Showing posts with label Internet censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet censorship. Show all posts

Friday, July 11, 2008

Teachers jump for thought control, in the name of the victim, of course!

Online bullying should be criminal offence, teachers say
Cyberbullying is becoming so prevalent in Canadian schools and society it should be made a separate Criminal Code offence, according to a new policy that will be adopted Saturday by the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

The CTF, which represents 220,000 teachers, is holding a special session on cyberbullying at its annual meeting in Moncton, N.B., where the plan will officially be ratified.

In a draft version of the policy obtained by Canwest News Service, the teachers' group says it should be a punishable offence to use "information and communication technology to convey a message which threatens death or bodily harm or perpetuates fear and intimidation."

The proposal indicates a serious recognition of how common it is now for bullying to be carried out by text messaging, in online chat rooms, on blogs or social networking websites such as Facebook. The idea goes far beyond the expulsions and suspensions that some students have been punished with for bullying fellow students or targeting teachers.

The president of the CTF, Emily Noble, said in an interview the Criminal Code doesn't delve far enough into the use of electronic media and the legislation needs to be toughened.
[...]
A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said it's too early to comment on the CTF's Criminal Code proposal, but Noble said the CTF has started to talk to members of Parliament and have so far found a receptive audience. "It is an issue that will resonate, we believe, with the policy-makers and the legislative makers," she said.

The organization's inaugural policy on cyberbullying should be a helpful tool for its members in lobbying MPs, provincial education ministers and school boards, many of whom have not yet developed guidelines on how to handle the growing problem, said Noble.

The document outlines what role should be played by students, parents, teachers, school boards, teacher organizations, ministries of education, government and website providers.

The policy doesn't shy away from controversial issues surrounding cyberbullying such as freedom of speech arguments and whether schools should be allowed to discipline students for behaviour outside of school, in the privacy of their own homes.

The CTF says freedom of expression and opinion rights should be balanced with the responsibilities of parents and the education community to guide individuals in the responsible use of information technology and that it believes cyberbullying policies should apply to "any and all cybermisconduct and cyberbullying that negatively affects the school environment regardless of whether it originated from the school."

Now we already have criminal law against uttering threats and harassment? Why the need for more law? Apparently because the test of the existing law is too hard to meet and there all kinds of aggressive and resentful people out there, given human nature, whom we need to control.

Whom do you trust to judge who should be controlled? How political will the regulation of expression get and how quickly? When I was in school, I was bullied by a couple of teachers who were embarrassed at my questions revealing their intellectual deficiencies. I was basically told to shut up and stop disrupting the order of the classroom, and to consider changing courses, or....? In that situation, who was most likely to get labeled the bully?

Anti-bullying is all the rage in schools today. The war against the evil villain bully is such that one might be excused for thinking the anti-bulliers have become the bullies, with all the sanctimonious self-righteousness that blinds them to this paradoxical reality. I'm not defending bullies, but we hardly overcome the problem by playing to insecure young people's desires to be justified as victims. It is precisely the thrilling moral ambivalence and human uncertainty inherent in any challenge to reveal yourself as a loser or a winner, the paradox involved in any act of finger-pointing at someone who can, but might not, point/finger back, on which the bully dwells. And it's a "game" which we can learn to play in ever more sophisticated ways, especially when the power of the law can be brought into it to corrupt one side or another in undeserved righteousness.

The need for victims is the deeper problem, whichever side of the "bully" you are on. Indeed, what underlines much of the teachers' way of thinking is the need for scapegoats (in the name of the victim) who can be prosecuted to serve the desire for some sense of order in times that prove existentially difficult for those who would make their living by standing and talking to the huddled masses forced to attend at classrooms. Now that the students have freer and broader horizons, thanks to the digital revolution, teachers are less important as conveyors of information, and of authority more generally. What better way to reclaim authority than to become bully for anti-bullying?

Is it any wonder they want to buttress their job descriptions by becoming legal bullies, policers of what is being said by their students on the net? I'll bet dollars to donut holes that bullying is no worse today than when I was in school. Just different.

There's no way to avoid the reality that kids have to grow up by recapitulating some of the more primitive, and often violently sacrificial gestures, of culture. Learning a culture means first learning its more basic or primitive ways of thinking. Bullying and scapegoating are such. Teachers who encourage students to dwell in this morass by thinking themselves victims are not doing their job, which should be to encourage students to overcome, through intellectual and spiritual strength, all manner of bullying and victim thinking. But for that, you first have to learn what is wrong with the victimary world view of postmodern liberalism. And something tells me that course hasn't yet been introduced at teachers' colleges.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Has Sarkozy declared war on French Blogs?

And to think: Sarkozy was supposed to be the **centrist** candidate in France's presidential election!

From yahoo news we can read about the upcoming attempt to regulate who can and who cannot convey information over the internet in France:

The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday.

The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.
If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of 75,000 Euros (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.

Senators and members of the National Assembly had asked the council to rule on the constitutionality of six articles of the Law relating to the prevention of delinquency. The articles dealt with information sharing by social workers, and reduced sentences for minors. The council recommended one minor change, to reconcile conflicting amendments voted in parliament. The law, proposed by Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, is intended to clamp down on a wide range of public order offenses. ...

The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities, said Cohet. He is concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet.

The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, blog hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules. The journalists’ organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories.



Odebi, the French internet watchdog group mentioned in the Yahoo news story, has further details at their French website [my translation]:

The Constitutional Council has validated the Sarkozy Law on delinquency this past Saturday, March 3.

This law comprises an article prohibiting, with up to five years in prison and outside of any link with the perpetrators of the violence, the distribution of videos displaying this violence – as for instance police violence – over the internet by any citizen who would not be a professional journalist. This makes of France the western nation most detrimental to freedom of expression and information, particularly over the internet.

The League denounces the almost total absence of any clear and exhaustive information by the mainstream media, which have descended upon this article and presented it to the public as permitting a fight against “happy slapping”.

The League states that even the Forum of Internet Rights failed in its mission to inform the public, by not explaining to internet users the real significance of this text, and from this fact the League demands the resignation of its President, for having brought about the un-credibilization of the only authority on co-regulation of the net that could have initially been conceptually acceptable.

This text, with its extremely serious infringement upon freedom of expression and information as well as citizen journalism over the internet, was put in place the moment that the government tried to impose by decree a commission of professional ethics for the internet, and a labeling of information sites, which comes evidently to complete that which can only seem to be a coordinated plan to control the distribution of information over the internet.

For the League Odebi, this anti-democratic law is fundamentally not respectable. It reveals either the ignorance of its authors, or their drive to soon install a security regime without precedent in the west: videos would be seen outside of France in any event, and only filtering them at the borders would keep them from being seen in France. As well, the identification of [video] uploaders will necessitate the installation of a totalitarian surveillance of the internet.
Therefore one conclusion: either this law will not be respected, or it will have to be imposed by authoritarian methods that democracies cannot use.

The League therefore calls upon all internet users who count upon their liberty of expression and information to draw from this all the consequences as of the “premier tour” in the presidential election.
(HT to Tiberge's watchful eye at GalliaWatch for this story)