censorship and freedom of expression in new media

Coetzee is accurate in his description of how a writer is ‘dehumanised’ in a sense, when his writing is scrutinized by others, and altered in such a way that the very essence of that person’s ‘voice’ is stripped to the core, and so “the system is a diabolical device for annihilating your own soul”. This relentless process of taking away what should be heard is commonly known as censorship, and is a ritual in many countries where government regimes are strict in their privacy policies, and strive to maintain power by silencing the media and general public on issues that are usually open to debate and opposition by all.

One such country is Iran, which has been overwhelmed by the government’s need for news coverage, especially with regard to the recent elections, to be censored and screening of the subsequent protests to be blocked by local and international broadcasters. What has to be kept in mind is that the government itself is subject to appeal to a higher authority for advice and other concerns, and Ayatollah Khatami is the religious leader of the country who is the person who has the final say regarding all government decisions, since Iran is a staunch Islamic country and therefore abides to religious laws above state laws. In hierarchal terms, religion comes first, state laws second. In other words, what the Ayatollah says goes and no one may contest his decisions.

The main limitation of state censorship in Iran is that its control is being compromised by technology and forms of new media, such as the micro-blogging site ‘Twitter’, which has allowed coverage of the post-election protests to be sent via mobile phones regardless of attempts at censoring its broadcast to other nations. Despite government’s efforts to stop ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ traffic, they and even Ayatollah Khatami have no control over what is said via these channels of news transmission, and Frederick Lane states in his article; ‘Twitter Plays Critical Role In Iran Election Coverage’ that “the Electronic Frontier Foundation's John Gilmore once famously said that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." The tweeting in Iran is a case in point, as messages are passed by circuitous routes in an effort to evade the government's blocking efforts.”
Another limitation is that of the influence of freedom movements, particularly ARTICLE 19, which “is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.” This organization has posted many articles on freedom of speech and its violations, and the extract above is taken from an article entitled; ‘Iran: Escalation of Attacks and Censorship after Elections’, which requests that Iran unblocks Iranian’s access to local and international media and news coverage. These limitations are effective in assisting the general public to voice their opinions, and with these forms of new media they can now avert the government’s endeavors to silence them.

With regard to Dave Carroll’s song in response to his expensive guitar being damaged by a baggage handler as a result of United Airline’s poor service delivery, his choice to broadcast it over the internet whilst using YouTube as a means of doing so has earned him substantial recognition and praise for voicing his concerns regarding the conduct of the Airline after having complained to them about the incident. Although some blamed him rather than the Airline for negligence, most comments made were in favour of him and furthermore contended that United Airlines’ service is indeed pitiable. One comment made even stated that; “It just goes to show that, Youtube can be a powerful tool in solving some of today’s problems with businesses. :) I just may have to do the same thing.”


As opposed to Dave Carroll’s musical out lash, Amanda Bonnen was ridiculed and even faced a lawsuit from the Horizon Group Management Company, after having complained about them to ‘millions’ on ‘Twitter’, and hence ‘defaming’ their name. In her tweet she apparently blamed them for something of which they had no control over. Although her response was mostly negative, her message was in effect carried across and heard by more than she would have liked. In essence, these ‘new media’ forms have assisted these people in raising a point and voicing their concerns, with masses hearing their plea and responding to it. This would not have been possible with older media forms as their complaints would first be filtered down many divisions before ultimately reaching the intended recipient, who would then decide whether or not to respond to the accusations or complaints. With these new media forms, they have no choice but to react in their defense, since potentially millions of people will be monitoring the situation. The accused and complainant’s freedom of speech has thus violated and defamed the parties on the receiving end, and action is taken as a result.

In retaliation, I conclude that the defamed may choose to fight back and sue the ‘violator’, as in Amanda Bonnen’s case. This would help them save face and protect their company’s name, as they are willing to protest in court against the accusations made by the complainant. In Dave Carroll’s instance, however, the United Airlines representative chose to apologise and set up a meeting to “make it right”, which was their way of admitting guilt and attempting to save what was left of their damaged reputation. Hence, depending on the context of the situation, the defamed may either choose to legally fight against what has been said about them to defend their name, or apologise and make up for their lack of regard for the complainant. In this way, the defamed must respond accordingly to have the injury to their (good) name repaired.