Censors in Burma this week unblocked the websites of international media outlets such as the Voice of America (VOA) and the BBC, as well the Democratic Voice of Burma, Radio Free Asia and YouTube. The unannounced move is the latest step taken by the nation’s new leaders to boost hope that authoritarian rule here could be softening. In August, state newspapers dropped half-page slogans accusing the BBC and VOA of “sowing hatred among the people”.
The last two weeks in America have been dominated by TV specials, seminars and remembrances assessing the lasting imprint of 11 Sept on everything from airport travel and religious tolerance to government architecture and public health. Clearly, much was changed on 11 September 12, 2001. But sometimes it takes a round-yeared anniversary — and its demand that we evaluate, poll and measure — to recognise the subtler changes in values such as free speech.
Here is one revealing data point: In its 2002 State of the First Amendment survey, conducted just months after 11 Sept, the First Amendment Center found that 49 per cent of Americans felt the First Amendment “goes too far” in the rights it guarantees. Of that group, 55 percent said America should be monitoring religious groups, and in particular (47 per cent) Muslims.
In an event held this week to mark the 10th anniversary, a panel of scholars at the First Amendment Center noted that such rhetoric has cooled since then.
Americans may be more accepting of limits to civil liberties today than before 11 September — just as government institutions are certainly more willing to push the envelop on surveillance and detention — but we are, at least, not feeling as reactionary as we were on 12 September 2001. That’s something.
An anniversary poll conducted by the Pew Research Center produced similar conclusions. 40 per cent of Americans this year said they believed the average American would have to give up some civil liberties to curb terrorism in America. Five years ago, 43 per cent of people believed that. 49 per cent did one year after the attacks — and a starling 55 per cent of people felt this way only weeks after the attacks.
A majority of people now also oppose government attempts to monitor everything from credit card purchases to phone calls and emails.
Attitudes towards Muslims may be the odd exception to this cooling-off, as anti-sharia and anti-mosque movements seem to have taken off on a political momentum of their own the last two years, untethered to 11 September. (Pew’s same poll found that Republicans and Democrats feel quite differently about the threat of rising domestic Muslim extremism, underscoring the topic’s potential to become a new cultural wedge.)
Public opinion about the value and vulnerability of civil liberties tells us much about what government can expect to get away with. But the anniversary also offers a separate opportunity for appraising exactly what government has done.
On the eve of the anniversary, the ACLU last week released a report warning that the US may be “enshrining a permanent state of emergency in which the nation’s core values are subordinated to ever-expanding claims of national security.” They warn of the endless “war on terror,” with its lack of accountability and suspect “counterterrorism” tactics. Religious and racial profiling and government surveillance have become commonplace in the US as a result.
Numerous other groups who feel this way likely will wait until next month to say so. They haven’t wanted to step on what was supposed to be a moment of solemn unity this past week. They’ll wait, instead, for the next landmark: The Patriot Act was signed into law 10 years ago on 26 October (and it was passed by Congress just a shocking six weeks after the attacks, with mind-boggling speed when one considers what it takes today to get an uncontroversial appropriations bill through the House and Senate).
That date, as much as 11 September, ushered in a new era for American civil liberties, enshrining much of the official reaction that might have also cooled with time. Many of the controversial bill’s provisions have since expired, but it’s equally a testament to how America has changed in 10 years that, whenever the act comes up for renewal, elected officials unflinchingly stamp their approval, despite howells from civil liberties advocates. 10 years later, they all still fear being seen as “soft on terror” (which, come to think of it, was never a common epithet before 11 September).
This is Emily Badger’s last Letter from America for Index on Censorship
In February 2010, a group of 11 students disrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador to the United States. They shouted protest slogans for 20 minutes before they were arrested during Michael Oren’s hour-long speech at the University of California Irvine’s campus . Last week, ten of the students went on trial for misdemeanor charges of “conspiring to disturb a meeting” and “disturbing a meeting”, they face up to six months in prison.
Both parties believe that their First Amendment right to free speech was trampled on in the incident. Prosecutors said that the disruption prevented attendants from being able to listen to Oren. The student’s defence attorneys argue that the students were expressing their views, and their prosecution violates their right to freedom of expression. On Tuesday (13 Sept), the defence argued that Oren actually left the lecture because he’d been given VIP tickets to a Lakers game — he was pictured with Kobe Bryant — rather because he felt threatened by the protesting students as the prosecution claims.
With the frequency of student protests on university campuses, the severity of the potential sentence is mystifying. John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, pointed out the regularity of these kinds of protests on university campuses across the nation, including the UC Irvine campus, where a Muslim speaker was kept from speaking back in 2001. Others have pointed out the waste of taxpayer’s money, especially after the university already disciplined the students, handing them 100 hours of community service, two years of probation, and a quarter-long suspension of the Muslim Students Association.
The authorities insist that the student’s religious beliefs have nothing to do with the case, but according to Dan Mayfield, the attorney of one of the students, prosecutors were able to illegally obtain search warrants through focusing on the religion of the students, even going as far as calling the case the “UCI Muslim case”. As a part of the jury selection process, potential jurors were required to fill out an eight-page questionnaire, which asked questions about their views on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, as well as whether or not they “harbour negative feelings towards Muslims”.
Focusing on the role of Islam in the prosecution of the students could easily turn the conversation into one about freedom of religion, which is not necessarily interchangeable with freedom of expression. What must be protected is the right of students to express their views, regardless of what they might be.
Following accusations that social media were used to play a key role in the social unrest in August, representatives from Research in Motion, Twitter and Facebook came under the spotlight at the Commons Home Affairs select committee this afternoon.
Stephen Bates, Managing Director of BlackBerry’s Research in Motion, Richard Allen, Director of Policy at Facebook and Alexander McGilvray, who is responsible for public policy at Twitter were questioned by the committee, chaired by MP Keith Vaz, regarding the role of social media in the riots which spread across the country in August, and the trio insisted that all three platforms were used as a force for good.
In the midst of the unrest, calls were made to shut down social networking, particularly BlackBerry messenger, as it was suggested that this was being used to organise violence. Cutting off Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry messenger in times of unrest seems no different to the censoring this kind of media experiences in China and oppressive countries over the world.
The committee heard that should it be necessary, all three of the representatives of the social media, who work within frameworks to condone with the law, would not resist closing down social media, but did not feel that it would be necessary.
Bates, Allen and McGilvray all said that throughout the unrest in August, social media were used in a positive way – to contact family and friends to advise that users were safe, to help clean-up in the wake of the riots, and perhaps most importantly as a tool of communication, used to quell and correct rumours. McGilvray said that most of the “retweets” that occurred during and after the riots were corrections of inaccurate tweets, spreading rumours and misinformation.
The representatives from the social media stressed that as long as technology keeps advancing, the police will have to continue to adapt their methods to deal with the situations. Allen compared the developments of social media with the creation of the car – “It took the police time to catch up when thieves began using cars, the same is happening now.”
A key issue addressed by the committee was responsibility. Bates admitted that BlackBerry messenger had been used in a malicious way to organise crime, but stressed the need for balance when addressing the issue.
Allen explained that their focus on identification meant there was an accountability relating to misuse of the platform but said that there were only a handful of cases where this had occurred during the riots. McGilvray said “People come to Twitter to say things publicly and that means there is a different kind of usage.” Allen and Bates advised that they were involved with communications with the police, and McGilvray advised that as Twitter is a public forum, it was not necessary on their behalf.
McGilvray said that to lock down social media in times of social unrest would be “horrible,” stressing once again the good things that arose from the use of social media in the times of unrest.
Keith Vaz advised that there may be times when closing down social media was necessary, asking “Why should the government not use the powers to close down these networks if there is mass disorder and this is the only way to stop it happening.”