Kathlyn Clore

Two stories surfaced in the national American press this weekend that appeared to call into question the concept of free speech.

The first and more lively issue, speech on social networking platforms, reveals itself to involve a question of ethics and protocol rather than free speech. But the second issue, limits on corporations’ ability to campaign for specific politicians around election times, does seem to involve issues of free speech.

First, the issue of free speech on social media platforms. In an article I read in Sunday’s New York Times, the right of members of the U.S. court system to speak about their work on social networking platforms was questioned.

Citing an incident in Florida in which a lawyer blogged about a judge who he and his colleagues believed to be improperly delaying cases, The New York Times article acknowledges that when individuals become a member of the court system, they willingly give up the right to brashly criticize the court in public.

Still, it’s seems to me that the Florida lawyer who posted nasty comments about a judge for whom he didn’t think blogging about the issue was really out of line.

To broaden the issue, the article continues:

Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, sees many more missteps in the future, as young people who grew up with Facebook and other social media enter a profession governed by centuries of legal tradition.

“Twenty-somethings have a much-reduced sense of personal privacy,” Professor Gillers said. Younger lawyers are, predictably, more comfortable with the media than their older colleagues, according to a recent survey for LexisNexis, the legal database company: 86 percent of lawyers ages 25 to 35 are members of social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace, as opposed to 66 percent of those over 46. For those just out of law school, “this stuff is like air to them,” said Michael Mintz, who manages an online community for lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell Connected. ”

Indeed - as my generation continues to develop professionally, what will the speech standards be on social media site?

To be sure, clamping down on social networking isn’t just an issue in the United States. Swiss bureaucrats have been asked to limit their social networking activities.

I do think that certain professions should require more decorum in social networking sites than others. It’s not like anyone forces you to be a lawyer or civil servant (OK, maybe your mother.)

Conclusion: Not a free speech issue.

Second: Limits on the ability of corporations and unions to campaign during election season.

For background, it’s best to just read this Wall Street Journal story.

The Supreme Court must decide if current limits on corporations - which are, it seems, under constitutional law treated like a person - and unions violate their free speech.

I very much like new justice Sandra Sotomayor’s take on this: Questioning if corporations should indeed be treated like a person. I am surprised that they are, actually, and don’t think they should be.

But I also think the quote in the article from justice Anthony Kennedy gets at the heart of the matter: “…that limiting corporate spending on campaign ads deprived voters of the expertise business brings to many subjects. ‘Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election,’ he told Ms. Kagan [who was arguing in front of the court].”

Conclusion: As much as I think this is ridiculous in practice, as a free speech advocate I think that until corporations and unions are no longer granted the status of individuals, they should be able to campaign as vigorously as they want for candidates in their constituencies.

Last night I watched Lord of War, a 2005 film in which Nicholas Cage stars as a witty arms dealer.

I recommend the movie for its dry humor and quirky portrayal of illegal arms dealers.

During the movie, Cage’s character often tells his troubled brother, played by Jared Leto, “that’s not our fight.”

He says this line most often in Africa, it seems, during moments when Leto’s character is obviously troubled that the arms deal the pair is brokering will enable a

mass killing.

I wonder if the “it’s not our fight” line is true in the case of Parwiz Kambakhsh, an Afghan journalist recently sentenced to a 20-year prison term for blasphemy. Kambakhsh says he is innocent.

In my e-mail today, I received a note asking me to sign a petition about this case. The Kabul Press website is circulating a petition asking the U.S. State Department to exert political pressure on the president of Afghanistan - as they pressured the Iranian government to release Roxana Saberi - in order to prompt Kambakhsh’s release.

The question is, though, is this a fight for the U.S. State Department?

From what I have read about this case, things don’t look good. Justice is not being served. It does sound like this young journalist is not getting a fair trial.

But this case is one involving an Afghan citizen who is tangled up in his own country’s legal system, however shoddy that system may be.

Saberi, though, is a U.S. citizen. So of course, the State Department owed her (in my opinion) at least some help.

But is the U.S. State Department the right government body to petition here? Is it the job of the U.S. State Department to fight for the rights of Afghan citizens?

I think a petition would be better directed at the government in Afghanistan, the UN or another international body.

So glad to listen to this radio report: Radio France Internationale

Laws like these, working through government monitoring groups and Internet Service Providers to block users who download copyrighted material without paying for it, seem preposterous.

The laws seem to infringe on privacy rights and be impossible to enforce correctly (for myriad technical reasons).

Myself, I always waffled on the issue of “illegal” downloading - until I moved to the Netherlands.

There I realized that major news content providers, like NBC, block bits of their content outside the United States. I was unable to watch, for example, the NBC coverage of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China. That’s because NBC only had the rights to broadcast the Games in the U.S. Outside the U.S.; a Dutch TV station bought the rights to show the Games inside the Netherlands.

So I was unable to watch Michael Phelps on demand, or any of the womens’ soccer matches I would have like to have seen.

The other programming I was frustrated to be locked out of was streaming re-runs of Grey’s Anatomy. ABC makes the shows available on Fridays after the program airs Thursday evening. It’s about the only television program I watch regularly.

I could, though, legally buy Grey’s Anatomy on iTunes. In fact, I’ve bought about two whole seasons.

Then I realized, halfway through 2008, that if I wanted to save space on my hard drive and put my Grey’s episodes on CD, I was only able to save the raw information - not the actual shows. Apple did not (until recently) make it possible to burn the shows on to DVD for viewing away from the computer.

If I download the shows using torrent files, though, I can burn them on to a DVD and watch them on a television.

I realized then that this “illegal” downloading was more useful than paying for programs.

Also, as a journalist it is hard to have much sympathy for the major artists who complain about the money they’re losing because of illegal downloading. Google and other major sources co-opt the work of news reporters all the time!

And, give a thought to what author Paulo Cohelo thinks about this issue. Perhaps “illegal” downloading can spur sales.

For more: Global Voices Advocacy.