Comments Related To: The Blogger Paradox: Freedom of Speech Without Any Safety Net

The development of the blogosphere is really calling for a deep and intense discussion here. I really do believe it is important that we all start to reflect on what the meaning of freedom of speech really is and how it extends to blogosphere and the other citizen media.

Like something out of an old John Le Carre novel...bloggers behind the Muslim & Bamboo curtains will surreptiously conceal their laptops in attic rooms until the "directional finder" state apparatus triangulates the felons and falls upon them with thruncheons drawn A sad state of affairs for Freedom of Speech IMHO!

Yeah freedom of speech is a funny beast. It is about respecting even your enemy no matter what. That's hard.

I like the idea of freedom of speech. But the reality is that all freedom has boundaries and controls. Those who create those boundaries and controls often also produce propaganda to pretend that citizens subject to the boundaries have ample freedom ... within those boundaries.

When someone steps outside of those boundaries, such as Derakhshan, they risk endangering themselves to the reality that exists in all countries, including the United States.

I don't like the reality nor agree with it. But I recognize the danger in speaking out. When one's voice is merely whispering in the wind from the wilderness, nobody cares what you say. But when you raise your voice to the level of influencing thousands, perhaps even millions, then what you say can have an impact on the control of those in power. And when that happens (or even the threat of it), we should all be prepared for the resulting backlash.

For too long, the majority of peoples in this nation and others have remained unconcerned and virtually silent about the true powers that wage war, sacrifice our sons and daughters and seek to kill and destroy innocent peoples elsewhere for the purposes of advancing their own agendas.

Journalists have helped to promote this Utopian belief that Americans live under some sort of sanctuary of freedom while poor folks around the globe are in terrible need of our help to clean up their governments.

The reality is that in every country, we see journalists who who promote government propaganda and others who are marginalized because they try to truly inform the people.

The situation of this one blogger in Iran is the situation we're all in to some degree. He is subject to arrest and whatever else the power in Iran decides. The same is true in the U.S., where in the aftermath of 9/11, journalists were handed propaganda to spread. No media challenged the government's assertion of things that occurred. No media challenged the government's refusal to investigate and open doors for independent analysis and investigation. No media challenged the Bush administration in 1990 when it sent 500,000+ troops to Saudi Arabia to, in the words of former president Bush, "defend Saudi Arabia."

The smattering of journalists who have published truthful accounts and evidence that contradicts the government and media perspective of the events have been marginalized, quieted, ignored, dismissed or in some way shape or form criticized and diminished for standing on the solid ground of truth.

While one can say such treatment doesn't arise to the level of imprisonment, that position fails to take into account that prior to imprisonment of truth-tellers (or opinionated bloggers), there is an incremental approach that doesn't creep up unnoticeably. That incremental approach is discussed, debated, talked about in forums like this and screamed from every corner of the Earth before the inevitable imprisonment occurs. As government recognize more power to do as they please to citizens of their own nation as well as citizens abroad, they ratchet up the exercise of their power and diminish the voices of the opposition.

The Shah of Iran did exactly that when the Ayatollah Khomeine was publishing pamphlets that told the truth about his alliance with the U.S., how he came to power, his father's alliance with Hitler, the Shah's exorbitant lifestyle and distance from the commands of Islam, etc.

I'm not standing in defense of the Ayatollah's resulting regime. I'm saying that the Ayatollah's position against the Shah is one such example of how voices of truth can be oppressed easily and quickly as the government ratchets up its exercise of power and control when the people remain silent and allow voices of truth to be marginalized.

It took 26 years for the Iranian people to remove the U.S.-installed Shah and get their nation back. If you want to see how that impacted the U.S. check out the U.S. Dept. of Energy's data on oil imports. You will see how much we received from Iran until 1979. In 1980, that number went to zero and the oil imports from Iraq began to climb exponentially.

Journalists are key to providing information to the masses. But mainstream media isn't. Bloggers are essential, although most merely spew opinions. And while that can't be regarded as a foundation upon which to build a case for anything, opinions are founded upon information. And the more information that is freely allowed by anyone from any source, the more difficult it can be for controlling powers to exercise control.

Unfortunately, the trust most people have are in institutions. So an institution doesn't take any risk by accusing a blogger or journalist of a crime (anything will do). If there is some unpleasant backlash by the public, it will subside over time. It always does. Can anyone tell me where Manuel Noriega is today?

Does anyone know how many people were subjected to chemical weapons produced in the United States and distributed to Saddam Hussein for use upon innocent people?

Can anyone tell me how many Kurds lost their lives when the U.S. supported their insurgence against Saddam in 1974-75 and subsequently pulled away that support after Saddam sign the Algiers Accord?

The list of thousands of peoples sacrificed based upon decisions made by one or more powers is long. And the journalists who ignored such history is just as long.

So the importance of having a pathway to truth is enormous. And the freedom to tell that truth is essential.

But the bottom line is that as long as the people trust the institutions of power, all journalists and bloggers alike will be subject to the changing whims of the powers and the arbitrary boundaries they place upon us all. And that should serve as a warning to all who stand ready to speak truth or even sound off with their opinions. No matter what country you live in, there are boundaries. And those boundaries are subject to change quickly without notice. And when they do, the people will not be there to help you. After all, they trust and fear the power that imprisoned you, even if they disagree with your imprisonment.

Agree 100%. It is hard to allow the hate spewing, whether in America, Europe, or the Middle East, when the topic is real and prudent.

Hard, but necessary. Why isn't there an easier way? It would be so much easier for all of us.:-)

The arrest of blogger and journalist Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan is simply outrageous and wrong. All global citizens should be allowed freedom of speech and press as one of many basic rights. It’s amazing that so many governments think that the right to free speech is theirs to give. It’s a basic human right, and it’s not theirs to grant nor prevent. A government’s position should exist to uphold these rights, protect their people, etc.

Discussion is important, but hopefully it'll lead to desperately needed activism soon. So many citizens are suffering from this kind of oppression, and it's going to take a long time to fight the ignorance, fear and power of their own governments. Let hope that as global communities continue to bond and gain strength that we’ll see far-reaching support and activism to fight this oppression and lack of basic rights.

Peace - GG

It is a basic right for all global citizens, yet also a responsibility. It requires a lot from the whole global community as well as from each individual.

Iran is a country run by a religious government; many of the things others find acceptable they do not. I interviewed a rock band from Iran and every time they played they risked being arrested because rock music was against the law.

I think Hodder is a trouble maker. He was against Iran's goverment in the beginning, but than turned pro Iranian/ Ahamadinjad as his blog was shut down by the Washington institue for Near East policy. He turns with the wind.....and does not know what he stands for... He broke Iranian law by going to Israel, He could not even get into Israel with his Iranian passport. So he decided to use his Canadian passport knowing well that it is against the Iranian law and made comments that he is a Canadian Citizen....So what was he doing promoting Iranian-Israel relationship if he was a Canadian Citizen.... He is just a trouble maker, and wants PR for himself.

Troublemaker or not. I do think the main issue here is the scope of the protection for bloggers and citizen reporters.

You are so right. He is a young guy who goes where ever the wind blows him. He supports anyone who gives him a little attention and interest. He has been on so many different and "warring" sides: Israelis, Pro-Iran Regime, Anti-Iranian Regime, Anti-American-Iranian, Canadian, anti-US, and anti-west. I guess now everyone wants a piece of him and no one is ready to help him...

I fear for Derakhshan who, unlike Saberi, has no large media organizations to advocate for him. The element of organized crime is another influence (beyond political or governmental) which might like to silence the voice of the citizen journalist Drug cartels, for instance, already target professional journalists; would they hesitate to "take out" a blogger?

I don't think the threat is as great from the drug cartels due to the fact that most of them are working and very successful at this time, it is from those that have political motivations that are profiting - such as the legal "industry" and politicians who are on the illegal drug cartel money train for their own professions and careers - and use paid blogers in order to continue their propaganda of simply wanting open borders and such for those "poor illegal" immigrants who are simply "doing jobs Americans don't want," and other such fodder.

Those are the real propagandist, and you will find them on almost every citizen journalism site. The paid bloggers for agenda purposes, that are beneficiaries of the drug cartels "work," and "products," being sold in front of America's local high schools and middle schools.

Mostly paid by the criminal and immigration lawyers or politicians, or they themselves direct beneficiaries in some way.

Yeah, it really puts these issues on the map in a whole new way. I was thinking about these issues with the drug cartels and how citizen reporters could play a role. Yet that is some serious risks they are taking.

Back in the "olden days," a mere handful of years ago, governments could somewhat control the flow of information, but the evolution of the Internet has changed all that. State-owned media and megamedia corporations beholding to politicians and governments for special favors, rich contracts, and favorable legislation have given way to citizen journalists, bloggers, and Jane/Joe Public who use a myriad of self-publishing tools and social media platforms to write and distribute raw and rich and relevant news, real investigative reporting, and believable opinions--replacing the sensationalized and contrived "sound bytes" of the mainstream media and providing a refreshing alternative for an information-hungry world. Rather than respect and protect these millions of individual voices, governments like Iran would rather silence voices like Derakhshan than allow the truth to be told. Citizens of the World need to stand together in solidarity for freedom of speech and opinion and demand protection for the rights of bloggers and citizen journalists everywhere.
- jongleur

I'm torn over this issue. On one hand, I am definitely in support of the right of individuals to speak their minds freely, honestly and openly. On the other hand, I'm a realist and recognize that no peoples truly live in freedom. We all live within the artificial construct and boundaries created by controlling powers. That's even true for the United States.

In Iran, the balance between the people's rights and the rights of the government power is clear. The government has no higher authority or moral conscience to which to appeal. It creates the laws, interprets the laws and changes the laws to suit its will, not the will of the people. Living in Iran, one must adapt to such policies (which at times can be quite lenient and at other times be quite harsh).

Ironically, the same is true in the United States. The difference is the facade and the broader boundaries Americans employ. Yet, the people are not in control. Corruption is virtually everywhere one chooses to look and this nation has remained perpetually engaged in war around the globe since emerging as a world power after WWII. Ultimately, the powers behind the government make decisions that are often contrary to the will of the people and many times against our best interests. There are numerous examples that emerge with even a cursory look.

Governments place limits upon the powers of individuals. As bloggers, we are impacted by government powers when we disagree with political decisions and actions. But the reality is this: Governments kill people. They do it overtly and covertly. Governments are quite dangerous. All of them are. The U.S. is no different in that regard, but cares enough about its image to disguise its disgusting ways as much as possible.

This particular blogger, Derakhshan, was not born in this predicament. He grew into it somehow. Pushing the boundaries. And now he needs help. But who can help him?

That's not to say we ought not push the boundaries and exert energies and efforts toward changing the old guard and opening up the world for all to speak freely. I am saying that we must recognize the reality of the enemy within ... our own governments. And governments are dangerous. So when we rattle the cage, we are not merely speaking our mind, which I do as well, but we are moving a step closer to the power that imprisons speech and destroys life as a matter of course.

Unfortunately, the solidarity of global peoples who represent freedom of choice, speech, religion, relationships, etc. has never amounted to nations changing. And corporate media has demonstrated its unwillingness to go toe-to-toe with dangerous governments. Even in the U.S., major media has backed down, shut up, removed investigations, recanted published and broadcasted stories, and complied with blackouts on photography and reports simply because government powers demanded it.

If that's the so-called powerful corporate media responding to limitations set by government in a so-called "free" society, how does a sole blogger come to believe he will never run afoul of the governmental power in iran, which draws a sharper and more opaque line than the blurry lines with which journalists and bloggers operate in this country.

My heart goes out to this man. But his lesson is one that we might all take into account. With more power being spread out because of the Internet, and more people able to speak truth, we are moving into darker times. This man's ordeal signifies a much larger issue at stake. Truth is under direct threat.

How then, should we respond?

It truly depends on how much pain you are willing to take for exercising your right to speak to the fullest. If I go out and hold a poster up that says Asif Zardari sucks on the road in front of parliament, the chances of me having two legs the next day is very slim. It is a matter of how far I am willing to be coerced. But it is fear that keeps me from saying what I think or in a way I deem to be appropriate. This is the monopoly that government holds over our heads. We should be ashamed for even thinking that this person made a mistake for sitting around with a laptop.

Agreed. There will be a difference between the theoretical and the real protection. It seems that every time I do meet people at conference and other meetings one of the key aspects for the future to solve is the privacy issues - both theoretically and practically. How do you get enough protection, yet not protected if you shouldn't and also how do you build reputation for contributors who are anonymous. I was listening to Robert Kirkpatrick, CTO at INSTEDD, about their work and it is pretty awesome. Some very interesting thoughts how to apply solutions there. Regardless you have right there a pretty badass challenge right there. Love it as we will have to solve this one together. :-)

The challenge to protect the blogger/citizen reporter but still make sure the society is protected against using these channels as ways to "legally" spread inflammatory content. The main challenge is how you draw the line and still preserve the right to express an opinion. I am not sure it is a very easy challenge at all.

which challenge exactly are you talking about?

I think we should respond by striving for change. The importance here is to be aware of the issues and challenges towards a solution, and then start to walk the path. The solution has to be woven together considering all the aspects. It is not an easy path to find solution here, but we should start the path towards a solution. The case of Hoder is interesting as it is a very well-known blogger yet without profound support in traditional media. What protection do we want to see in these cases? What makes senses? I do think it is realistic to believe a blogger can have the same protection as it is such a free from and the vetting process is non-existing for most blogs.

In April, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Tehran’s chief prosecutor to "fairly examine" Hossein Derakhshan's case. I hope this is a good sign and I trust Iran will let "Hoder" go. We need his voice, not another martyr!

I hope this thing is not a PR stunt. He is known to have done that before. If this is real, Ahmadinejad set him free.

If it is a PR stunt, it feels a bit over the top. Don't really buy that argument.

It's no stunt, over 100 people were arrested at a concert for supposed "devil worship", officials claim the group was drinking blood. Iran is an Islamic Republic and run by Islamic law (Koran) with VERY strict interpretations. The rules are clear, tow the line or.....

Yeah. I completely agree with you. Do not really believe that either.

Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the 'Harm Principle' or the 'Offense Principle'. There is no such thing as absolute liberty and absolute freedom. Even freedom in itself is highly regulated. What is freedom to you may not be freedom to me and may seem partially close to freedom to someone else. Keeping that thing in mind, the concepts which then regulate freedom is the values, rights, morality and ethics.

I totally believe in freedom of speech and especially in the rights of a citizen journalist being one myself but I also believe that one has to set the limits or the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not even when it comes to freedom of speech. Which again we cannot standardize universally but may be if each one of us is aware of the good and harm we can do to others with what we say - in other words awareness of implications of our right to freedom of speech then maybe we do not need to put down any regulations at all.

Moreover, as by the uniqueness of very human nature, we cannot say for sure that each one of us knows or for that matter even care about harm our sayings could do to others then those who primarily use this one right to get their evil conspiracies work then they shall and must be penalized under law

I do believe (as I indicated in the text) the key here is to find the balance between the right for protection and responsibility to obey the rules if a country. To quote the Iranian Supreme Court Judge Nobel Laureate who said: "As long as the laws are what they are we need to obey them." The issue here is the scope of the freedom of speech and extension of journalistic privileges to be true for bloggers too. Maybe only some, but then who should you choose and who should choose these bloggers? The more you look at this you see the need for a global discussion on these matters to see what the line is and how to create such a policy. This is what I believe is key moving forward.

Essentially what ur saying is that he went beyond the proscribed limits of freedom set down by the government, which is not supposed to set any limits on what he can say in the first place. Self regulation according to a personal moral and ethical code is one thing, self-censorship so that you don't 'offend sensibilities' is another and overt public censorship is still another thing. People who allow themselves to be censored in reality do a disservice to their societies by not pointing out where change is needed for fear of offending someone or something. The true benefit to society comes with offensive people going head to head and bashing out new concepts. Iran's government is foolish and worse, they think they're sanctioned by God, who will probably burn them to cinders for this one. Besides, I like this guy's face...He has an honest face. One more victim in the war on truth.

I would say that we should draw the line at protecting society, since these people are a part of society. Protecting society from them is like protecting yourself from the acid in your stomach. Sometimes you need an anti-acid, that is a panacea for too much acidity, however the acid is essential to the functioning of your system. In real terms that could manifest as protection to people from litigation on expressing themselves on just about anything except other individuals. That is total freedom of expression to say anything as long as it is not directly slanderous to another person with provision to see when something is indirectly slanderous. Aside from that people should be able to say exactly what they please about their government, society etc without fear of being coerced. then one can get to details of modes of expression.

I don't know what to say except to look towards the Iranian author who wrote the book of SATANIC VERSE and how they tried to destroy him for his
outspokenness. When he wrote his book, the president of Iran was Ahmadinejad, so watch out and see what happens at the elections, 3/6/2009.

You are right to the point by drawing attention to Iranian blogger and journalist Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan..! Erik. The bloggers and citizen journalists like him and Wael Abbas in Egypt who revealed police torture and caused so much noice that the police men were taken to court. The bloggers are the new frontier when it comes to speaking out and being spearheads for change. It has never in history sounded clean and well dressed...

A very present issue with a solution that will take time to shape, as well as having a need to be constantly changing. :-)

This is very confusing but why would they term it as freedom of speech when they want to tie many chains around it.There should be some way to back up what you say to ensure that no innocent is being inflicted any harm on and that way maybe things will be better off!

It is a bit ironic, isn't it? :-)

Do you think pornography on the internet should be banned? it is a similar principle. The individual for themselves has to determine what is inflammatory since these 'citizen -bloggers' are as much a part of society and their criticisms etc. are as valid as those of parliamentary representatives. Perhaps allowing everything but slander of an individual should be allowed. That way we can reduce penalties for speech to civil rather than criminal litigation and recognise the right of individuals to criticise the state and society with total freedom.

Doesn' the freedom of speech protections actually originate in whether or not your particular country has such protections for private citizens or the free press, since many countries which are not democracies or as the U.S. is supposed to be, Constitutional Republics, do not have such protection for the press or media to begin with. That is why they are socialistic or fascists governments, because there is no such protections.

Yeah and that is why this discussion is so important. I do think this is a global issues as the Web is borderless in many ways.

Freedom of speech is a right in most democratic countries such as South Africa, America and most European states. However, in the western view of countries that are not entirely ruled by a democratic government freedom of speech often appears NOT as a right of the people such as in Iran but even in countries like China the journalists there will get arrested or worse if they report on things their government is not happy with. So if actual journalists have to live with this "unwritten" law one would assume every person must, as journalists are citizens to and so enjoy the same freedoms as every other individual. I do however support freedom of speech and a platform to voice ones opinions and concerns is definitely needed to prevent a 'submit and obey' or silenced society.

Yeah very true.

From someone who has lived outside of the US, it is best to at least be aware of the laws in the country where you are visiting/working. One of the reasons some countries dislike the US as much as they do is because Americans are known for forcing their ideals onto others. Be mindful of where you are and what they will allow/tolerate.

I agree about the need to have a discussion in this area. As the areas of communication expand (IE: Internet; Bloggers), so must the definition of Free Speech. What also must expand is our teaching of what responsible behavior in the area of Free Speech is. We cannot let Online bullying or Child Pornography to be considered free speech. There must be limits drawn. What are those limits? That is part of the discussion we need to have.

Thanks eriks for your open minded, not "western biaised" point of view on Hoder's situation. As you say, defending freedom of speech is about defending the right of your opponent to freely expose her views. "I don't agree with you but I will fight for you to have the right to say it" said Voltaire, one of the most proeminent philosophers of the Age of Enlightment. Looks like his stance is still very vivid these days. The silence from the online community around Hoder's detention (its been 7 months now) clearly indicates we are still not living up in 2009 to the ideal standards of the 18th century.

Where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and libel? I think it has to do with intent. This is my personal principle: I possess the inalienable right to say, write or do whatever I want to say,write or do -- but I am also responsible for the consequences of my actions. I don't need some government regulation to tell me that what I say, write or do can make or unmake people; I should know that -- it's my moral obligation to define my ethical standards. Here in the Philippines, it's public knowledge that I disagree with most of the actions and policies of the Arroyo administration, but I'm proud to say that it's also a matter of public record that I have never said, written, or done anything on a personal level. My criticisms against Gloria Arroyo is directed at Gloria Arroyo the President, not on the Office of the Presidency -- and certainly never on Gloria Arroyo the person. As bloggers, we should know where to draw the line on our freedom of speech and expression, otherwise, who will tell us? Bureaucrats?

Thats the wonderful report about topic. The strength of writer is amazing.