Friday, February 20, 2015

Stephen Harper's War on Libraries (and Archives, and Science)

A new book by journalist Mark Bourrie, titled Kill the Messengers, outlines Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s policies on science and access to information during his time in office. The review of said policies is quite shocking, and reveals that said policies impact not only Canadian citizens, but global citizens, as government scientists are restricted from accessing scientific documents to aid in their research. As well, Harper’s government has prevented scientists from speaking to the media outright; instead, all statements go through a media specialist before being released to news companies. It is sad to see that such restrictions on freedom of speech are being imposed here, as they are reminiscent of something one may be accustomed to seeing from governments that are elusive (such as the People’s Republic of China).

A detailed excerpt from Bourrie’s book can be found here. The restrictions are also affecting government librarians, historians, and archivists, a greater description of which is found near the end of the article.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Freedom to Read Week 2015

Hello friends!

Freedom to Read Week is almost upon us!

In celebration of that, FLIF will have a table in HUB on Tuesday, February 24th from 10 am to 3 pm. Come talk to some lovely FLIF members and learn some interesting facts!

Have a lovely rest of your week,

Friday, February 06, 2015

Filtering the Internet: Does it Keep the Bad Stuff Out?

Internet filters are a highly controversial topic when it comes to public computers in the library. Many people feel that filters are great because they prevent vulnerable populations (such as children) from viewing harmful materials, either directly, through an accidental Google Image search, or indirectly, such as passing by an adult viewing violent or sexually explicit images.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist states in his paper, “Internet Filters Should Be Used in Libraries” (2004) that filters “provide necessary protection for children, and adult library patrons can easily request that the filter be disabled or a site unblocked” (p.71). He states that “libraries can set their software to prevent the blocking of material that falls into categories like ‘Education’, ‘History’, and ‘Medical’...and may also add or delete specific sites from a blocking category” (p.72).  
Advocates for filters almost never intend to purposefully censor the Internet; they are often wholeheartedly concerned for the well being of children in the library. However, filters do just that: censor.

One must not forget that filtering software is sold by private companies with their own agendas, many of which are forced onto the general public when installed on library computers. Schrader (1999) explains, “Many products also block any reference to homosexuality, lesbianism, or bisexuality. As a spokesperson stated: ‘We filter anything that has to do with sex. Sexual orientation is about sex by virtue of the fact that it has sex in the name’... But most products do not focus exclusively on sex and violence, however. Many have strong political and ideological motivations. Some block all feminist sites, such as NOW, the National Organization for Women, feminist newsgroups, and sites such as alt.feminism. Also blocked was the Planned Parenthood site. One product blocked the important Holocaust archive and anti-revisionist resource site Nizkor for a time because it was claimed to contain ‘hate speech’” (p. 10-11). These filter companies are privately owned and operated. They have a private agenda that often takes on a role that is more about censorship than about protecting young minds from harmful sites.

What many advocates for filters don’t realize is that ultimately, filter technology is not yet effective enough (nor will it probably ever be) to prevent absolutely all harmful material from being viewed. If someone using a public library computer wants to view alternative images, they can (and will) find a way. The opposite is just as true. While filters are designed to prevent harmful information from being displayed, too often they block sexual health sites and reputable sources of information as well. A study conducted by researchers at UC-Berkeley in 2007 found that “Generally, filters with lower rates of underblocking had higher rates of overblocking. If the filter most effective at blocking adult materials were applied to search indexes, typical query results, or the results of popular queries, the number of clean pages blocked in error would exceed the number of adult pages blocked correctly” (1).  Filters are just not advanced enough to replicate human decision-making regarding what is “safe” information and information that is “harmful”. For example, a filter may block all sites containing the word “breast” in order to prevent pornographic images from being shown. However, this could block access to sites discussing breast cancer or even how to cook chicken breasts! While librarians can and do tweak filtering software to prevent these sorts of instances from occurring, it is a lengthy, time-consuming process that is often complicated. As well, the internet is so vast that one cannot simply find all websites devoted to a topic such as breast cancer and prevent the filter from blocking them.

Of course, librarians want to protect the children that visit their branches, and many library internet use policies will take a firm stance on viewing explicit material on their machines. Edmonton Public Library’s Internet Use Policy (2015) states:
“Library computers or wireless may not be used to:
  • Access sites or transmit materials which violate any Canadian federal or provincial law or City Bylaw such as defamatory, discriminatory, or obscene materials
  • Send fraudulent, harassing, or obscene communications
  • Display overt sexual images”

EPL’s policy is backed by statements made by professional organizations, such as CLA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom and CLA’s Statement on Internet Access.

So what can we as librarians do to protect vulnerable populations? One of the most important, and easiest, things we can do is to educate parents. Parents need to realize that the library is not obligated to care for unsupervised children, and that the best way that children can be protected is to have their internet usage monitored by parents. One excellent piece of literature out there for parents is CLA’s publication NetSafe, NetSmart: Managing and Communicating about Internet in the Library. By educating parents and children about best internet practices in the library, we can protect vulnerable populations while still protecting people’s rights to intellectual freedom and a censor-free Web.

Sources and Further Reading Under the Break:

Saturday, January 17, 2015

The Berninghausen Debate

Here's a video some of us made for MLIS 501. It's on The Berninghausen Debate, enjoy!

Sunday, December 21, 2014

The Sony Pictures Email Hack, the DPRK, and the Cancellation of the Upcoming Release of The Interview

This week Sony Pictures cancelled the December 25th opening of its new film The Interview--a buddy comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, about an assassination plot to kill North Korea’s (DPRK) boy-leader Kim Jong-Un.
The cancellation occurred in the wake of the now infamous Sony Pictures email-hack.
I’ve heard theories that Sony, being a Japanese company, has all the more reason to be nervous of the DPRK’s threats. I’ve heard theories that the DPRK relies on its public reputation as being unhinged, crazy, and dangerous because that’s the only real power or influence they have on the outside world.
Yesterday, I saw one of Sony’s big-wigs explain on CNN that the film was not, in fact, banned. Nor did they “cancel” the film. He maintained that Sony was committed to releasing the film in the future, but explained that they had little choice but to cancel the upcoming release when individual theater chains announced, one by one, that they would not screen The Interview.
I later heard that Sony is making plans for a possible release of the film on Crackle--a movie channel/platform owned by Sony--in the new year.
While the FBI now says it has proof that the DPRK is responsible for the hack, the DPRK has maintained they are not responsible, and that they “will work with the FBI in a joint investigation” to prove they did not hack Sony. Of course, the statement was issued with an ultimatum threatening “grave consequences” if the US rejected the proposed joint investigation. I really don't believe the FBI. Anonymous just posted that the DPRK is indeed not responsible.
Without these public threats it would have been very easy for Sony to simply bury the film, or shelve it--which is essentially what they’ve done for the moment. Films are buried all the time. However, because of the publicity surrounding the hack, Sony was not able to do so quietly.
Earlier this week, President Obama said that Sony made a mistake cancelling the film’s release, stating, "We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship."
I’d like to note that banning a film is not the same as cancelling its release. There are actually very few officially banned film in the United States, and the few banned films are banned in only in certain objecting states, but not across the entire United States. Bans are usually brief and overturned, and bans are often based on sexual or blasphemous content, and less because of political content.
It’s clear the DPRK wants to ban the film, on a global scale. The Sony cancellation of the upcoming release, however, is not a ban.
In reaction to the film release cancellation, the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin announced that they would screen Team America: World Police in its place. Other theaters followed suit. It seemed like a good alternative, and would certainly make a statement.
Team America is a 2004 comedy from Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park. Notably, Team America features the DPRK’s former leader Kim Jong-Il as a singing marionette. 
Then suddenly, out of left field Paramount Pictures announced that they would not allow anyone to screen Team America. I’m not clear as to why exactly Paramount would ban screenings of a 10 year-old film. A film that was not openly condemned by Jong-Il.
Regardless of who is responsible for the hack, and regardless of the DPRK’s threats of retaliation if the film was released, the DPRK has an interesting history when it comes to cinema.
Jong-Il was known to be a fan of Broadway musicals, opera, and was a cinephile with a personal collection of over 20,000 film titles. He loved Slasher films and Monster movies. He even wrote some books about cinema: The Cinema and Directing and On the Art of Cinema.
In 1978, Jong-Il kidnapped South Korean filmmaker Shin Sang-Ok and his wife, actress Choi Eun-hee, while they were in Hong Kong. He brought them to the DPRK in order for them to make movies for him.
After a few years in prison, in 1985, Sang-Ok conceded to make Jong-Il’s Monster movie, Pulgasari (you can watch Pulgasari in its entirety on Youtube).
Between 1983 and their incredible escape in 1986, Sang-Ok directed seven films produced by Jong-Il.
Sang-Ok had once been considered the “Prince of South Korean Cinema.” I’d like to say that he went on to make some important films after his escape. Unfortunately, Sang-Ok ended up producing the 1990s 3 Ninjas franchise in Hollywood. He was reluctant to return to Korea until the late 1990s, and he passed away in 2004.
Apparently Jong-Il’s son and predecessor Jong-Un, despite growing up in democratic Switzerland, exposed to Western and European cultures, is not the cinephile his father was.
Coming back to the Sony Pictures hack, and more notably, the ban on Team America screenings by Paramount, it is clear that this is very much about intellectual freedom--something that does not exist in the DPRK.
Russ Collins, director Art House Convergence, issued a statement this week addressing the film’s cancellation saying, “circumstance has propelled this work into a nexus of values, both societal and artistic.” Adding that, “It is also, as an artistic and national community, an opportunity to respond clearly to the behavior of an international bully opposed, by word and deed, to the value of freedom.”
Despite whatever its artistic and cultural merits, it’s notable that the unhinged threats issued from Jong-Un and the DPRK were enough to scare Sony Pictures into cancelling the film’s scheduled release. At what cost? I’ll tell you. At the cost of freedom. Freedom of expression, and of intellectual freedom. Artistic and creative freedom. The freedom to joke and laugh. The freedom to think critically about censorship. And, the freedom to produce creative, critical, and political content for entertainment purposes. This is also about repression and censorship, and to an extent it is also about terrorism.
While The Interview is very likely a mediocre comedy at best, cancelling a film due to vague political threats from an outwardly unstable and repressive regime is not something to be ignored. It’s a political issue and it subsequently raises many questions and concerns about control of content in Hollywood.
The more broad effects of the Sony hack have revealed some of the inherent hypocrisy, compounded by deeply entrenched sexism and racism, that is systemic within the Hollywood. Those Sony emails, they are the tip of the iceberg.
The Sony hack also exposed that it was a Sony executive who was chose Jong-Un as the evil villain in The Interview. Other emails detailed the negotiations on how graphic the scene would be, when Jong-Un is killed. Whether or not these choices were made in poor taste, and as risky as this was, it was, perhaps unwittingly, political.
I’ll also add that satire is an often misunderstood form of comedy that regularly relies on politically unsavory tropes and is aimed at skewering aspects of contemporary cultures, and (hopefully) evokes critical thinking in its audience. Satire is always for a particular effect.
I am still most curious about the Paramount ban on Team America screenings. It’s bizarre. Perhaps, it’s a pathetic attempt to drum up any kind of publicity at all. In my gut, I don’t think Paramount was acting out of any legitimate fear. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
The fact of the matter, however, is that we are talking about Hollywood. Some might argue, “it’s just a movie”. Surely, missing out on The Interview will not be devastating for mankind. I’m not sure seeing it will better our cause either.
I'm curious what happens next. If violence is perpetrated because of a screening of The Interview I would bet money it won't have anything to do with the DPRK. I pray, nothing happens. Period.
In any case, the Sony hack will eventually blow over, and The Interview will be released. It will probably be rather underwhelming in the wake of such a scandal. I’ll probably watch it eventually on Netflix, and I’ll have some cheap laughs. It’ll be fun. I will admit, I enjoy Rogen, Franco, et al. More importantly, I will watch it because I’m a cinephile dedicated to upholding and preserving intellectual freedom.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

"The Interview" and Intellectual Freedom

Hey all,

I suppose you've heard the news:

Corner Gas has a movie! I watched it (yesterday, at this hour), and it's really good. Seriously, if you're a fan of the Corner Gas show, or just a Canadian, I'd really recommend seeing/buying it. Oh, and there were some things happening in Alberta politics. Disappointing and stupid things.

Sadly, I'm not writing now to talk about fun or disappointing things: I'm going to talk about terrible things.

The Sony corporation has decided to block their film The Interview from going to theatres in any country. Now, this isn't because it probably sucks (no offense to Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen, James Franco, Dan Sterling, etc.). It's because Sony is a cowardly corporation that bends to terrorism.

Probably not the words they'd use.

Here's one of many articles discussing it (NBC).

This is an issue of intellectual freedom and terrorism. Obviously. It's self-censorship based on some insane threats.

It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone in a "free" country would let psychopaths control our art (which, I admit, is a generous description of blockbuster movies). Maybe, MAYBE, if there was a real and direct threat on human lives we could make concessions in the short term. But there is no way anyone in their right mind thinks the North Korean government is a real threat to lives outside of their own country. There was never any real threat that "North Korean sleeper cells would bomb theatres," or whatever. The only people the North Korean's can really push around is their own citizens.

So far as I can find, there hasn't even been any credible threats. From the NBC article linked above: "a Department of Homeland Security official said that there was 'no credible intelligence to indicate an active plot against movie theaters,' but that it was aware of the threat." North Korea itself must be pleased with the turn of events: two less films criticizing it (there was a second movie cancelled, starring Steve Carell tentatively titled "Pyongyang"), and an inflated sense of importance in the world stage. But there is no realistic threat, Sony is just paranoid after their recent loss of information (and, really, why should corporations have privacy if individuals don't deserve it?).

Serves them right for having so much private information on the internet. The internet is public, every centimetre of it.

This is so weird that even Mitt Romney is on the right side of things. MITT ROMNEY, the dude that thinks a concept used to group and hide human beings behind a noun should be considered "people" (I always want to vomit/cry/flail-randomly-in-anger when I remember his words). He thinks that Sony should release the offending film online for free:

". don’t cave, fight: release free online globally. Ask viewers for voluntary $5 contribution to fight ."

The dude even asked Sony to get people to donate to fight Ebola. Mitt Romney. I don't even.

Terrorism won. Vague threats of death and damage swayed people, lots of people, and made them silence themselves and their works. Note to self: terrorism works. Though, I suppose this isn't *really* new information: the Sun News Network and Fox News have been using terror to influence people for ages.

Sony needs to release the movie online. Well, they SHOULD release the movie in theatres, but whatever.

Let's pretend Sony is right to believe that waves of North Korean fanatics are just waiting to bomb theatres (because, OBVIOUSLY, North Koreans that are allowed to leave the oppressive country are going to remain loyal without Suicide Squad style bomb implants), and we should stop having public gatherings (ie: theatre showings) of critical discussions. Then release the dissent online, and good luck to the bombers that need to destroy every server and household/public computer.

We cannot allow terrorists to think that threats of violence will realistically manipulate our media and our thoughts.

So, I think I've said some pretty strong things here. I would absolutely love to hear some responses from you, so please comment on this post. I'll definitely be happy to respond when I'm more sober.


Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Homeless Connect October 2014

FLIF had a great time at Homeless Connect in October. With all of the donations from EPL, we were able to hand out lots of books to the attendees of the event!

Two of our members helping out at our booth!