Tesco - Every Little Helps

Capitalists often tend to claim that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. That for people to be free from state tyranny, the best option is to reduce the power of the state and put public industry in the hands of capitalists who are free from the constraints of government bureaucracy. This would then, according to Milton Friedman's acolytes, lead to greater economic stability and prosperity. However, as we have seen in countries such as Chile over the years, in order for capitalism to truly thrive, civil liberties must be curtailed and a new authoritarianism must rise up. It is in this context that we see the latest efforts by the corporate world to replace state tyranny with corporate tyranny.

Tesco's operation in Thailand (Tesco Lotus) has taken the rather dangerous step of attempting to shut down the right to free speech in regard to it's operations in the country. According to reports:

Tesco Lotus, one of the biggest retailers in Thailand, has filed two staggering defamation cases against a Thai columnist and a former member of Parliament, sending a strong message to civil society and the press to tread carefully before criticising the retailing giant in Thailand.

Tesco Lotus is suing columnist/academic Kamol Kamoltrakul and former Thai National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Jit Siratranont for 100 million baht and one billion baht, respectively, after they criticised and questioned the aggressive expansion strategies of Tesco Lotus in Thailand.

Put aside for one moment, the laughable concept that to defend against allegations of aggression, one must act aggressively. What exactly did they say that caused such offence?

Siratranont, currently the secretary general of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, was quoted by British newspaper "The Observer" as saying in a speech to 150 activists: "The large-scale expansion of the big retailers must be exercised with great care – not too aggressively and too rapidly - to reduce the potential tension, which could lead to serious conflict. There is also the need for the small retail traders to adjust to changes. Tesco Lotus must take all of this into account."

Kamol was sued for an article published in the Thai-language "KrungThepTurakit" (BangkokBizNews), which expressed generally the same concerns about Tesco Lotus' aggressiveness, and also what the columnist suggested was the retailing giant's weak social responsibility in Thailand.

Hardly worthy of a defamation case. Slowly but surely, across the globe, a new style of tyranny is spreading. This tyranny protects the rights of the rich whilst destroying civil liberties. Oh yes, they may tempt you with 'competitive prices' and the illusion of 'choice', but they simply want you to buy their goods and shut up. Totalitarianism is back, and we're the ones paying for it.

Not So Yahoo! In China

Internet giant Yahoo is seeking to have a lawsuit brought against it on behalf two jailed Chinese dissidents thrown out of a US court saying the case falls under Chinese law.

In a motion filed in San Francisco on Monday the company said it was compelled by Chinese law to hand over information that was then used to arrest and jail the two men.

Yahoo said that while it "deeply sympathises" with Wang Xiaoning, 57, Shi Tao, 39, and their families, the company could not be held liable for the Chinese government's "independent acts".

Sympathise? Sympathise my arse. There is no reason whatsoever for Yahoo! to hand over the IP addresses of activists in China, activists who are simply utilising their rights to protest.

Censorship is rapidly extending into the realms of the internet and Yahoo! are one of many companies guilty of seeking to boost their bank balance whilst putting human rights in jeopardy. This news comes on the back of a 'self-discipline' pact that was signed by several internet comapanies in China. The pact will put an end to Chinese bloggers being able to post anonymously, as the Internet companies will be 'encouraged' to register and store the real names, addresses and other details of their users. This, of course, means thatthe Chinese government will be able to request the details of any member of the public that they perceive to be a threat to their political system. That companies like Yahoo! and MSN are so willing to agree to such a move, exposes their attitude towards censorship and human rights.

Vincent Brossel, of Reporters Without Borders, said:

"They have to 'encourage,' and everybody puts the word 'encourage' between brackets, because 'encourage' in China means you have to do it in some way, non? ... When the government wants this type of information they will be able to get it, because we know that in the past these companies, including Yahoo and MSN, have delivered information, I mean private information, about Internet users."

As the cases at the top of the post have shown, there is no doubt as to what this will mean for those that wish to blog anonymously. Censorship is alive and well and hiding behind the $.

To find out more about internet censorship, visit the irrepressible.info link in the sidebar or savetheinternet.com.

Out to Lunch

Apologies again for the lack of posting, I have been very busy with my latest assignment. Luckily, Hugh Manatee has pitched in with yet another entertaining post to keep readers entertained in my absence. As I have been so busy, I have been unable to comment on the latest Human Rights Act furore. However, may I direct you to Obsolete who provides another excellent analysis of the situation. Also, might I suggest a quick trip to this thread to be entertained by someone who believes that only the state is capable of censorship. Go figure. Anyway, I will be able to post with a great deal more frequency next week as I will be on holiday. No doubt I will make up for lost time.

Mike McCready Speaks Out About Webcast

The following is taken from the Pearl Jam website. Lead guitarist Mike McCready writes:

Thoughts of an American.

I grew up in a democratic system of government. This is what was taught all through Kindergarten through College. Freedom of thought and expression were hallmarks of my early education. These concepts and theories integrated my belief in an American system of democracy. Consequently, I became a musician because of these inalienable rights. Make no mistake I am an artist and a capitalist because of this system that I believe in and our country. I don't however believe that a capitalist corporation such as AT&T has the right to subvert the first amendment of the constitution to which we all are accountable. This happened on the night we played Lollapalooza. I was dismayed to hear that the act of censoring free speech was used to edit our song Daughter for a webcast. Surely the American listening public can discern for themselves what they deem acceptable to hear. This is a hallmark of our American way!! The freedom to listen to what you want or don't want to. The American public was duped as was I in believing that I can speak freely without censorship.

I can only look to historical figures who are above reproach in my mind, such as Thomas Jefferson "I hope we shall crush...in it's birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." I feel that corporations can still exist without worry of a few words at a rock concert and need not trample upon our constitution for the sake of profit.

Another example that I believe is relevant is a George Orwell quote from Animal Farm. "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Some people don't want to hear our political beliefs in a song but that too is the beauty of America. WE CAN DISAGREE and still function as a democracy. When one person or company decides what others can hear, that is totalitarian thinking! This runs contrary to America and threatens the core of our freedom. We can think for ourselves, AT&T. I had the great pleasure of seeing the Space Shuttle launch live in Florida today. This gave me a feeling of excitement and patriotism in my country today.It showed me a future of ingenuity and promise for a better America.

With that I will leave you with a last quote from the quintessential American "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." This is an example of my belief in what Ed was saying the night we were censored during Daughter. You can't get more American than Mark Twain!!! Say no to censorship, it leads to dictatorship!

Mike McCready

The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

Corporate Whores At&T Censor Pearl Jam - This Means War You Fuckers

From PJ website (thanks RickB and War Within a Breath):

LOLLAPALOOZA WEBCAST: SPONSORED/CENSORED BY AT&T? 08.08.07

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the "Blue Room" Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:

- "George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and

- "George Bush find yourself another home."

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

"Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider." (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations - fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

The complete version of "Daughter" from the Lollapalooza performance is posted below for any of you who missed it. We apologize to our fans who were watching the webcast and got shortchanged. In the future, we will work even harder to ensure that our live broadcasts or webcasts are free from arbitrary edits.

If you have examples of AT&T censoring artist performances around political content, it's a good thing for everyone to know about. Feel free to post examples on the official Pearl Jam Message Pit.



SEE FOR YOURSELF 08.09.07

Check out a little video that we put together to clearly illustrate the difference between the webcast and the live video feed from Lollapalooza.

Corporate America Commences Censorship Campaign Against Michael Moore

There has been a lot of talk on various blogs about the eagerly awaited Michael Moore film 'Sicko', a film that exposes the inequality inherent in the US healthcare system. Until now I haven't been moved to comment on it to much. I have a rather ambivalent relationship towards Michael Moore. On the one hand I respect his creditable left-wing documentaries and books, but on the other hand I find him a little too egocentric for my tastes. However, to be fair, I am looking forward to catching his movie when it is released in the UK.

The reason I have finally posted on this release, is because something caught my eye when I visited Aaron's blog, 'breathe'. Aaron wrote:

Marcus Theatres--which in Fargo owns all but the independent, downtown theatre that mostly concentrates on independent and foreign films--has not played it.

And out of 500 screens in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and North Dakota; Marcus is playing Sicko in one theatre in Madison Wisconsin.

This seemed a little odd to me given that Moore's films tend to be pretty big takers at the box office (certainly by the standards of most documentaries). Consequently, I decided to dig a little deeper into The Marcus Corporation (the group that owns in the cinemas) and I was struck by what I found. The president of their theatre subsidiary, Bruce J. Olson, has ties to the drug industry. The following is a press release from the Corporation's website:

Olson, who serves on the company's board of directors, is also president of Marcus Theatres Corporation. He joined the company in 1974 and served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of Marcus Theatres from 1978 until his appointment as president of the division in 1988. He served as vice president-administration of The Marcus Corporation from 1987 to 1991, when he was elected to his most recent position of group vice president. Olson was elected to the board of directors in 1996.

A graduate of Marquette University, Olson is vice president of the National Association of Theatre Owners of Wisconsin, a director of the National Association of Theatre Owners and a member of Will Rogers Motion Picture Pioneers. He is a trustee of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society of Milwaukee and a member of the Marquette Business School Dean's Advisory Council. He is a past director of Variety Children's Charities and the Mequon-Thiensville Education Foundation, and a past member of the Marquette University President's Executive Senate. Olson also serves as a director of Fresh Brands, Inc.

No wonder The Marcus Corporation won't be showing 'Sicko' at any of their cinemas. There is going to be a long battle ahead over this one as corporate America closes ranks to defend a healthcare system that benefits the rich over the poor. Expect the propaganda campaign to go into overdrive as the release date approaches.