Search

Results

China takes hard line on software

14 Jun 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Christ's sacrificial offering of himself serves to "cleanse our consciences," says the reading from the Letter to the Hebrews. The Chinese government, saying it wants to cleanse computers of "unhealthy information," has issued a sweeping directive requiring all personal computers sold in the country to include sophisticated software that allows the government to control an ever-changing list of banned websites. Free-speech advocates say the new software could make it even more difficult for China's 300 million Internet users to access uncensored news and information. The rules, issued last month, heighten Internet restrictions that are already among the most stringent in the world. China regularly blocks websites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, and Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement. "This is a very bad thing," said Charles Mok, chairman of the Internet Society, an advocacy group in Hong Kong. "It's like downloading spyware onto your computer, but the government is the spy." In recent months China has tightened its Internet restrictions, including an "anti-vulgarity" campaign that has closed down thousands of pornographic sites but also shuttered nonsexual sites, including some of the most popular bulletin boards and blog hosts. China already employs more than 30,000 censors and thousands others who "guide public opinion" by flooding bulletin boards with comments favorable to the Communist Party. Last week, as the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen protests approached, the government blocked a host of Internet services, including Twitter, Microsoft's live.com, and Flickr, a photo-sharing site. Youtube has been inaccessible here since March. The use of blocking software is not the first time foreign companies have been enlisted in Chinese government efforts to police the Internet. Google already blacks out politically sensitive results yielded by its popular search engine, Microsoft allows censors to block content on its blog service, and Yahoo was widely criticized for turning over information that was used to jail a journalist. The U.S. government has been meeting with industry groups to discuss the issue, said Susan Stevenson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. "We would view with concern any attempt to restrict the free flow of information," Stevenson said. "Such steps would be incompatible with China's aspirations to build a modern, information-based economy and society. The U.S. is concerned about actions that seek to restrict access to the Internet as well as restrictions on the internationally recognized right to freedom of expression." Source: Articles by David Pierson for the Los Angeles Times and Andrew Jacobs for the New York Times

china freedom of speech censorship internet society charles mok blocking software
Judge rules in favor of Catholic campus group

19 Sep 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Saint Paul was unabashed in his apostolic zeal and proselytizing mission, as we hear in this Sunday’s excerpt from the First Letter to Timothy. A federal appeals court this week ruled that the University of Wisconsin at Madison was wrong to deny student funding to a Catholic campus group because of their worship, religious instruction, and proselytizing activities. The university distributes funds from student fees for activities of registered student groups, but rejected paying for the activities hosted by Badger Catholic, a student association. "A university cannot shape Badger Catholic's message by selectively funding the speech it approves, but not the speech it disapproves," wrote Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a September 1 decision. The Alliance Defense Fund, which sued on behalf of the student group, had argued that Catholics had been the victim of viewpoint discrimination. Source: An article by Religion New Service reported by Ecumenical News International

freedom of speech university of wisconsin badger catholic alliance defense fund
How far should free speech go?

03 Oct 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“Do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord,” counsels this Sunday’s second reading. Hate speech by an infamous Kansas church group whose leader clearly knows no shame may be the hot-button case of record during the U.S. Supreme Court term that opens this Friday. When Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed in Anbar province in Iraq in 2006, Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr. of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church showed up with his small band of followers at the fallen Marine’s funeral at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. They were not there to mourn but to insult--or exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech, they say. Church members held up signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell." Among other things, Phelps' self-styled church preaches that God is punishing America because of its tolerance for homosexuality, especially in the military. Phelps also posted an "epic poem" online titled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder," which among other things tells his parents, "You raised him for the devil." The fallen Marine’s father sued. Albert Snyder said the Phelps' protests aggravated his diabetes and depression and that he vomited when he read the "epic poem." Snyder prevailed on his claims of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and won a large damage award, but that ruling was reversed on appeal. There is, not surprisingly, a groundswell of support for Snyder's case. U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, minority leader Mitch McConnell, and 40 other Senators--ranging from Barbara Boxer on the left to David Vitter on the right--have signed a friend-of-the court brief urging the court to reverse the lower court’s decision and reinstate the verdict against Phelps. Another brief is signed by the attorneys general of 48 states and the District of Columbia. But the question remains, will the Supreme Court--historically reluctant to restrict speech, even offensive speech--rule for Snyder or leave him with a lament similar to that of Habakkuk’s in the first reading: ”I cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not intervene.' "? Source: An article by Adam Cohen for TIME

supreme court freedom of speech us supreme court free speech albert snyder westboro baptist church fred w phelps matthew snyder first amendment
Supreme Court views violent videos as protected speech

03 Jul 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

This Sunday’s first reading promises that the savior will banish instruments of violence such as the warrior’s bow and declare peace to the nations. On Monday the highest court in the nation ruled that the sale or rental of violent video games to minors cannot be banished from the marketplace, striking down a California law that attempted to do so. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the California law violates the First Amendment. It was the latest ruling by the high court to take a broad view of free-speech rights. "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his 18-page opinion. The decision scrambled the court's typical ideological lineup. Scalia, a conservative, was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and three justices on the court's more liberal wing--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately in favor of the same outcome, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, but the two expressed some disagreement with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer filed separate dissents. Scalia said that as far as the First Amendment is concerned, the viewing of violent videogames was essentially the same as reading books. "Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat," he wrote. "But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones." Alito and Roberts, while agreeing with the result, questioned the breadth of the majority's opinion. "The court is far too quick to dismiss the possibility that the experience of playing video games (and the effects on minors of playing violent video games) may be very different from anything that we have seen before," Alito wrote. The church’s perspective on violent videos was perhaps summed up by Cardinal William Keeler, former archbishop of Baltimore and a U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Communications consultant, in an interview several years ago. “The media's escalating use of graphic violence in speech and action” has desensitized many to the harm of such exposure, he said. “Families need to protect their homes. They wouldn't welcome visitors who trashed their homes, and they shouldn't welcome visitors through media who trash their minds.” Sources: Articles by Jess Bravin for the Wall Street Journal, Brett Molina for USA TODAY,Alan Liptak for the New York Times, and USCCB.ORG/comm/keeler.shtml

Violence Children video games supreme court freedom of speech first amendment antonin scalia minors william keeler