by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Friday, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff lifted a restraining order she had placed to prevent the National Law Journal from publishing information in an article relating to an ongoing federal investigation of the juice company POM Wonderful.

The information that Judge Bartnoff sought to prevent the NLJ from publishing and that POM Wonderful also wanted sealed were details relating to an investigation of POM over $600,000 of legal bills it had not paid.  The judge’s order amounted to prior restraint, and was most likely a violation of the First Amendment and would not have stood on appeal.

“If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it,” Bartnoff said upon issuing the order preventing the NLJ from publishing the information it gathered from public court documents that were supposed to be sealed, but had not been due to an error by the court.

“Specifically, we are not allowed to name a government agency conducting a regulatory inquiry into one of the subjects of the article, POM Wonderful,” the NLJ wrote upon publishing a redacted version of the article on July 26.  “We fought this order vigorously in court; we thought and continue to think that it is a violation of the First Amendment.”

On July 30, The Washington Post, The American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, NPR, Gannett Newspapers, Dow Jones & Company, the Society of Professional Journalists, and The New York Times filed an amicus brief (friend-of-the-court brief).

“Government censorship of the press in the form of a prior restraint on publication constitutes ‘the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,’” the news organizations argued.

Shortly after the brief was filed, Judge Bartnoff withdrew her order, perhaps after she realized that the United States’ Supreme Court has never upheld an order which resulted in prior restraint.

By Tomomi Sasaki

Richard Smart at the Tokyo Digital Journalism blog posted a summarized list of Wikileaks’ Japan data on Afghanistan. Raw data can be found on his blog.

By Karlo Mikhail Mongaya

Torn and Frayed in Manila blogs about a book on maps of the Philippines by Carlos Quirino.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

On Friday, Congressmen Gene Green [D-TX] and Fred Upton [R-MI] introduced a concurrent resolution that “directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to wait for Congress to enact a law prior to issuing rules, regulations, or orders concerning additional regulation of broadband Internet service.”

Since the FCC lost a case to Comcast last April, which stripped the FCC’s ability to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic online, it has been pursuing what FCC Chairmen Julius Genachowski has called a “Third Way.”  The “Third Way” would prevent Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T from discriminating against certain types of traffic.

The move to “reclassify” the Internet in this way would give the FCC tailored authority that is neither as lenient as regulation under Title I or information services and not as strict as Title II or telecommunications services.  Despite the FCC’s attempt at tailored regulation, the concurrent resolution introduced today would urge the FCC not to move forward with reclassification.  Reps. Green and Upton were joined in their resolution by 46 other congressmen, including 24 Democrats.

“If the FCC continues its pursuit of reclassification, the certain result will be lengthy court battles that will reduce, or even halt, capital investments and effectively cease the improvement and expansion of access to the unserved and underserved areas of the country,” Rep. Green said.

While Green attempts to halt FCC efforts to reassert its authority over ISPs, Comcast and other service providers are free to discriminate against content online without repercussions from the FCC.  This comes despite the court’s admission in the Comcast case that “Congress gave the [Commission] broad and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly evolving communications technologies.”

Green and Upton’s concurrent resolution comes after this week’s heated letter writing exchange between Rep. John Dingell [D-MI] and Genachowski and a speech by Rep. Al Franken [D-MN.] in support of reclassification.  While Dingell told Genachowski to “abandon” reclassification, Franken argued that the protection reclassification brings is necessary for a free and open Internet.

While Green’s office says the current resolution is not an appraisal of the merits of “net neutrality,” in the past Green has been an avid opponent of this move to prevent ISPs from slowing or stopping some online traffic.  In an October 2009 speech on the floor of the House, Green called FCC attempts to prevent online content discrimination “micromanag[ing].”

Both Upton and Green have financial ties with the telecommunications industry.  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Green has accepted over $80,000 from AT&T in campaign donations.  Upton has also accepted thousands in campaign donations from Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable and holds $1,001-$15,000 in Verizon stock, $15,001-50,000 in AT&T stock, and $1,001-$15,000 in Comcast stock.

The resolution, which Green says “reinforces the powers that are reserved for Congress under the Constitution,” is unlikely to pass the House.  Even if the concurrent resolution did pass, it would does not carry the weight of the law or require President Obama to sign it.

By Aleks Tapinsh

With the ownership of the largest daily newspaper, Diena [LV], in question, many journalists in Latvia fear business interests and political influence would rule the news coverage ahead of the October parliamentary elections.

“Who is behind Diena,” read last week’s front page headline of the newsweekly Ir. “One year after a change in ownership there appeared a shadow of the oligarchs and a question: Does Latvia still have a free press?”

“The situation is very, very sad, because elections are coming,” a former Diena journalist Gunta Sloga told Swedish radio (SWE). “Many people will not be able to get objective information before the vote, and especially problematic it becomes for those who live in the countryside and do not have an access to the Internet.”

Sloga and a few others had quit the newspaper in 2009 over lack of transparency in the sale from the Swedish company Bonnier. The new owners installed a new manager, who lasted there almost a year. Meanwhile, the owners said the newspaper would maintain its professional integrity. Tralmaks unexpectedly quit in July, bringing the issue of integrity back into the light. The owners appointed Sergejs Ancupovs, the former press secretary for the former prime minister, Valdis Birkavs, as well as a leader of a think-tank connected to certain political parties, to run the newspaper.

On July 20, journalist Kārlis Streips wrote [LV] on his Politika.lv blog:

I'm in deep mourning for Diena. When the first professional journalists departed, I wrote that Diena would still be my newspaper. Now, I don't have a newspaper in Latvia any more. For professional reasons, I'll continue to subscribe, but it'll be all.

In a video [LV] posted on the Diena newspaper’s web site, Ancupovs declined to answer questions about who approached him for this job.

“You know, we won’t be doing that kind of investigation,” he said, after explaining that the Diena newspaper will continue to maintain its objectivity and will not be a subject to political influence.

“Let’s assume that I have fallen from Mars,” he said, calling two journalists who interviewed him, “girls.”

Ancupovs said in a radio interview that the newspaper has always had a political influence. And it will continue to do so.

Jānis Buholcs writes [LV] that the recent change in Diena leadership means it is no longer necessary to hide under the pretense of being above the political influence. Buholcs responds to Ancupovs:

Media controlled by politicians is not the same as media that have their own political sympathies, which those openly espouse. The system of Putin and Berlusconi is not the same as an op-ed in a newspaper.

Pods.lv wonders [LV] if the newspaper's purchase was “the most expensive election campaign”:

If we are to believe information that Diena and Dienas Bizness were paid for 7 million lats (US$13 million), then that's a very expensive toy.

Let's assume that the goal is to influence the election results with the help from these two media outlets and after that liquidate them both. I think it would be too expensive for an election campaign.

On the other hand, considering the amounts of money the plotters could get in many different public bids and purchase requests, then 7 million is nothing but small change.

By Janine Mendes-Franco

Girl With a Purpose says that “the Limited State of Emergency in Jamaica…has now become a political football.”

By Janine Mendes-Franco

Girl With a Purpose says that “the Limited State of Emergency in Jamaica…has now become a political football.”

By Janine Mendes-Franco

“All is in place for a showdown featuring the three fastest men over 100 metres”: YardFlex.com is looking forward seeing the performance of Jamaican athletes in an upcoming meet in Sweden.

By Janine Mendes-Franco

“All is in place for a showdown featuring the three fastest men over 100 metres”: YardFlex.com is looking forward seeing the performance of Jamaican athletes in an upcoming meet in Sweden.

By Veronica Khokhlova

Veni Markovski writes about the Bulgarian government's most recent attack on the independent media: “This latest pressure on the free media comes after a number of worrisome cases, involving journalists in the last years. […] Every government in the last 20 years has come to power at the promise of keeping the media free and independent, and every government has stepped down not being able to fulfill its promise.”

 

Srinagar, July 30 (Scoop News)– Former Joint Director Information,  Bashir Ahmad Wani passed away at SKIMS, Soura here today after prolonged illness. His death has come as a shock to all his friends and acquaintances who knew him as a very sociable and pleasing person who had cultivated lot of admirers during his long service career spanning three decades.

 Wani had been ailing for some time and was shifted to SKIMS about a fortnight ago where the end came in the afternoon today.

 Wani had served all along in the Information Department except for a brief spell when he was posted as Joint Director Handicrafts, Kashmir. He had joined Information Department as Assistant Information Officer (AIO) and had risen to the position of Joint Director in which capacity he headed the Kashmir Division office of the Department. He served the department in various capacities and also headed its Public Relations wing. He was also posted as the chief of the New Delhi Bureau office of the department.

 Wani was gifted with the qualities of a professional public relations man and enjoyed a close rapport with the media both in Srinagar and Jammu. He had a great sense of dress and always wore a disarming smile. He is survived by his wife, two daughters and a son.

 Wani was laid to rest in his ancestral graveyard at Malkha near the Zaroo Gun Factory. According to family sources, the chaharum will be held on Monday, August 2ndat 10. 30 A.M. after which a condolence meeting will be held at his Sadrabal residence.

The demise of  Wani has grieved the employees of the Information Department and the media fraternity. A condolence meeting was held by the employees of the Department with Director Information,  Zaffar Ahmad in chair, in which rich tributes were paid to the departed colleague. His contribution to the development of the department and his warm relationship with his colleagues especially his subordinates was specifically recalled.  

www.scoopnews.in 

 

By Veronica Khokhlova

Sublime Oblivion interviews the author of A Good Treaty blog, continuing the Watching the Russia Watchers interview series that was launched by Andy Young of Siberian Light.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: A version of this report originally appeared on the media blog Lippmann Would Roll and Stop Big Media.

In front of a crowd of 2,000 bloggers and citizen activists at Netroots Nation last week, Sen. Al Franken [D-MN] delivered an explosive speech about media consolidation, Net Neutrality and corporate influence over policy (video). “Now, corporations with government permission pose the greatest threat to your First Amendment rights,” he said.

Franken was not only citing the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision, which will allow corporations to inject millions of dollars into the election process, but also the likely ramifications of the proposed Comcast-NBC Universal merger on free speech and the open Internet.

“If no one stops them how long to do you think it would take before four or five corporations effectively control the flow of information in America not only on television, but online?” Franken asked his audience.

A prominent opponent of the Comcast-NBC merger, Franken argued that it could open the door to even more mega mergers that would unite on a massive scale content creators and content distributors, while relegating independent content to the dark corners of the Internet and other platforms. A merger like Comcast-NBC, Franken said, is likely to lead to the favoring of corporate content over that of individuals.

Without vital Net Neutrality protections, and tough but fair regulation for corporations like Comcast, Franken sees a dark future where the flow of information in the United States will be controlled by just a few multinational corporations. Without Net Neutrality and other protections, Franken told the Netroots audience that the foundation of their movement – the open Internet – is next in line for a corporate takeover.

Franken repeatedly brought attention to the Comcast/NBCU merger, saying that empty promises from both Comcast and NBCU are not going to be enough. Instead, he said, it is absolutely necessary to proceed with the greatest amount of caution and skepticism.

“If we don’t protect Net Neutrality now, how long do you think it will take before Comcast-NBC Universal, or Verizon-CBS Viacom or AT&T-ABC-DirecTV or BP-Haliburton-Walmart-Fox-Domino’s-Pizza start favoring its content over everyone else’s?” Franken said.

If the government and the people do not voice their opposition to the Comcast-NBC merger, it is all too possible the media landscape will be dotted with even larger mega companies that control every form of our communications systems. Franken argued that the Comcast merger is just the first domino in a line of future mergers that will stifle innovation, investment, and Internet freedom.

“If it falls, the rest will soon follow,” he said. “It’s almost too late to stop this from happening, but not quite.”

By Eleonora Pantò · Translated by Bernardo Parrella · View original post [it]

While the recent WikiLeaks experience [EN] reveals aspirations to build “information freedom zones” with some help from Iceland [EN], the Italian government seems to be heading in the opposite direction.

A Media and Wiretapping Bill [EN] that was under consideration by the Italian parliament for two years (harshly criticized by the United Nations) [all links in Italian from here] would have introduced a “gag rule” by restricting journalists from publishing wiretapping records during investigations, possibly in the public interest. Thanks to sustained protest by citizens and journalists, these restrictions were formally removed from the text of the bill on July 21. Yet somehow the new version still includes a small clause aimed at directly restricting online free speech,the so-called “blog-killing” provision (par. 29 of art. 1). As the group blog MAVAFFANCULP explains it:

Una norma introdotta riguarda infatti proprio il mondo del web e non si capisce cosa c'entri con le intercettazioni telefoniche. E' infatti fatto obbligo a qualsiasi blog e quindi a qualsiasi blogger di rettificare nello spazio di 48 ore una notizia o un articolo che possa contenere una informazione non corretta.

In sostanza, se la norma venisse approvata, tutti i blogger dovrebbero stare all'erta per pubblicare una eventuale rettifica che gli sia richiesta pena una multa di 12.500 euro. Non c'è verso di fare neppure una settimana di vacanza tranquilli! E' evidente che questo porterà molti siti a una scelta drastica. O si chiude o si smette di occuparci di argomenti su cui i potenti, e i loro agguerriti avvocati, sono particolarmente sensibili.

One of the proposed provisions is specifically aimed at the online world and it is not clear what this has to do with wiretaps. It would become mandatory for any blog to rectify within 48 hours any news or articles that might contain incorrect information.

Basically, if the law is approved like it is now, all bloggers are required to promptly fix any requested correction or be fined up to 12,500 Euros. No way that we can even take a short vacation! Obviously this will force many sites to make a drastic choice. Either to close down entirely or stop dealing with issues about which powerful people, and their aggressive lawyers, are particularly sensitive.

Once again, people are voicing their discontent on the Net and on the streets. The web-community Valigia Blu coordinated most of the activity in the last weeks, including a large rally scheduled for Thursday July 29 at 4pm, in Piazza Montecitorio, in downtown Rome, to mark the beginning of the final bill discussion on the Parliament floor.

No Gag Rule protest, Piazza Navona,
Rome, 1 July (CC BY-NC-SA)

In the meantime people are encouraged to sign a letter to MPs in order to “reopen the debate and par. 29 of art.1″: it has been signed by over 11,000 citizens so far, along with other 240,000 signatures gathered during the previous rally held in Rome on July 1st – see picture on the left, from the Valigia Blu photostream on Flickr.

Many self-produced videos are circulating on YouTube, including the following video by nikilnero.

Information is also spread via Twitter under the hashtag #nobavaglio:

- http://nobavaglio.adds.it has a petition against the Gag Rule, can you please help me get people to sign it?

- local Web-TV risks closure, this strict law is threatening the life of 350+ of them

- confusion reigns here, as in the most backward, forgotten, anonymous state…

The Facebook group No Legge Bavaglio has passed 6,500 members (reaching 11,000 if adding the website supporters) and continues to share updates and news stories:

- You can’t even stop for a minute here, not even the time for a coffee! (arianna)

Therefore it’s quite bizarre what's happening in the Parliament. Or maybe it isn’t, actually. The web has in fact decentralized the news production, with the result that the control on information created by citizens is getting weaker day by day. For some, this is evidently a problem. For all the others it is, indeed a success to be extended and improved.

Mainstream media also oppose the proposed regulation, explaining that anybody sharing content on the web (including radio and TV websites) would be subject to the same “correction requirement”. The website of the daily Il Fatto Quotidiano writes:

Tutte le web tv ed i video blogger italiani, in forza degli emanandi regolamenti, dovranno chiedere all’Agcom un’autorizzazione – o almeno indirizzarle una dichiarazione di inizio attività -, versare 3000 euro per il rimborso delle spese di istruttoria (quali?) e, soprattutto, finiranno assoggettati, tra gli altri al solito obbligo di rettifica, sempre entro 48 ore e sempre sotto la minaccia di una sanzione fino a 12 mila e 500 euro .

L’obiettivo dell’ultimo scellerato progetto di Palazzo sembra evidente: ora che il Cavaliere si accinge a sbarcare in Rete avendone forse, almeno, subodorato le enormi potenzialità, la vuole tutta per lui, per i suoi amici e per i soli suoi nemici che ha, comunque, la garanzia di poter controllare almeno in termini economici.

According to these forthcoming regulations, all Italian Web-TV and video-bloggers must file an application with the Communications Authority - or at least inform them of their official activity - pay 3,000 Euros for a potential investigation reimbursement (what kind?) and, above all, will be subject to the same correction requirement applied to mainstream media, always within 48 hours and at risk of a penalty up to 12,500 euros.

The objective of this now infamous bill by Berlusconi seems clear. Now that he is about to arrive on the Net, having perhaps sensed its enormous potential, he wants to keep it all to himself, his friends and the few enemies he can control in economic terms.

Other online comments address the negative consequences of this “gag rule” on e-commerce activities, as explained by Enrico Giubertoni on Buzzes:

È immorale poiché impedisce de facto ogni forma di critica, è antieconomico poiché impedirà di affermare un principio cardine del Social Media Marketing ovvero il giudizio su un prodotto. Se scriverò che il prodotto A non è bene mentre B è meglio, il produttore di A potrà obbligarmi a rettificare. Come faremo a fare InfoCommerce con l’Ammazza Blog?

It is immoral because it actually prevents any form of criticism, it is anti-economical since it reverses the basic principle of social media marketing, which is the user rating of a product. If I write that product A is not so good, while item B works better, the producer of A could force me to rectify that statement. How are we going to pursue InfoCommerce with this “blog-killing” provision?

Some specific amendments to repeal the “blog-killing” clause have already been announced, but the broader context reveals a new government crisis looming and an on-going intent to impose limitations on the democratic expression of citizens. However, in the Parliament everybody keeps mum. Nobody even seems to know how and why that tiny provision ended up in the wiretap bill.

In a blog post titled  “Il legislatore fantasma” (The Ghost Lawmaker), Massimo Melica says:

Ho provato in ogni stanza, corridoio, stanzino ministeriale…nessuno conosce o ricorda chi ha redatto il testo inserito nel “ddl intercettazioni”, nella parte che riguarda Internet.
Ho sfidato il Sig. Nessuno e nessuno ha accettato la mia sfida.
Quindi ci ritroveremo una norma (comma 29 art.1 ddl intercettazioni) pensata da Nessuno, voluta da Nessuno e scritta da Nessuno ma alla fine approvata dal Parlamento italiano.
Inutile gridare al complotto perchè non c’è, si tratta della burocrazia e della politica incapace di tener traccia dei suoi movimenti.

I've looked in every room, hallway, closet of the Ministry … nobody knows or remembers who wrote that provision about the internet included in the “wiretap bill”.
I challenged Mr. Nobody and nobody has met my challenge.
So we will have a law (par. 29 of art. 1) thought up by Nobody, wanted and drafted by Nobody, but finally approved by the Italian Parliament.
It's pointless arguing against a conspiracy that doesn't exist, perhaps at fault are just bureaucracy and politics unable to keep track of their own developments.

UPDATE (30 July): The Parliament eventually decided to post-pone the bill discussion to September.

The GVO Italian team contributed to the original post and its translation.

By Janine Mendes-Franco

“The Commonwealth of Dominica has gone virtual with great alacrity” in order to promote tourism; Repeating Islands has the details.

By Janine Mendes-Franco

Ariel Sigler Amaya arrives in the United States from Cuba to undergo medical treatment; Uncommon Sense applauds his resolve.

By Mong Palatino

Tempo Semanal publishes an article written by Dr. Clinton Fernandes outlining his ideas on self-regulation of media in East Timor.

By Marta Cooper

This past month has been an interesting one in the cat-and-mouse game between Chinese Internet censorship and its non-conformists. Microblogs in the People's Republic had begun to feel the weight of a heavier government crackdown, following the publication of a report by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) claiming social networking websites are used as tools of “political subversion”. The Internet Blue Paper, published by CASS in early July, claimed microblogging and social networking platforms, such as Facebook, helped spur on the ethnic riots in Xinjiang in 2009, in which 200 people were killed and 1,500 injured. It said:

Facebook has appeared as the rallying point for overseas Xinjiang separatist groups … these social networking sites have become a tool of political subversion used by Western nations, including the United States.

(…)

Faced with the popularity of social networking sites … it is imperative to exert control … [and] pay a lot of attention to these potential risks and latent dangers.

Following the riots, both Facebook and microblogging platform Twitter were blocked in the People's Republic, where they remain unaccessible without the use of proxy servers or virtual private networks (VPNs). A domestic microblog, Fanfou, was also shut down last year prior to the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. However, other homegrown versions, namely those of portals Sina, Sohu and Neatease, remain incredibly popular. Sina Weibo alone has over 5 million users and, AFP has reported, government figures have shown that around 176 million Chinese Internet users were using social networking sites at the close of 2009, with most between 20 and 29 years of age.

Yet, these versions too have felt the wrath of the net nanny. After a brief period of being inaccessible (which, according to a Sohu customer services representative speaking to the WSJ, was due to maintenance rather than government censorship), sites such as Sina Weibo, Neatease and Tencent bore a ‘beta' icon next to their logos. This would suggest testing of some kind, offering users a prototype version. Bnext summarized the situation

各家網站異口同聲地表示，與政府命令無關，只是單純網站維護；新浪網行銷中心副總劉奇表示，從去年八月微博上線，其實一直都是試用階段，目前正在策劃上線一週年紀念日再度啟用儀式。儘管如此，數家網站同時出現「beta」版本還是讓網友擔憂，部分網友更在網路上發表，顯示維護的真正原因是中國政府勒令清除敏感內容，並稱為「713殺博事件」。

All portal websites claimed that it has nothing to do with the government, just a matter of regular maintenance. The deputy director of Sina market department said that Sina micro-blog has been in the beta period since August and they are planning to relaunch the website in their first anniversary. However, the fact that a number of portal websites turned themselves into “beta” version is worrisome. Some netizens said that the reason behind maintenance is government censorship order to clear sensitive content. They even call the incident “713 murdering of micro blog”.

The team at ChinaGeeks also tested the theory that the URL shortener on Sina Weibo only works for domestic websites:

As you can see from our Sina Weibo, we attempted to post five links. The first four were to innocuous and unblocked websites outside China, including a New York Times article and the Geico Insurance Company website. All four were converted into shortened links automatically, and when clicked, they returned only an error message. However, when we tested a fifth time using a domestic link (youku.com), the shortened URL worked fine and we were directed to the Youku.

So anything — anything — that isn’t on a Chinese website can no longer be linked via Sina Weibo. I’m not even going to comment on this one. Will it push more Chinese internet users outside the GFW in search of a microblogging experience that doesn’t pretend half of the internet doesn’t exist? Who knows.

The bridge blog also translated a post by lawyer and blogger, Liu Xiaoyuan, detailing his own battles with Chinese censorship techniques. It was promptly deleted by Sohu, though remains unblocked by Sina (incidentally, upon seeing the ‘beta' logo, Sina microbloggers had written open pleas to the site to not remove posts):

In March of 2007, Sohu started to block and hide some of my blog posts. I got fed up with it and on August 16, 2007, filed a lawsuit with the Haidian district People’s Court. After nearly a year and two trials, both of my suits2 were rejected. If even the People’s Court sees but does not care about the violation of a citizen’s right to free speech, what could I do?

(…)

On July 28, 2009, I had been writing on my Sohu blog for more than three years. That day was the first time my blog was forcibly closed. They didn’t tell me anything [about why the blog was suddenly closed]. So fine, if you won’t tell me anything, then I will tell you something! I immediately registered another Sohu blog and gave Sohu a piece of my mind.

I never thought that this blog would be killed on July 12, 2010, before it had even reached one year of age. On the 13th, I opened another Sohu blog, but it only lived for a single day and was “assassinated” on the 14th.

I’ve said before, the best way to protest when they close your blog is to open another. [I've opened another blog,] I really don’t know how long this one will survive.

The glitch, however, seems to have been temporary. We tested ChinaGeeks' Sina Weibo links this morning, all of which were working within the confines of the Great Firewall. Furthermore, it would seem as though the notorious Green Dam filtering software is reaching its demise. A project office set up to promote the software, which the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), deemed manufacturers ship PCs with, has been shut down due to a lack of financial support. With intense backlash from the blogosphere, including the vehement declaration by the Anonymous Netizens in June 2009, plans for mandatory installation were withdrawn.

Prior to this month's events, the government released its first White Paper on the Internet in China, which stated that “Chinese citizens fully enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet.” That is, so long as they do not “infringe upon state, social, and collective interests or the legitimate freedom and rights and other citizens.”

By Alexey Sidorenko

LiveJournal, Russia's still most popular blog platform, recently fell under severe criticism for several “innovations”: purging suspended and “inactive” accounts [EN] and closing OpenID registration [RUS] (allowed LJ-users to comment in other blog-platforms). Blogger sviridenkov observes [RUS] more and more bloggers switching to stand-alone blogs, while Artur Welf says [RUS] disappointed users would rather prefer Facebook.

by Matthew L. Schafer

Note: This report originally appeared in the media blog Lippmann Would Roll.

The last few months have been one giant headache for cell phone manufacturers and services providers and one giant victory for consumers.  On June 15, San Francisco passed a city ordinance requiring all cell phone retailers to display in the store the rate (SAR) at which their phones’ radiation is absorbed into the body.   A month later, the Federal Communications Commission and the Wireless Assocation, a coalitition of service providers, began a blog war over the FCC’s May “bill shock” research.  Finally, Monday marked an equally unpleasant rule making decision by the Library of Congress, which enables cell phone users to “unlock” their phones for use on other networks.

In an effort to fight the San Francisco decision, the Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco.  CTIA argued that San Francisco’s ordinance was preempted by federal law and that the ordinance disregards the fact that SAR levels filed with the FCC are measured when a phone is at the maximum power and not normal power levels.  If the CTIA does not win the lawsuit, after February 1, 2011 all cell phone retailers in San Francisco will be required to post SAR levels at the point of sale in size 11 font.

In response to the lawsuit, San Fancisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said, “I am disappointed that the association representing the wireless communication industry has decided to challenge our landmark consumer information law in court.  This law is not an attack on the wireless industry or their products.”

The CTIA also found itself in a fight with the FCC earlier this month over a survey the FCC released, which revealed that an estimated 30 million Americans had been victims of arbitrary increases to their monthly cell phone bills.  In a July 14 post to the CTIA website titled, “Peeling the Onion on the FCC’s “Bill Shock” Survey: Part I,” Christopher Guttman-McCabe of CTIA argued that the survey was poorly designed and executed. Guttman-McCabe also argued that the “survey completely disregards the evolution of the wireless marketplace.” The FCC responded the next day saying that CTIA’s critique distorted and ignored facts. Despite the “Part I” title in the CTIA post, no “Part II” response was ever released.

“This trade association apparently believes there’s nothing to worry about if 30 million Americans have gotten sudden increases on their cell-phone bills,” the FCC argued.

Cell phone manufacturers have also been taking their fair share of blows. Apple has been hit especially hard in the policy arena-not to mention the iPhone 4 antenna problems, which recently cost Apple $175 million in bumper cases. In a Monday decision, the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress order that “jailbreaking” or the modifying a phone’s software to run on different networks or to run unapproved applications was not a violation of copyright.

Apple, which is notoriously particular about apps they allow to be sold in the iTunes app store, argued that laws against “jailbreaking” were necessary to protect the integrity of the network.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued, in part however, that “jailbreaking” was a fair use and not subject to copyright laws, because it is used for non-commercial purposes.  In their decision, the Copyright Office concluded that the amount of original software programming code used to “jailbreak” the phone was so little (1/160,000 of the total work) that it was not protected under copyright law.

“On balance, the Register concludes that when one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application…, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses,” the Copyright Office concluded.

While Apple has not responded to the change in rules, the CTIA did release a statement cautioning cell phone users that said although consumers may approve of the rule change, "they still need to review the terms of service… since altering the underlying source code may… adversely affect how the device operates on a wireless network.”

Free Press, a media reform organization, said that “The decision by the U.S. Copyright Office is an important step toward promoting open wireless networks.”

While it is unclear exactly how the situation in San Francisco will resolve it itself in the future, whether the bill shock issue will be readdressed by the CTIA, or the future scope of the Copyright Office’s final rule, one thing is clear.  Consumers are ending up on the winning side of these decisions, and judging from industry press releases, it is not happy about it.