Primary Source Interview

Interviewee:

Jimmy was the most relevant candidate to interview for a primary source for this research topic. He has been in the United States Marine Corps since he was nineteen years old. He has already done one tour in wartime Iraq and will in all likelihood be doing another tour there or in another country. He has first hand experience as a government employee in a wartime country to know the parameters the government sets on their employees when it comes to internet communication.

This pertains directly to the research question stated above, because we already know the government regulation on print media. However the regulations the government has set on the internet are less obvious. Jimmy’s account reveals the exact specifications the government has given its soldiers on what they can and can not post on the internet, specifically youtube or myspace, when they are in the wartime country or even when they return to the United States. This illustrates that while the government has not put exact restrictions on the internet in general it has restricted what is written or posted in some cases.

Transcription:

Courtney: When were you in Iraq?

Jimmy: From February 2007 to September of the same year.

Courtney: Did you ever post anything, video or pictures, on youtube or myspace or anywhere on the internet while you were over there?

Jimmy: Ya, I posted some pictures on my myspace. And when I came back I put them on my facebook, too. But I never posted video it wasn’t really allowed.

Courtney: What were the rules on that?

Jimmy: Well you could only take pictures inside the wire because you aren’t supposed to take your cameras outside.

Courtney: What’s the wire?

Jimmy: The wire is the perimeter of the base. Going outside the wire is just another way of saying that you are going out of the base. You are going outside of the secure area. You don’t know what could be out there, well you know what’s out there because you aren’t always on base, but you don’t know what could be going on outside of the base. It isn’t a secure area.

It’s also an issue of being aware of your surroundings. Obviously if you are fiddling around with your camera you’re not doing your job and taking in what is going on around you. It’s a safety issue you need to be on your guard, not only for your own safety but for the safety of the guys that you are with as well.

Courtney: So is that why they banned posting video? Because it’s unsafe for you to video tape? Or can you video on the base?

Jimmy: Not exactly. It’s a security thing. People can find anything on the internet. So if you post information on the net, you have to make sure its nothing to specific or else you could put yourself or others in danger. You have to be aware that it isn’t only your friends and family that are seeing the things that you post the enemy or bad guys or whatever you want to call them can see it to.

Like if you tape us doing some type of drill or the routes that we take or anything like that and post it, you are basically giving that information to them. They will know what we are working on, weakness or not, and they can figure out how we will act when put in specific situations and plan accordingly. So just to be on the safe side you just shouldn’t post video because you don’t know what it would reveal to them and you have to be careful with your pictures to.

Courtney: How did they tell you that you couldn’t do it? Was it a sitting down and telling you or is it more of an unspoken agreement?

Jimmy: They were pretty blatant about it.

Courtney: Has it always been like that? Or was there a particular event that fueled them to say you can’t post certain things?

Jimmy: I think that it has always been that way. They don’t want you to give information to people that shouldn’t be privy to it. As for a specific event, I don’t know about that. But there have been tons of kids that posted things that they shouldn’t have and it got people hurt. You aren’t supposed to post specific dates of when you’re doing things. Like you shouldn’t say I’m going to arrive at such and such base on this date or I’m going to leave on this date.

They already know when we are coming and going. It’s weird. They knew when we were arriving. That first day we got mortared or bombed four times in that one day. I was there for seven months and they obviously knew where the base was, but we only got mortared about twelve times in those seven months.

Who’s to say that some one didn’t post the date that we were arriving somewhere and it was read by the wrong people. Its just better if you don’t give specifics, it has the potential to get people hurt or killed.

Courtney: What happens if your superiors find out that you posted something that you weren’t supposed to?

Jimmy: Sorry, I’m not really sure of the consequences. I’m guessing that it would involve counseling with your superiors. Basically they would sit you down for a talk. Or a lot of paperwork detail and stuff like that.

Courtney: So tell me if I’m wrong, but what I gather is that they don’t focus on the consequences of what happens to you personally if you post specific dates or videos. They emphasize the safety concerns of doing so. That it could get you are one of your men killed and that is the reasoning for not having you post secure information.

Jimmy: That was more of the overarching theme. You don’t want to be responsible for getting other people hurt because you posted something online that you didn’t need to.

Synopsis of the rest of the interview:

The interview went on to describe the internet available to the troops. Jimmy explained that on his base the internet was normally available to all the troops at all times, however there was a thirty minute time limit as well as a line at all hours. He also described that they could use the internet like you can in a library, he didn’t noticed any sites being blocked, but he knew that they couldn’t look at pornography or the like.

Another large section of the interview pertained to “River City.” This is what they call the time when the internet and all communication is cut off to the troops. They do this when a soldier has been killed or injured. This enables the government to contact the family of the solider without the fear that they have already found out through the grapevine of communication. These blackouts normally last two to three days but no longer than a week.

Change in research:

In light of this interview, it has not changed the research question in the least. It has brought forth another perspective for inspection. The main objective of the project was to investigate the difference of government censorship or intervention when it came to the print media as well as the internet. I have researched the particulars in regards to print media, however the regulations on the internet are more ambiguous or nonexistent making the research more time consuming.

The internet has been self regulated for the most part between groups, organizations, companies and the websites themselves, either through lawsuits, ignorance or request. However the government outlawing soldiers form posting on youtube is a clear cut case of regulation. This adds another dynamic to comparing the censorship of these two mediums, worthy of more inspection.

Paper Proposal

Research Question:

“How do United State’s censorship laws of print media differ from censorship laws of digital media?”

Relevance:

The 1^st Amendment of the Constitution[i] guarantees the right to freedom of speech. Nonetheless when our country entered into an age of mudslinging tactics in the political realm, the Supreme Court clearly defined the unlawful use of slander and libel in the 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[ii]. New York Times articles from that time period not only document that this case allowed them to print the truth about this particular politician[iii], but also reveals that the ruling was upheld in other cases as well[iv].

The creation of the internet threw our society into a new media age. We have more access to information and people around the world than ever before. However, unlike print media the internet lacks the clearly defined censorship or slander laws that print media must abide by. One example of this problem is the efforts of the Church of Scientology to force Google to not show anti-Scientology links[v]. At first Google did sever the links to anti-Scientology websites[vi], however this went against their freedom of information policy and the links were reinstated[vii]. The Church of Scientology is sighting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[viii], a vague law that the congress instituted as it raced for recess[ix], as the reason Google must cut the links.

Answering the Question:

When the topic of discussion is internet censorship, it would seem appropriate to have it presented on the internet. The vehicle for explanation would be in a blog format that would allow the author to pull information from many different sources and write on a variety of different cases. The first few entries would be an explanation of 1^st Amendment rights and an analysis of Supreme Court cases laying out the frame work for censorship in the newspaper press. This would be complimented by an interview with Professor Youm, who has expertise in 1^st Amendment law.

The blog would then progress into the laws that involve internet censorship. The entries would involve both the governmental law that has been enacted and cases in which the law was used. This would give the blogger the ability to cover multiple cases without the infringement of writing in a strict essay format. It is also imperative to gain perspective and relevant information from secondary sources, such as an overview of censorship[x] as well as Google’s attitude[xi].

Primary Sources:

1) Professor Youm, Communication Law Professor at the University of Oregon. Personal Interview. Date to be determined.

2) 1^st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 15, Dec. 1791.

3) Supreme Court of the United States. New York Times Co. V. Sullivan. 09 Mar. 1964.

4) Lewis, Anthony. "Court Broadens Freedom of the Press." New York Times 15 Mar. 1964, sec. E: 10. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

5) "Newspaper Cleared of Libel Accusation." New York Times 26 Apr. 1964: 65. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

6) Vaidhyanathan, Siva. "Copyright as Cudgel." Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (2002): b7. LexisNexis. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

7) Gallagher, David. "Technology Briefing: Google Removes Anti-Scientology Links." New York Times 22 Mar. 2002, sec. C: 4. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

8) Gallagher, David. "New Economy: a Copyright Dispute with the Church of Scientology is Forcing Google to Do Some Creative Linking." New York Times 22 Apr. 2002, sec. C: 4. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

9) “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” 28 Oct. 1998. www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. 29 Jan. 2008

10) Clausing, Jeri. "Technology Bills Languish as Congress Races for Exit." New York Times 12 Oct. 1998, sec. C: 2. ProQuest. University of Oregon Library, Eugene. 29 Jan. 2008.

Secondary Sources:

11) "Censorship." Serendipity. 29 Jan. 2008 .

12) Hafner, Katie. "We're Google, So Sue Us." New York Times 23 Oct. 2006. 29 Jan. 2008.

---