The media, especially in the United States (US) of America, has, over the last year or so, noticed the role that major Silicon Valley companies have been playing around the world. First there were the stories about Yahoo! helping the Chinese authorities. Then it came out that Google had been resisting providing their users’ personal information to the US government. And that, even more importantly, other companies had been sharing the same kind of information with the government all along.

But all this is just the tip of the iceberg. An alternative weekly based in San Jose recently ran a cover story about companies aiding China’s police state. That story went after a company that is often looked at as one of the good guys, at least in an industry where the little guy is often busy demagoguing Microsoft. The article ripped into Cisco Systems and its CEO, the darling of both Silicon Valley and Wall Street, John Chambers.

Cisco has been a company where Pakistanis enjoy the kind of presence that members of the community often pine for in other places. This story brought together the kinds of things one hears but avoid thinking about: how Cisco’s products can be used by governments or other companies to intrude into their citizens’ or employees’ lives.

The story of being blocked in Pakistan was very similar. It brought to the surface something that Pakistanis, both at home and abroad, have subconsciously taken for granted. Like so much else about our country, the adoption of new technologies is a paradox. Colour television came to Pakistan relatively early. Especially when compared to the neighbours we so love to compare ourselves to. So did VCRs, satellite television and though they had to be licensed by the government, electronic pagers and cellphones. The paradox, of course, is that for much of our history, we’ve had governments that have repressed and restricted so much of our social evolution. The theory a lot of social observers have is that a dysfunctional system of government is exactly why new technologies are able to “slip in” and become adopted before the government of the day gets its act together and into the business of controlling and monitoring it.

And thus it was with the internet. While our neighbours put up a firewall around the country and didn’t allow privately owned internet service providers (ISPs) almost till the new millenium, Pakistan had BrainNet, SuperNet and then Cybernet and others providing access to more users just in the city of Karachi than VSNL had in all of India. Pakistan was wired before most people in government could spell “IT”. The battle over whether to block any part of the internet from being viewed in Pakistan seemed to have been won by people on the side of open access.

At least, that was how it looked from abroad. Of course there were some indicators of behind-the-scenes battles. During the events of November 1999, hackers temporarily took control of the Punjab Government website. But the speed with which the site was taken offline, by itself said something about how savvy both sides of this equation were.

And when the promise of technology’s bounty rolled across the globe and seemed as if it might smile at our native land after having made a comfortable home at our neighbours, all the Pakistanis in Silicon Valley could think of was the positive potential for our nation.

But then something like the ban on Blogspot happens. And we are left trying to make sense of things: of what is happening and what can be done about it. Whenever the motherland calls out in pain, the diaspora responds. When one of the largest disasters to strike our homeland hit last year, the diaspora sprang into action. Fundraisers, vigils, a concerted effort to get employers to match funds raised by their employees – the activity was overwhelming. The newly elected president of Silicon Valley’s chapter of the Organization of Pakistani Entrepreneurs (OPEN) sent out a mass e-mail that was forwarded and re-forwarded, printed and reprinted. A passionate “shot heard around the world” that inspired, motivated and moved people to get involved. It remains to be seen, however, if the blocking of Blogspot in Pakistan will elicit a similar response from the diaspora, especially in Silicon Valley.

The issue, however, is not a simple one. One may be tempted to speculate that the initial silence and lack of enthusiasm seems to imply Silicon Valley is saying to the bloggers: “Be silent, don’t rock the boat or you will spoil a good thing for all of us.” However, the generation that now forms a large section of the movers and shakers of Silicon Valley are people who have had life experiences that include and go beyond being immigrants in a land where they are able to speak freely and achieve much more than they ever could have at home. This scribe was a 17-year old editor when he (or to be more precise, his publication) got his first show-cause notice from the Press Information Department because he decided to put a short, almost vacuous “Merry Christmas” message on the content page of The Teenager. And whether they be graduates of NED in Karachi, UET in Lahore, or MIT in Boston, every individual around Silicon Valley has his or her own story to tell.

At the other end of the issue are a whole new generation of young people who are active in voicing their thoughts through the Pakistani corner of the blogosphere. There is a thriving community in Pakistan that blogs in both Urdu and English. These were the people who kept the world informed about relief efforts and raised awareness on the Web with banners on their blogs after the devastating October 2005 earthquake. After the publication of the Jyllands Posten cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), these same bloggers took to the Web to express their feelings about the matter. It is perhaps ironic then that the reason given by the government of Pakistan for blocking the blogspot.com domain and effectively shutting down this avenue for debate and spreading awareness about the issue was that there were a handful of blogs – out of the millions that it hosts – that were displaying these cartoons.

Can these two groups work together? Can the earlier generation of Pakistanis work with the new generation of indigenous activists? It is often discussed in Silicon Valley that it was the diaspora that helped kick-start the IT miracles of China and India. But it is also Chinese activists abroad that are often in the front line of highlighting the actions of the police state in China. It was Indian activists that prepared a detailed report titled “A Foreign Exchange of Hate”, documenting how right-wing Hindu groups in the US and Britain were raising funds for their parent organisation in their home country. It was an effort led by Indian activists that recently stopped similar groups from influencing what school textbooks in California say about Indian history. The question is whether the Pakistani diaspora will engage with their own homeland in similar ways.
 

Justifying censorship The following are five types of censorship commonly employed: Moral censorship is the means by which any material containing questionable ethics is removed. The censoring body disapproves of the values behind the material and limits access to it. An example is pornography. Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Political censorship occurs when governments conceal secrets from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to revolt. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately. Any dissent against the government is thought to be a "weakness" for the enemy to exploit. Campaign tactics are also kept secret. Religious censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less dominant ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information which portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations, being in the business of news, sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

 

Definitions of censorship The term “censorship” comes from the Latin, censere: “to give as one’s opinion, to assess.” Following are excerpts from various definitions of censorship Censor: One who supervises conduct and morals as: l an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter; l an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered harmful to the interests of his organisation. Censorship: 1. The institution, system or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; esp : censorial control exercised repressively. – Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 2. The word “censorship” means “prior restraint” of First Amendment rights by government. – Morality in Media (Morality in Media is “a national, not-for-profit, interfaith organisation established in 1962 to combat obscenity and uphold decency standards in the media.”) 3(a) The denial of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. 3(b) The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security. – Oran’s Dictionary of Law 4. Official restriction of any expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. – Encyclopedia.Com 5. The prevention of publication, transmission, or exhibition of material considered undesirable for the general public to possess or be exposed to. – Fast Times’ Political Dictionary (Fast Times is “a nonpartisan publication on contemporary world affairs & media with no political, ideological, or religious affiliation of any kind.”) 6. Is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who “censor” themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows. – Academic American Encyclopedia