Assignment two: State Censorship, Freedom of Speech

1.What is the limitations of state censorship that have been made clear recent in
Iran.
The presidential election in Iran recently have resulted in street riots, inwhich many protesters were killed by Iranian government forces. The violent protests occured, because the Iranian people were against the re-election of Mahmoud Amhadinejad, as president of the state. During the protests,the Iranian government prohited all publications of violent images in newspapers, on radios and televisions, to the global world. All the writings and visual images collected by journalists, were put under censoring by the state, to make sure that images of brutality caused by the state police in these events, did not get published. When a state control the press, they have an agreement with their journalistic opponents about how to communicate information to the public. But new media and other social networking tools such as the internet, satellite television and cellular camera phones provide the access of publication of violent images of the protests in Iran, on websites like You Tube and the Twitter. The publications of the protests on websites ( You Tube & Twitter) made it impossible for the government of Iran ,to control the spread of these violent images to the outside world. The Iranian governnment's instability became evident, when they blamed, Western countries( United States of America & Canada ) for producing these "deviant new sites". For example, the image of a young man,bleeding to death in a white shirt, beaten by government forces, was published on You Tube. Here we can see that the use of new media and electronic technology have spread information of the protests to the rest of the world and the state of Iran had no control to stop this, from happening.

2. a.Explain how the use of "new media" in these cases enabled protest / criticism that formarly not have been heard of.

With new technology, the creation of blogging on websites ( new media) such as You Tube & Twitter, make it possible for internet users to talk openly about their experiences in life and how they were affected by it. In the Deflamtion / Offence lawsuit case: a tenant has been using the mirco blogging service of the Twitter (new media) and globally complained about the mould in her Chicago apartment. In the other case: Smashed Guitar, You Tube song - United is listening A singer, musician called Dave Carroll have used You Tube ( new media) and published three protest songs about his shocking air -travel experience with the United Airlines. Dave Carroll used You tube instead of a newspaper to complain about the smashing of his 710 Taylor acoustic guitar, by baggage handlers of the airliner. We can see, that both individauls in both cases used the internet to speak what is on their minds freely, without doing a interview with the press, for their stories to be published. The internet is being used nowadays, as a tool for Freedom of Speech discussions. Both these websites ( You Tube & Twitter) have blogging spaces for comments, which allow other internet users to pose their view points on the complains led in both cases.

2.b. Also if a person or institution feels that the use of new technologies has defamed them. What recourse do they have? How can they expect the injury to their good name to be repaired?
Individuals and institutions, who feel offended with the publication of information about them can ask for the withdrawal of such information from the blogging sites, You Tube & Twitter, etc. If their requests were ignored by the producers of these blogging -websites, then they can be sued, if they keep refusing to the person request. Individuals that used these websites such as You Tube and Twitter can also been taken to court, for publishing information that is damaging towards others. A claim can be brought against them, where they could be paying up to millions of rands for the harm and suffering that they caused to other individuals, if the court of law find them guilty for the defamation of the person's or institutions character and for insulting their integrity, in these publications.