Your College Newspaper

Think that college newspapers are by definition examples of dissident press (or at least more dissident then mainstream media)? Not that naive? Perhaps you just think that college papers are subject to lesser degrees of censorship then the fluff that passed for journalism in the your high school’s paper? At one time, I might have agreed with the latter statement, but laws involving freedom of the press for college students seems to be backsliding. Case in point: Hosty vs. Carter – a court case that resulted when the undergraduate and graduate student staff of a college paper called The Innovator were informed by their Dean that they could not make any more copies of their paper until she approved the issue and its contents. The Dean’s motives: apparently The Innovator had published some articles about a few less then spectacular professors at the University of Illinois, and the aggravations students had felt when dealing with the school’s administration. Angered by what they viewed to be a clear violation of their constitutional rights, The Innovator editors took the Dean to court. Initially, the Dean was held responsible for her actions despite her crafty defense strategy (claiming she didn’t know better), but the ruling did not hold. The case was later re-heard by an 11 judge panel which dismissed the student’s complaints and pardoned the Dean’s actions in a 7-4 vote. The 7 judges who voted in favor of the Dean argued that she could not be sued for breaking a law that was not clearly established. My concerns about this case are best articulated by Mark Goodman of the Student Press Law Center, "The fact that seven appellate court judges said in essence college students can be treated like teenagers is very disturbing (Giuffo)." More importantly it raises the question..... If they are going to treat us like children, shouldn’t we at least get naptime?

For more information, check out the whole story on the Village Voice website:

http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0531,education3,66452,12.html

Scientists in the United States have been pressured to censor their findings. Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Massachusetts over the Environmental Protection Agency. The case questions whether the EPA is obliged to regulate carbon dioxide, a major component of greenhouse gases, as an air pollutant. What most people do not know however is that the case is also about censorship and the distortion of science for political purposes.

Although this is changing as more overwhelming evidence of global warming worldwide surfaces, to please its friends in the oil industry, the current United States administration pretends that global warming isn’t a big deal. In fact, the very words "global warming" have been excised from official reports, and government scientists have been instructed not to speak about the topic in public, except to express officially sanctioned positions.

The head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, a lawyer with no science background and a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, routinely altered reports to cast doubt on the scientific evidence for global warming. (He has since unsurprisingly taken a job with Exxon Mobil Corporation.) The EPA also ditched a whole chapter on global warming in a major report on the environment, because the White House demanded skeptical language that EPA scientists said was not scientifically accurate.

Now, in the Supreme Court, the EPA argues the same thing: that there is too much uncertainty about climate change to justify regulation of heat-trapping gases. According to the Government’s brief, "the science of global climate change is evolving and remains subject to substantial debate and uncertainties..."

This position is refuted by a group of renowned scientists who specialize in environmental issues, including two Nobel prize winners, directors of major federal programs on climate science. As well as scientists who participated in the very report the government cites in its brief, from the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists believe that the government either misunderstands the NAS report or is misrepresenting it, and that the evidence of global warming is "so compelling that it has crystallized a remarkable consensus within the scientific community: climate warming is happening, and human activities are very likely a significant causal factor"

Censoring science is a horrible act, not just based on principle, or because the Constitution prohibits it. It’s bad because suppressing science keeps us from responding to a reality that won’t change just because we ignore it.

CBC Radio has come out with a new broadcast CENSOR THIS!, interesting and easy to understand documentary series that tries to show the worldwide quest for censor free expression in news, arts, and science. This series airs Feb. 18 through Saturday, Feb. 24.

Censorships impact on society has been documented throughout history and continues to restrict the flow of information to the public, filtering expression through a variety of communication mediums. CENSOR THIS! Has global power because programs look at censorship in Canada and beyond. CBC foreign correspondents file reports on the issue throughout the week from locations as diverse as Bali, Syria, South Africa and Thailand. In Western culture, freedom of expression has often been taken for granted and CBC suggest that listeners may be surprised and unaware of the extent to which individuals around the world have endured persecution to convey their message.

A especially interesting part of the one-hour documentary, also titled CENSOR THIS!, explores music as an pathway for unique expression, and the conflict that arises between musicians and their censors. It airs on CBC Radio One, Thursday, Feb. 22 at 8 p.m. (8:30 p.m. NT), and will be re-broadcast on CBC Radio Two on March 3 to mark the International Day of Music and Censorship.

Sometimes, when I’m trying to decide on a topic or thesis for an academic paper, I call my father to talk. Sometimes it’s because I’m drawing a blank, sometimes it’s to bounce an idea off him, and in the case of a year ago, to argue my way to a breakthrough. In this particular case, I had signed up for the general topic of censorship, but was struggling to choose a focus to research and write about. My first instinct was to write something about music censorship. It seemed a natural progression for me. After all, I am an audio production major, and having recently completed a course entitled the “History of Rock and Roll”, I knew plenty of background on artists who had been censored throughout American history. Music censorship, however, was still too broad a topic; so I called my father for ideas. A spirited discussion began, but it led only to my frustration. He claimed music censorship no longer existed, an opinion with which I disagreed. He was stubborn about it and wouldn’t listen, making it difficult to let the conversation evolve into an idea that I could base a paper on. Writing the paper, I came to understand why he couldn’t see it. Today’s music censorship looks a lot different then that of my father’s time.

One thing that has changed dramatically is the censors themselves. Today’s biggest music censor is Clear Channel. They control what you hear and when. They control what bands make it on the air, and as a result what CDs and concert tickets sell. Clear channel tells you what you like. To learn more about the Clear Channel monopoly, and the damage that they do, simply type clear channel into any search engine. You don’t have to do much digging. The articles and websites are limitless. [They do far worse then simply subjecting you to Creed and Ashley Simpson]

The File Room

Censorship is an act of an authority trying to stifle a voice. Our democratic society demands that each voice be heard. The interactive website -- half webart installation, half public forum, thefileroom.org is an example of the internet dispersing authority and allowing all voices to be heard. Not every single post by every single person is what you would think of as a classic situation of censorship but it doesshow that censorship is problem that demands activisim. Censorship did not stop with the victorian age, it doesn't just pertain to pornography or illicit materials. This website shows that even the "mainstream" can be targeted by groups . . . Harry Potter for instance has been quite the target for various church groups. The only way to combat censorship is to get the public to see the materials that are being challenged. This it the basic premise of thefileroom.org. Attacking censorship means also calling for more transparency.

Harry Potter's back again!

I recently received an e-mail urging me to reserve my copy of the newest Harry Potter book. This is the seventh book in the series by J.K Rowling and is titled Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Last semester I wrote a research paper about banned books. Harry Potter was at the top of the list and continues to be. The American Library Association recently released the list of the Most Challenged Books of the 21st Century (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/topten2000to2005.htm). Harry Potter earned the number one spot. The ALA website says "Books usually are challenged with the best intentions—to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information. Censorship can be subtle, almost imperceptible, as well as blatant and overt, but, nonetheless, harmful." In my high school english class freshmen year, we walked into class and were handed a list of the most challenged books for that year. One of the books at the top of the list was Catcher and the Rye. Our teacher then handed us Catcher and the Rye. We read this book from a critical approach to try and figure out why it landed on the list. One of the top reasons for challenging books is "protection." Parents, educators, religious leaders are among the top challengers. In 2006, parents attempted to have Harry Potter books removed from shelves in Georgia school district (http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=april2006ab&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=125123)
They claimed that children could not distinguish between fantasy and realty, and that they would be corrupted by the witchcraft present in the books. The appeal was denied (http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2007/january2007/malloryappeal.cfm) but the parents still fight the books. Censorship comes in many forms. Banning books, especially at an elementary school level denies children important opportunities to develop their curiosity and imagination.

ACLU Videospot

To start us off, and maybe provide a little inspiration while you guys are thinking, I thought I would post this video that I found on http://www.youtube.com. According to the user who posted it, this short video was made for the ACLU. The ACLU (if for some reason you are unfamiliar with their organization), advocate for free speech, as well as other many important rights.

For more information on the ACLU, check out their website http://www.aclu.org/
or for information on their censorship specific work, go to http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html

The ACLU's website is a priceless source of fact sheets, legislation, articles, and court cases pertaining to the issue of censorship in its many forms.

Happy Blogging, and remember.....
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention!

Helpful Tips, Tricks and Links!!

Hello Everyone Hopefully by the end of today everyone will have access to the blog. My suggestion in order to have more options to edit your posts to use the web browser Mozilla FireFox (especially if you are on a mac!). Please let me know if you need help with anything!

While setting up this blog I think it will be helpful to mine the Internet for other sources and link to other blogs who are discussing Censorship. A very quick search on Google.com revealed some potentially good sources for topics as well as background information:

the National Coalition Against Censorship
the Wikipedia.org page on Censorship
the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
The American Library Association

Okay well that is it for now!