Constitutional Censorship

In looking comparatively at the constitutions of China and Russia, we noticed some contradictions on what is written in theory and what is allowed to be written, read or watched in practice in the former Communist States.

The Russian Constitution specifically states that censorship is prohibited. . .Yet. . . Free press in Russia is all but an ancient idea from 10 years ago. Gone are the days of a vibrant media that felt free to criticize President Yeltsin. President Putin has helped to consolidate much of the TV media under the government's control thereby obliterating meaningful criticism of his regime.

The suspicious deaths of two of his most vocal critics --one by gunfire, one by radiation poisoning in 2006 -- threaten to silence the remaining critics.

Article 22 of the Chinese Constitution states: "The state promotes the development of literature and art, the press, broadcasting and television undertakings, publishing and distribution services, libraries, museums, cultural centres and other cultural undertakings, that serve the people and socialism, and sponsors mass cultural activities."

But Article 28 states:The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.

The Chinese Government uses Microsoft technology to block anti-State messages. Microsoft, which was stymied in its attempts to buyout Yahoo last week, has been in competition with Google and Yahoo for the last couple of years. The multi-national media communications companies have made business decisions. If you can't beat them (the Chinese Government), join them (in censorship).

In 2006, Yahoo handed over to the Chinese a problematic blogger who has since been imprisoned.

Google.cn is a search engine geared toward the Chinese market. This engine, however, has been retrofitted to please the Chinese leadership and communist officials. When searching for “human rights” and “death penalty” no sites are found. Furthermore when doing an image search for “tanks in Tiananmen Square” again no luck. Human rights advocates are outraged.

Members of Congress met to consider exposing and punishing corporate suits like Google who appear to be compromising American values to earn a buck. But no legislation ever came of it. Our free trade agreement with China trumped calls for free speech rights.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/09/65089

Google, remember, has a motto - “Don’t be evil.”

But what about here at home, where we have Free Speech, Press as part of our First Amendment. We've earlier covered how the MSM with consolidation of corporate ownership may be filtering the news through busisness eyes as some suggest. That has led to the new You-Media.

But because "All Politics is Local," it would be good to examine how much is censorship covering our eyes and ears right here at home? To despell the myths that our librarians are "evil," and to give us a look at what local governments are filtering from us, WVHS LMC Director Gayl Smith's guest commentary on censorship in our school district. Internet filters, you all know and get around, but you may not know that four books have concerned the powers that be:

Within our school district, there have been attempts at censorship. Most recently, parents in one of our elementary schools objected to a book called:

Yankee Girl -- This is a middle school book about a girl who, in the 60s, moves to Mississippi from Chicago. Her dad is an FBI agent and he's been sent to protect the Freedom Riders. She is nicknamed Yankee Girl by her schoolmates because her "northern ways" seem strange to them. Because she is treated poorly, she has some sympathy for the black girl who is integrated into her classroom. The problem for the parents here in #204 is the constant use of the "n" word.

The author, in trying to be true to the times, has the characters speak as they would have in Mississippi at that time. These parents felt that if children are allowed to read this book, they will believe using that work is ok. In order to check this book out of that school library, students must now bring a note from home. The access to the book is not banned, but it is restricted.

Flamingo Rising -- There was recently a challenge to a high school book. A couple of years ago, students were required to read Flamingo Rising for an advanced English class over the summer. The book describes a first sexual experience. Parents objected, feeling that without class discussion, their students wouldn't handle this sensitive subject well. A compromise was reached and while the novel stayed in the curriculum, it could not be an independent summer assignment, again a restriction.

Harry Potter -- has been banned as a classroom read aloud in an elementary school. A book called Big Mama Makes the World, a reworking of the story of creation with a large black woman being the creator has been been removed from one of our elementary schools.

"I applaud your concern about censorship occuring anywhere in the world," writes Mrs. Smyth.

The American Library Association (ALA) is a special interest group that lobbies local, state and federal government authorities under the motto that, "Free People Read Freely." The ALA sponsors a, "Banned Books Week," each year:

"And Tango Makes Three" tops ALA's 2006 list of most challenged books

CHICAGO – Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell’s award-winning "And Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins parenting an egg from a mixed-sex penguin couple, tops the list of most challenged books in 2006 by parents and administrators, due to the issues of homosexuality.

The list also features two books by author Toni Morrison. "The Bluest Eye" and "Beloved" are on the list due to sexual content and offensive language.

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=151926