Information Black Out

Posted without Comment from Wikipedia:

Why is Wikipedia blacked-out?
Wikipedia is protesting against SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time. Readers who come to English Wikipedia during the blackout will not be able to read the encyclopedia. Instead, you will see messages intended to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA, encouraging you to share your views with your representatives, and with each other on social media.

What are SOPA and PIPA?
SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA is an acronym for the "Protect IP Act." ("IP" stands for "intellectual property.") In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout. GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for the public interest in the digital realm, has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.

Why is the blackout happening?
Wikipedians have chosen to black out the English Wikipedia for the first time ever, because we are concerned that SOPA and PIPA will severely inhibit people's access to online information. This is not a problem that will solely affect people in the United States: it will affect everyone around the world.

Why? SOPA and PIPA are badly drafted legislation that won't be effective at their stated goal (to stop copyright infringement), and will cause serious damage to the free and open Internet. They put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. And, SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

Does this mean that Wikipedia itself is violating copyright laws, or hosting pirated content?
No, not at all. Some supporters of SOPA and PIPA characterize everyone who opposes them as cavalier about copyright, but that is not accurate. Wikipedians are knowledgeable about copyright and vigilant in protecting against violations: Wikipedians spend thousands of hours every week reviewing and removing infringing content. We are careful about it because our mission is to share knowledge freely. To that end, all Wikipedians release their contributions under a free license, and all the material we offer is freely licensed. Free licenses are incompatible with copyright infringement, and so infringement is not tolerated.

Isn't SOPA dead? Wasn't the bill shelved, and didn't the White House declare that it won't sign anything that resembles the current bill?

No, neither SOPA nor PIPA is dead. On January 17th, SOPA's sponsor said the bill will be discussed in early February. There are signs PIPA may be debated on the Senate floor next week. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. In many jurisdictions around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation that prioritizes overly-broad copyright enforcement laws, laws promoted by power players, over the preservation of individual civil liberties.

How could SOPA and PIPA hurt Wikipedia?
SOPA and PIPA are a threat to Wikipedia in many ways. For example, in its current form, SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced offline.

I live in the United States. What's the best way for me to help?
The most effective action you can take is to call your representatives and tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. Type your zipcode in the locator box to find your representatives' contact information. Text-based communication is okay, but phone calls have the most impact.

I don't live in the United States. How can I help?
Contact your local State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. SOPA and PIPA will affect sites outside of the United States, and actions to sites inside the United States (like Wikipedia) will also affect non-American readers -- like you. Calling your own government will also let them know you don't want them to create their own bad anti-Internet legislation.
Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?
Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

I keep hearing that this is a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Is that true?
No. Some people are characterizing it that way, probably in an effort to imply all the participants are motivated by commercial self-interest. But it's obviously not that simple. The proof of that is Wikipedia's involvement. Wikipedia has no financial self-interest at play here: we do not benefit from copyright infringement, nor are we trying to monetize traffic or sell ads. We are protesting to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA solely because we think they will hurt the Internet, and your ability to access information online. We are doing this for you, because we're on your side.

In carrying out this protest, is Wikipedia abandoning neutrality?
We hope you continue to trust Wikipedia to be a neutral information source. We are staging this blackout because (as Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Kat Walsh said recently), although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. For over a decade, Wikipedians have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Wikipedia is a tremendously useful resource, and its existence depends upon a free, open and uncensored Internet. SOPA and PIPA (and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States) will hurt you, because they will make it impossible for sites you enjoy, and benefit from, to continue to exist. That's why we're doing this.

I have a question that isn't answered here, or, I would like to send feedback to Wikipedia.
You can reach Wikipedia editors at info-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. If you need a response, please be patient: we may have trouble keeping up with the mail.

What can I read to get more information?
Try these links:
Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA
Statement from Wikipedia editors announcing decision to black out
Wikimedia Foundation press release
Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner
Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the problems with SOPA/PIPA

As of 6AM PT, January 18, Google has more than 4,600 articles about the blackout. Here are a few:
Why is Wikipedia staging a blackout and what is SOPA?, from the National Post
Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves, from the British Broadcasting Corporation
Wikipedia blackout over US anti-piracy bills and FEATURE: Websites blackout over 'SOPA censorship', from Al Jazeera
Wikipedia, Craigslist, other sites go black in SOPA protest, from the Los Angeles Times
Google Rallies Opposition to Murdoch-Backed Anti-Piracy Bill, from BusinessWeek
SOPA protest: The Net strikes back, from Politico
Wikipedia blackout a 'gimmick', MPAA boss claims, from the Guardian
Wikipedia 24-hour blackout: a reader and Why we're taking Wikipedia down for a day, from the New Statesman
Internet-wide protests against SOPA/PIPA are kicking up a storm, by the Hindustan Times
SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know, from CBS News
Protest on Web Uses Shutdown to Take On Two Piracy Bills, from the New York Times
Protesting SOPA: how to make your voice heard, from Ars Technica
Why We've Censored Wired.com, from Wired

Elton John Photo Censored

Digital Journal's blog reports on the censorship of a photo of Elton John.  A recent issue of US Weekly has a photo of Elton John, his spouse David Furnish, and their new baby Zachary.  Harps, a grocery chain with stores in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, censored the photo but covering it with what appears to be a plastic cover labeled "Family Shield To protect young Harps shoppers."  One might ask from what the young shoppers need to be protected.  

Remember to register for the "Banned Book Challenge."  Set your goal to read banned or challenged books between Feb. and June.  Details: 

Library Threatened over Screening of "Sicko"

The Journal-Enquirer, North Central Connecticut's newspaper reported last week that The Enfield Public Library was faced with a hard decision.  


The planned screening of Michael Moore's controversial documentary "Sicko," which is very critical of the US health system came under fire from Enfield's mayor and a number of town council members, following a complaint from a resident.  The library had begun a new nonfiction film series and Moore's 2007 documentary which had been nominated for an Academy Award was considered a poor choice by resident Kevin Fealy who pressured the library to cancel the showing.  Fealy's concern was that he didn't want the town "“to promote material such as this on my tax dollars.”

Library Director, Henry Dutcher, was asked to cancel the film by the town manager, his supervisor.  Funding to the library was threatened by Mayor Scott R. Kaupin who is quoted as saying, "...if they don’t reconsider, then they’re going to have the repercussions of the council....I mean, in the end, when budget time comes and Mr. Dutcher is asking for funding he’s going to have to answer for it.”  It is Kaupin's opinion that the library should steer clear of "controversial" material and "Do nice stuff.  Do uncontroversial...."


The only council member to speak against the decision was Councillor Cynthia Mangini, calling it censorship.  


The Connecticut Library Association is deciding upon its response which could include suing the town.


It is time once more for the Banned Book Challenge.  Celebrate Canadians' freedom to read by reading a banned or challenged book.  Sign up now. 

Update:  Following the controversy raised by the Town of Enfield's decision to pressure the library to pull the showing of "Sicko," the Town reversed its decision.  Read more about it at the ALA website. 

Facebook Creator Eyes China?

FT Tech Hub reports on the visit Mark Zuckerberg, creator of Facebook, made to China. Zuckerberg, who founded the social networking site along with fellow students while at Harvard University, was named Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" for 2010. He is known for working long hours and FT Tech Hub speculates that Zuckerberg was more than just holidaying in China, where Facebook has been banned.

He was seen rubbing shoulders with the chief executive of Robin Li, Baidu's CEO and one of China's wealthiest men. Baidu is the Google of China, being their largest search engine. At the Cannes Lion advertising festival last summer, Zuckerberg stated that China was a key target for Facebook's growth. The article speculates that creating a local partnership could be the first step in having China allow Facebook to be established.

What will be interesting is to see if Facebook can be any more successful at avoiding government-sponsored censorship on its site and breaking through the "great firewall of China."

Map created by Facebook intern Paul Butler using data on its members. It provides a visual of where people live relative to their Facebook friends and where there are obvious gaps. The most obvious gap is China, where Facebook is banned.

Should Schools be "a politics-free zone?"

In a story reminiscent of the challenge to Three Wishes: Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak -- a challenge which has been covered extensively on this blog, the Vancouver Sun reports that The Shepherd's Granddaughter has "sparked outrage in the Jewish community." Some school trustees are demanding the book be removed from reading lists and libraries.

The Shepherd's Granddaughter, a children's novel about a Palestinian teen growing up outside of a Palestinian village in the West Bank in the midst of the Middle East conflict, was written by Canadian author Anne Laurel Carter. The book is told through the child Amani's voice. As with Three Wishes, the controversy came long after the publication of the book and was highlighted by its nomination by the Ontario Library Assocation for the Red Maple Award, a program intended to foster reading skills for students, in this case for grades seven and eight.

Critics feel the novel — told from the Palestinian viewpoint with characters' opinions about the conflict ranging from peaceful resistance to militancy, with Amani choosing non-violence — could result in discrimination.

The Jewish Tribune recently wrote an article entitled, "Could This Book Turn Your Child Against Israel" which cites hurtful comments made toward Jews on Goodreads.com. Brian Henry, a parent and the writer of the article believes that although "one book by itself is never going to make any child any sort of bigot. Along with other things though, yes, it could." He add that schools should be "a politics-free zone."

B'nai Brith Canada believes the book "demonizes" Israelis and portrays Palestinians as innocent.

At least one Toronto trustee wants The Shepherd's Granddaughter gone from schools. James Pasternak, a trustee with the Toronto District School Board was quoted by CanWest as saying,

The book is really inappropriate to be presented in this way, in a school setting. It doesn't present a balanced or fair reflection of that conflict zone. It's a biased book that borders on political propaganda.

Sheila Ward, also a Toronto trustee has said she expects people will accuse her of censorship but that she would "move heaven and Earth to have The Shepherd's Granddaughter taken off the school library shelves." She added, "If it means I will not support hate-provoking literature with no redeeming qualities, I am delighted to be called a censor."

The board has received a formal complaint and a vote will take place following a 60-day review.

Anne Laurel Carter, author of The Shepherd's Granddaughter believes that anyone who dismisses the book as hateful misses the point of the book.

The author states,

I appreciate that it's very a sensitive, complex situation but I'm telling a viewpoint that has a right to be told. I did a lot of research to tell the story, and went (to the Middle East) many times, and I have been sympathetic to both sides. As everybody does, I would like to see peace in the Middle East.

Groundwood Books, the publisher has sent a letter to the Toronto School Board asking members to stand up for the book. She says that the book includes "very, very sympathetic Israeli characters," as well as diverse Palestinian ones.

Read The Shepherd's Granddaughter as part of the Banned Book Challenge, or check out lists of challenged books on the right sidebar.

Blowing Up My Mind !

If you want to read more about censorship, "Blowing Up My Mind!" covers "Book censorship, tidbits, thoughts and stories from a bookworm & lifelong learner." It looks as if it is updated very regularly. I will be adding this as a permanent link.

The Banned Book Challenge runs until June 30. There is still time to get in a few banned or censored books.

Google China Saga Continues

Illustration Bezinga.com

Google CEO Eric Schmidt remains committed to stay in China, according to statements made yesterday. As reported in a previous post, there was a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack" on a number of high profile computer companies in China and Google threatened to pull out of China unless it could provide uncensored results. According to today's Telegraph, Schmidt has confirmed that that Google and China have been "in conversation." Schmidt added that they wish to remain in China but that they would like to be there "on somewhat different terms" than they have in the past. Although Google has continued to censor searches according to Chinese law, sources within Google said there are no plans to revoke their earlier stand on censorship. Stated Schmitd, "We continue to follow their laws, we continue to offer censored results. But in a reasonably short time from now we will be making some changes there."

PC World offers a timeline of the Google/China incident.

The Financial Post reports that Microsoft has released a patch for Explorer to secure the breach through which someone was able to target Google and other companies. Instead of releasing it on Tuesdays, as they have done with other patches, this patch was made available as soon as it was ready.

As expected, Google's presence in China and their threat to pull out continues to be addressed in the political arena. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made unrestricted Internet access a top foreign-policy priority and urged China to investigate cyber intrusions that led Google Inc. to threaten to pull out of that country, the Wall Street Journal reports which also reported on China's reaction to Clinton's statements.

It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds.

Stephen King on Censorship

Photo Credit: Tabitha King

The Official Stephen King Web Site includes a column about censorship that was first published as a Guest Column in the March 20, 1992 issue of The Bangor Daily News.

While this is an older column, it is well worth reading the full text. What I found especially valuable is its advice to all parties involved in a censorship issue. This is what Stephen King would say if he felt he needed to take time out from his work to defend it.

First, to the kids: There are people in your home town who have taken certain books off the shelves of your school library. Do not argue with them; do not protest; do not organize or attend rallies to have the books put back on their shelves. Don't waste your time or your energy. Instead, hustle down to your public library, where these frightened people's reach must fall short in a democracy, or to your local bookstore, and get a copy of what has been banned. Read it carefully and discover what it is your elders don't want you to know. In many cases you'll finish the banned book in question wondering what all the fuss was about. In others, however, you will find vital information about the human condition. It doesn't hurt to remember that John Steinbeck, J.D. Salinger, and even Mark Twain have been banned in this country's public schools over the last 20 years.

Second, to the parents in these towns: There are people out there who are deciding what your kids can read, and they don't care what you think because they are positive their ideas of what's proper and what's not are better, clearer than your own. Do you believe they are? Think carefully before you decide to accord the book-banners this right of cancellation, and remember that they don't believe in democracy but rather in a kind of intellectual autocracy. If they are left to their own devices, a great deal of good literature may soon disappear from the shelves of school libraries simply because good books -- books that make us think and feel -- always generate controversy.

If you are not careful and diligent about defending the right of your children to read, there won't be much left, especially at the junior-high level where kids really begin to develop a lively life of the mind, but books about heroic boys who come off the bench to hit home runs in the bottom of the ninth and shy girls with good personalities who finally get that big prom date with the boy of their dreams. Is this what you want for your kids, keeping in mind that controversy and surprise -- sometimes even shock -- are often the whetstone on which young minds are sharpened?

Third, to the other interested citizens of these towns: Please remember that book-banning is censorship, and that censorship in a free society is always a serious matter -- even when it happens in a junior high, it is serious. A proposal to ban a book should always be given the gravest consideration. Book-banners, after all, insist that the entire community should see things their way, and only their way. When a book is banned, a whole set of thoughts is locked behind the assertion that there is only one valid set of values, one valid set of beliefs, one valid perception of the world. It's a scary idea, especially in a society which has been built on the ideas of free choice and free thought.

Well said!

Toni Morrison Burn This Book

Toni Morrison's books have been challenged on a consistent basis. Hear what she has to say about censorship. According to an Associated Press article by Hillel Italie,

Morrison, 78, has long experience with censorship. Her novels "Beloved," "Song of Solomon" and "The Bluest Eye" have frequently been threatened with removal from library shelves — and sometimes pulled — because of sexual, racial or violent content.

Burn This Book is a collection of essays on censorship, edited by Toni Morrison and published in May 2009. Read a review at "Travels of a Bookworm" and check out the links, including one to an excerpt of Burn This Book.



Updated: Kathryn, one of our readers suggests that we sign the petition at The Right to Read. Thanks, Kathryn.

Join us in reading banned and challenged books. The Banned Book Challenge continues until June 30. Set your own goal.

#amazonfail

Image by John Coulthart



The Twitter and blog world is abuzz with news of Amazon's removal of rankings to books with "adult" themes, including books with gay and lesbian themes but also books such as "The Joy of Sex." The ranking system does not mean that books are unavailable but that they do not show up in a search for bestsellers. MetaWriter includes a comprehensive list of the books affected.

A question from self-published author Mark R. Probst, who noticed that his book had lost its ranking elicited this reply:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude “adult” material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Amazon has since identified the problem as a "glitch" and is working to reinstate books that have been removed. Simon Bisson, blogging at Technology, Books, and Other Neat Stuff explains why it might be a nightmare for Amazon to fix.

In the latest news, a hacker is claiming responsibility for the removal of the tags, according to "Why It Makes Sense That a Hacker's Behind Amazon's Big Gay Outrage," an online article on ValleyWag. If this is indeed true, a few lines of code have created an incredible stir. According to the article, another programmer has debunked the myth.

In the meantime, questions are being raised about the consequences of having such a huge company have within its power the ability to decide which books should be ranked and which are deemed somehow dangerous to society.

It will be interesting to see how this drama unfolds.

Links to the buzz:

#amazonfail on Twitter
IT World
LA Times
CNET News
Jezebel.com
Publisher's Weekly
Booksquare.com who writes an open letter to Amazon
Entertainment Weekly News Briefs
Ubonchat.com, a collection of links
John Coultart who provides an interesting timeline to date
Edrants.Com

While the world waits to see the outcome of this drama, why not take the "Banned Book Challenge" with the Pelham Public Library. The challenge runs until June 30.

Legal Issues in Libraries

Jessica Merritt shares a column on "25 Important Legal Issues Every Librarian Should Research" at Best Colleges Online, reminding librarians that there are important legal issues to consider. A number of points are relevant to censorship issues, especially in the United States, including the ones below:

• Filters: Many public libraries are under pressure to filter Internet access to patrons. Whether or not you do so can have legal implications for your library.


• Freedom of information: According to the First Amendment, the government is allowed to restrict information in the library. Find out what you can do about it and how you have to comply.


• Children on the Internet: Your library may be held responsible for offensive content accessed using the library’s computers, so it’s important to find out how to protect yourself.


• Hate meetings: Your library’s meeting rooms and computers may be used in order to spread and promote hateful speech and thoughts. Additionally, you may find that hateful literature is requested. Find out how to deal with this issue before it comes up.


• Book removal: Librarians have to be careful about removing books from a library’s collection. You will find that you often do not have unrestricted authority to remove offensive library books from your library.


• Banned books: Many books can be offensive to library patrons and parents of young patrons that visit your library, and books are often challenged by groups and individuals. How you deal with the removal or preservation of a book is important.


• Bulletin boards: Your library’s bulletin boards may be used as a community resource, so it’s important to consider whether or not you’re violating free speech with your bulletin board policy.


• FBI in the library: The FBI can use your library as a resource for investigating the public’s usage of your resources, so it’s important to know how to deal with it. One librarian has come up with a few technically legal signs that you can use to let patrons know they may be monitored.

In any country, it is wise to know what the law is and to be proactive by having good policies in place. Educate your staff to know how to follow through.

Banned Books Week in the US

Banned Books Week in the United States is September 27 - October 4, 2008. Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year. It is the 27th anniversary of this annual ALA event which is is sponsored by the American Booksellers Association, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Association of American Publishers, National Association of College Stores, and is endorsed by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress.

Visit the ALA (American Library Association)web site for ideas on how to commemorate the week, resources, and for lists of banned or challenged books.

"The F Word" Free Documentary

THE F WORD follows radio DJ Joe Pace, who is being forced off the air after racking up $1 million in unpaid FCC indecency fines. For his final show, Joe takes to the streets of New York to cover the protests around the Republican National Convention, discovering that the city’s politics are as diverse as its residents. Combining fictional scenes set among actual protests with documentary footage of real people, director Jed Weintrob weaves a seamless narrative about America’s struggle to find the balance between preserving national security and protecting free speech.

Jingjing and Chacha, China's Censors

Canadian Joann Dionne, has written an interesting book that chronicles her year as a teacher in China. She gives some insight into the everyday life of China in Little Emperors: A Year with the Future of China. In the Epilogue, she includes information on the Chinese authorities and censorship, stating that there are over thirty thousand cyber cops monitoring the 162 million Internet users. She talks about the Internet avatars which pop up on computer screens to remind users that they are being watched.

Chinese cyber police also get help from their Internet avatars, the wide-eyed manga-esque cartoons Jingjing and Chacha. Jingjing is a boy police officer. Chacha is a girl. Their names come from the Mandarin work jingcha or police in English....Beneath the big, watchful eyes of Jingjing and Chacha, Chinese Internet users must be careful not to type "remember Tiananmen [sic] Square," "free Tibet," or "Falun Gong forever" in their emails, or criticize anything bigger than Starbucks on their blogs. If they do, the real jingcha just might come knocking at their door. Jingjing and Chacha encourage people using the Internet in China to censor themselves, saving those thirty thousand cyber cobs a whole lot of work.

Wikipedia includes an entry and China Digital Times has an entry blog from the day the characters first appeared in the main portals of Shenzhen city, Guangdong.



Speaking of China, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China has published a list of incidents of interference from Chinese authorities. While this list covers the last few years, it is interesting to see how freedom of information has been curtailed during the Olympics, in particular.

A Question of Censorship

Fahrenheit 451 welcomes guest blogger Heather Johnson.

The word censorship conjures up an image of a pair of scissors, but no, the chopping and patching together of movies to come up with a suitable ratings certificate is not the subject under debate here; we’re talking something that has a further reach than movies – Schools. History has seen its share of censorship over the centuries and decades. Conspiracy theories abound about self-professed leaders and despots burning entire libraries to prevent information from being passed on to the generations to come. In the recent past, we’ve seen controversy dog novels both as benign as the Harry Potter series and as inflammatory as Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons.

I’m sure there are existent rules and policies that decide what one should censor and what one should allow when it comes to teaching children. But even after a lot of research on this contentious subject, all I’m left with are more questions rather than answers I was seeking:

• What is it that makes human beings decide on the right to information?


• In the case of children, who decides what’s right and wrong in terms of information that’s accessible by or taught to students?


• Are libraries and curricula the only sources of children’s information?


• By censoring schoolbooks and restricting the kind of books allowed in the school library, are we doing our children a disservice or are we protecting them?


• In this age of free and ready information on the Internet, is it worth the time, effort and hassles associated with implementing censorship at schools?


• The human psyche is programmed to want what is denied to it – so the more you stress that an activity is forbidden or a subject taboo, the more the adolescent or child wants to explore it for himself. So when a topic or book or subject is censored from the curriculum or library, word gets around, and isn’t it true that the kids are all agog with curiosity to know what the fuss is all about?


• Rather than censoring information outright, is it a better option to teach children to process and assimilate it and decide for themselves if it’s right or wrong or if there are any acceptable shades of grey in between?


• Who decides at what age children should be allowed access to any information without any form of censorship? Parents or teachers? If both sets of adults are unable to reach a compromise, who wins? Is it the voice that’s the loudest or the one that has more say in the child’s upbringing?


• How long can we keep protecting our children anyway? Isn’t it better that we taught them about touchy subjects like sex instead of having them learn from their peers who are not experts on the subject or from other sources that are not the best teachers?

It’s difficult to reach a satisfactory consensus or conclusion on so contentious a subject; maybe it’s a matter of individual opinion and varies from one person to another.

This article is contributed by Heather Johnson, who regularly writes on the topic of instant degrees. She invites your questions and writing opportunities at her personal email address: heatherjohnson2323 at gmail dot com.

Goodbye George Carlin

He made us laugh. He challenged our social norms, pointed out our idiosyncrasies, and ranted about our hypocrisies. He also pushed the edges of what was acceptable comedy, paving the way for the next generations of comedians to follow. He passed away on the weekend at the age of 71.

One of George Carlin's monologues, "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television," got him arrested and eventually the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. This was considered a landmark indecency case after New York's WBAI-FM radio aired it in 1973. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the sketch was "indecent but not obscene." This led to the Federal Communications Commission receiving a lot more leeway in determining what constituted indecency on the airwaves.

Carlin was quoted as saying,

So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of. In the context of that era, it was daring. I don't want to go around describing myself as a 'groundbreaker' or a 'difference-maker' because I'm not and I wasn't but I contributed to people who were saying things that weren't supposed to be said.

Read more and see clips of various monologues on the George Carlin web site.Rest in peace, George Carlin. The world is a better place because of your comedy.

Canada's Hate Literature Law

Back in 2007, author Mark Steyn was summoned to appear before the Canadian courts for statements made in his book America Alone. Styen argues argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. In the book, Steyn predicts that Muslims will swarm over Europe, ban alcohol and put women in veils. Maclean's magazine printed an excerpt in October, 2006 that outraged Islamic Canadians, who complained to human-rights tribunals in Ottawa and the provinces. The article entitled, "The Future Belongs to Islam," has been blasted by Muslim critics for spreading “Islamophobia.” As the trial continues, a history of the incident can be found in this search of Globe and Mail articles on Mark Steyn.

Also of interest in this censorship issue are Mark Steyn's Blog , the original Maclean's article by Mark Steyn, and information on the Hate Literature Legislation from the Canadian Parliament.

Part of Mark Steyn's marketing plan includes the words, "Soon to be banned in Canada" on the cover of his book."

Anniversary of Nazi Book Burnings

Where they have burned books, they will end in burning humans.

— German Poet Heinrich Heine, 1820

The TribStar of Terre Haute, Indiana features Bruce's History Lessons which is about the Nazi book burnings. On May 10, 1933, the Nazi party in Germany held a nation-wide bonfire during which 25,000 books went up in flames. Anything considered "un-German in spirit" that did not line up with Germany's political and social goals was censored. The German Student Association developed an “Action Against the Un-German Spirit” campaign that saw student members of the Nazi Party participating in town by town book burnings. Censorship eventually began to be applied to more than books and included “un-German” music, paintings, photographs, plays, films, newspapers and magazines. were banned or censored, and then religious groups, cultural institutions and political parties.

As Bruce Kaufmann puts it so eloquently,

And finally, as Heinrich Heine predicted a century earlier, Jews and other “un-German” people (gypsies, Slavs, the mentally and physically handicapped) were themselves banned, censored, and — in the crematoriums at Auschwitz, Dachau and elsewhere — burned.

Don't forget to check out the Pelham Public Library's "Banned Book Challenge."

Words Without Borders Literary Tour

(Graphic VU Weekly)
Edmonton's Vue Weekly recently featured an article entitled Writers Without Borders which highlights speakers who were recently on tour with PEN Canada’s Words Without Borders: a literary tour for freedom of expression.

Rita Espeschit, a children's author originally from Brazil, explains that Canada is not exempt from censorship on a couple of levels.

The challenged books that you see here are usually children’s books. All those Christian parents who don’t like something want [books about that subject] banned from schools. In the area of writing for children, there’s almost an institutionalised self-censorship that happens, not just on the level of writing but at the editing level, too. Publishers are very sensitive about anything people would get angry about in a book. [This anger] is too carefully avoided; there’s a sterilized universe to the books that’s not real life.

While Canada is not exempt from censorship, authors do not experience the kinds of consequences that authors in repressive countries experience. Jalal Barazanji, a poet and journalist from Iraq spent three years in jail for his writing. Now living in Canada, he has taken a position in Edmonton as their first “writer-in-exile.”

Other authors on the tour include: David Albahari, a writer and translator from Serbia and Sheng Xue, of China who moved to Canada soon after the June 4th Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Don't forget to check out the Pelham Public Library's "Banned Book Challenge."

Horror of Horrors

A couple of days ago, I was replenishing the Banned and Challenged Book display at the library and saw a new copy of Tom Sawyer. I happily dropped it down, satisfied that a nicely illustrated paperback had a good chance of going out. Yesterday, I happened to pick it up and that's when I noticed that it was ABRIDGED!

I had a sudden flashback to my teaching career (as a student teacher) when I was told to give the children bits and pieces of Tom Sawyer with canned questions ready to mark from the key in the back of the book. The stories had had anything remotely offensive removed from them and the "n-word" was gone. I couldn't bear to read Tom Sawyer with the children without talking about the issue of racism. I tried to put the book into a context for them.

So, the dilemma for me now is: Should this "whitewashed" version, now found in the library, catalogued, and all ready to go be left in the collection. Although it indicates that it is abridged, Mark Twain's name is prominent on the cover and there is little indication of what the editor has done. Is this a true representation of the book written by Mark Twain?

I'm sure it was purchased by accident. Should it remain in the collection? What do you think?

Download the full, authentic version of Tom Sawyer at Project Gutenberg.

I believe the publisher of the "safe" book is Simon and Schuster and they have also issued a "safe" Curriculum Guide for Tom Sawyer, which interestingly enough deals with issues of depictions of masculinity and femininity, the tension between childhood and adulthood, and of diction and slang and how they can be clues to understanding the characters. No mention of race or colour is discussed.