[238] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Imus Today, YouTube Tomorrow?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Sat Apr 14 02:48:49 2007
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200704140524.l3E5O3iA017282@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Imus Today, YouTube Tomorrow?
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000224.html )
Greetings. I've never been a fan of John Donald "Don" Imus, Jr., nor
of most other "shock jocks" who have paralleled his radio career in
various ways -- some of whom have taken their own (not always
permanent) falls from the airwaves. I personally find the sort of
baiting that is so frequently the staple of their programs to be
distasteful, a coarsening of dialogue that pushes society ever
farther into yelling at each other rather than having reasonable
discussions.
Be that as it may, I find Imus' own sudden fall to be particularly
disturbing as a possible harbinger of major Internet risks to come,
particularly affecting free speech.
Broadcasting giants like NBC and CBS are of course free to make
whatever legal business decisions they see fit, however hypocritical
they may seem in this case, given the continuing flow of hateful
music lyrics that bring in the big bucks and cause Imus' now
notorious comment to pale by comparison.
So was it really concern about ethics that drove the networks'
decisions, or rather a much more straightforward business calculation
about threatened boycotts driven by solemn-sounding speeches by the
self-proclaimed "masters of morality" -- loudly demanding advertiser
and even FCC action? That some of the most visible personages
calling for Imus' blood have themselves closets full of hateful
skeletons didn't seem to matter as the 24-hour news cycle ramped up
the volume.
But this is all but a single note in a much more nightmarish tune
that is starting to take shape. The morality guardians are pushing
the envelope in every direction, and even well-meaning beginnings
could easily turn toward theocratical oppression, particularly where
the Internet is concerned.
Farfetched? Let's keep recent history in mind. We've seen forces
inside and outside of government pushing DOJ and the FCC for ever
broader regulation of "dirty words" and "wardrobe malfunctions" --
working hard to "protect" us from the evils of sexual thoughts, while
the blood continues to flow freely in Iraq. Indeed, there are many
ways to define obscenity.
But we're also hearing calls to expand regulation beyond obscenity
to include "racist," "hateful," or "sexist" speech, and not just on
the broadcast airwaves but on cable and satellite as well.
Once we've made that leap -- or even before -- the Internet will be
even more directly in the crosshairs, and the most obvious targets
will be the biggest ones -- the video sites like Google's YouTube,
and even the search engine and caching functions of Google itself
and similar competing operations. Even arguing that one is merely
organizing information in the case of search engines will never
satisfy those who would attempt to impose ever broader censorship in
the name of popular morality.
Keep in mind that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is still
bouncing around in the courts, and may someday bounce out into the
real world with a devastating dumbing down and eviscerating of many
U.S. Internet sites, at least those operating openly.
This goes far beyond sex and morality wars. We're seeing increasing
cases of government-imposed censorship attempts, sometimes of an
international reach. Thailand and Turkey are two very recent
examples, and "offensive" YouTube materials are now becoming a
popular target of removal demands from national governments, based
on their local sensibilities. Attempts to block Internet materials
of course involve other countries as well, most notably China,
despite the inefficacy of such efforts in the long run, given the
mutability of the Internet and the ease with which underground sites
can be established.
But that's not to say that this rush toward censorship won't be
incredibly disruptive even as it leaks profusely, as various targets
will be chosen for prosecutorial or other damaging attention to
"be made examples of" for the education of the masses.
Perhaps we've seen the first clear inkling of how that might come to
pass as we review the case of Imus, for in his fall we clearly see
the forces of censorship girding their loins for action, and nailing
Imus, for all his faults and distasteful comments over the years,
to a cross that was hastily erected in opportunistic glee.
We can be sure that there's plenty more wood and nails being
collected and made ready, so long as we allow ourselves to be
bullied by those who would disintegrate ever more aspects of our
precious free speech, in the name of their own perceived
righteousness.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Founder, CIFIP
- California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
