In Russia, tiny protest sparks big police response: LEGO minifigs, South Park dolls, and Wall-e demonstrate for democracy

In Russia, tiny protest sparks big police response: LEGO minifigs, South Park dolls, and Wall-e demonstrate for democracy - Boing Boing:

(Photo above: RFE-RL; below, Ivan Krupchik.)

Authorities in Russia are investigating the legality of a "doll demonstration" demanding "clean elections" in the Siberian city of Barnaul, and looking for the humans responsible.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti reports that Russia's police "[arrest] anyone, young or old, who takes part in an "unsanctioned" opposition rally"—so, some citizens in Barnaul created a protest tableau composed of dolls, instead.

Lego minifigs, South Park ("Team America"?) characters, stuffed dollies, Shreks, gnomes, elves, and Wall-e robots carrying protest placards were placed on an icy ledge in the town's center on January 7 and 14. This act followed police crackdowns on two protests by normal-sized people back in December. The focus of all the protests, large and small? Political corruption, and the results of Russia's parliamentary elections.

From RIA Novosti:

Most of the figurines held up little signs affixed to toothpicks with satirical messages on them, such as "146%", in reference to a southern region where state television inadvertently reported a 146 per cent turnout in recent elections. Other toys held caricatures of the Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, and President Dmitry Medvedev.

The victory of Mr Putin's United Russia Party in last month's parliamentary polls, amid allegations of fraud, brought tens of thousands of protesters onto Moscow's streets. The government seemed to realise it could not take the usual repressive action against the demonstrators in the capital, but in Barnaul authorities "did everything possible" to block protests, Andrei Teslenko, one of the organisers, said.

That's when the activists set up the toy protests. "The authorities are blocking our constitutional rights to peaceful protests, but they haven't yet got as far as limiting the rights of toys," he said.

Photographer Ivan Krupchik has an extensive series of photos up on his LiveJournal(including the Wall-e shot above, and the LEGO detail below in this post).

America?s Most Dangerous Mall: Going Shopping at the Pentagon

America's Most Dangerous Mall: Going Shopping at the Pentagon | Danger Room | Wired.com:



 

My Water's On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song)

Chris Hedges on His Lawsuit Against the President

Truthdigger of the Week: Chris Hedges - Truthdigger of the Week - Truthdig:

Late last year, President Obama pulled a fast one by changing his stance on the National Defense Authorization Act so suddenly and drastically that Americans were left with a bad case of legislative whiplash—and a very serious state of affairs with regard to our civil liberties. Obama’s stunning switch underscored how abuses of power on the government’s part must be called out through uncompromising counter-statements from the people and the press. That’s why the choice was eminently clear to make Truthdig columnist, author and activist Chris Hedges our pick for this installment of Truthdigger of the Week.

First, a little background. Citizens and lawmakers from different vantage points along the political spectrum were rightly concerned, particularly about Section 1021 of the NDAA, which allows for the indefinite detention, without trial, of anyone believed to have “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States,” as well as Section 1022, which stipulates that such suspects with terrorist ties can be held in military custody. (Read a useful and thorough explanation of the two controversial passages here.) We certainly were worried, several times over. As Truthdig Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer put it in his Dec. 15 column about the NDAA, Congress’ support of the bill, as well as Obama’s surprise decision not to veto it, “should be met with public outrage.”

Since then, motions have been made around the country and on Capitol Hill—including a showy bid by Republican presidential contender Ron Paul—to repeal the bill. But it’s hard to think of a gutsier move in the face of this form and degree of injustice than Hedges made on Jan. 13 when, with the help of attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran, he filed a complaint against Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act.” In case you hadn’t noticed, this means that Hedges is suing the president.

This also means that many readers’ No. 1 pick for months now is finally claiming the Truthdigger title this week. Hedges’ unflagging commitment to defending our endangered freedoms has recently led him to not only take up the cause whenever he takes up his pen, but to speak up at debates and protests, on the television and the radio, and also to show up when it counted most at the White House and on Wall Street. We’ve re-posted his discussion about the lawsuit with Amy Goodman on Tuesday’s “Democracy Now!” below, and we’ve compiled his many words and appearances on his author page here. Bravo, Chris, and thanks.

Democracy Now!:

Censorship in the world's largest democracy

Censorship in the world's largest democracy - Opinion - Al Jazeera English:

Many sites - including right-wing US blogs, alongside file-sharing sites - are blocked in India [Hashem Said/Al Jazeera]

San Francisco, California - In the world's largest democracy, something is brewing that could have grave implications for freedom of expression. On January 12, in response to a private lawsuit, a Delhi High Court judge, Justice Suresh Kait, told lawyers for the Indian offices of Facebook and Google that, unless they develop the capability to regulate "offensive and objectionable" material on their sites, the Indian government would block their websites, "like China [does]".

The complaint, filed by Vinay Rai, a magazine editor, was filed under laws banning the sale of obscene books and objects, as well as one pertaining to criminal conspiracy. It demands that the companies - as well as companies providing similar services, such as Yahoo - screen content before it appears on their sites. 

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rai explained that the evidence he submitted to the court included content offensive to Hindus, Muslims and Christians. "My intention is to ensure that the sentiments of any religion or community are not hurt," he told the Journal.

In October, well before Rai's lawsuit emerged, India's acting telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal, met with top executives of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo's local offices to demand the same. 

Executives from the companies told the New York Times that the minister expects them to set up a "proactive pre-screening system" that would have human staffers seeking out objectionable content and deleting it before it appears. According to the same report, the companies called the demand "impossible".

Are we entering an age of cyber-censorship?

While the companies involved may refuse to pre-screen content, they already offer various channels for removing certain types of content. Users can report or "flag" content, which is then reviewed by staffers of the social networks. Furthermore, many companies remove certain content at the request of governments; according to Google's transparency report, 358 requests for content removal were made by Indian government entities between January and June of 2011.

A history of censorship

Though nowhere near the levels of China's Great Firewall, India is no stranger to online censorship. Try to access the sites of religious extremists or even certain right-wing US blogs and you'll be greeted by a "server not found" page, obscuring the censorship. According to the OpenNet Initiative's latest book, Access Contested [PDF], internet service providers (ISPs) in India block a number of websites, including some containing information on free expression and human rights.

While lacking transparency for the end-user, India's censorship is not without legal basis. The Information Technology Act of 2000 criminalised the online publication of obscene information, while a 2008 amendment to the act, section 69A, gave the central government broad power to block public access to content deemed to be against the interest of India's sovereignty and integrity.

In charge of implementing the censorship is the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, which receives complaints from police and government officials and issues blocking orders. Police commissioners can also order content that poses a "threat or nuisance" to society blocked under a separate code. The city of Mumbai created a special police team charged with identifying such information following the 2008 terrorist attacks.

In 2011, yet another regulation was added to the mix, requiring intermediaries (companies such as Google that host online content) to adopt terms of service that prohibit users from publishing or sharing a range of content, including that deemed to be obscene, infringing on copyright, "menacing", "disparaging", or threatening to national unity, integrity, or public order. The over-broad regulations were criticised by Indian NGOs and commentators - but nonetheless passed, going into effect in April, despite existing provisions protecting intermediaries from liability. 

Striking a balance

"Unlike books and paintings, online expression cannot easily be hidden from view."

That all of these regulations were not enough for the Indian government is telling: The world's largest democracy has long grappled with striking a balance between freedom of expression and maintaining order. From the banning of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in the 1980s to the lawsuits against artist MF Husain, India's modern history of censorship serves as a precursor to the various restrictions placed on internet use.

But unlike books and paintings, online expression cannot easily be hidden from view. Try as it might, the Indian government has not managed to succeed in limiting the speech it finds distasteful; the offending content, even when blocked, remains accessible to savvy internet users through use of simple proxies. 

And if the government does succeed in blocking YouTube, Facebook and other social networks, it may have more to contend with than just speech. As researcher Ethan Zuckerman posits in his Cute Cat Theory of Internet Censorship, when the tools of our everyday lives become collateral damage in governmental efforts to block speech, citizens take notice. In Tunisia, where political speech had been censored for decades, citizens took to the streets when Facebook was blocked, prompting the government to free up the site after just a week. Turkey's YouTube ban sparked awareness among a whole new generation of internet users.

So while many of India's savvy internet users are already well aware of what their government is capable of in terms of censorship, a ban on social networks may be just what it takes to push others over the edge.

Jillian C York is director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. She writes a regular column for Al Jazeera focusing on free expression and internet freedom. She also writes for and is on the Board of Directors of Global Voices Online.

Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran

Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran | Danger Room | Wired.com

Photo: U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ashley Myers

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran are at a high point, as the Islamic Republic threatens to close off a vital waterway and two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups sit in the seas off the Iranian coast. But across the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has a previously unacknowledged weapon in reserve: a new special operations team.

Danger Room has confirmed with the U.S. Special Operations Command that a new elite commando team is operating in the region. The primary, day-to-day mission of the team, known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, is to mentor military units belonging to the U.S.’ oil-rich Arab allies, who collectively are known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Those Arab states consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat.

The task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, tells Danger Room, and “seeks to confront irregular threats.” The U.S. military has not previously acknowledged the existence of the team, known as JSOTF-GCC for short.

The unit began its existence in mid-2009 — around the time that the Iranian leadership rejectedPresident Obama’s offer of a new diplomatic dialogue and underwent a serious internal challenge to its legitimacy from Green Movement protesters. But whatever the task force does about Iran — or might do in the future — is a sensitive subject with the military.

“It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Bockholt says about Iran.

There is no direct evidence that JSOTF-GCC has been involved in offensive action against Iran. It is unlikely, for instance, that JSOTF-GCC killed Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan last week, an assassination the U.S. has firmly denied any role in and for which the Israelis, reports Eli Lake of Newsweek, are all but openly taking credit.

Some special-operations veterans — who did not wish to be identified or quoted — downplayed the significance of the new task force, expecting it to primarily advise Gulf nations on how to train their own forces, and speculated that its actual role against Iran was indirect at most. Col. Tim Nye, the chief spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command, says the task force is responsible “for coordinating all SOF [Special Operations Forces] engagements and training with Gulf Cooperation Council nations.”

The special operations forces of those nations have shown a notable improvement over the past year. Qatari commandos quietly traveled to Libya ahead of Moammar Gadhafi’s downfall to prepare Libyan rebels for the successful capture of Tripoli. The United Arab Emirates, another close U.S. ally, has also made its elite forces a priority, even hiring Blackwater’s founder to bolster their training.

Not many details are available about the task force. It’s built around Naval Special Warfare Unit Three, one of the elite Navy SEAL teams. But the “Joint” in the task force’s name signals that it draws from the special-operations forces in the Army, Air Force and Marines as well. Its commander is a Navy captain or equivalent in a different service.

Officials would not identify missions of the task force, its leadership or its headquarters, citing the safety of the personnel involved and the success of those missions.

Even if JSOTF-GCC is primarily a training team, it represents another military option for the U.S. in the region during at a time of escalating rhetoric with Iran. The Iranians are threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, the sea lane through which a fifth of the world’s oil travels, as two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups float nearby. And when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the U.S. could reopen the waterway by force, there might be an elite commando team nearby to help do it.

Victory for Internet Freedom: Obama Announces Opposition to SOPA, Congress Shelves Bill

Victory for Internet Freedom: Obama Announces Opposition to SOPA, Congress Shelves Bill | | AlterNet:

The Protect IP Act and Stop Online Piracy Act have generated intense opposition because of their crackdown on Internet freedom--and that opposition just won big.

 

Misguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there’s a lot less to worry about.

At issue are two related bills: the Senate’s Protect IP Act and the even more offensive Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, both of which are generated intense opposition from tech giants and First Amendment advocates. The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.

The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.”

Until now, the Obama administration had not taken a position on the issue. The response was published yesterday as part of the online “We The People” petition initiative launched by the White House last year.

Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.

A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.

“While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House,” Issa said in a statement. “Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote.”

It’s possible that a related version of SOPA could come back at some point down the road — though probably not this year — but for now, the push against the bill has succeeded beautifully.

Fast Food Ads Vs. The Real Thing

Fast Food Ads Vs. The Real Thing:

FOOD BUZZ Everyone knows the disappointment you experience when you purchase fast food and inside the box is something close to a botched science experiment. But, for whatever reason people still feel compelled to eat it anyway. Well, here's a series of pictures taken by Dario D. that will make you feel even worse than that Bacanator you just ate.

And the award to the least offensive burger goes to....