Censored 2014

by Mickey Huff

  Bruce Campbell, “Norway Imposes 78% Tax On All Gas and Oil Companies,” Monitor, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, November 1, 2012, http://pdc-connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/84309448/norway-imposes-taxes-78-all-oil-gas-companies.

  Student Researcher: Paige Fischer (Sonoma State University)

  Faculty Evaluator: Andy Deseran (Sonoma State University)

  The revolutionary question becomes: Where do decisions that affect society as a whole get made? For this is where power resides. It is time we opened the doors of that house to everyone.

  —Cindy Milstein1

  OPENING THE DOORS

  What conditions must hold for citizens to respond directly to systemic fiscal misconduct? In a globalized culture that increasingly deifies individual self-interest and capitalist markets, how to demonstrate that the choice between community and self-interest is a false one?

  In 2012–13, the people of Iceland (Censored stories #9 and #19) and the tenth anniversary of the Creative Commons (Censored story #17) provided constructive answers to these crucial questions. At the complex intersection of political order and economic power, Iceland and the Creative Commons movement exemplify the transformative potentials of greater inclusivity in politics and popular resistance to economic hegemony.

  Icelandic Reverb: Popular Constitution-Making and the Commons

  The positive reverberations from Iceland’s 2008 “kitchenware” revolution continued in 2012–2013, despite the dampening effects of limited corporate news coverage and setbacks in the nation’s April 2013 parliamentary elections.

  Triggered by unregulated banks “borrowing more than their country’s gross domestic product from international wholesale money markets,”2 Iceland’s 2008 economic collapse inflicted terrible damage on foreign creditors and local residents alike. At the time, the Economist declared Iceland’s banking collapse “the biggest, relative to the size of an economy, that any country has ever suffered.”3 In response, Iceland’s populist, peaceful “kitchenware” revolution led to nationalization of the country’s main bank, resignation of implicated government officials, and the dissolving of the ruling government.4 In the elections of January 2009, “Icelanders leaned left,” electing a coalition of social democrats and “red-greens,” which subsequently “put the country’s house in order.”5 Perhaps more importantly, about 200 high-level executives and bankers responsible for the economic crisis were arrested and charged with crimes; in a few notable cases, they were sentenced to jail.6 In less than objective style, the New York Times reported on Iceland’s “fervent prosecution” but “meager returns” in holding the banksters criminally accountable for the nation’s economic collapse.7

  In March 2010, 93 percent of Iceland’s electorate voted to deny payment of the 3.5 billion euro debt (approximately US $5.4 billion) that Iceland’s bankers had saddled on Iceland.8 Iceland’s voters rejected debt repayment a second time in April 2011.9 And in January 2013, the court of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) ruled that Iceland was justified in refusing to “compensate Britain for the state expense of bailing out depositors in Icesave,” when the bank, which had offered high-interest-bearing online accounts, failed and lacked sufficient funds to compensate all its overseas depositors.10

  Iceland’s October 2012 affirmation of the nation’s natural resources as a commons reflects the peoples’ rejection of the global trend to privatize profits while socializing risks. In the 2012 referendum, 67 percent of the electorate expressed support for the constitutional draft, and 83 percent voted to protect natural resources not already privately owned as national property.11 Analyzing the vote, Jessica Conrad of On the Commons observed, “It is clear that citizens are beginning to recognize the value of what they share together over the perceived wealth created by the market economy.”12 After the October vote, Iceland’s Prime Minister Johanna SigurcSardottir said, “The people have put the parliament on probation.”13

  The constitutional bill that led to the referendum was the product of genuine participatory democracy. A national assembly of 950 citizens, drawn at random from the national registry, drafted the initial resolutions, which a twenty-five-member Constitutional Council, elected by the nation and appointed by the Parliament, converted into a coherent draft constitution.14 Its preamble established the core values that framed the document: “We, the people of Iceland, wish to create a just society where everyone has a seat at the same table.”15 An analysis by the Comparative Constitutions Project found that Iceland’s draft constitution is “one of the most inclusive in history,” measured by the degree to which it includes citizens in decision-making, notably through its provisions for referenda and initiatives.16

  Thorvaldur Gylfason, a professor of economics at the University of Iceland, and one of the citizens who sought a position as a member of the Constitutional Council, described his election campaign in terms that would be startling to US citizens, by now used to mul-tiyear, multi-million dollar campaigns for any election or important ballot proposition:

  Like other candidates, I was interviewed for three or four minutes on state radio . . . I posted a few short articles on the internet with websites that accept such contributions from candidates. Also, I opened a Facebook page where I posted a few short messages intended for my friends. The daily newspaper in which I had published a weekly column since 2003 asked me to lay aside my pen from the announcement of my candidacy until after the election. Many if not most of the other candidates kept an equally low profile. . . . As I see it, this was the least expensive and most civilized election “campaign” in the history of the republic.17

  Just because Gylfason’s campaign was low-key does not mean that the stakes Constitutional Council members fought for were inconsequential. As he noted, the political opposition in Parliament fought the referendum “tooth and nail,” resorting to “filibustering in an attempt to derail the promised referendum, an action that ultimately failed.”18 Instead, the understated campaign, involving direct participation by the nation’s citizens, suggests a viable alternative to the big money, lobby-driven electoral campaigns to which the US electorate has become all too habituated.

  The revised constitution affirmed by Iceland’s electorate in October 2012 does not specifically require Parliament to adopt it. To go into effect, Parliament must approve the public’s constitutional proposals.19 The results of the April 2013 parliamentary elections make this less likely.

  In April 2013, Iceland’s center-right parties returned to parliamentary power in what the BBC reported as “a dramatic comeback for parties widely blamed for Iceland’s economic meltdown in 2008.”20 The Social Democrats who came to power after the 2008 crisis mustered just a 13 percent share of the parliamentary vote, perhaps due to a backlash against programs deemed too austere and painful by the electorate, ac-cording to the BBC report. However, Iceland’s electorate is by no means unanimous in supporting this reversal, as indicated by the gain of three parliamentary seats by Iceland’s Pirate Party, which was founded partly to promote reform of the country’s copyright and open content laws.21

  As Gylfason indicated, the most recent parliamentary elections probably matter less, since the outgoing Parliament not only refused to bring the new constitution to a vote but also established more stringent standards for future constitutional changes, including the requirements of two-thirds of Parliament plus 40 percent of the popular vote, meaning that at least 80 percent voter turnout would be necessary for any constitutional reform to be accepted in Parliament’s next session.22

  Gylfason pragmatically observed, “We are back to square one as intended by the enemies of the new constitution” and concluded that there is “faint hope” that the new Parliament will “respect the will of the people.”23 Despite the resurgent old guard of political elites, experts observing from outside Iceland affirmed that its constitution-making process has been “tremendously innovative and participatory,” putting it “at the cutting edge of ensuring public participation in ongoing
governance.”24

  The corporate media reported the April 2013 election that resulted in the swing back to the center-right, but altogether ignored the earlier constitutional referendum.25 Despite a constitution that is one of the most inclusive in history, a May 2013 Washington Post story identified Iceland as one of “12 countries where the government regulates what you can name your child.”26 More often, Iceland features in cor-porate media as an exotic vacation destination or the source of uncon-ventional artists like Bjork.

  The corporate media is ignoring the real story—as Joel Bleifuss, editor of In These Times, observed: the Icelandic experience “demonstrates that an engaged and radicalized populace can challenge the orthodoxies of the technocrats—and avoid the false choice between the ballot box and the street protest by making savvy use of both.”27

  Iceland’s Modern Media Initiative, Whistleblowing Protection, and Resistance to FBI Encroachment

  Iceland is not only a global leader because of its direct, participatory constitution-making. Of equal note, spurred by the public, Iceland’s government has created cutting-edge legislation to protect and strengthen modern freedom of expression.28 As a result, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) promises to establish Iceland at the global forefront of societies championing robust media freedoms, including new information technologies.29 Indeed, as Censored 2014 went to press, the Guardian was reporting that Edward Snowden, the whistleblower behind the biggest security leak in the US National Security Administration’s history, considered Iceland his best hope for asylum.30

  With strong bulwarks to protect journalists, their sources, and whistleblowers against retaliation, Iceland has become a stronghold for investigative journalism. Thus, Lowana Veal of Inter Press Service reported on the establishment of the Associated Whistle-Blowing Press (AWP) in Iceland.31 Established in September 2012, AWP operates as a WikiLeaks alternative, “dedicated to bringing forth and analyzing leaked content” through “an international network of prominent journalists, researchers, lawyers and media activists based on local nodes and working together to provide society with a trustful and friendly source of analysis of information brought into light by whistle-blowers around the world.”32

  The IMMI could not stop eight Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents from secretly entering Iceland in August 2011 as part of their attempts to investigate WikiLeaks operations in Iceland and to track down WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.33 But, as was made public in February 2013, when Iceland’s interior minister, Ogmundur Jonasson, learned that FBI agents had arrived in Iceland and were seeking cooperation from local police, he ordered the agents to leave the country. WikiLeaks subsequently reported that, despite the order to leave Iceland, FBI agents remained, continuing to interrogate one eighteen-year old individual over the course of at least five more days, without the presence of Icelandic police officers.34 Iceland lodged a formal protest against the FBI actions with US officials; the US Department of Justice has refused to comment on the case.35

  Despite US pressure on WikiLeaks and Iceland, in April 2013, Iceland’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of WikiLeaks. The court held that Valitor (formerly VISA Iceland, and currently a Visa subcontractor) had unlawfully terminated its contract with WikiLeaks donations processor DataCell.36 Since December 2010, Visa had effectively enforced an economic blockade by preventing the processing of WikiLeaks donations by credit card. The Icelandic Supreme Court ordered Visa’s Valitor to reinstate payment processing for WikiLeaks donations within fifteen days or face a fine of 800,000 Icelandic krona ($6,830) per day. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange called the decision a “victory for free speech” and “against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers.”37 Although it is still impossible to donate directly to WikiLeaks via credit card, the Freedom of the Press Foundation allows donors to make anonymous, tax-deductible donations by credit card.38

  Corporate media have all but ignored IMMI. A search of the ProQuest Newsstand database on this topic returns just two stories from that period. An editorial in the Christian Science Monitor on the global state of free speech made passing reference to Iceland; the other article, published in the Los Angeles Times, noted that in crafting its “leading edge” legislation, Iceland’s lawmakers had consulted with “WikiLeaks’ controversial founder,” Julian Assange, and pushed Iceland “into uncharted territory.”39

  Creative Commons Celebrates Ten Years of Sharing and Cultural Creation

  It is our good fortune that all is not yet

  couched in terms of purchase and sale.

  —Marcel Mauss, 19254°

  Founded in 2001, Creative Commons announced its first copyright licenses in December 2002.41 Part of a larger free culture movement, Creative Commons (CC) sought to show, in the words of the organization’s executive director, Glenn Otis Brown, that “the choice between self-interest and community is a false choice. . . . Sharing, done properly, is both smart and right.”42

  Ten years later, Jason Hibbets of opensource.com reported that governments—including Austria and Italy—are using Creative Commons for their open data portals; the University of California-Santa Cruz library has adopted a CC license for all of its content; and You-Tube now has over four million Creative Commons videos available.43

  In corporate coverage of Creative Commons’ ten-year anniversary, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial by one of CC’s founding board members, Lawrence Lessig, but otherwise CC received only fleeting notice, usually in association with the death of Aaron Swartz.44 The New York Times did note the appointment of Joichi Ito—director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab and a CC board member—to the board of the New York Times Company.45

  In March 2013, CC’s Timothy Vollmer reported that the United States Register of Copyright, Maria Pallante, testified to Congress’s House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet that the US needs “bold adjustments” to US copyright law.46 As Vollmer reported, Pallante’s remarks highlighted “the crucial need to expand and protect the public domain.”47 A search in the ProQuest Newsstand database returned no corporate news coverage of Pallan-te’s congressional testimony.

  Pallante’s call for “bold adjustments” took place against the backdrop of a strong international push for copyright reform, as exemplified by the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).48 However, through multinational treaties—including the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—the US is “one of the leading nations advocating for stronger copyright protection.”49

  This is not an either/or situation. As Vollmer reported, “The existence of CC licenses does not limit the need for reform. Open licenses help forward-thinking people and institutions to live and thrive in the digital age now, and illuminate the roadmap for beneficial reform to come.”50

  CONCLUSION

  From Marcel Mauss to Cindy Milstein, progressive thinkers have proposed alternatives to the pursuits of wealth and power as ends in themselves. In his 1925 classic, The Gift, Mauss deconstructed the assumption that all significant human interaction could be analyzed in market terms. Instead, he argued, gift economies not only predated markets but also provided a more robust basis for “group morality,” because exchange of useful articles in gift economies connected not simply individuals but, more fundamentally, groups.51 More recently, Milstein has championed a more horizontal, direct form of democracy—instead of its representative form—as the best means of “freedom making.”52

  The alternative visions of Mauss, Milstein, and many more call into question corporate power and hierarchical government. As 2012–13 independent news coverage of Iceland and the Creative Commons demonstrates, alternatives to top-down government and market-driven economies are not just viable but robust. Regardless of inattentive corporate media and their cursory, slanted coverage, Iceland and the Creative Commons show us that, regarding popular participation in the p
olitical and economic decisions that affect society as a whole, the doors of the house are increasingly open.

  ANDY LEE ROTH, PHD, is associate director of Project Censored and teaches sociology at Sonoma State University and College of Marin.

  Thanks to Elizabeth Boyd, Thorvaldur Gylfason, and Nick Wolfinger for suggestions on earlier versions of this text.

  Notes

  1. Cindy Milstein, “Democracy is Direct,” in Globalize Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World, ed. David Solnit (San Francisco: City Lights, 2004), 42.

  2. Jessica Conrad, “Icelanders Vote to Include the Commons in Their Constitution,” Commons Magazine, November 2012, http://onthecommons.org/magazine/icelanders-vote-include-commons-their-constitution.

  3. “Cracks in the Crust,” Economist, December 11, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/12762027.

  4. Alex Pietrowski, “Iceland’s Hordur Torfason—How to Beat the Banksters,” Waking Times, December 11, 2012, http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/12/11/icelands-hordur-torfason-how-to-beat-the-banksters.

  5. Joel Bleifuss, “Icelandic Lesson in Democracy,” In These Times, May 2013, 5.

  6. For instance, “Former Kaupthing Bank Boss Hreidar Mar Sigurdsson Arrested in Iceland,” Ice News, May 6, 2010, http://www.icenews.is/2010/05/06/former-kaupthing-bank-boss-hreidar-mar-sigurdsson-arrested-in-iceland/. The first executives charged with responsibility for the collapse received jail sentences in December 2012, while approximately eighty cases brought by the special prosecutor remain to go to trial. See, for example, “Executives at Collapsed Iceland Bank Jailed for Fraud,” Reuters, December 28, 2012, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/uk-iceland-crisis-idUKBRE8BR0EW20121228.

  7. Andrew Higgins, “Iceland, Fervent Prosecutor of Bankers, Sees Meager Returns,” New York Times, February 3, 2013:A6.