DANGER! CENSORSHIP AHEAD

Back in 2008, the United States Air Force quietly instituted a new rule banning troops from visiting any web site with the word “blog” in its URL. So, for example, if you enlisted in the Air Force, you would no longer be allowed to bring up www.GreenbergRants.blogspot.com on your computer. This was not highly publicized, but it was enforced. The Air Force published this statement at the time: "The idea isn’t to keep airmen in the dark — they can still access news sources that are primary, official-use sources. Basically … if it’s a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it’s fairly cut and dry that that’s a good source, an authorized source.”

That changed this week when the Air Force revealed it has blocked 25 news and information sites from its troops. The purpose, it explains, is to make sure that troops do not have access to classified documents leaked by WikiLeaks. One of the sites blocked by the Air Force is none other than The New York Times. Somehow, between 2008 and yesterday, the New York Times is no longer deemed “an established, reputable media outlet.” So far, the Army and Navy have not followed suit. Foreseeing a possible PR fallout, the Department of Defense (DOD) was quick to issue a statement that makes it clear this was not ordered from the DOD. Access to the 25 sites is denied on all official Air Force computers, which means troops can still access anything they want to see on their home computers, but they are reportedly being discouraged from doing so.

So, what’s going on here? One could conjure thoughts of censorship, right? Right. The Air Force has made a largely symbolic move which only furthers its image as an operation that seeks to control the flow of information to American citizens. Those citizens happen to be the very ones who voluntarily signed up to serve their country – a country that thrives on its First Amendment rights. Where’s the logic? I agree with CNN’s legal analyst, Jeffrey Tubin, who responded to the news this way: "This seems like a rather pointless protest. Our enemies can see the documents, but not those whom we trust to defend our country."

The predictable outcome here is a wave of resentment among enlisted personnel, and under-informed masses of troops. The last thing we need is to have our own U.S. military not be allowed to access news and information about the very country they defend. As of today, the Air Force has not even released a full list of the 25 sites it has blocked. We do know that the New York Times is the only U.S. newspaper on the list. Will some activist enlistees go to court based on a denial of the First Amendment rights? Will the complex Freedom of Information Act be cited in protest to the ban? Too soon to tell, but I trust there are bright, thoughtful people in the enlisted ranks who will not take this lightly.

Meanwhile, in a related story, one of the incoming Congressional Tea Party-elects. Allen West (R-FL) is calling for American news companies to be censored for running stories based on the recent WikiLeaks cable dump. He refers to the publishing of information about the whole WikiLeaks debacle as “aiding and abetting of a serious crime.” Listen to what West had to say:

Let’s review: Here is the key part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that West seems unfamiliar with: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I rest my case. Note to Mr. West: In the unlikely event that news organizations were to be censored, have you given thought to who would decide what can and cannot be reported, and who would set these standards? I think not. And even if you could somehow circumvent the First Amendment, who are you to decide what information is inappropriate for me?

In defending the Times’ decision to run the WikiLeaks information, Public Editor Arthur Brisbane wrote this on December 5:

“What if The New York Times in 1964 had possessed a document showing that L.B.J.’s intent to strike against North Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident was based on false information? Should it have published the material?
What if The Times had possessed documentary evidence showing that the Bush administration’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were unfounded? Should it have published the material?”

When government officials or military organizations start making noises about limiting the free flow of information, everybody loses. They lose respect and credibility because they are then perceived as practicing censorship. Citizens lose their most vital links to information that directly affects their lives. The U.S. loses the respect of other world powers because suddenly everything our country was built on is being compromised.

Brisbane summed it up best: “The Times, like other serious news organizations in democracies, exists to ferret out and publish information — most especially information that government, business and other power centers prefer to conceal. Arming readers with knowledge is what it’s about, and journalists are motivated to pursue that end.”

"AND A CHILD SHALL LEAD THEM"

Don’t ever discount the collective wisdom of the pre-pubescent crowd. Two kids hit the headlines this week in separate, but equally significant incidents.

First, AOL “Parent Dish” writer Bethany Sanders wrote a piece about a Romona, CA sixth grader who learned firsthand about censorship. Reportedly, student Natalie Jones was to deliver a report to her class about the late Harvey Milk,(right) San Francisco’s first gay elected official. Principal Theresa Grace vetoed the idea, claiming it violated the school’s policy about teaching sexual content. Read all about it here.

I couldn’t help wondering what Ms. Grace is trying to protect her young charges from. From the importance of treating all human beings with respect? From a truly significant moment in the history of the state of California? And I couldn’t help thinking how unfortunate it is that Ms. Grace has reduced a true pioneer, Harvey Milk, to nothing more or less than his sexuality. And of course, being the inveterate letter writer that I am, I fired off a letter this morning to Ms. Grace, saying all of the above, and more.

There are 1,066 miles between Ramona, CA and Denver, CO, but apparently the two cities are light years apart. Last week in Denver, a third grader named Ethan McNamee organized a rally for marriage equality. It seems Ethan has gay neighbors who cannot legally marry, and he sees an injustice that needs to be addressed. TheDenverChannel.com reports that Ethan says, “Everybody is different in a good way.”

Unlike Bethany’s school, Ethan’s school, Montclair Elementary not only supported his efforts, but notified all of the students’ parents in case they would like to attend or get involved. Some of the other kids even helped plan the rally. Watch this:

And yes, in case you’re wondering, I wrote a letter to Ethan, as well, offering him congratulations for the way beyond his years wisdom and commitment. Maybe you should do the same – Ethan McNamee, c/o Montclair Elementary School, 1151 Newport St., Denver, CO 80220

Two decisions that affect every one of us came down from on high this week, and by “on high,” of course I mean Washington. First, the Senate is pushing hard for a bill that would more tightly reign in credit card companies, but would not place any limit on interest rates. Second, President Obama reversed himself on his recent decision to release photos depicting harsh treatments of suspected terrorist detainees.

Let’s talk credit cards first. No, better yet, let’s rant about credit cards first. Feeling gouged by your particular credit card company lately? That’s because you are. Right now, the credit card companies have almost full freedom in setting and raising interest rates. So what was 15% last month, can easily show up as 30% this month. The Senate is probably going to pass a bill that will impose some new restrictions on the company, but not in any way cap the interest rates. Here is what the bill will do:
• The bill will ensure that any existing balance you have cannot be subject to a raise in interest rate. However, if you are two months behind in your payments, they will be able to raise the rate. (You might wonder how this makes sense: If you can’t pay what you already owe, how does it help them to collect if they add more on top of it, right?)
• Instead of surprising you with a raise in your interest rate, credit card companies will have to give you 45 days notice.
• If you open a new credit card account, the company will not be allowed to raise your interest rate for at least one year.

Consumer advocates and many credit card customers were hoping for much more stringent new rules. Don’t hold your breath. I see the new bill as a recipe for economic disaster. For example, if a college student must put his or her tuition on a credit card, and the company can still raise the interest rates at random, the student will likely be in serious debt for years, with the debt compounding monthly. If an unemployed homeowner must put his or her insurance and/or taxes on a credit card, simply in order to be able to hold on to the property, they end up in the same boat as the financially beleaguered college student. Where is the concern for the average citizen at a moment in our nation when unemployment is at its highest rate since 1993, and home foreclosures have never been more numerous? The Senate is soft pedaling this issue to keep the banks quiet and calm and to lay the economic downturn squarely at the average citizen’s doorstep. Unacceptable. Write some letters.

The second decision this week has to do with the release of those abuse photos. You know the ones, like those you have already seen from Abu Ghraib. Without rehashing old details, the government reached an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union some time ago to release photos showing alleged prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. Last month, President Obama announced his administration would not stand in the way of releasing those photos. This week, the President reversed himself, saying that releasing the photos (which were taken in the early years of the Iraq war) could endanger our troops and possibly turn up the heat on the already existing anti-American sentiment worldwide.

So much for transparency. We are a visual culture. We are now fully accustomed to being privy to information and visual representations of world events. Who is President Obama to now deny us that freedom? And if he indeed plans to block the release of those photos, what about the above-mentioned agreement? Well, it turns out the Justice Department has informed the United States District Court in New York, which had backed the A.C.L.U.’s request, that it would appeal the previous ruling that would have ensured release of the photos. Unfortunately, Obama’s reversal smacks of censorship. And if appearances count, it appears that it is the American citizens who are being denied access to these photos. Why? Because it has already been stated that the photos are not even as incendiary as those that can already be seen all over the Internet of Abu Ghraib. So what is the real point of withholding photos of lesser impact than those we have already seen?

Here is the essential point: If the government can deny you the right to see photos of war time activity that is distinctly against acceptable American behavior, what else can you be denied? Can you be denied documents that have previously been available through the Freedom of Information Act? If that sounds far-fetched, just weeks ago it would have seemed just as unlikely that you would not see photos the President of the United States promised you could see.

Write some letters, people. Do it now.