Human Rights are not political views.

Since the results of the American election, many of us at FLIF have debated how to handle this and what our actions should be in the coming months.

Quite simply: FLIF stands by its mandate to defend intellectual freedom and stand up for social justice. We believe, as Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Hate speech is generally categorized as speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which may incite violent or prejudicial action by disparaging or intimidating an individual or group. When a person is acting in an inflammatory manner by categorizing minority groups with negative attributes and perpetrating views that are deliberately harmful to said groups, the result is that the use of these words, expressions, gestures or displays cause and reinforce the subordination of these groups.

A presidential nominee calling for a registry of Muslims or a vice presidential nominee creating a law to jail same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses clearly meet these guidelines. Their words, especially when spoken from a position of power, are detrimental to civil liberties and used to justify violence towards minority groups. Citizens of a country should not be involuntarily placed on a registry based on the colour of their skin or their religion. Press outlets should not be denied access or threatened with lawsuits by government officials.  

Freedom of speech is a person’s protected right to criticize its government, not a government official’s right to disparage a populace. Human rights are not political issues, nor are they privileges to be doled out by a governmental official. They are to be protected against suppression and incendiary behaviours by all responsible citizens.

The actions of America's incoming government will not make people safer. In the short time since the election, hate speech and crimes have risen in America. We must stand together to defend human rights and freedoms against a government that is poised to discriminate against already marginalized groups.

The Freedom to Speak in a Library

A friend of mine recently shared with me an article about freedom of speech at the Kansas City Library that I thought was very interesting. A summary of the events that occurred is as follows:

A public speaker, Dennis Ross, was at the library, and the library decided to hire outside security for the event. Part of this agreement with this security was that "nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons." However, when a patron asked some controversial questions of the speaker, one of the guards attempted to eject the patron from the library. Additionally, one of the guards stated that they were at a private event and that the library was private property. When the library director attempted to intervene and protect the patron's rights, the guards violently arrested him.

The library wanted this event to blow over, and thus the event was not reported widely until last month, even though it took place in May. However, I think this is an important event to be aware of. The library should be a place in which everyone should feel free to question ideas and concepts without being punished. Even when the questions and ideas being put forth are disagreed upon by the library and any persons of authority--such as the security guards--if they are being presented in a peaceful manner, they should be permitted.

The concept of libraries protecting freedom of speech is something we can take for granted (especially if we are in a program surrounded by like-minded people in a student group dedicated to the idea, for instance). However, this incident shows that there can be real world consequences for protecting this right. Yes, the line between hate speech and free speech is one that is sometimes crossed and sometimes not seen at all, as many individuals on the Internet with an opinion and a keyboard will tell you. However, by standing up for the right to ask questions in a public forum, libraries can help to define this line and lead this discussion by setting a strong example.

What do you think?

Here is another link describing the incident.

October 24-30 is International Open Access Week, and there are many events taking place on the University of Alberta campus, including:

• Open Access Week Kickoff Event
• Open Access 101 and Introduction to Open Access Publishing
• An Introduction to BioMed Central, SpringerOpen, and Chemistry Central
• Creating your researcher page in ERA and archiving your poster

Open Access for digital resources is not a new idea. It emerged in the 1990s, partly in response to profiteering on the part of academic journal publishers. The problem, as highlighted by this infographic from the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, is this: the results of publicly funded research are handed over to publishers, who earn significant profits by selling access to that research to publicly funded institutions. The cost of digital journal subscriptions is significant, and fees are increasing every year at rates far higher than the rate of inflation. The system is unsustainable. The Open Access movement believes the results of publicly-funded research should be free to the public.

The multi-decade lifespan of the modern Open Access movement suggests there are barriers to widespread adoption, and that's true. We could talk about the publishing industry's creation of Article Publishing Charges (APCs), which are a bait-and-switch replacement for subscription fees. We could talk about the embargoes placed upon research, limiting its placement in open access systems until two or three years after the for-profit publication date. We could talk about the publishing industry's past attempts to pass a Research Works Act in the United States, which would have made open access publishing illegal. We could talk about the barriers to Open Access publishing for books. We could talk about the Tri-Council's new Open Access Research Publishing policy, which mandates that research funded by their agencies be placed in open access repositories, and the response of indigenous communities who are concerned their work with sacred knowledge will be inappropriately shared.

Each of these are reason enough to advocate for widespread attention to Open Access methods and processes, but we've decided to focus on the Catch-22 faced by researchers who do not yet feel free to use open journals for publishing due to possible career impacts.

Why is this? In the academic world, the importance of publishing in top-tier journals is often emphasized as demonstration of a "significant outcome" on the road to tenure, or as criteria used by hiring committees for faculty jobs. When it comes to published works, "significance" is generally indicated by the researcher's successful publication in top-tier journals.

One issue is the cost of APCs, which can be as high as $5000 per article. Another factor is the ingrained system by which "authoritative" journals are determined. Though it has been met with justifiable criticism, Thomson-Reuter's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is still seen as the most valuable method for measuring the relative value of academic journals.  The 2016 rankings place Open Access journals very low on the overall spectrum: the top-ranked open access publication scores 75% lower than the top journal in the report.

Herein lies the conundrum. Researchers may understand the value of open access publishing and want to share their research with the world, but they also know that publication in a prestigious journal will significantly aid their careers. They are forced to make a choice. They either submit their work to a journal whose publisher profits from the publication, restricts access, and charges institutions for the privilege of viewing articles; or they submit their work to a “green” open access journal that removes private profiteering from public research but compromises their ability to win new funding, find academic positions or possibly attain tenure.

The solution is an achievable one: students and faculties should pressure departments and institutions to adopt thoughtful policies on research publication, and hiring and tenure committees should consider the value of open access publishing as part of the creation of their assessment criteria.

Why not let it start with you? Take a look at what the Open Access movement has to offer, and then let your voice be heard within your institution, for the sake of the public good.

Back to the grind!

No really, my coffee intake is off the charts.


A new school year has begun, meaning we have a lot of exciting events coming up for FLIF! We're going to be adding some more structure to the blog and doing more outreach.

For now though, we'd just like to wish everyone a happy Autumn and invite you to come see us at our long awaited Banned Books display, for September 28th in HUB, by the Rutherford entrance. We'll have bookmarks, subversive reading lists, and witty banter as always.

Can't wait!

The Giver: A Challenged Book

Most books are challenged for children because of sexually explicit content or offensive language, but The Giver by Lois Lowry does not contain either of these topics.  Instead, it is seen as not suitable for the age group for which it is aimed, middle school children, because of violence.  Those who challenge the 1993 novel claim that it is too dark.  About a third of the challenges result in a ban of The Giver.

While the novel does contain darker themes, such as ultimate control over a dystopian town, euthanasia, and the cultural memories (things such as war, famine, and pain) Jonas receives from the title character, I never found the descriptions gratuitous.  Enough description is given to understand the torment Jonas undergoes when he discovers the truth of his world; the pain is not dwelt upon more than is necessary.  In the challenge listing on the Freedom to Read website, the objecting parent stated that grade 11 might be a more suitable reading level.

I read the book for a novel study in grade seven when I was 12 and loved it--I've always considered it the book that lead me to an appreciation of dystopian novels in my teen years.  After the dawn of The Hunger Games in 2008 (which is often challenged itself), the amount of dystopian YA novels is much higher.  Books like Divergent, Delirium, Matched, and Incarceron are right up there in popularity with the vampire books.  However, I never found these as dark as The Giver, and they are meant for older audiences.  Maybe The Giver seems darker because it is meant for younger audiences and still contains these themes; it was also the first one I read, so maybe the other books did not seem as depressing afterwards.

I'm not saying that the darkness of The Giver means that the challenges and resulting bans are a good thing.  It was a great novel to read in grade seven, and lead our class to as much of a discussion as a class of twelve-year-olds can hold about a book.  However, I think that keeping in mind the reasons behind the challenges, especially when it comes to reading levels, is important.  It all comes down to the individual child and their parents to choose reading material suitable for their reading level, as long as "suitable for their reading level" doesn't become "only following with our beliefs and no one else's."

I don't think The Giver falls under this "only following with our beliefs and no one else's."  The attitude of the parents challenging the book--at least in this instance--seems to be that it is too old for the children, not explicitly inappropriate.  The impression I get from those who challenge other books for sexually explicit content, swearing, or LGBTQIA content is that these are things that they see as wrong to be portrayed in literature for their children in general, not waiting until a grade 11 reading level.  Therefore, I would say that while I don't agree with the challenge of The Giver, it is a lesser evil.

What do you think?

FLIF on the radio!

Hello All!
This year we have been busy being on the radio! We talk about all kinds of cool (and important) things. Last month our show covered the difference of Feminist versus Feminized in the context of library professions. This month, we covered Crime and Corrections and the importance of library services for incarcerated persons. Check out our two episodes below. And don't forget to listen to us next month as well! We'll be covering Freedom to Read Week and Banned Books!

It's been a while since something was posted on our blog. How dreadful. Someone should say something! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I have anything particularly fascinating or insightful to say...I mean, when I think "Intellectual Freedom" (strike the angel chorus: Aaahhh)...only a very little follows. But I suppose that thinking some little thing is probably better than thinking nothing. Well, perhaps not according to Buddha...but nonetheless, here is some food for thought (and who doesn't like food or thoughts?!)

Ok, if I let me mind wander about the intellectual freedom camp, it comes to me that...intellectual freedom must be inversely correlated to censorship. The concept of intellectual freedom promotes the rights of individuals to freely explore ideas either through expression or consumption, and so, one might suggest that with increased practises of intellectual freedom will come decreased practises of censorship; and inversely, with greater censorship will come decreased intellectual freedom. Hmm, this seems kind of obvious doesn't it?

Well, let's see...in theory we promote intellectual freedom because we believe that a) we are autonomous individuals with the right to determine our own experiences and express ourselves freely, b) and therefore, we also do not have the right to impose our ideas and beliefs onto others, c) and possibly, with greater, unimpeded access to contrasting ideas and points of view, we will create a more thoughtful and tolerant society? Ok, let's go with all of the above. Now what? What happens after we create a more thoughtful and tolerant society?

If people are more thoughtful and tolerant, then they will take time to consider various aspects of an idea/opinion/belief, even if it does not conform to their own. So, for example, if I were to tell you about a conversation I once had with JD (a person whom you don't know) who said that slaves were never ill-treated because they were too valuable, (i.e. they represented an investment by the farmer, so why would they risk their investment by not feeding, housing and otherwise caring for their slaves?), the precepts of intellectual freedom kind of dictate that even if you don't agree with this statement, you still need to consider it...give it it's thoughtful due so to speak. Otherwise, if you dismiss it out of hand, doesn't that become censorship?

Ok wait; if you don't allow JD to express his view, then that is censorship. If you don't allow someone to access JD's ideas, then that is also censorship. If you allow JD to speak and someone else to listen, but choose to personally ignore JD, that is...well it doesn't sound like censorship (ok good), but it doesn't sound very thoughtful and tolerant either. If you don't engage with an alternative view to your own, then perhaps you're censoring yourself. Is that even possible? Sounds a little crazy, but you know, maybe it is (possible, not crazy). And if you are not willing to consider an idea, how will that affect your willingness to allow others the freedom to consider it as well?

So let's go back a bit: if more intellectual freedom = less censorship, that means that the more freedom that people have to express their beliefs, the less freedom they have to dismiss others'...but then we're still curtailing one's intellectual freedom!! So does that mean more intellectual freedom = more rights to censorship?!

I don't know where to go from here. Does anyone have any ideas?

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.

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,
Kyera

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:

The Berninghausen Debate

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

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.

"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:

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

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.

--Ken

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!

Fundraiser Being Used to Support Recently Cancelled Play

A production of the play Almost, Maine, written by John Cariani, has been cancelled at a high school in North Carolina, despite the students’ claim that they had permission to put on the production. The cancellation occurred because the principal felt that “the play’s “‘sexually-explicit overtones and multiple sexual innuendos’ are at odds with the school’s mission and educational objectives.”

In response to this cancellation, a Kickstarter campaign has been created by the those in the school's community to allow the students to continue with their production. Their goal has already been reached and they pledge “to donate half of the excess money to OUTright Youth of Catawba Valley,” an organization focused on supporting LGBTQ youth, and “the other half of the excess [will go] to various arts organizations in [their] immediate area.”

Additional links: www.bookshelvesofdoom.org and www.broadwayworld.com

Homeless Connect Reminder

Hi everybody!


We hope the long weekend treated you well and you are refreshed for the coming weeks!


This is just a reminder that Sunday (October 19th) is Homeless Connect. We'll be at the Shaw Conference Centre (9797 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton) from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.


See you there volunteers!

Homeless Connect: It's that time of year again!

Hey everyone!

This is just a reminder that FLIF will be participating in Homeless Connect on October 19th from 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. (Two weeks from today!)

Homeless Connect takes place at the Shaw Conference Centre, 9797 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton.

If you're volunteering, see you there!

Banned Books Week

It is now Banned Books Week, and hopefully you've seen some of the resources and articles raising awareness and celebrating intellectual freedom.

The CLA put out a press release on last year's survey of challenged resources and policies, as well as a report written by Alvin Schrader and Donna Bowman.

The ALA always has their webpage.

And there's an organization sponsored by publishers.

There are tons of ways to get involved this week. Raise awareness in your community (not everyone is as aware of banning/challenging books as you are). Loudly proclaim your commitment to and love for intellectual freedom over the internet or in person (Loudly: all in caps, at the top of your lungs). Take a commonly challenged book out of the library (return it on time and in good condition, please), or use your dollar vote to show support to publishers and authors of controversial works. Hug an intellectual freedom fighter (aka: librarian).

Here are some fun things that I found today:

A comic:

And a quiz.

Please let us know what you've found, what inspires you, or just whatever your brain wants to drop out in the comments.

Oh, and remember: banning and challenging works is real, and very serious. Don't celebrate Banned Books Week; celebrate our freedom to choose what we consume, and the people that fight for this freedom.

--Ken

Happy International Literacy Day!

This year the theme for the UNESCO event is "Literacy and Sustainable Development". Literacy is so important to education, and it helps to build strong and sustainable societies. Though the event is being celebrated on a global scale this year, the main celebration will be taking place in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Click here to read more about the event, including its history and importance.

FLIF On The Radio!

You've read about what we do on this blog - now you can hear us talk about it!

Back in March, two of our members participated in a radio interview with the campus radio station CJSR. The interview didn't air until August 7th, but if you were unable to listen, click here! We talk about a few of our projects, such as the Jasper Place Radical Bookshelf and Homeless Connect. If you want to skip ahead to the part where we talk, our interview starts at 3:20 of the broadcast.