Freedom of speech is essential in a liberal democracy, and indeed an informed citizenry is critical to the functioning of a democracy.  But is information in countries like Canada free?  Or is it controlled by publishers for their own profit?

The recent suicide of  internet activist Aaron Schwartz has brought the Open Access movement back into the news, but as this recent article in al-jazeera points out, freedom of access to scholarly articles is about more than just being able to read a news article or a paper published by an academic researcher free of charge.  It can be a life and death issue for people in less free nations. 

The article describes how the government of Uzbekistan created a fictional terrorist group in order to justify the shooting of civilian protesters.  Yet the first article published about the event was posted behind an academic firewall- that is, posted in a journal that only people affiliated with a university could access.  Scholars receive no money for these articles- the only profit goes to the website publishers.  So the article was also published in an open access journal where it has since been used  to help obtain freedom for political refugees.

Aaron Schwartz downloaded articles from JSTOR, an academic digital archives at MIT,  because he believed information should be free.  Before he committed suicide, he faced 4 million dollars worth of lawsuits and 30 years in jail .   

Yes, it costs money to produce websites such as JSTOR.  But who owns information?  If knowledge is power, who should control it?  What is the price of freedom?

In the news this week we read the story of two teenage girls.  Both bullied and tormented: one girl dead and the other clinging to life.  

Amanda Todd of British Columbia took her own life after a string of events led to her public humiliation at the hands of a sexual predator and subsequent acts by her peers over social media.  Malala Yousufzai, a fourteen year old youth activist in Pakistan was shot in the head by the Taliban for her much publicized attempts to encourage education for girls.  The media has played an important role in both of these cases.

Watch  Malala Yousufzai in the clip below. This is a girl who is passionate about her rights.  A girl whose bravery cannot be ignored.  As the clip below shows, her views were broadcast around the world over the media- and for these views, she was shot.  She has been flown to Great Britain where there is a good prognosis for her recovery.

Malala used the media to promote her views around the world.  Most of us think that is a good thing.  On the other hand, it was the abuse of social media that contributed to Amanda Todd's death.  As a 12 year old girl, she was lured into exposing herself on camera and these images were broadly and anonymously shared to a wide audience, leading to her depression and death.  I think  everyone believes that is a bad thing.  

We like to think that girls experience all the same rights and freedoms as boys, but do they?  How likely is it that a boy would be shot for his views on education?  How likely is it that images of a boy's private parts would be spread over Facebook without it being reported as abuse?  One person exerting power over another is what politics is all about.  Ideologies were invented to curb the abuse of such power.  In our media today, why is more attention paid to one of these girls over the other?   

23 people were killed in violent protests in Pakistan on September 21. On September 22, a Pakistani cabinet minister offered $100, 000 to any one who killed the maker of the film "Innocence of Muslims."  Earlier this month there was a one day closure of Canadian embassies in Egypt, Libya and Sudan after violent anti-American protests erupted, sparked by this anti-Muslim film produced in the United States. The protests  led a mob to set fire to the U.S. Embassy in Libya on September 11 of this year, killing the American ambassador and three employees. Protests have spread throughout the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia.  A timeline is provided here by the New York Times.

The film begins with Egyptian Muslims burning the homes of Egyptian Christians as security forces stand idly by. NBC describes the film as showing the prophet  Muhammad as “a womanizer, a homosexual, and a child abuser,” while critics say the film includes "not a single artistically redeemable aspect.” Muslim filmmaker Kamran Pasha says “it is a film of questionable artistic merit, backed by a group of bitter bigots whose only agenda was to incite hatred and violence.” Actors in the film have publicly stated they were not aware of the intent of the film and their voices have been dubbed over the original words spoken in the film.

For many, the reaction to the film is hard to understand.  While there is little doubt that the film is disrespectful to Muslims, this degree of violence seems out of proportion to the film itself. Some speculate that the protests are evidence of simmering anger towards the United States and its policies, while others see it as an example of religious extremism. Perhaps Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is right when he said, “The world does not understand the breadth of the humiliation.”  In any event, these protests are a test for the leaders of nations in the Middle East after the Arab Spring, which saw uprisings several nations in the Arab world, leading to regime change in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya. 

The film has only aired once in the United States and was released on YouTube in July.  Governments in Pakistan and Bangladesh have blocked access to YouTube after requesting the video be removed, claiming they contain “indecent material.”  In addition, the government of Pakistan banned cell phone use in major cities

At what point should a government censor or ban materials, either to prevent the spread of hatred, or in the interest of public safety?

For more, read al Jazeera's article about freedom of the press and freedom of religion.