Monthly Archives: June 2012

21-06-2012 16:50 This flashmob was organized by Havaar, Iranian Initiative against War, Sanctions and State Repression. Follow us on Facebook: "Join us as we 'flash mob' against APPLE's discriminatory, undemocratic and unethical policy of not selling products to Iranian people because their country is under economic sanctions by the US Apple has decided that internet freedom, equal rights and free communication are not company policy. We must take this opportunity to raise awareness about how sanctions are themselves human rights violations for depriving people of the digital tools of modern free speech and democracy, as well as, hurting the lives of ordinary people through economic starvation. Also we must take a stand against the growing culture of intolerance against Iranians in the US."

See the article here:
Iranians Flash Mob Against APPLE's Discriminatory - Fifth Ave - Video

It took guts for the New York Times to publish an op-ed by Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who coined the phrase "network neutrality," arguing that the First Amendment doesn't protect the contents of the New York Times website. A significant amount of the content on the Times websitestock tickers, the "most e-mailed" list, various interactive featureswere generated not by human beings, but by computer programs. And, Wu argues, that has constitutional implications:

Protecting a computers "speech" is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny.

OK, I fibbed. The target of Wu's op-ed was Google and Facebook, not the New York Times. But accepting Wu's audacious claim that computer-generated content doesn't deserve First Amendment protection endangers the free speech rights not only of the tech titans, but of every modern media outlet.

No one believes that the output of computer programs, as such, are protected by the First Amendment. It would be ridiculous, for example, to argue that the First Amendment barred the government from regulating a computer that controlled a nuclear power plant. But when a firm is in the business of providing information to the public, that information enjoys First Amendment protection regardless of whether the firm creates the information "by hand," or using a computer.

Wu's argument depends on drawing a sharp distinction between constitutionally protected human speech and computer speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. But closer examination demonstrates how nonsensical this distinction is. To make the point, we don't need to look any further than the grey lady herself.

Articles published by the New York Times are often composed using word processors, and pages in the print newspaper are laid out using page layout software. The nytimes.com website is sent to readers by a Web server (a computer program) and rendered by a Web browser (also a computer program).

Of course, Wu isn't talking about those programs. He means programs that are directly involved in the production or selection of content. But the New York Times website has plenty of examples of those too. The home page features an automated stock ticker. A box on the right-hand side of the page shows "most e-mailed" and "recommended for you" storiesalso generated automatically. The millions of ads the Times shows its readers every month are almost certainly chosen by computer algorithms.

In 2010, the Times produced an interactive feature called "You Fix the Budget." Users were invited to try to balance the US federal budget by choosing a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. A January feature, called "What Percent Are You?," invited readers to enter their household income in order to see how it compares with others in hundreds of metropolitan areas around the country. Features like this would be impossible to create "by hand."

On election night, the Times typically has an extensive section of its website featuring election results from around the country, complete with maps, charts, and poll results. These features are updated in real time, far too quickly for a human staff to keep them up to date.

The Times employs Nate Silver, a statistician who collects thousands of poll results and produces sophisticated mathematical models of election outcomes. These models are complex enough that his results could only be generated by a computer, and indeed even Silver himself can't always explain exactly why the model produces a particular outcome.

Read the original:
Do you lose free speech rights if you speak using a computer?

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange has sought asylum in a country notorious for crackdowns on free speech. Brian Braiker reports.

Julian Assange has defied his bail conditions by taking refuge at the Ecuador embassy in London. (Reuters)

Julian Assange may not have had many options when he was considering where to seek asylum, but still, Ecuador is a far from obvious choice. He faces extradition to Sweden for questioning over alleged sex crimes after Britains top court said last week that it had rejected a legal request to reconsider his case.

Assange was on bail and living with friends before his extradition.

Assange interviewed the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, on the Russia Today TV channel last month. During their exchange, the Australian explained that he had been under house arrest in England for 500 days and elicited sympathy from the left-wing populist leader.

But Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is a counterintuitive refuge for the free-speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuadors justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Amnesty International.

Poorest record of free speech It is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has after Cuba the poorest record of free speech in the region and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research, said Jos Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watchs Americas division.

He pointed out that in April 2011 Ecuador expelled the US ambassador, Heather Hodges, over diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks alleging widespread corruption in the Ecuadorian police. Maybe Assange feels President Correa owes something to him.

Still, the fact remains that free-speech watchdogs are quick to tick off a laundry list of Ecuadors breaches. In a referendum held in May 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain the media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges, Human Rights Watch wrote in its 2011 Ecuador report.

Go here to see the original:
Ecuador an odd choice for Assange

20-06-2012 14:42 Free speech zones, always controversial and vaguely Orwellian, have been dealt a blow by a federal judge, telling the University of Cincinnati that they must revise their policies of barring protestors from 99.9% of the campus grounds. Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks and John Iadarola discuss on TYT University. Do you think this could be the beginning of the end for these controversial free speech zones? Are Ana and John being too hard on the University? Or is the use of these zones as bad as they think? Let us know! And if you liked this video, "Like" it as well! 🙂 Subscribe to TYT U for more Submit a video to TYT U! We love hearing from students and faculty Follow us on twitter!!! TAGS: "free speech zones" "free speech" "orwellian" "free speech in america" "free country" "university of cincinnati" "cincinnati" "free speech ruling" "the young turks" "tyt university"

More:
"Free Speech Zones" SLAPPED Down at U Cincinnati - Video