Supliment nr 1 2013

(1)

International Journal

of Cross-Cultural Studies

and Environmental Communication

Supplement:

Young Researchers and Their Approaches

No. 1, 2013

ISSN 2285 – 3324

ISSN-L = 2285 – 3324

(2)

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Ana-Maria Munteanu

Universitatea Ovidius Constanþa, RO [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Florentina Nicolae

EDITOR Nicoleta Stanca

MEMBERS James Augerot

University of Washington, Seattle, USA [email protected]

Paul Michelson

Huntington University, USA [email protected]

Vasile Muscalu

Director Editura Universitara, RO [email protected]

Aida Todi

Lucica Tofan

(3)

International Journal

of Cross-Cultural Studies

and Environmental Communication

http://crossculturenvironment.wordpress.com/

Supplement:

Young Researchers and Their Approaches

No. 1, 2013

Editura Universitarã

www.editurauniversitara.ro

&

Asociaþia pentru Dezvoltare Interculturalã

(ADI)

http://www.adcrossculture.com

On Censorship Today:

(New) Spaces and Ethic Ramifications

Coordinator: Ileana Marin,

(4)

Marta Árkossy Ghezzo

Lehman College, New York, USA [email protected]

Adina Ciugureanu

Augusto Rodrigues da Silva Junior Universidade de Brasilia, Brasil [email protected]

Timothy Ehlinger

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA [email protected]

Victor A. Friedman University of Chicago, USA [email protected]

Ana-Cristina Halichias University of Bucharest, RO [email protected]

Ioan Ianoº

University of Bucharest, RO [email protected]

Cornelia Ilie

Malmö University, Sweden [email protected]

Claudia Jensen

Maria Do Rósario Laureano Santos Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal [email protected]

Ileana Marin

Charles Moseley

University of Cambridge, UK [email protected]

Ludmila Patlanjoglu

The Caragiale University of Theatrical Arts and Cinematography, RO

[email protected]

Stephen Prickett

Professor Emeritus, University of Glasgow/ Kent

[email protected]

Giovanni Rotiroti

Universita Occidentale, Naples, Italy [email protected]

Leonor Santa Bárbara

Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal [email protected]

Eduard Vlad

(5)

International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies

and Environmental Communication

Supplement: Young Researchers and Their Approaches

On Censorship Today: (New) Spaces and Ethic Ramifications

FOREWORD

(8)

(9)

PREAMBLE

Ileana Marin1

In 2012 I taught the course “Artists, Citizens, and Censors: The Trouble With Art in Fascist and Communist Societies” for the Honors Program at the University of Washington, Seattle. The course combined the study of primary documents which have defined and regulated censorship with the analysis of famous works whose public impact was delayed due to what was deemed to be their seditious content. By way of introduction we watched Martin Ritt’s The Front (1976), which ridiculed McCarthy’s attempts to censor the Hollywood industry. The film facilitated a discussion of censorship, citizenship, and artistry. We then reviewed various legislations on censorship, including the Catholic Church’s list of forbidden works (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), published regularly from 1564 to 1966; the British Obscene Publications Act of 1857; and concluding with fascist and communist forms of censorship. We acquainted ourselves with the most oppressive authoritarian regimes of the twentieth century (fascism and communism) as we crossed disciplinary boundaries, engaging history, law, politics, religion, ethics, literature, and aesthetics. We read texts ranging across every major literary genre, starting with the novels

All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque (1929) and the abridged version of The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (1973). We also investigated the reasons which impelled communist authorities around the globe to ban Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1954), Eugen Ionescu’s Rynoceros (1959), and Vaclav Havel’s The Garden Party (1963). Although apparently inoffensive, the theatre of the absurd, to which both plays belong, was considered dangerous for dictatorial political regimes that were based on a limitation of individual rights. Beckett and Havel mocked stereotypical attitudes in order to suggest that language itself may become a paradoxical means of communicating the impossibility of communication. We examined poems by Huang Xiang (China) which became subject to censorship. Close readings of poems by Xiang gave us access to the type of writing that is born when authors are acutely aware of being exposed to censorship and develop strategies to reach readers while deceiving vigilant censors. The analysis of historical, political, and cultural contexts of these censored texts provided a closer look at the conditions which led policy makers to repress literature and enabled us to understand how these texts threatened the political establishment.

The course provided a substantial experience of the cultural oppression and moral perversity practiced by fascism and communism, as well as of the way in which artists innovate alternative models of expression in the context of censorship. In

(10)

addition to close readings of major texts, we examined censored paintings and films in order to identify the aesthetic strategies that fostered powerful meanings and triggered violent official reactions from fascist and communist authorities. A selective, yet relevant group of paintings signed by René Magritte, Max Ernst, Edward Munch, and Salvador Dali (among others) and films directed by Jean Renoir, Roman Polanki, and Jerzy Domaradzki were discussed in class, in order to uncover the underlying artistic conventions, hidden meanings, and social expectations at the time of their debut. More importantly, we tried to unpack the paradox of why dictators fear artists so much and investigated whether works can both reflect their authors’ responses to their own times and circumstances, and at the same time appeal to a public living in very different contexts.

The most recent controversy on censorship focuses on the Internet. Political control over Internet distribution and traffic as well as financial limitations in underdeveloped regions of the globe were two key points in our in-class debates. Witnessing the direct contribution of social media applications – Facebook and Twitter – to the Arab Spring, mainly in Egypt and Tunisia, we analyzed the efficiency of real time communication facilitated by electronic tools and internet access; this helped us to understand why non-democratic powers strive to limit access to the means of global communications in an attempt to isolate and more easily manipulate their people. In addition to the politically motivated control over websites, which led to detaining and even sentencing users in China, Vietnam, and Pakistan, we also addressed the increasing institutional control over the Internet and the rapid development of control devices that allow governmental institutions to block websites and blogs whose content does not reflect the official point of view. Although ignored by the public at large, the lack of access to information caused by scarce economic means was considered as another form of censorship. Students examined the struggles of citizens in poor countries to have a voice in the global online conversation. For example, only 7% of the population in Africa, according to the World Internet Users Statistics, had Internet access in 2012, even though there were no governmental institutions controlling or limiting online access. Our assessment of the accessibility of digital technology around the globe and the restrictions on such technology in dictatorial regimes led us to the conclusion that the new technology seems inherently to provide more freedom in communication, although it comes at a higher cost.

(11)

@GUTENBERG FIGHTING #CENSORSHIP:

TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL AGAINST CENSORSHIP

Daniel Stewart2

Abstract: History has shown that one of the best weapons against totalitarian regimes is honesty and openness in information. Unfortunately, totalitarian regimes have shown themselves to be willing to stop the spread of information by any means. But advances in technology have consistently diminished the effectiveness of censorship. This paper will examine a number of technological advances, from Gutenberg’s printing press to Jack Dorsey’s Twitter, and some of the censorship, from book burnings to nation-wide internet blackouts, that these new media have been used to combat. We are approaching an era where censorship via containment of information is impossible, but the threat of censorship does not end there. Just as it is increasingly easy to spread truths, so too is it increasingly easy to spread falsehoods.

Keywords: technology, censorship, the media, information

The hardest thing in the world to kill is an idea. An idea, once it has taken root, grows and spreads more insidiously than any weed in the minds of men. Ideas have been responsible for the rise and fall of countless governments, which is why totalitarian regimes the world over have long attempted to control them. One method of control is similar to that employed by firefighters: starve the fire of its fuel. An idea burns brightest when it spreads from one mind to another, so the solution for totalitarian dictators is simple. Isolate those with dangerous ideas, and the troublesome thoughts wither and die with their creators. Fortunately for those opposed to such oppressive regimes, tools have been developed that aid in the dissemination of information, often so rapidly that by the time governments can act, it is already too late. For centuries, inventions from the likes of Johannes Gutenberg, Louis Daguerre, and Jack Dorsey, have been exploited by revolutionaries to spread ideas like wildfire.

Nobody in Mainz, Germany at the start of the 15th_{Century knew that they were}

standing at ground zero of the largest advance in the exchange of human ideas since the invention of written language, Johannes Gutenberg, a young businessman most of all. Gutenberg was born to a wealthy family, yet he inherited little of his father’s wealth due to his mother’s low social status. Fortunately for Gutenberg, he possessed a shrewd business mind earning money to finance his endeavors through smart investing and ruthless collection of debts. As John Man notes, there was a burgomaster (mayor or chief magistrate of a German town, city, or rural commune) in Mainz who “managed by paying only those who applied influence or pressure, a group that for the previous few years had not included Gutenberg.” (53) Gutenberg, who was living

(12)

in Strasbourg at the time confronted the official upon a visit, presenting him with a note from the “honorable and wise burgomasters” (54) of Mainz, stating that the current burgomaster would be personally responsible for the payment of Gutenberg’s debt, a sum of 310 Gulden. In those days, that much money was “a sum with the emotional impact of five years’ salary, all at once, with no income tax or VAT” (54). While the 310 Gulden got Gutenberg started, it was nowhere near enough to fund his inventorial pursuits, so he progressed through a series of schemes, including one to produce mirrors for sale to pilgrims for the capture of “holy energies” from sacred relics. Eventually, Gutenberg had accumulated enough wealth to introduce his invention.

While movable type presses had been experimented with in China and Korea previously, they had difficulty catching on due to the numbers of characters in their respective languages. Each book to be printed would have required hundreds of unique characters to be carved by hand, only to wear out after a few uses. Since each punch was hand-carved, “each punch would be unique, with the near certainty that some versions of a t, for instance, would look different from every other one” (124), thus eliminating the advantage of print over script. It was in the production of type that Gutenberg revolutionized the concept of printing. Instead of hand-carving each bit of type, he carved a letter and then used that letter to make a mold from which other type could be cast without the destruction of the mold. When a letter wore out or more were needed for a particular page, they could be cast in minutes, with perfect accuracy. But the challenges did not end there:

Gutenberg also had to refine dozens of other sub-technologies – the business of storing type, composing it, setting it in multiple pages, getting it on to a suitable press, making the right paper, manufacturing the best sort of ink, and then ensuring quality control to make sure the same standards applied right through the publication. (Man, 134)

(13)

Ironically, Gutenberg’s invention that proved so beneficial to the church in the 15th_{Century led to one of the greatest upheavals in Church history in the 16th. In the}

years following Fust taking control of the press, printing “spread at a phenomenal speed from Mainz and by the 1940s each of the major states had one important publishing centre and some had several” (Febvre 193). Printing shops themselves became “gathering places for scholars, artists, and literati; as sanctuaries for foreign translators, emigrés and refugees; as institutions of advanced learning, and as focal points for every type of cultural change” (Eisenstein 23). Small wonder then that Martin Luther, a young man born in 1483 in Eisleben, Germany, grew up understanding the value of printed media. Luther, a young scholar, entered a monastery in 1505, and spent most of his life dedicated to biblical studies. Throughout his studies, Luther became more and more uncomfortable with some of the conventional Church practices. The primary target of Luther’s critique of the Church became the sale of indulgences, the same slips of paper that Gutenberg made possible on a wide scale. Luther saw indulgences as being a money making scheme, toying with the faith of the masses, as evidenced by the fact that “in 1476, Sixtus IV had extended the scope of an Indulgence even to souls in purgatory, thus exploiting for cash the natural anxieties of simple people for their departed relatives” (Dickens 35). Luther became outraged by these practices, to the point where in 1517 he published his famed 95 Theses, a document outlining numerous complaints with current Church policies. Luther came to view the Church as a corrupt entity more interested in profiting from its constituents than in providing them with enlightenment, and to that end lauded printers, saying:

Hereby, tongues are known, knowledge growth, judgement increaseth, books are dispersed, the Scripture is read, stories be opened, times compared, truth discovered, falsehood corrected and… all (as I said) through the benefit of printing. (Eisenstein 378)

(14)

spread his ideas, without having to leave the relative safety of Wartberg Castle, as exemplified “when Martin Bucer of Strasbourg somewhat priggishly urged the Wittenberg theologians to get out into the world and preach, Luther replied in the pregnant words: ‘We do that with our books’” (Dickens 86). Luther realized the potential of the new medium, where before he would have to visit towns personally to spread his message, now he could spread his ideas to hundreds of towns simply by publishing his works.

While the like of Gutenberg and Luther convinced the masses with hundreds of eloquently printed letters, several hundred years later, Louis Daguerre, a French inventor would invent a device that some say is worth thousands of words: the photograph. Daguerre, born in a suburb of Paris, partnered with another Frenchman, Nicéphore Niépce. Niépce had garnered recognition as being the first to capture a permanent image, a faint, sketch-like rendering of the view from his window. The partners worked together to develop what would come to be known as a Daguerreotype, an image captured on a polished metal plate with a silver nitrate based solution. Images captured with a Daguerreotype were unparalleled in their sharpness and clarity. These images, predecessors to modern photography amazed the world, but it would take several wars for photography to take a role as a means for inciting social change.

(15)

“The overriding theme [in letters to the editor] was that Loan’s shooting of the Viet Cong suspect was a crime; none of the letters mentioned any rationale or support of the shooting” (131).

A third picture that served to illustrate to Americans the horror of the war taking place half a world away was entitled “Terror of War” and showed a 9 year old girl running naked down a road crying, her village having been napalmed in the background.

What these pictures represent is the next step in sharing information from the printing press. Whereas Martin Luther was able to enact reform based on the persuasiveness of his writing, these pictures have a much more immediate effect. They do what no book, no matter how well composed, can do: elicit an immediate gut reaction the instant they are viewed. The reason for this phenomenon is due to no shortcoming on the part of the written word, it is simply due to the fact that words need to be read, then understood, a complicated process that scientists still do not fully understand. A picture tricks our subconscious into reacting immediately, in the way that a lifelike picture of a tiger would cause someone to flinch away, in a way that the word “tiger” never could. So while the printing press made it possible to rapidly share ideas, the camera made it possible to rapidly share feelings. And the feeling created in the hearts of the American public was not the feeling their government wanted them to feel about the war. “Each [photograph] defined a pernicious moral dilemma previously unfathomed by the American public” (Moeller 8). And eventually the tide of opinion amongst the American public turned against the war, opposing what many came to see as a pointless loss of life. Just as newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst was once quoted as saying, “you furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war” also true is the converse. Show people the horrors of war, and they will seek to avoid it. As such, governments have attempted from time to time to dissuade photographers from sharing their photographs. During WWII, Time Magazine published a series of photos showing dead Japanese troop, most rotting on the ground. What were notably absent from any of the photos were any images of dead American troops.

Such photos were taken. In fact, Strock [the photographer] had made a photograph of three dead Americans on the beach. Government censors withheld it from the public however, as they had all photos showing bodies of U.S. Soldiers. Governments realized that photographs had the power to turn the tide of public thought, and as such, could be incredibly dangerous, but by the time of the Vietnam war, another great leap forwards in idea sharing was beginning to take shape: the internet.

(16)

(17)

regimes. While the Catholic Church could have intercepted Luther’s books on the way from the printer’s and the Vietnamese government could have confiscated film from photographers, all a revolutionary in Egypt needs to do is send a text to a friend. Within minutes, that text can reach hundreds, maybe thousands of people. The originator of the text can be silenced, arrested, or beaten, but the idea that he sparked has already started to burn.

The picture painted by these revolutionaries is clear. As technology advances, the ability of governments to prevent the spread of information dwindles, until someday soon there may come a day when it is all but impossible. For totalitarian regimes, this represents the deathblow for a tried and true method of populace control. But the threat posed by totalitarian regimes does not end with the triumph of free-flowing information. Just as it is easy for freedom fighters to spread information about their cause, it is also easier for regimes to spread misinformation, as is the case in China. The Chinese government controls the Internet in that country absolutely, heavily censoring what its citizens are allowed to see. Instead of Google, Chinese Internet users have access to “Baidu, the homegrown search engine, enables people to locate all the content on the Chinese-language Internet that their government permits” (MacKinnon). The problem is not only lack of access to information, but that the government outputs a substantial amount of information on its own. It can be difficult, if not impossible for Chinese citizens to tell the difference between real reporting and continued propaganda. And China is not the only nation:

The smarter suppression strategy is to set up state-controlled intranets, Internet providers, and portals that give people the illusion of access to the outside world. In Cuba, Sanchez said people think they have access to the Internet, but it isn’t the real thing. (Saletan 2)

During the Arab Spring, some governments also were able to use social networking against protesters; “in other countries such as Bahrain, Syria, and Libya the security services were putting lies on Twitter to round people up” (Casey). Totalitarian regimes are beginning to see the internet not as a thing to be feared, but as a tool to be used. But like any tool, it can also be used by governments for good. As was addressed by Saletan in his article:

You don’t need an army of censors deleting posts on social media sites, you need a cadre of government officials reading those posts and figuring out how to identify and address the legitimate grievances that are being expressed there. (2)

(18)

The point of the Internet is that anyone can post whatever he or she wants. If democracies feel justified in censoring totalitarian regimes, totalitarian regimes can use the same justification in censoring their own citizens. The real solution is education. If people can be taught how to read critically and understand events, then it becomes simple to see through the lies perpetrated by oppressive governments. The Internet is still, by the standards of the printing press and photography, a technology in its infancy, yet it has shown incredible promise as a tool for the sharing of information. It is up to us, as citizens of the web, to ensure that it lives to grow.

WORKS CITED

Casey, Tina. “Study: Twitter Played Pivotal Role In Arab Spring”. Talking Points Memo. 23 Sept. 2011. Web. 8 March 2012.

Dickens, Arthur Geoffrey. Reformation and Society In Sixteenth Century Europe.

New York: Unknown, 1968. Print.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1982. Print.

Febvre, Lucien. Au Coeur Religieux du XVIe Siècle. Paris: Unknown, 1957. Print. Harris, John M. America’s Vision of War: A History of Combat Photography in the

United States as Seen through Three Images. Diss. U of Washington, 2011. Seattle: UW, 2011.

Huang, Carol. “Facebook and Twitter Key to Arab Spring Uprisings: Report”. The National. 6 June 2011. Web. 8 March 2012.

Kennedy, Liam. “Photojournalism and the Vietnam War”. UCD Institute for American Studies, Photography and International Conflict. 2008. Web. 8 March 2012. MacKinnon, Rebecca. “Inside China’s Censorship Machine”. National Post. 29 Jan

2012. Web. 8 March 2012.

Man, John. Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World With Words. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.: 2002. Print.

Moeller, Susan D. Shooting War: Photography and the American Combat Experience. New York: Basic Books, Inc.: 1989. Print.

Project on Information Technology and Political Islam. Opening Closed Regimes: What was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring? Seattle: U of Washington, 2011. Web. 8 March 2012.

(19)

CENSORSHIP TODAY: HOW WILL THE INTERNET BE

CENSORED?

Ryan Rinaldi3

Abstract: Until now, the internet has existed as an uncharted, unregulated entity that has been independent of almost all government and regulation. Sites like thepiratebay.se, a website that distributes pirated movies and music in direct conflict with American laws, are used by Americans daily. Thepiratebay.se has not merely existed but thrived, and may continue to do so, as the website is hosted and run in Switzerland, outside of US jurisdiction. Currently, however, the internet is in a state of chaos: governments across the globe are banding together in an attempt to regulate the internet and impose a set of restrictions that impose “real world” laws onto the internet. These laws aim to reduce the amount of illegally obtained intellectual property through the internet, but have implications much larger than file sharing. Internet communities protested this censorship of speech, as was seen in the internet blackout protest to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) acts. During the blackout protest, popular websites protested government censorship of the internet. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has replaced the SOPA and PIPA bills, and has been signed by many large nations, including the United States. This bill, designed to internationally protect intellectual property, will monitor internet activity through Internet Service Providers, who will monitor links and servers for traces of intellectual property. Consequentially, websites that thrive off of user-submitted content (sites like facebook, youtube, twitter, and reddit) will be forced to self-censor its own content, else it be responsible for the pirated content stored on its servers. This paper investigates the contrast between the current uses of censorship and censorship as a tool in the past. Censorship has been commonly seen as a method of consolidating power. This is rarely seen in current governments, as censorship has taken a different role in modern culture. Current censorship builds off of the foundation of intellectual property and theft-prevention; this paper explores the contrast between this and the censorships and libricides of the past.

Keywords: the internet, legislation, censorship, intellectual property, theft

The invention of the internet has been one of the most significant breakthroughs in modern technology. The internet, in one sense, eliminated the vast distances between people and nations. Instant communication became not only easy but free. Along with this communication came the ability to share files across computers: what one person had could be shared, and given to another person. Sharing of this type has contributed greatly to the success of the internet. “Closer to the world of ideas than to the world of things, [the internet] has flourished as it has largely because of the commons it has built” (Lawrence Lessig). This communal sharing of ideas is possible due to the nature of the internet: the internet deals with the realm of ideas rather than

(20)

the tactile and physical realm. Unlike the physical world, the internet is not bounded by the availability of resources: to copy a painting would require the purchase of canvas, frame, and paints, while a computer can make a perfect copy of an image and send it to another with literally no cost of resources. This, along with the hosting of such data on public servers on websites, attracted artists to early versions of the internet. These artists believed the problems of distribution and free expression would be solved by the internet, and the ease of which an artist could self-publish. Some of these artists would later support anti-piracy acts, limiting the amount of art that was distributed freely.

One example of the dramatic effect the introduction of the digital world has had is the music industry, and specifically the company Napster. Napster took advantage of the nature of the digital world, and exploited the ease in which information can be copied and sent between networked computers. Napster, when given the title and artist of a particular song, would search the contents of its database for users who have the particular song in its library. Napster would then connect these two computers, allowing one computer to copy and retrieve the song file it requested from the other. This technology was revolutionary to not only the music industry, but file sharing across the internet. Napster was able to create a virtually limitless library without the cost of populating its own library of tracks. Eventually, Napster was deemed illegal due to its role in facilitating and aiding copyright infringement and was eliminated.

Control is extremely important to maintain structure in the physical world: controlling resources through a market or economy allows for fair distribution and increases the potential for growth. This, however, may not be the correct way to approach the non-tactile, digital reality of the internet. An idea-based economy should encourage production and distribute the product as fast as possible, due to the fact that such productions can be distributed indefinitely and are not limited by physical scarcity. In order for this to work, however, there must be some sort of incentive in order to encourage production. Obviously, the only reliable incentive for such production is money. If products are freely distributed, where does the money to encourage production come from? The only source of this money is the consumer, who pays the artist or creator for the product he receives. Here lies the real problem with the internet: These products are often freely distributed across the internet, computer-to-computer, in violation of copyright agreement. This type of file sharing is virtually untraceable, so preventative methods are being taken by the government to stop the online piracy.

(21)

for video producers to be unable to share their products online. This places a restriction on what can and cannot be recorded simply due to the surrounding ambience, seemingly in conflict with the civil rights of citizens.

Recently, the government of the United States has tried to push two acts, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in an effort to prevent the sharing of copyrighted material. These bills, had they passed, would restrict the content that could be posted on sites: samples of copyrighted music or links to file sharing websites could result in the removal of the website. Websites that rely on user-posted content, like Facebook, twitter and Reddit, will be forced to self-censor the posts of its own users, else it be responsible for pirated material on its website. At the announcement of these acts, the internet community participated in a world-wide “blackout” event, in which websites like Wikipedia and Google protested the SOPA and PIPA acts. These acts were dropped by the government due to protest, but negotiations for another agreement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are currently underway.

ACTA would allow Internet Service Providers (ISP) to monitor files downloaded and uploaded from every computer, checking to see if these contain illegally shared material. This, critics argue, poses a threat to the privacy citizens have a civil right to. This individual packet inspection will ensure that no infringing content is uploaded or downloaded from the internet. ISPs would also be responsible for monitoring their servers to ensure that no infringing material is stored in there servers.

ACTA is functionally similar to SOPA and PIPA, but is negotiated as an agreement between global powers instead of an act of the government. Negotiations began in October 2007 between the United States, Switzerland, Japan, and the European Community. These nations were later joined in the negotiation of ACTA by Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Canada (Solon). As a treaty, ACTA will deal with counterfeit physical goods exchanged between counties, as well as serving as an agreement between participating countries to criminalize intellectual property infringement in a similar fashion. As a trade agreement, and not an act like SOPA and PIPA, ACTA has certain freedoms from democratic scrutiny, and can be negotiated to an extent behind closed doors. For example, in the United States, treaties are negotiated by the President alone, without any input from the Senate or Congress. The treaty must be ratified by the usual two-thirds vote, but the actual content of the treaty is negotiated by the president alone. Due to the criminal sanctions ACTA requires, it allows nations to create legislation indirectly, without public debate: in the United States, treaties are considered Law of the Land under the US Constitution. The fact that ACTA contains criminal sanctions is highly unusual for a trade agreement. This has led critics to call the ACTA negotiation process undemocratic, as it would create indirect legislation change in some countries without the legislation discussion process.

(22)

The majority of criminal sanctions are contained in Article 23, which states that criminal penalties are applied in cases of willful counterfeiting or copyright related piracy on a commercial scale. While “a commercial scale” is undefined, it is accepted as commercial public websites. ACTA also specifically removes the intentionality of the piracy committed, allowing punishment in incidental cases of piracy. This means that commercial websites will have to ensure that all content is absolutely free of any form of intellectual property, else it suffer the criminal sanctions of ACTA.

One of the most significant elements of Article 23 is the demand for criminalization of those deemed to be aiding and abetting piracy. Since “aiding and abetting” is also undefined in the document, it applies to a multitude of situations. This article would now make websites that host user-posted material such as Facebook and twitter responsible for content posted by its users, as the hosting of infringing material would aid possibly piracy committed by its users. This forces such websites to inspect and self-censor all posts made by users before they went live to avoid the criminal sanctions of ACTA. Furthermore, the wording is such that ISPs that host websites with infringing material are also “aiding and abetting” piracy simply by hosting the website. For example, if one were to post a video to YouTube with copyrighted music in the background, ACTA will hold responsible YouTube, its ISP, the uploader, and the uploader’s ISP. This will add a further element of inspection, as ISPs will be forced to monitor the websites on its servers to ensure that it too doesn’t get caught under the wide umbrella of criminal sanctions posed by ACTA. This also forces ISPs into the position of closely monitoring piracy; in the past minor-scale piracy has usually gone unnoticed, but ISPs hosting users and websites that commit file sharing infringement will receive a share of the responsibility.

While ACTA may pose a threat to civil liberties through constant surveillance and criminalization, can the removal of free intellectual property really be treated as censorship? Many Americans in particular are quick to brand anything that seems to oppose the First Amendment as “government censorship”. Merriam-Webster defines censorship as “examination in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable”. While “considered objectionable” is rather loosely defined, and could refer to the contraband files specified by ACTA, it is apparent that the goals behind today’s censorship are radically different than those of historical censorships and libricides. While ACTA does technically count as censorship, although not in the traditional sense, censorship is not necessarily a bad thing. One could argue that free speech is censored when the law punishes somebody who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater, even though such a law protects the safety of citizens with minimal loss of free speech. In particular, Nazi Germany was infamous for its censorship in the traditional sense of nearly all modernist art or anything opposing the direction of the dictatorship.

(23)

ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile to the Nazi Party, and to ensure that Nazi ideals were conveyed to the public as persuasively as possible (“Propaganda in Nazi Germany”). Book burnings were organized by Goebbels to denounce anti-Nazi literature and art, and eliminated sources of art that threw that Nazi Party into an unfavorable light. This allowed the Nazi regime to increase power and support from Germany’s citizens.

In the case of Nazi Germany, censorship was used to consolidate government power and support. It is clear that this is not the case with ACTA. ACTA’s objectives in its inspection and censorship are to preserve the system of payment for goods that is so solidly ingrained into our physical economy. ACTA is motivated by radically different outcomes than Goebbels’s censorship practices. Instead of increase of power or support, ACTA is actually (if merely partially) aimed to increase the well-being of the public. The removal of free distribution of copyrighted goods will allow the online economy to flourish, without crashing sales in physical bookstores or online music distributers. This protects workers in industries that sell works such as books, movies, and music. Rarely is censorship seen in current civilizations for the purpose of controlling the population. One obvious exception to this is China, which censors websites its citizens have access to in order to portray the government in a favorable light. However, in the majority of the world “censorship” is used as a means of protection, either of industries or parts of the population. This deserves a distinction from the conventional view of censorship: while ACTA’s policies may be defined as censorship, they are radically different than commonly associated applications of censorship, like China and Nazi Germany. Censorship has undergone a radical evolution in the last half-century, and is now used to accomplish different results.

(24)

media companies per illegal download of each of their songs. This illustrates the obvious lack of understanding shown by the government on this issue. If ACTA will be forcing ISPs to respond to laws like this and enforce them, the current laws must be adjusted to more closely match the current consequences of music piracy.

One thing that even critics agree on is that ACTA’s goals are not harmful, nor are they a violation of civil rights. The manner in which ACTA accomplishes these goals, however, is more concerning. Part of the issue with ACTA is the definition of copyrighted material. Currently, infringing material can cover a wide spectrum of content. As stated previously, a song merely has to be audible in the background of a video to earn the video an infringing status. This has the effect of limiting the locations filmmakers are legally able to shoot video and post results. An example of the extreme nature of copyright law is the song “Happy Birthday”, which is legally owned by Warner (Video University). If one were to record a singing of this song and place it on the internet, it is technically in violation of copyright law. Currently, such a violation is trivial and un-enforced. However, with the implementation of ACTA, ISPs will recognize the transmission of such infringing material though individual packet inspection and will be forced to remove the content, else it be responsible for “aiding and abetting” copyright infringement. In fact, current copyright laws dictate that a work is copyrighted the moment it has been used in a recording or other tangible form. Ordinarily, such laws are not strictly enforced, but will be under ACTA’s criminal sanctions.

ACTA is so revolutionary partly because it eliminates the privacy of pirating. The individual packet inspections conducted by ISPs make literally all internet communications public. This has the positive effect of making piracy a public crime. While there has been a significant distinction in the past between pirating music and physical theft, there legally is no difference. However, because piracy can be conducted at home with relative anonymousness, it has been devalued as a crime. This is undoubtedly a positive effect of ACTA, as it will significantly reduce the amount of pirated content distributed online. However, some of the side-effects ACTA causes in order to achieve these are more concerning in their limitations.

(25)

Larry Lessig argues that, with the invention of the internet and effortless, free distribution, the internet encourages creativity and creative production. Specifically, free worldwide distribution encourages amateur culture, in which producers create art for the sake and love of their art and not money. The ability to share art instantly leads to an incredibly dynamic art culture, in which artists can rise to fame overnight based on quality of work and not accessibility.

One branch of art that Larry Lessig believes is stifled is that of creative editing, or “remixing”. This type of art focuses on re-creating new art, using the previous works of others. While the creation of remixes may use the previous creations of others in the process, the end result is a new work of art, with different meanings and significance than any of the parts. Under ACTA-enforced copyright law, such forms of art are prohibited. In fact, due to the digital nature of the internet, any use of culture results in a “copy”. By definition, since copyright law regulates all copies of culture and art, any use of culture in the digital world is controlled by copyright law. The only reason this has not been a significant source of conflict in the past is the fact that breaking copyright law over the internet has previously been untraceable and unpunished: there are currently millions of examples of remix art on websites across the internet. However, under the ISP monitoring and forced action of ACTA, such art forms will cease to exist. Even non-commercial use of art or culture is strictly forbidden by copyright law.

One possible solution to this problem is not to change ACTA, but change the current copyright system and art production. In the example of musical artists, many bands actually profit off of the free sharing of their music. When music can be shared for free, the distribution of a band’s music skyrockets. While the band makes less money from record sales, they get the benefit of a massively expanded distribution and subsequently a larger fan base. This expanded fan base results in more net profit for artists during shows and exhibits. Thus, free distribution can actually be a significant advantage for artists.

You may call this process ‘piracy’ if you wish - for me it is an act of generosity and it both increases our audience size and record sales. And as I always say on the night – if you’re going to do it anyway you may as well feel good about it! I believe the official term is ‘viral marketing’, and we depend utterly upon it. – Show of Hands, a UK band.

However, one of the biggest obstacles to this kind of distribution is the authority of record labels, which own rights to the band’s music. Record labels profit off of music sales alone, and not concert revenue. Thus, it is in the best interest for record labels to eliminate all free forms of the artist’s music online, even if it reduces the band’s overall popularity.

(26)

dramatic chance in the current artist distribution system, but the reduction of the authority of the art-marketing industry will allow artists to take advantage of what the internet provides: extremely fast distribution and an expanded fan base. Current record label authority conflicts directly with ACTA sanctions, with artists stuck in between. In order to preserve both art culture and protect intellectual property, concessions have to be made by ACTA or the art-distribution industry.

The internet is arguably the most significant invention in modern history, with the infinitely easy and cheap methods of distribution that came with it. The internet opened up the digital realm and enabled the rapid copying of literally anything, provided it can be converted into a digital form. The internet, since its birth, has been an uncontrollable entity, with nearly complete anonymousness throughout.

The development of the internet as a tool for artists is vital for the expansion of the creative industry. ACTA oversteps its bounds and limits the possible creation and use of art culture. By creating criminal sanctions for the aiding and abetting of piracy, ACTA implies and enforces laws that inhibit the medium and product of contemporary artists. ACTA, in an oversimplification of copyright law, criminalizes parody and remix art. This censorship, while used for an undeniably different result than Nazi censorship, is the censorship of creative thought just the same, and has no place in a democracy.

Currently, ACTA is a problem because the enforced copyright laws under ACTA directly conflict with the current, too-strict copyright laws. While ACTA forces ISPs to enforce copyright laws under threat of legal action, the current laws are not updated to reflect the reality of art on the internet. Either ACTA’s criminal sanctions for those accused of aiding and abetting piracy is dropped, or artists are given the legal right to share their work outside of copyright law. Currently if the two systems are enacted concurrently, the United States for the first time will see a totalitarian-esque government censorship of art.

WORKS CITED

Solon, Olivia. “What is Acta and why should you be worried about it?”. Wired. Wired, 24 Jan 2012. Web. 12 Mar 2012. <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/ 2012-01/24/acta-101?page=all>.

“Copyright for Video Producers”. Video University. Video University, 2003. Web. 12 Mar 2012.

<http://www.videouniversity.com/articles/copyright-for-video-producers/>. “Propaganda in Nazi Germany”. History Learning Site. N.p., 2008. Web. 14 Mar

2012.

<http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_in_nazi_germany.htm>. Larry, Lessig, writ. “Laws the Choke Creativity”. TED Talks. Nov 2007. Web. 16

Mar 2012.

(27)

Rob, Reid, dir. “The $8 Billion iPod”. TED Talks. Mar 2012. Web. 16 Mar 2012. <http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html>.

Roach, Nathan. “What is ACTA and why should you care?”. Nathan Roach. N.p., 13 Mar 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2012.

(28)

(29)

THE INTERNET: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT COULD BECOME

Burgess Malarkey4

Abstract: We live in a web based world. The day-to-day functioning of our lives is dependent upon the connectivity that the Internet provides. The web is a host for every mundane or academic activity for which the human mind has capacity. But who actually controls the Internet? What regulations are currently in place and what changes are being considered? This paper examines these questions in order to think about how the Internet can remain a safe, useful, and legal tool as its role in society continues to grow.

Keywords: the internet, society, rules, safety

From the moment the first ARPANET link was established between UCLA and Stanford University on October 29th_{, 1969, a new world of opportunity was opened.}

Over the next 20 years, there was explosive growth in the technology that connects computers. Various types networks were developed and used until what we now call the Internet became the standard in the early 1990’s. Massive amounts of money were devoted to establishing an infrastructure for this new electronic information system. This new system of transmitting information enabled far greater global connectivity and led to countless new industries. However, it also established unprecedented legal situations. Above all else, it put the concept of intellectual property and copyright in uncertain terms.

This paper focuses upon the evolution of American legislation that regulates the Internet. This evolution is at a critical point in the history of the web. Lawmakers are facing decisions that could massively affect Internet freedom and potentially establish a system ripe for unrest. The necessity to make these decisions has arisen because of a schism between Internet users and the law, partially due to the rapid growth of file sharing. Legislators must make decisions about how to address this divide, while hearing arguments from the proponents of increased freedom and more strict regulation. The motives behind both sides are varied and difficult to fully decipher, neither being fully correct. On one hand we have consumers, or Internet users, who desire full Internet freedom to discuss any topic and download any file, while maintaining a certain assurance of privacy. On the other hand, we have national security and corporate interests that want to increase the amount of policing on the web to ensure safety and legality. Arguments for a freer Internet and a more regulated Internet both have validity. The issue is that these opposing sides are irreconcilable. There is opportunity for some compromise, but ultimately one ideology will win out. To

(30)

consider which ideology should be the driving force behind future legislation, this paper looks at certain laws over the past twenty years and contrasts them with the changing uses of the Internet.

From the Communications Decency Act of 1996, up to the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, there have been a variety of laws put in place that affect the information Internet Service Providers (ISPs) collect on users and the amount of access the government has to that information. Theft of copyrighted material has always been illegal, but the Internet has made the difference between sharing and stealing less clear. The growth of peer-to-peer (P2P) networks has made the sharing of files extremely easy, while legislation has aimed to limit sharing. Regardless of the law, file sharing has remained prevalent. What becomes clear through the examination of various laws is that the entertainment industry has had a massive impact on the legislation put in place. Internet security has been built upon the ideal of finding and stopping the sharing of copyrighted material. However, it has been ineffective. What has been created is a system with an increased capacity for censorship. The Internet contains an inevitable amount of monitoring, but the ideal of privacy has been steadily abandoned and the Internet is continuing to shift towards a model of all-encompassing monitoring. This shift must be deliberately examined and used to inform the making of new laws, so that the Internet does not become a platform for universal censorship.

(31)

Communications Decency Act of 1996.

The Communications Decency Act was passed in lieu of international standards established by the World Trade Organization. It intended to limit pornographic material on the web, but this portion of the law was actually struck down by the Supreme Court. However, the most important section of the CDA, Section 230, remained untouched. This section defined ISPs liability, “Section 230 of the CDA shields Internet service providers (ISPs) from nearly all forms of tort liability for defamatory speech” (3). The CDA was significant because it stated that the ISPs were not responsible for what their customers did. Companies providing Internet service did not have to monitor their customers for accessing or posting illegal content.

This law did not prescribe the protection that MPAA and RIAA desired, so with their lobbying efforts the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was signed into effect in 1998. Fritz Attaway, the head lobbyist for MPAA during the writing of the DMCA, stated that the movie industry would not have embraced the multimedia contentformat without the law (4). The DMCA ultimately did not provide the blanket protection the entertainment industry was hoping for, but it did establish a clear standard for addressing copyright infringement on the web. Most importantly, it granted further immunity to ISPs and to websites that host user content. This was a fundamental step in the expansion of Internet companies. For, “paired with the 1996 CDA, which provides similar immunity against noncopyright claims like defamation, the DMCA made it possible for everyone from Digg to WordPress to provide forums for users without constant fear of being sued out of existence” (4). The Internet companies and the ISPs were not responsible for users accessing, uploading, or downloading copyrighted material. The standard DMCA described for dealing with infringing material was the system of take down notices. Intermediaries, such as YouTube, were not responsible for infringing material. However, if they were requested to take down material because of a copyright complaint, they had to comply with the request, regardless of its validity. If the company chose to not obey the request, they accepted liability for the potentially infringing material. If the material was removed, the following legal action was between the owner of the content and the party filing for copyright infringement.

(32)

During this time period, the spread of copyrighted material was not the sole concern of Congress or the ISPs. Internet security became a very high priority, especially post 9/11. The PATRIOT Act was passed on October 26th_{, 2001, and it}

drastically changed the scope of the government’s ability to monitor the Internet. The FBI was enabled to make “roving” wiretaps, which meant that a person could be followed as an entity. Their web and cellular data from various accounts could all be covered by a single order. Section 215 made it illegal for ISPs to tell customers that personal data had been released by court order. Probably the most serious effect of the PATRIOT Act came from Section 216, which allowed the FBI to establish the DCSNet or “Digital Collection System Network” (7).

In a report done by the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, the following statement was made about the impacts of the PATRIOT Act, The Act provides law enforcement officials with greater authority to monitor Internet activity such as electronic mail (e-mail) and Web site visits. While law enforcement officials laud their new authorities as enabling them to better track terrorist and other criminal activity, privacy rights advocates worry that, in an attempt to track down and punish the terrorists who threaten American democracy, one of the fundamental tenets of that democracy —privacy — may itself be threatened. (8)

The concerns voiced here stem from the extent of the power the FBI was granted through the DCSNet. It is called a “point-and-click” surveillance system because with just a click a wiretap can begin automatically collecting nearly all of an individual’s data that is being transmitted by an ISP. With a subpoena or a warrant, the FBI had instant access to whatever the DCSNet could see. It also enabled a remote wiretap to be setup on a cell phone anywhere in the country and “immediately learn the phone’s location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes…” (9). Though having this ability is certainly advantageous for security reasons, it brings into question the relationship between the American government and its citizens. Is it still free speech if there is an inherent assumption that the government could be looking at everything an individual posts on the Internet or says on the phone? The DCSNet provides security, but is also part of a transition towards a more watchful government. This transition has continued and is now demonstrated by the new laws under consideration.

(33)

A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. (10)

What this effectively does is remove the immunity ISPs have been granted since CDA was passed in 1996. SOPA and PIPA aimed to make ISPs responsible for preventing customers from accessing illegal material, exactly the goal that the RIAA announced in 2008. ISPs would now have to actively monitor the content that users access, upload, and download. Moreover, the “safe harbor” protection for websites hosting user-generated content could have been severely affected, changing the ease with which people can post content. Both SOPA and PIPA were written with the goal of protecting American intellectual property from foreign threats, but both could have ultimately resulted in system where ISPs offered extremely limited Internet access to avoid legal action being taken against them. Potentially prohibiting access to mass amounts of material that is not actually infringing. There was nothing in SOPA or PIPA that attempted to actively limit free speech, but they could have created a reality where Internet access was limited suddenly and frequently. It was due to this threat that there was public uproar over these acts. With debate over SOPA and PIPA halted, new laws dealing with the same issues have taken their place.

The sponsor of SOPA, Representative Lamar Smith, is sponsoring the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. This bill prescribes harsher punishments for owning and spreading child pornography, but it has far greater implications than its name implies. For, just like SOPA and PIPA, it aims to change the responsibilities of ISPs. The act sets ISPs responsibilities as the following,

retain for at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account unless that address is transmitted by radio communication. Bars any cause of action against a provider for retaining records as required. Makes a good faith reliance on the requirement to retain records a complete defense to a civil action. Expresses the sense of Congress that such records should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent breaches of the records. (11)

(34)

to law enforcement for all “unregistered sex-offenders”, meaning every single Internet user (12). This law carries the assumption that every citizen is a potential criminal and makes their information easily available for investigations. Moreover, it bars any legal action from being taken against the ISPs if customer information is accessed illegally after a security breach. Passing this act will fundamentally change how service providers treat their customers. The bill reduces individual privacy by forcing the providers to constantly retain information in case of an investigation.

As this legislation is on the table in Congress, the US has also been a part of authoring the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Initially drafted by the US and Japan, the agreement now has over 31 signatories, although none have ratified it yet (13). The agreement is written with broad language and deals with a large scope of issues; all focused around intellectual property rights. A substantial amount of public criticism has risen up around ACTA, but it is important to separate the rhetoric from what the agreement actually entails. Some of the most talked about issues, such as the potential “three strike” rule where Internet access could be revoked permanently, are not actually in the final draft of the agreement. Nonetheless, ACTA has some sections that could cause serious issues. Most importantly, it removes many standards from the TRIPS provision, an international agreement made by the WTO. By stepping around TRIPS, ACTA enables material that has been accused of infringing a copyright to be taken down immediately. No longer would there be a notification and thus, “ACTA appears to be a step away from due-process proceedings that are customary in IP law” (14). Moreover, US ISPs would be responsible for takedowns on all international servers, rather than only American servers. Though this agreement would not explicitly change US law, it opens the gate to an entirely new type of monitoring on the international scale. This is very concerning because the system that the US government is actively moving towards is a system with striking similarities to the censorship networks established in both China and Iran. For both of these countries

…seek to quell dissent through the use of filtering, blocking and packet inspection tools, and in liberal countries, particularly western ones, where the front line is less explicitly about free speech and civil rights; instead it comes in the form of enforcement of ever-stricter intellectual property regulations. (14)

(35)

While looking forward, this progressive expansion of highly active Internet monitoring for the interest of industry cannot be ignored. This is a tipping point in web history and serious change will occur. The change that occurs needs to come from a calculated and informed decision, rather than the rhetoric of lobbyists, politicians, or Internet activists. But from this point, one of two things must change; either the laws about intellectual property, or how the Internet is used. Consider continuing upon the establish path and passing the proposed legislation. Will it be a problem? The public is not going to face immediate censorship, but more likely will experience limited access to music and videos that they prefer to watch for free. Yet history has shown that preventive legal measures have very little impact upon what Internet users actually access. The most comprehensive censorship network in the world, “The Great Firewall of China”, is bypassed by an estimated 20% of the Chinese population (15). Undoubtedly, the measures to prevent access to pirated material, which are less severe than the measures employed by the Chinese government, would be bypassed by an equal, if not far greater, percentage of American Internet users. The result of increasing protection against intellectual property theft is not decreased theft; it is decreased privacy and a step towards censorship. The current system already has serious amounts of monitoring built in and these laws would not only increase monitoring, but also increase the ease with which personal information is accessed. Examining American law over the past 20 years, the progression towards greater and more authoritarian government involvement with the Internet is quite clear. Continuing along this trend will lead to drastically reduced freedom, from external and personal forces. With new standards placed around Internet activity, a universal blanket of self-censorship will be installed. ISPs will limit what is available in fear of legal repercussions and every person browsing the web will be conscious of the fact that the government could easily be following each click. There is no need to lay this system across America to see what will happen, it is clear the negative aspects of increasing protection against infringement greatly outweigh the benefit of preventing a small percentage of counterfeiting and pirating.

(36)

product, but ultimately that is not the government’s concern. The priority is creating a safe and legal Internet that will not limit American citizens, but provides them with the freedom that defines democracy.

WORKS CITED

“Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement>.

El-Toukhy, Sherine. ”Online Defamation: Protection Scope of the Communications Decency Act”.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Marriott Downtown, Chicago, IL, 06 Aug. 2008. 10 Mar. 2012

Furnas, Alexander. “Why an International Trade Agreement Could Be as Bad as SOPA”. The Atlantic. 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http:// www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-an-international-trade-agreement-could-be-as-bad-as-sopa/252552/>.

Harp, Cindy T. “The Internet and the USA PATRIOT Act”. Internet and USA PATRIOT Act. University of Tennessee, 19 Nov. 2003. Web. 9 Mar. 2012. <http://web.utk.edu/~charp1/patriot/USAPA.html>.

Kravets, David. “10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA Is the Law That Saved the Web”. Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 27 Oct. 2008. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/ten-years-later/>.

Meredith, Leslie. “Child Porn Law Could Affect Everyone’s Privacy”. Msnbc.com. Msnbc Digital Network, 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46563165/ns/technology_and_science-security/>. Nie, Weiliang. “Chinese Learn to Leap the ‘Great Firewall’”. BBC News. BBC, 19

Mar. 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8575476.stm>.

“RIAA v. The People: 5 Years Later”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 30 Sept. 2008. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.

<https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later#footnote39_ pybz92o>.

Sandoval, Greg. “RIAA Drops Lawsuits; ISPs to Battle File Sharing”. CNET News. CBS Interactive, 19 Dec. 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. <http://news.cnet.com/ 8301-1023_3-10126914-93.html>.

Sherman, Cary H. “What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You”. The New York Times, 07 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html>.

<http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p272157_index.html>

(37)

Privacy, Security, Commerce, and Government”. Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress, 4 Mar. 2002. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.

<http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/RL31289.pdf>.

Singel, Ryan. “Inside DCSNet, the FBI’s Nationwide Eavesdropping Network”. Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 29 Aug. 2007. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http:/ /www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/

wiretap?currentPage=all>.

US Department of Commerce. Census. By Eric C. Newburger. 1 Sept. 2001. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf>.

United States. Cong. House. Stop Online Piracy Act. By Lamar Smith. 112th Cong. HR 3261. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

< h t t p : / / t h o m a s . l o c . g o v / c g i - b i n / q u e r y / F ? c 1 1 2 : 1 : . / t e m p / ~c1123I0AiD:e11714:>.

(38)

(39)

COVER STORY COVER-UP:

IS NEWS HEADLINE CENSORSHIP THREATENING AMERICA?

Kaia Barth5

Abstract: Taking the example of Time Magazine’s practice of printing different cover stories for the American and the European editions—in which Europe sees intense, serious images of world events while Americans see softened, playful lifestyle stories—I will analyze what this says about the American readership, and if we can classify this trend as censorship. Time magazine is the leading news magazine in America, yet it shows Americans either a lighter version of world events, or something attractive or personal first, so readers have to dig to learn about important events. I will discuss what this does to the American public intellect and world consciousness, and how this state threatens our democracy. Predicting a conclusion that American media focuses on the trifles of the individual rather than the vital issues and events of international politics, economics, and science—or even art and culture for that matter—I will analyze to what extent this state of ignorance is self-made. Simply put, is the issue of softened news a result of consumer demand, or of manipulation in higher spheres (as with traditional propaganda and censorship)? I will conclude with suggestions on how news outlets might look more to their mission of providing reliable, relevant informa-tion instead of maximizing sales, and how the American public might show more discreinforma-tion in choosing news sources that do not outwardly resemble tabloids.

Keywords: Time magazine, censorship, America

Comedian Jon Stewart of The Daily Show recently poked fun at Time Magazine, America’s leading news magazine, for their tendency to publish different cover sto-ries in their American and European editions. The stage audience laughed at the contrast of the February 20th_{covers, where Europe saw a grim-looking Mario Monti,}

Italian Prime Minister, next to the question “Can this man save Europe?” while Time

treated Americans to a bright pink spread within their iconic red border, on which two dogs posed under the headline, “The Surprising Science of Animal Friendships” (ill. 1).

The fate of Europe versus your pet’s BFF; the same magazine, the same week, most of the same reports, but two starkly different faces. Looking back through the covers of each edition in 2011 reveals a trend. December 5th_{: Europe saw a powerful}

image of an Egyptian protester raising his fist amidst a background of violence, while Americans enjoyed a cute cartoon with the reassuring title “Why Anxiety is Good For You” (ill. 2); August 8th_{: Europe read about “Travels Through Islam”, while}

(40)

Americans faced “Chore Wars” (ill. 3); October 4th_{: only Europe dealt with the messy}

issue “Why the U.S. will never save Afghanistan”, as Americans heard instead of “The return of the silent majority” (ill. 4).

Illustration 1: Time, front covers of the 20 February 2012 issues, European edition (left) and American edition (right).

(41)

Illustration 3: Time, front covers of the 8 August 2011 issues, European edition (left) and American edition (right).

Illustration 4: Time, front covers of the 4 October 2011 issues, European edition (left) and American edition (right).

(42)

me now?” (ill. 5.1). It may seem unfair to attack Time for featuring a presidential candidate on their American edition, with the Republican primaries in full swing. However, just a few weeks prior, a nearly identical photo of Romney graced the cover of Time’s American edition (ill. 5.2). With so many major events happening in a week’s time worldwide, the double feature of Romney pays too much attention to just one primary candidate eleven months out from the actual election, at the expense of more significant news.

Illustration 5.1: Time, front cover, 16 January 2012, European edition (left) and American edition (right).

Supliment nr 1 2013

International Journal

of Cross-Cultural Studies

and Environmental Communication

Supplement:

Young Researchers and Their Approaches

No. 1, 2013

ISSN 2285 – 3324

ISSN-L = 2285 – 3324

International Journal

of Cross-Cultural Studies

and Environmental Communication

http://crossculturenvironment.wordpress.com/

Supplement:

Young Researchers and Their Approaches

No. 1, 2013

www.editurauniversitara.ro

Asociaþia pentru Dezvoltare Interculturalã

(ADI)

http://www.adcrossculture.com

On Censorship Today:

(New) Spaces and Ethic Ramifications

Coordinator: Ileana Marin,

International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies

and Environmental Communication

Supplement: Young Researchers and Their Approaches

On Censorship Today: (New) Spaces and Ethic Ramifications

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

PREAMBLE

@GUTENBERG FIGHTING #CENSORSHIP:

TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL AGAINST CENSORSHIP

CENSORSHIP TODAY: HOW WILL THE INTERNET BE

CENSORED?

THE INTERNET: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT COULD BECOME

COVER STORY COVER-UP:

IS NEWS HEADLINE CENSORSHIP THREATENING AMERICA?