Open Access: Wake Up Dorothy

 

There is a vision that Universities in the digital age will encourage the sharing, rather than purchasing of resources such as journal articles. This vision was shared by Aaron Swartz who took his own life in January 2013 so as to avoid a clearly unjust ruling. As a moral imperative, Swartz felt that information should not be made digital and locked away from the world, especially information that was tax-payer funded. He had been found to have downloaded millions of journal articles, redistributing them to a wider audience, free of charge (Smith 2013).

It was said that Aaron Swartz should be made an example of for his ‘malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale’ (Emptywheel 2013). This is a gross exaggeration to say the least, when an individual is attempting to free information (taxpayer funded) for the betterment of the people.

In a world where communication systems are developing and becoming global, it is increasingly problematic that information is still restricted, to be accessed by those who either pay, or are being paid.  ‘Only by openly sharing can our intellect and education really grow’ (Arvanitakis 2009).

So just briefly, since the Aaron Swartz tragedy, a U.S Policy has decreed that Tax-Payer funded research will be freely available for one year post-publication (Smith 2013). Let us all drop the pretense and call their bluff! While it would be nice to see Universities and publishers allowing free access to information for students, it is a dream as likely to come as a girl flying over a rainbow and landing in OZ. Publishers have very few incentives to make access to their journals free.

One must ask: With Universities digitalising and the availability of education rapidly growing, why is information still largely inaccessible?

References

Arvanitakis, J 2009, ‘The autonomous university and the production of the commons’, toward a global autonomous university, (eds) The EduFactory collective, Autonomedia, New York

Emptywheel 2013, ‘DOJ Used Open Access Guerilla Manifesto to Justify Search of Aaron Swartz’ Crooks and Liars, 21 February, available: http://crooksandliars.com/emptywheel/doj-used-open-access-guerilla-manifesto

Smith, G 2013, ‘White House Grants Aaron Swartz’s Wish: Taxpayer-Funded Research Will Be Free’, The Huffington Post, 25 February, available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/aaron-swartz-white-house-taxpayer-funded-wish_n_2758744.html

Swartz’ Crooks and Liars, 21 February, available: http://crooksandliars.com/emptywheel/doj-used-open-access-guerilla-manifesto

The Enlightened Economist 2013, ‘The economics of open access publishing’ accessed 17/04/2013, available: http://www.enlightenmenteconomics.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/the-economics-of-open-access-publishing/

Free Speech or Treason

Change is inevitable and changes to journalism are current and imminent. One particular change is that of user generated content and its rise due to the availability of technology within a globalising world. As a result, long standing traditions and rules are breaking down and by extension, are threatening national security (Quandt 2011).

You see, everyone wants to be the hero; the one to crack the code and free an enslaved, ignorant nation by feeding them the ‘truth’ about the respective Governments. They believe that the duty of the free press is to ‘prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people’, following the words of Justice Black at a 1971 United States Constitutional appeal (Black 1997). An example of such is WikiLeaks.

But where can we draw a line? When does the interest of the people and what they want to know, come above the safety those living in that country or those fighting for that country? A report referenced in a 2010 article by the Telegraph in New York, strongly feared that the information could be used against the country by aiding ‘foreign intelligence’ and thereby threatening the United States (Leonard, 2010). Such aid could easily be considered treasonous and result in severe consequences for the ‘journalist’.

Traditional press are governed by policies and law which may impede free speech and public access while others, are generating content outside of media gatekeepers which may lead to a breach in the security of a nation. The discoveries and uncovering of secrets, while intended to inform the public, may be risking much through the divulging of critical and secret information.

So where do we draw the line? How far will we go to support traitors for the ‘right to know’.

References

Black, J 1971, ‘Concurring Opinion: Supreme Court of the United States’, United States Court of Appeals, Available: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC.html

Leonard, T 2010, ‘Pentagon deems WikiLeaks a national security threat’ The Telegraph, 18March, Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7475050/Pentagon-deems-Wikileaks-a-national-security-threat.html

Quandt, T 2011, ‘Understanding a new phenomenon: The significance of participatory journalism’, in Hermida et al Participatory Journalism, Wiley Blackwell