Mentally disabled women used as suicide attackers in Baghdad; Google facing lawsuit for censorship in China...

2 February :: Wash. Post reports "Two mentally disabled women strapped with remote-control explosives — and possibly used as unwitting suicide bombers — brought carnage to the two pet bazaars, in attacks Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said sought to 'turn Baghdad back to the pre-surge period'"; at least 99 people were killed in the two blasts... FT reports "A Chinese scholar who challenged the Communist government by setting up a democratic opposition party has vowed to sue the US internet company Google for excising his name from its local search results"; Google and other internet giants have been criticized by rights activists, Congress, public for aiding Chinese Communist party gov't in censoring internet available to its people; Google, whose company motto is "don't be evil", had promised it would alert users any time information is censored with a message about "local laws", but reportedly did not do so in at least this case... Effort to create wi-fi cooperative at Cambridge Univ., England, could mean new standard for providing inexpensive or even free wireless internet across cities; obstacles persist, but cities, academics, internet users continue to search for viable method for expanding access without reducing security...

SPECIAL NEWS ALERT: AT&T Announces Plans to Inspect & Filter Internet Traffic & Content

AT&T is proposing the implementation of new filtering technologies "at the network level" that would essentially interrupt in a definitive way the public's freedom to access online content. The concept known as 'net neutrality' refers to consumers and netizens' ability to freely gain access to any site, paid or unpaid, without major telecommunications companies programming access as they do with cable television.

The movement against net neutrality has been spearheaded by giant internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T and Verizon, who want to profit from permitting consumers access to specific sites. They already charge for end-user access and for content-providers' access, and they charge more if you want higher speeds (bandwidth). Now they seek to ensure that freedom of access be impeded, in order to allow them to manipulate access and information in order to further line their pockets with a medium they did not develop, did not fund, and have not produced.

Existing law bars such filtering from being implemented by ISPs. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Filtering and restricting access to online content "at the network level" would very directly abridge the freedom of individuals to create and distribute online content, and would limit the ability of the online "press" to freely report the news and generate creative content.

There is no viable legal solution to this issue other than the prohibition of such filtering technologies as a threat to the free market of ideas on which American society, the rule of law as we understand it, and our society of democratic values based on the free expression of ideas, actually do depend.