why blog
Originally, it seemed a good idea to keep track of what I’ve been reading about the Korean internet ban. I’d planned to jot down a few thoughts eventually about how freedom of speech squares with duties to the community of which one is part – the shady line-drawing that Article 29 allows.
The discovery that people – anyone – might stumble on the careless process, shook me. This is a serious topic, and I can't do it justice. And I have no locus standi.
The ban caught my attention because it struck just as I was looking at some Korean blogs, having already become interested in Korea. (I’d been reading some translations of Korean poetry.) News of Kim Sun-il's capture came through. Then he was beheaded. A video was released, circulating in Korea within hours. I was following Joel’s blog, and Andi’s – whenthe ban hit.
These were a couple of people whose writing I’d found interesting enough to keep reading. When they were gagged (that’s what it seemed like) I was outraged. I wanted to find out more, and keep a note of it all. I wanted to help – but it was clear there was nothing much I could do except sign petitions and write letters.
Even that was problematic. Often I’d meet the comment that Korea is a sovereign country, so it can do what it likes. Back off, cultural imperialist! I have some sympathy with that view. If Korea wants to gag itself, perhaps we shouldn’t interfere. I don’t live there. I wouldn’t take kindly to a bunch of Koreans telling us Brits to clean up our internet, or for that matter, petitioning BT Internet to allow child porn through their filter after all.
But Korea upholds free speech in its constitution - albeit with caveats. It prohibits censorship.
I don’t hold much with censorship, though I admit there are places such as schools, offices, public libraries, where there can be reasons to have a net nanny. But not for adults at home. Yet the Korean government regularly blocks websites "likely to offend public morals" or showing sympathy for North Korea. Internet savvy people can get round these blocks by using proxy servers. Unlike China, Korea doesn't seem to have started taking action against them. Perhaps that's indicative of something less than a whole-hearted approach to censorship.
Although it is an offence in Korea to watch the beheading video, both Andi and Katolik Shinja (5 July - I haven't mastered trackback) report that it's been widely circulating among EFL students.
The ban affected people who were completely innnocent. Even if one accepted the ICEC arguments why the video shouldn’t be seen and why websites linking to it should be banned, there can be no justification for cutting off sites that have nothing at all to do with it. All the Korean bloggers I’ve read were appalled by the beheading.
Last week, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. That too uses some shocking footage. Some of it was shot by coalition forces, or embedded journalists. Some, like the brief images of the wrecked bodies of US soldiers dragged through the streets, must have come from elsewhere. Perhaps one should query the propriety of any side of the war using this sort of thing as a propaganda weapon? In assenting to view it, am I allowing it to be used as a weapon one way or another? I can’t remain neutral to images like that. Or is Fisk's “weapon” metaphor misleading? It seems to suggest that one should seek to disarm... as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict (Susan Sontag, NYT 23 May 2004)
But censoring the video - even assuming it could be done effectively - doesn't make it go away. If anything, it ensures that it hides underground on sites that specialise in pornography and violence, and on the sites of the terrorists themselves. It prevents analysis and discussion. If it's uncensored, some sick people will get kicks from seeing it, and it will horrify others, but still no-one's likely to stumble across it unawares. If you click on a link saying "Kim Sun-il Beheading" you must have a fair idea what you'd be letting yourself in for.
Sometime soon, I want to come back to Article 29. But now that it seems that the ban is beginning to ease, albeit patchily, I'm off to read some Susan Sontag.
The discovery that people – anyone – might stumble on the careless process, shook me. This is a serious topic, and I can't do it justice. And I have no locus standi.
The ban caught my attention because it struck just as I was looking at some Korean blogs, having already become interested in Korea. (I’d been reading some translations of Korean poetry.) News of Kim Sun-il's capture came through. Then he was beheaded. A video was released, circulating in Korea within hours. I was following Joel’s blog, and Andi’s – when
These were a couple of people whose writing I’d found interesting enough to keep reading. When they were gagged (that’s what it seemed like) I was outraged. I wanted to find out more, and keep a note of it all. I wanted to help – but it was clear there was nothing much I could do except sign petitions and write letters.
Even that was problematic. Often I’d meet the comment that Korea is a sovereign country, so it can do what it likes. Back off, cultural imperialist! I have some sympathy with that view. If Korea wants to gag itself, perhaps we shouldn’t interfere. I don’t live there. I wouldn’t take kindly to a bunch of Koreans telling us Brits to clean up our internet, or for that matter, petitioning BT Internet to allow child porn through their filter after all.
But Korea upholds free speech in its constitution - albeit with caveats. It prohibits censorship.
I don’t hold much with censorship, though I admit there are places such as schools, offices, public libraries, where there can be reasons to have a net nanny. But not for adults at home. Yet the Korean government regularly blocks websites "likely to offend public morals" or showing sympathy for North Korea. Internet savvy people can get round these blocks by using proxy servers. Unlike China, Korea doesn't seem to have started taking action against them. Perhaps that's indicative of something less than a whole-hearted approach to censorship.
Although it is an offence in Korea to watch the beheading video, both Andi and Katolik Shinja (5 July - I haven't mastered trackback) report that it's been widely circulating among EFL students.
The ban affected people who were completely innnocent. Even if one accepted the ICEC arguments why the video shouldn’t be seen and why websites linking to it should be banned, there can be no justification for cutting off sites that have nothing at all to do with it. All the Korean bloggers I’ve read were appalled by the beheading.
Last week, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. That too uses some shocking footage. Some of it was shot by coalition forces, or embedded journalists. Some, like the brief images of the wrecked bodies of US soldiers dragged through the streets, must have come from elsewhere. Perhaps one should query the propriety of any side of the war using this sort of thing as a propaganda weapon? In assenting to view it, am I allowing it to be used as a weapon one way or another? I can’t remain neutral to images like that. Or is Fisk's “weapon” metaphor misleading? It seems to suggest that one should seek to disarm... as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict (Susan Sontag, NYT 23 May 2004)
But censoring the video - even assuming it could be done effectively - doesn't make it go away. If anything, it ensures that it hides underground on sites that specialise in pornography and violence, and on the sites of the terrorists themselves. It prevents analysis and discussion. If it's uncensored, some sick people will get kicks from seeing it, and it will horrify others, but still no-one's likely to stumble across it unawares. If you click on a link saying "Kim Sun-il Beheading" you must have a fair idea what you'd be letting yourself in for.
Sometime soon, I want to come back to Article 29. But now that it seems that the ban is beginning to ease, albeit patchily, I'm off to read some Susan Sontag.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home