14 Jan 13 | Uncategorized
Open data activist and developer Aaron Swartz was found dead Friday in his New York home. The 26-year-old activist, who tirelessly campaigned for net freedom, was facing federal charges for allegedly downloading 4.8 million academic articles from JSTOR on the MIT campus in 2011. Even though JSTOR decided not to bring charges against Swartz, federal prosecutors decided to pursue charges anyways. If found guilty, Swartz faced $1 million in fines and 35 years in prison.
Swartz, who suffered from depression, committed suicide and his loved ones alleged in a statement that his death was tied to stress caused by his legal woes:
Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron and its own community’s most cherished principles.
The aggressive pursuit of Swartz by federal officials has drawn criticism over the severity of the charges, and questions over the types of laws used to pursue crimes committed online. Charges were brought against Swartz under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — the same law used to bring charges against Bradley Manning.
US-based privacy expert Chris Soghoian told the Associated Press that the laws, as they are, don’t differentiate between “malicious crimes committed for profit” and “cases where hackers break into systems to prove their skillfulness or spread information that they think should be available to the public”.
Swartz was at the forefront of a fight for keeping the online world open, condemning the sticky tape of copyright and restrictions on information online. While at Mozilla Fest, I feel like I caught a glimpse of the kind of world that Swartz was working for — one that places the most value on sharing information, ideas, and knowledge freely. The director of MIT’s Media Lab, Joi Ito said the following during his speech at the conference:
You’re all political. Everything we’re doing today is gonna destroy businesses it’s going to take power away from those in power. You have to understand that what we’re doing we’re being very disruptive. It’s very scary for people. The problem is that those people who are afraid of us are trying to shut us down.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin
05 Oct 12 | Uncategorized
Banned Books Week, the annual American event documenting literary censorship is now in its 30th year. This year the American Library Association (ALA) is highlighting just how many books in the classic canon have been championed and challenged simultaneously. It is an astounding read, revealing the often ludicrious reasons why classic books were banned, and how some are still being challenged.
Many of the complaints teeter on the edge of absurdity. Brave New World was removed from Missouri classrooms in 1980 for making promiscuous sex “look like fun”; The Diary of Anne Frank was challenged for being “a real downer” in 1983, and The Lord of the Flies was contested in 1981 for being “demoralizing inasmuch as it implies that man is little more than an animal.”
Attempts to censor books continue, The Lord of the Rings was ceremoniously burned in 2001 for being ‘satanic’; One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest challenged in 2000 for simply being “garbage”, and To Kill a Mockingbird in 2006 for “promoting white supremacy”. This is an entirely inaccurate representation of the novel, of course, but the racist language used was an accurate representation of the time, and to censor history is akin to denying it altogether.
The ten most challenged titles of 2011 included The Hunger Games trilogy and My Mom’s Having A Baby! A Kid’s Month-by-Month Guide to Pregnancy. And the most frequently challenged literature of the 21st century? And Tango Makes Three, a picture book based on a true story of two male penguins who adopted an egg in a New York Zoo, topping the most challenged list in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010.
Daisy Williams is an Editorial Intern at Index on Censorship
15 Sep 12 | Middle East and North Africa
Reducing the backlash over “The Innocence of Muslims” to a hysterical reaction to blasphemy ignores deep unease at the US’s role in the Arab world, says Myriam Francois-Cerrah
(more…)
15 Aug 12 | Uncategorized
Among the many issues concerning freedom of expression, it becomes easy to forget illiteracy, even though it serves as one of the most basic barriers to freedom of expression. Illiteracy limits the ability to access and receive information as well as to share and pass on information in written form — on — or offline. As such it is a block to participation in social and political life including writing on or engaging with a range of issues and debates. UNESCO in 2008 reported that 796 million adults worldwide are unable to read and write — an 8 per cent increase in literacy globally in the past 20 years. In 1995 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression said “the right to seek or have access to information is one of the most essential elements of freedom of speech and expression”.
Of the 796 million illiterate adults, 64 per cent of them are women, which not only reflects a deficiency in gender equality, but also reflects how in some cases lack of access can be a part of restricting the rights of women. According to UNHCHR resolution 2003/42, higher illiteracy rates can be a part of keeping them from being able to freely communicate, and contributes to constraining their rights to freedom of expression.
While a hindrance to freedom of expression, a high literacy rate does not necessarily correlate with a democratic and free society. While UNESCO estimates China’s literacy rate to be 94 per cent in adults, the single-party state is notorious for its extreme censorship of both the internet and the press, and has earned a ranking of “not free” from the US-based organisation Freedom House this year. Democratic India, meanwhile has a literacy rate of 62.8 per cent in adults.
Illiteracy is not only a problem in developing countries, but also an ongoing obstacle in developed nations. In 2010, the Literacy Trust estimated that 1 in 6 adults in the UK is illiterate. In the United States, the US Education Department released a 2009 report stating that 32 million American adults are practically illiterate — struggling with even the most basic of literacy skills. Lower literacy means less citizens engaged with major debates within a state, or even access to basic information.
Such shocking numbers only mean that a significant portion of the populations of both the United States and United Kingdom are unable to adequately access information about issues, making it difficult to be an informed decision maker — something crucial for every member of a democratic society.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship
