good way to live your life. The message of salvation and hope for eternal life is pretty nice too. That doesn’t make it any more a fact than anything that might be read on the cover of The Weekly World News.

Harry Potter is not the devil. He is not the Antichrist. Harry Potter is just the subject of a series of books that describe something that many kids wish for: magical powers to help cope with reality; which sucks just as much for him as it does for them (except for that maniac who wants to kill him). Being adolescent has never been easy, and there’s nothing wrong with a daydream (which is what Freud called all creative writing). Kids know the difference between their play and reality; which is probably one reason they do play. Allowing someone an hour or two of escape into the daydreams of another won’t ruin their lives; and so far as I know, most teachers would give anything for kids to read as much as the voracious fans of Harry Potter do.

---
currently playing on miPod - Symphony no 25. - 1st movement - W. A. Mozart

Morality without Religion?

In response to one of my recent posts, an intelligent reader gave me a fairly challenging assignment. Paraphrased, it went something like this: "How can we have morality without religion? From whence would such moral or ethical codes derive?" It gave me a headache - so, well done - but I have a response. Please note - this is a theoretical response only, one designed to state a possible answer, and I'm sure that there are more than this available; however, I'm not interested in changing the overarching subject area named above, so this will be the only one I present.

Among the strongest instincts in the world is self preservation. The theory of evolution survives because of this principle: flora and fauna will do whatever is necessary to survive. In human beings, the need for self-preservation extends into a rational state - an "if/then" statement - that could be stated thus: "IF I am to preserve those things most important to me, including my life and the lives of those for whom I care most deeply, THEN I must expect that others will wish likewise for themselves."

This communal sense of self-preservation is among the oldest elements in human civilization: the need for a state is predicated upon such. Among prehistoric peoples, tribes would coalesce around the strongest members, those who could not only preserve themselves best, but also train others to do so. The feudal system of governing is based - in part - upon this principle: in exchange for protection from a feudal lord, to whom one paid taxes, one expected a certain level of legal protection for those things held most dear to the self. Of course, this did not preclude corruption - it was merely a basis upon which the system was supported. On a macro-scale, the feudal lord was bannerman to a higher lord. When the realm was threatened, the highest lord of the land would call his bannermen, who would, in turn, call upon "their people," and the collective force - read: ARMY - would protect the land and holdings, thereby the way of life... extrapolate downward.

In a rational, republican system, such as ours, "the people" pay taxes to the Federal government, who, in turn, allocates nationally-held resources for the preservation and protection of those to whom its existence is owed (again, the people).

Where does morality fit in? We'll use a couple of "if/then" statements, with a moral, and further, a legal statement:

• IF I want to remain alive, THEN I must expect that others want the same; therefore, IF staying alive is "good," THEN it must be "bad" to take a life. We'll make a law against murder, but IF someone tries to take my life ("bad") then it is legal to do whatever is necessary to protect myself ("good"). So - murder=illegal, unless in self-defense.
• IF I want to keep my stuff, THEN I should expect others will want to do the same; therefore, IF keeping my stuff is "good," THEN taking it must be "bad". We'll make a law against taking other people's stuff.

From these two basic premises, we can extrapolate much of "morality." Actually, we can extrapolate from just the second one, if we count the first as "stealing" someone's life. The freedom of religion, say, is protection from the theft, by others, of one's right to worship one's own mythological cloud-being in one's own manner. Drug laws could be said to protect non-users from the horrifying and desperate resorts (theft and murder) to which users will go to procure the drug. Communal accountability and self-preservation - the athiest's rational moral system.
-------
currently on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller

Give Gates the Finger!

I hope that someday, flying monsters from outer space will come to earth and eat Bill Gates. It looks like it may take that for the rest of us (read: non-Windoze drones). The justice system sure isn't working on it: despite an antitrust lawsuit (that could never win here in Georgie Porgie Bush's America), Micro$oft continues to engage in the same dirty tricks and deceits that got it to the top in the first place. A recent article posted on ZD|Net discusses a new round of pure crap spewing from the toilet that is Bill Gates's pen (or word processor - I wonder if he uses Office at home?)

Evidently, Micro$oft is urging its "Partners" - computer retailers who, for a reduced cost, are allowed to package Microsoft products with new PCs - to refrain from selling computers without a pre-installed operating system, that is, without the latest version of Windows, as a "security" measure. Riiiiiiiiight. Windows as a "security" measure - this is an oxymoron. Aren't all spyware programs, as well as most trojan horses and viruses aimed at exploiting all of the horrendous holes in Windows? People who buy PCs without operating systems are - guess what - likely buying them thus because they don't want to shell out hundreds of extra dollars for Microsoft products. Because they want to install Linux. To ensure that "Partners" are complying, they're requesting lists of PCs sold without OS-s, without which "Partners" will not get their lovely discount - which will hurt their business immensely.

I hope Gates, Ballmer, and co. die in a fiery plane crash soon.

DeLay DeClines DeNomination - DeFying DeDisbelief?

I suspect that I'm not alone in my claim that it was Tom DeLay who, directly or no, drove me from the Republican Party. Yes, I'm one of the few, the proud, the unheard, the moderates. For years, I considered myself a moderate Republican - a true conservative, unlike the insane neonazis under whose auspices we currently reside. Let me explain: I believe in fiscal responsibility in a conservative sense. I believe in social libertarianism (never fiscal libertarianism - unchecked capitalism has had disastrous social consequences throughout history): the government should stay the hell out of my personal life.

How did roles get reversed? Semiotically, I presume. Indeed, few political signifiers connote as many signs as "conservative:" it can mean (as it once did), a limited role for government beyond those duties specifically called for by the preamble to the Constitution, that government is established in order to "promote the general welfare" and "provide for the common defense." It can also mean (as it does now) conserving longtime social beliefs despite a continually evolving culture (another historical deathtrap - social conservatives in the South led to the Civil War). Hey - what about environmental conservation, which calls for the responsible stewardship of natural resources? In one sense, environmental conservation and Goldwater conservatism have a lot in common concerning definitive terms: both call for responsible stewardship - one of natural resources, one of social and fiscal resources. The key term, here, is "responsible," something of which neoconservatives know nothing.

Responsibility. Conservation. Stewardship.

Neoconservatives strive to promote a single worldview, ignoring any who dissent with even part of that view. Responsibile social policy does not shut out any views, rather, it weighs all concerns equally and comes to a fair compromise that, indeed, "promotes" the general well-being (welfare in its original sense). Dissenters in the neoconservative view are treated as subhuman: think of homosexuals and Muslims. We're spending trillions of dollars a year intervening abroad because of some screwed up sense of moral responsibility to subdue the heathen via crusade - a term applied to our present war by top governmental officials.

It makes me sick. I suppose that most who, like me, formerly identified themselves as moderate Republicans, have either become independent, or, like me, conservative Democrats. Just what is a conservative Democrat? I'll lay it out for you:

Fiscal responsibility:

• Don't worry about the rest of the world when problems at home are too great to enumerate. Instead of spending trillions of dollars a year fighting a war on two fronts, one of which was begun for no reason other than "he tried to have my daddy killed," keep our military within our borders, where they can protect us. Don't spread them out all over the board - any kid who's played Risk can tell you that it's damn near impossible to conquer Australia because it's too easy to defend: one avenue of attack, and defenders concentrated in that one avenue.
• Don't spend money we don't have. "Pay-go" was a brilliant policy: if you need to increase spending on something, make sure that you either have the revenue or can cut spending elsewhere. Or eliminate "no-bid" contracts - those are irresponsible as hell.
• I suppose it all boils down to this: don't cut taxes (revenue) and increase spending (outlay). You get one or the other, but not both.

Social libertarianism:

• Again, not fiscal libertarianism, which espouses unchecked capitalism. Legally, a corporation may be an individual; however, socially, a corporation has no conscience. Historically, unchecked capitalism led to the creation of Communism - Karl Marx got to witness, firsthand, how kind capitalism was to the children of Victorian England.
• The government has no business telling people how to live. Sure, spout off all of the propaganda that Preacher tells you about the Founders and how Christian they were, but remember, at least half were Deists (look it up - a novel idea, I know). All of our "temples of democracy" resemble pagan architecture - for good reason.
• Religion has no place in the public sphere. There is absolutely no evidence that religious zealouts are any more moral and decent than agnostics and athiests. Want proof? Remember this: nearly every massacre throughout history had religion and morality at its core. Want proof? I'll give you a brief rundown: The Crusades, The Inquisition, the English civil war, American Slavery, the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, September 11. How many wars were caused by athiests?

Tom DeLay is gone. This makes me happy. But I remain disturbed by one prospect: is someone going to step in and try to continue where he left off? For the sake of the United States, I hope not.