|
||||||||
|
Friday, February 29
by
Jason
on Fri 29 Feb 2008 06:54 AM CST
Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions
"Would this committee put money into Juno? It might not want to encourage teen pregnancy. Would the government put money into a film with a dirty title, like Young People Fucking? Would they invest in something like Brokeback Mountain? They might not want to encourage gay cowboys to have sex together in Alberta." (via Cenobyte - whose FTRW credentials are strong. Last year, she let me say "scrotum" AND "nut sack" on her radio show during a discussion about Freedom to Read Week.) Thursday, February 28
by
Jason
on Thu 28 Feb 2008 09:07 AM CST
One of the semi-frequent questions/complaints I get from our branch librarians is how to deal with patrons who are looking at pornography. But during my training, one branch librarian mentioned that she'd had an incident with a patron looking at something much much worse: rotten.com
(I don't usually do warnings on my blog but I'm doing one here. Although there's nothing disturbing on the Rotten.com front page that I linked to above, remember that you can't "unsee" anything you see once you start clicking on the links on that page! Rotten.com bills itself this way: The soft white underbelly of the net, eviscerated for all to see: Rotten dot com collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience. while Wikipedia sums it up like this: [Rotten.com] is devoted to morbid curiosities, primarily pictures of gruesome fatalities, deformities, autopsy or forensic photographs, depictions of perverse sex acts, and historical curios that are disturbing or misanthropic in nature. (There's also a summary on Wikipedia of a few of the site's legal challenges.) I've got mixed feelings about the site myself. Does seeing a picture of a decapitated person (to take but one example of what you might see if you click through the links on the site) harm you in some way? Is it illegal? Is it immoral? (And is that simply a cultural construct or a personal bias? Or is this an absolute value?) On the other hand, is the site just a way to satisfy natural human curiosity? Is it better to be able to see this type of material rather than having it hidden? (The US policy of not allowing photos of caskets returning from Iraq is on the very opposite end of the spectrum.) Is it any different than the six o'clock news where you can regularly see video of people being killed, dying, being tortured, being assassinated, and god knows what else. It's explicit but on some level, is it any different than a site like MyFreeImplants.com (again, as just one example among hundreds that could be cited.) Salon.com has an article exploring some of these questions called "The Internet's Public Enema #1: Will Rotten.com ever be kicked offline?" But Rotten.com isn't just a database of the disgusting; it's also a venue for making a point about censorship, at least according to "Soylent," the pseudonymous proprietor of Rotten.com, whose highly graphic content has earned him enemies around the world. The site is currently being investigated by Scotland Yard and the FBI for cannibalism. The German Family Ministry has threatened Soylent with legal action if he doesn't find a way to shield minors from his site. And then there's the endless cease-and-desist letters that flood in from a long list of major corporations that object to the site. "Rotten dot-com serves as a beacon to demonstrate that censorship of the Internet is impractical, unethical and wrong," Soylent writes in his manifesto, adding that nothing he posts there can't be found elsewhere. "To censor this site, it is necessary to censor medical texts, history texts, evidence rooms, courtrooms, art museums, libraries, and other sources of information vital to functioning of free society." Wednesday, February 27
by
Jason
on Wed 27 Feb 2008 03:20 PM CST
A bit of sad news today, right in the middle of Freedom to Read Week... Dear colleagues in the Book and Periodical Council, Tuesday, February 26
by
Jason
on Tue 26 Feb 2008 04:53 PM CST
I was a bit disappointed to click through and realise this book wasn't actually a version of Richard Dawkins' book for young people (which would be awesome!).
But the sentiment of this controversial German kid's book certainly fits with Dawkins anti-religion polemic. The German Family Ministry is pushing for the children's book "How Do I Get to God, Asked the Small Piglet," written by Michael Schmidt-Salomon and illustrated by Helge Nyncke, to be included on a list of literature considered dangerous for young people. The authors and publishers have released the book online in English so that interested parties can read it themselves. Monday, February 25
by
Jason
on Mon 25 Feb 2008 09:40 PM CST
Didn't get a chance to post yesterday so missed kicking off FTRW on its official start date. But never one to be a day late and a dollar short, here's a link to the main web site for Freedom to Read to kick off the week. Explore, read, look for events in a community near you!
|
![]() www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from shealisahammond. Make your own badge here.
Login
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
