“City-sponsored meetings for gays trigger showdown over privacy vs. public records”

Phillip Irvin, Seattle city employee and thorn in the side of many minority rights issue groups for the past 20 years, has sparked yet another controversy. Irvin, a 58 year old heterosexual white male (see picture above), for years has been challenging the city of Seattle for “equal treatment.” For example, he fought to gain membership in the City Light Black Employees’ Association and has crashed many gay-rights events at City Hall. When anyone tries to exclude Irwin from these city events and meetings—perhaps because he is not black, nor gay—he simply sues the city.

His latest suit concerns “whether the city should release to Irvin the names [and email addresses] of anyone who has either attended, or received e-mails to attend, meetings of a city-sponsored affinity group at Seattle Public Utilities — the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual (LGBT), Questioning Employees and Friends group.”

Irvin says that because this group uses city resources and facilities, the group has waived its right to privacy. Seattle does support many different groups as a way to promote multiculturalism in the city government. This support includes email, meeting spaces, and limited funds for speakers and seminars.

Members of the LGBT community are fighting against this request because this list of names could “out” attendees and violate their right to privacy. Moreover, many fear this list of names will be used by radicals to harass and discriminate against the members and others in the gay community.

When asked why he wants these names, Irvin states that wants to see where in the city the members work and if he could be eligible to attend, join, and even run for office in the group. (I am sure they are excited to have him!) "I'm going to exercise my right to be treated equally," he said, and "not as a second-class citizen because I'm not in line with the gay agenda."

The attorney representing the gay employees stated that the city has already released much of the information Irvin was seeking—where and when the group meets and its mission statement.

Today, a judge will decide whether the city must also release the names, email addresses, and personal identifying information.

To be honest, this situation makes my stomach hurt. I feel very strongly about keeping government records public, but I think that publishing the names and email addresses of the members will only lead to more discrimination and harassment. What good will publishing the names do? Honestly, someone tell me because I don’t see anything good coming out of this situation.

This group was meant to promote and support the rights of LGBT city employees. If their privacy is not protected, will anyone want to join?

Also—does anyone see this slippery-slope-ness of this situation? What if the city had a group for city employees who are alcoholics or recovering drug addicts--- should their names be released?

And doesn’t this invoke freedom of association and assembly issues?

See the article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009347295_citygays17m.html

Facebook Vanity URLs---One more annoying Facebook update or the greatest thing ever?

(And yes... this is another posting about Facebook...)

Starting at 12:01 am on Saturday June 13^th, Facebook will allow its users to have their very own URL’s, making remembering and finding people’s individual Facebook pages and those of groups much easier. Also…www.facebook.com/profile.php?=id12345678 does not look nearly as snazzy as www.facebook.com/donna.bowman.

Now if you have a common name, you better get onto Facebook at 12:01 am on Saturday, because these new vanity URLs are going on a first come, first serve basis. More importantly, you have only one shot to get this right. Once you have picked your URL, you cannot change it or transfer it. Furthermore, those who sign up for a Facebook account today (or any day after) may not be able to have a vanity URL immediately because Facebook wants to prevent username “squatting” and other username abuses.

But the real question is--is having your own vanity URL a good thing? Well, I guess that depends if you want to be found more easily. I am a privacy setting nut. I am always updating and changing my Facebook privacy settings. And I frequently Google myself to make sure nothing inappropriate is out there. That being said, I am conflicted. I don’t want to be found, but I selfishly don’t want someone to take my name. I happen to know there are many Donna Bowmans on Facebook. Why should they get my URL—even if I am not sure if I want it?

What are your thoughts? Is this a great thing? Or is this a privacy nightmare? Are there other concerns I (and Facebook) hasn’t even thought of?

For more information:

• See Facebook’s blog.
• Also see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053100389.html

Silencing Facebook: Iranian government blocked access to Facebook weeks before crucial presidential election.

In the past U.S. election, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter played a large role in spreading candidates’ messages and raising money. Indeed, recent polls reveal that 55% of American adults used the Internet to get and share information during the 2008 presidential election, and 52% of Americans with social networking profiles used those profiles for political purposes. (SEE USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090416/online16_st.art.htm.) The fact that President Obama has 6.2 million supporters on Facebook must demonstrate that these social networking tools are powerful avenues for political change.

Recently, the Iranian government became aware of the force behind Facebook and the Internet and took steps to curb this power. Indeed, weeks before the presidential election, the Iranian government blocked access to Facebook and limited access to political, human rights, and news websites. President Ahmadinejad publicly stated he had nothing to do with the ban. (SEE CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/25/iran.ahmadinejad.facebook/) Others argue that this was the government’s attempt to force Iranians to get information from state-sponsored mediums, which tend to favor the current President.

It seems that a few moderate candidates who pose a real threat to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection success have been launching successful Facebook campaign strategies to help reach Iran’s young voters. One candidate has over 5,200 Facebook supporters, and reports indicate that over 150,000 of Iran’s population have Facebook profiles.

In the end, after international public outcry, Facebook access has been restored. No one in the Iranian government is claiming responsibility for the ban or the lifting of the ban. (SEE LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-facebook27-2009may27,0,5873106.story).

Talk about limiting intellectual freedom?! This is madness. And what is really crazy is that this is not the first country to do this—China and Pakistan have also filtered/restricted access during elections. How can this be considered a free election? This situation not only makes me value our current freedoms in the U.S., but it also makes me fearful. How can truly corrupt politicians be peacefully voted out of office, if these politicians are in charge of the information voters receive?

Are kindergartners too young to learn about tolerance and acceptance?

Tuesday night, the Unified School District in Alameda, a suburb near San Francisco and Oakland, adopted a new curriculum that addresses bullying, acceptance, and respect. While this doesn’t sound too controversial at first, some parents are enraged that this new curriculum includes a mandatory 45 minute discussion each year about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered issues. Kindergarten students will discuss teasing and its harms, as well as read the controversial children’s book, “And Tango Makes Three.” Fifth graders will discuss sexual orientation stereotypes.

Overall, parents voicing concerns seem to be upset over the mature topic being discussed, arguing that children are too young to learn about such adult issues. Additionally, parents are upset that they cannot choose to keep their children from participating. The school defends its new curriculum, stating that there has been an increase in young children using derogatory words such as “fag.” The school also states that this is a way to stop the schoolyard bullying before it starts.

Overall, this situation tackles that tricky issue of “protection.” Are parents correct in arguing that children need to be protected from discussing such mature issues? Is the school correct in arguing that children being bullied as a result of their own or their parents’ sexual orientation need protection from intolerant students? Can both parties be right?

While I live my life very conservatively, I am admittedly very liberal when it comes to protecting the rights and liberties of others. I also do not have children—and thus, my opinions could be different once I become a parent. That being said, I think it is never too soon to teach acceptance. School should be a welcoming place where all can learn. If students are being teased for any reason, the school needs to take action. Moreover, if young children are using such derogatory words and picking on others because of sexual orientation, then these taunting children do not need to be protected from such issues. They are obviously aware—now they just need to be educated.

"Bridgeport Mural Sparks Censorship Debate"

Recently a mural depicting Chicago Police Department cameras, a crucified Christ, a deer head, and skulls was painted over at the request of 11th Ward Alderman, James Balcer. Alderman Balcer stated he ordered the mural to be covered because he felt it was distasteful and feared the mural could be anti-police and possibly gang-related.

The mural’s artist, Gabriel Villa, began painting the mural two weeks ago. He was commissioned by the owners of the building as part of a local arts festival. Villa has stated the mural was not meant to be offensive, but was meant to spark conversation about surveillance in society.

Overall, this issue reminded me of the book challenges we have been discussing. This artist, like many controversial authors, used his talents to shed light on an important issue, government surveillance. Because some were afraid or unsure of what the message meant, the message was suppressed. Here the Alderman admitted he had no idea what the mural meant, but he was afraid it would cause a controversy.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world without controversy. Sometimes controversies are needed to shed light on important issues, and fear of controversy is ultimately more damaging for our country than the controversies themselves.

Additionally, much like book challenges, I think the Alderman's actions actually did the exact opposite of what he had intended. He wanted to avoid controversy and discussion. Now, however, everyone is talking about this mural and debating the government's actions.

It looks like the artist succeeded in getting a dialogue started--- although it may be on different issue than he had originally intended.

For more information, see the Chicago Public Radio articles below:

Basic Summary of the issue and a picture of the mural-
http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=34276

Interview with Alderman Balcer-
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=3623

Greetings!

Look's like I am one of the last people to get started on the blog for class...

Well, I am excited to start this class and to read everyone's postings!