Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 19

Rafique Tucker at Liberal War Journal is bemoaning the use of "Rovian" tactics by lefty blogger Mike Rogers, who is busy "outing" Republican congressmen. OK, one Republican congressman. Rafique says the tactic smacks of McCarthyism.

Reader_iam at Done with Mirrors tells a kafkaesque tale of the limits of free speech on campuses, which is unfortunately becoming all too common. It appears classrooms are free speech zones, but office doors aren't. Dave Barry is verboten, a truly offensive subversive.

Will Garth Turner go Green? Devon Rowcliffe has an interesting and well-researched post on the topic.


Technorati tags: Mike Rogers, Garth Turner

YouTube Pornography and Hypocrisy

There has been a great fuss in the blogosphere lately about Michelle Malkin's censored YouTube video. From Michelle's website:

Back in February, you may remember, I cobbled together a little mini-movie called "First, They Came" inspired by the Mohammed Cartoon riots. It's a simple slideshow highlighting the victims of Islamic violence over the years. We posted it at YouTube a while ago. No problems. Until last week, when I received this e-mail: ...

Suffice it to say that YouTube pulled the video for inappropriate content. (And no, I don't normally read Michelle and I don't know what the original video was like. That isn't really the point, as you will see.)

Now I found YouTube's action very peculiar, because a YouTube employee made it quite clear some time ago that there was no way they could police the content on their site and that they don't even try.

However, an employee of YouTube called Think & Ask following publication of "Fetish Videos Land on Family Entertainment Website YouTube" and for that individual's own protection we agreed not to publish the informant's name or gender. The company has relatively few, but tightly knit employees.

"It [pornography] was bound to happen, but we don't have the [manual] resources to control what people post here," the informant said.

"For our future business model the issue is very sticky. I'm sure upper management won't comment for that reason," the informant said.

It would appear that they have plenty of time for political censorship, but can't be bothered with sifting out porn.

"Rev." Billy Gisher of Those Bastards (The Meanest Weblog on the Web) declared war on YouTube on August 15. He was upset by the fact that about 80% of the videos on YouTube are pornographic, that they are readily viewable by any child surfing the Internet, and that YouTube refuses to do anything about it.

So Gisher started informing the advertisers (including WalMart, the Girl Guides of America, and just about any large corporation you can think of) that their ads were appearing with pornographic content. He had screen captures in hand to prove his point. A good number of advertisers started pulling ads. You can read the whole saga over on their website, although I think it only fair to warn you that it's not family viewing. He includes largish thumbnails of screen captures.

Gisher proposed a simple method to YouTube to restrict access by children, but needless to say, they haven't implemented it. He's now started to put "real reverends" on the case, concluding he just doesn't have enough clout on his own. He cites a New York Times interview with one of the founders of YouTube, Chad Hurley:

Yesterday evening, I took notice of this interview published on September 30, 2006 in the New York Times. Chad Hurley, one of the founders of YouTube, spoke with their reporters and editors to answer some questions, which were excerpted to compile this story, from which I have extracted the following question and response:

Times staff: "But you said a vast majority of your stuff was user-generated and kind of wacky unpredictable stuff. Why would an advertiser want to be next to something where it might be something disgusting?"

Chad Hurley: "Well, I think it's the nature of the Internet. There's not really any safe places on the Internet. And they just want to get in front of audiences.....And I think they're just looking for new opportunities to get in front of an audience, and that's what we're providing for them."

I think that Chad Hurley's comments come as close as you possibly can to stating that he believes most major advertisers care more about getting their message in front of an audience than they do about offending their audience.

(The NYT didn't pursue this line of questioning, perhaps because they themselves advertise on YouTube. No possibility of disinterested journalism here.)

Gisher has been on this story for about two months now, contacting advertisers on a daily basis, reporting their reactions and refusing to give up on the issue. He wants this material to be made inaccessible to children and is doing everything he can to see it happen. Despite his online moniker, there is nothing reverend about him, nor about the group blog he is part of, so opponents are going to have a difficult time characterizing this as coming from some uptight religious prude.

Technorati tags: Billy Gisher, YouTube porn, YouTube, Michelle Malkin

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 3

I still haven't figured out how the Anchoress manages to sound so passionate and so reasonable at the same time (very rare combination), but she's doing it again with her rant on free speech.

Amba at Ambivablog is citing experiments with Botox that add extra evidence for the theory that your facial expressions affect your mood.

No, not even big brother Egypt can hammer sense into the head of Hamas. Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters comments on Hamas' refusal to accept a prisoner swap for Shalit.

Technorati tags: Botox, Gilad Shalit

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sept. 22

Steve Janke at Angry in the Great White North is on a bit of a roll today. He has caught the NDP in a flagrant misprepresentation of President Karzai's opinion of Canadian military operations in Afghanistan, which they have ironically titled Reality Check. This one is downright slimy.

The Anchoress assesses the Day of Rage that ended with more of a whimper than a bang and sees some cause for hope.

Steve Janke at Angry in the Great White North posts about a "scary native leader," and commenter Sandra informs him that Chief Louie is not at all uncommon in British Columbia.

John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia links to one of the thoughtful Muslim responses to Pope Benedict's recent lecture in Regensburg. Amir Taheri first takes issue with the violent reactions to the speech and then takes issue with the speech itself, debating its points in an academic manner.

Reader_iam at Done With Mirrors highlights the case of a Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who may soon pay with his life for his calls for tolerance and understanding between different faiths, most notably with Jews. She is particularly incensed that no one in the West seems to be picking up his cause.

Technorati tags: Pope Benedict, Choudhury, NDP

Padded cell vs. open road

Open letter to MP John Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper


Dear Sirs,

The Anti-terrorism Act is coming up for review. This law was passed hastily in the aftermath of 9/11 and contains some of the most alarming provisions ever enacted in a Canadian Parliament.

I have been impressed by the level-headedness and willingness to act according to principle that your government has demonstrated. Could you please use both in retooling this act?

Security certificates and the extremely broad wording limiting freedom of the press are especially troubling, as they dangerously undermine the foundational values of a free society. Allowing this legislation to be reintroduced in its present form would leave a legacy of open doors for legally sanctioned despotism. While you may have no intention of abusing the possibilities of this highly regressive act (although one could argue that any use at all is abuse), you cannot guarantee the actions of your successors.

I am confident that there are ways to protect our society from terrorism without sacrificing our most fundamental principles: freedom of speech, presumption of innocence and open trials.

I for one, am willing to accept some measure of risk in protecting these principles. Padded cells may be safe and even comfortable, but I prefer the risk of the open road.

On a related note, I believe it is high time that charges against Juliet O'Neill were dropped. This was a shameful move by the previous government and it dishonours you to allow it to continue.

Respectfully,

Technorati tags: Juliet O'Neill, Anti-Terrorism Act

Is Jahanbegloo's confession real after all?

Although I have expressed my skepticism regarding Ramin Jahanbegloo's confession, as have the majority of commentators, Hossein Derakhshan has another opinion, and it's not easily dismissed. He's not a shill for the Iranian government, and knows Jahanbegloo personally. He presents his case at Open Democracy.

He argues first of all that Ramin's confession did not follow the standard template that most coerced confessions in Iran do.

Then his next point, that he realized that his research for think tanks was actually serving the interests of those who wanted to overthrow the Iranian government:

Jahanbegloo describes how this research gradually led to a strengthening of his ties with these think-tanks, and how he eventually realised that the main people interested in the research were intelligence officials and those associated with the United States state department, who sought to use it to help form their polices towards Iran.

Derakhshan does not seem to be entirely convinced himself of this point.

He then wraps up his argument with a very interesting analysis of changes within the Iranian security establishment, which alone makes his article worth the read.

Technorati tags: Jahanbegloo

Details of Jahanbegloo's "confession"

Almost immediately after his release, the Iranian intellectual made a statement that US institutions should refrain from contacting prominent Iranians.

Jahanbegloo told the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) in an interview on Tuesday, barely hours after his release from Tehran's notorious Evin prison, that contacting Iranians could result in putting them in danger of acting against their country's security. He accepted that this may have happened to him. Arrested on his way back from a seminar in India at Tehran airport on Apr. 25, Jahanbegloo is now out on 'heavy' bail. Curiously, one of his first acts was to pop into the offices of the ISNA and offer an interview, saying he trusted the agency.

To me, this sounds like code for "putting them in danger with their government." This impression is further strengthened by his subsequent remarks.

He cited contacts with U.S. think tanks as one reason for his arrest. "My relations with foreign institutions started in 1999 when I went to Canada and then to Harvard university," Jahanbegloo said. "But the chain of events leading to my arrest started when I got a fellowship from the National Endowment for Democracy which gets its budget from U.S. Congress and mostly investigates the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Later it was proposed that I do a comparative study of Iranian and East European intellectuals for them. I was arrested before I gave them the results of that research," he told ISNA.

His confession is being greeted with some sceptism in Iran, despite his assurances that he had not been tortured.

"The hard line part of the Iranian state considers the reformist movement and the contacts of individuals with circles abroad that want to strengthen civil society as attempts to undermine the Islamic republic. They call their activities 'attempts at a soft overthrow'," says an analyst in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Jahanbegloo, women's rights and civil society activists and their like are seen as people attempting to very slowly and gradually empty the Islamic republic of its revolutionary and religious content. Jahanbegloo has confessed that he had done research for the Marshall Fund on the characteristics of the movements leading to the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe. The Islamic republic is so sensitive to the idea of similar attempts being made here," he says.

"Jahanbegloo is highly respected in intellectual circles and by the Iranian elite, but he was also the weakest link in the elite chain. He was not affiliated to any important political groups, nor had any revolutionary portfolio or connections to anyone influential within the system itself. He had lots of contacts with foreign entities. It was much easier and less costly for the regime to arrest him than say, for instance, Akbar Ganji, Abbas Abdi or Hashem Aghajari," the analyst says.

"Arresting Jahanbegloo was the most effective message to the intellectual elite here to know they are watched carefully and closely by the intelligence bodies of the Islamic republic and that they could be confronted seriously. The arrest and the confession could provide the Islamic republic with the opportunity to silence the elite and to reduce their relations with foreign entities to the lowest possible level. All these can very well serve to give the Islamic republic immunity to a 'velvet revolution', as Jahanbegloo was said to have been plotting,'' he added.

Jahanbegloo is not out of the woods yet. He is only out on bail, and must still stand trial. The Canadian government is declining further comment until they've heard from him personally.

Rasool Nafisi explains how the regime has found a more subtle form of pressure for intellectuals than the violence that Kazemi suffered: "bail" is their houses and their mothers' houses. If they do not respect their conditions, their mother is out on the street. Charming.

This new tactic seems to be more effective than old-fashioned television confessions, after which almost all those released reversed their statements, thus making a mockery of such orchestrated public performances. The strong bonds in Iranian families, and the fact that in most cases its house is the only property an urban family owns, mean that great psychological as well as financial pressure is exerted: the prospect of homelessness, especially for ageing family members, is intensely worrying.

In the case of Ramin Jahanbegloo, it seems that he was promised freedom and a passport if he gave an interview to "an agency of his choice", in order to tell them "just what he has confessed under interrogation." The offer had a twist: to make sure that Ramin would keep his side of the bargain, he had to post two houses as bail � his mother's as well as his own. The student news agency interview was the result.

The conclusions to be drawn are too obvious to require further comment.

Technorati tags: Jahanbegloo

Iranian dissident freed [Updated]

The good news is that Ramin Jahanbegloo has been released on bail from an Iranian jail. The bad news is that it apparently required a bogus confession (yes, I'm making a value judgment here) and a prohibition against communicating with foreigners of any kind, especially the media.

Ramin Jahanbegloo is that most dangerous of Iranian dissidents: a Western-educated thinker who believes in dialogue and a secular state. His invitations to Western philosophers for lectures posed such an acute danger to the Iranian government that he obviously had to be jailed for "being involved is US efforts to overthrow the government". Of course.

His dual Canadian/Iranian citizenship probably did him more harm than good, especially in the wake of the Kazemi affair. Canada doesn't exactly have any big sticks to beat Iran with in this kind of case, but the Foreign Minister, Peter Mackay, did take the highly unusual step in June of asking Germany to arrest Iranian Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi, an Iranian official implicated in the murder of the photojournalist, should he set foot in Germany on the way home from Geneva.

Iran did not appreciate the gesture and Mortazavi took a direct flight home.

I applauded the action of the Canadian government at the time. It may not have been a grand gesture, but it did signal to the Iranian government that we would do whatever was in our reach to defend our citizens. Unfortunately there was little we could do in the Jahanbegloo case that wouldn't endanger him further.

***

I'm not the only one questioning the validity of Jahanbegloo's "confession".

Technorati tags: Jahanbegloo, Kazemi

The limits of free speech

"Adolf Hitler was the living instrument of God on Earth." Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, has the legal right to say this. I find it revolting, but I defend his legal right to say it. (No, I am not going to provide any links. I will not do anything at all to direct traffic to his site. Email me if it bothers you.)

Calling Canada a terrorist state that has to go makes me just snort in derision.

But what about this?

There is no actual published threat to kill Richard Warman. He has just made it up.

This means that, when you are searching my websites and looking for it, you will not be able to find it, and I can't send you the URL to it. It does not exist.

The irony here, which no one is grasping, is that there never was any "specific threat to kill Richard Warman" -- just the recommendation that all Jews, which, one would suppose, indirectly includes him, be legally executed after a revolutionary government takes power in Canada.

What annoys him is that I put up his home address, and people who have been threatening to kill him all along apparently have picked up on it. Not my problem.

But what do I think about it if someone uses this knowledge to kill him illegaly (sic)? I wish them luck -- and its (sic) no different to say that than it is to say that you wish Saddam Hussein were killed or the president of Iran were killed or Yassir Arafat were killed, et cetera.

Richard Warman is an Ottawa lawyer who brought a successful suit against Tomasz Winnicki for refusing to stop posting nasty things about non-Caucasians online. One of White's many responses was to publish Warman's address online.

So what do you think? Is this acceptable free speech? Death threats are not legal free speech, not even in the more lenient United States, but White has equivocated around that charge. He doesn't actually string the words together in one place at one time, but his actions have effectively put Warman in danger. "Not my problem." Could somebody south of the 49th please find a way to make it his problem? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there is a loophole here large enough to drive a truck through, if this actually constitutes legal free speech in the United States. Legislators should be taking a look at this.

Even if shutting down his websites would be akin to playing Whack-a-Mole, with new ones popping up as fast as they're shut down, I think it would be worth it. At least it would put a severe dent in his traffic. It takes search engines a while to find new sites.

Google, incidentally, provides this warning at the top of his Blogger-hosted blog:

CONTENT WARNING

Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is hateful. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about this message, please consult our FAQ.

Makes you wonder why Google even bothers with the Flag function on Blogger websites, doesn't it?

Technorati tags: Richard Warman, Bill White