Cuba arrests blogger Diana Virgen García. Garcia, who covers issues of free speech in Cuba, and supports the Ladies in White movement, was arrested on April 22. The next day she was "sentenced" to a year and eight months in prison for unannounced "charges."

Twitter takes down a Tweet. Responding to a U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice, Twitter eliminated a user's post on a leaked music album.

Chávez starts a Twitter account. After frothing about how Twitter is terrorism, primarily because opposition members use it to good effect, Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, has started his own account.

China institutes yet another repressive online law. The law is nothing new. It merely "legitimizes" the gun-barrel instructions the state's law enforcement agencies issue to ISPs and others to cooperate with state secrets issues.

Brazil objects to Google government request data being published. Google published government requests and Brazil "won," making the most data requests of any country, 3,663, and the most removal requests, 291. They claimed the number was accounted for by child porn investigations, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Nay Phone Latt, imprisoned Burmese blogger, honored by PEN. The PEN writing group honored the young blogger who is serving a 20-year sentenced after blogging about the 2007 Saffron rebellion in Burma.

Tunisia blocks Flickr. On the 28th, Tunisia added Flickr, the photo-sharing site, to its list of blocked services and sites. Chief among these are individual blogs critical of the government and video-sharing sites.

United Arab Emirates plan to monitor cybercafe users. The country's Interior Ministry plans to require cataloging of cybercafe users under the guise of child porn. "The move to keep Internet-users under observation comes at the same time as a population census is being held in the countries of the UAE along with a standardisation of ID cards for all citizens."

Belarus seizes journalists' emails. A senior Belarus police officer allowed police computer experts to access the email and Skype accounts of independent journalists as part of an investigation for a defamation suit by a former KGB official.

Thailand arrests Facebook user. One of Thailand's favorite tools to stifle dissent is "lese majeste," the law that makes it a crime to criticize leaders, in this case the royal family. Unfortunately, there is no proof that Wipas Raksakultha did any such thing when he was arrested on the 29th.

India arrests man for fake Facebook profile. The unidentified man was arrested by the Dehli police for allegedly creating a fake profile of parliamentarian Rajiv Pratap Rudy. This is reminiscent of the arrest and imprisonment of Fouad Mourtada for doing the same thing for a prince of Morocco in 2008. The same questions needs to be asked now as then: what role did Facebook play in providing law enforcement with private user information? Or is there such a thing any more when it comes to Facebook?

United States Senators fault Facebook. Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) sent a letter to Facebook questioning the company after it made a huge change in its site that enforced a site-wide change in privacy. Schumer also sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission calling on them to enact clearer privacy guidelines for social networks.

Egypt indicts videographer and blogger Wael Abbas. Abbas, who is most famous for posting videos of police abuse, including rape, of arrested citizens, is being pursued by the Egyptian courts. His appeal opened yesterday in Cairo on charges of selling communications services without a license. "Neither he nor his lawyers were informed of his trial on these charges and he was sentenced to six months in prison and fined 500 Egyptian pounds (65 euros) in his absence."

Kazhakstan ISP blocks news sites. State-owned Kazakhtelecom has been blocking two news sites that are critical of government corruption.

Top photo by Andrian van Leen
García photo from World Women International
Abbas photo by Elijah Zarwan

As Robert Scoble points out, a journalist is supposed to "report the news, not make it." (Unless, perhaps, you're aiming for some sort of gonzo-style connection with your story -- but Fear and Loathing at CES this was not.) But making news isn't really what Gizmodo was doing, at least not according to Brian Lam. Their prank was not intended to give them something to report, rather says Lam, it was intended to demonstrate their independent spirit.

"When did journalists become the protectors of corporations? When did this industry, defined by pranksters like Woz, get so serious and in-the-pocket of big business?" Lam asked in his blogged response to critics of last week's prank. Though I think he is making a rather extraordinary leap (how is criticism of a sophomoric prank evidence of pandering to corporations?), Lam does make some very good points about integrity and journalism.

"You don't get more access by selling out for press credentials first chance you get, kowtowing to corporations and tradeshows and playing nice," he writes, "you earn your respect by fact finding, reporting, having untouchable integrity, provocative coverage and gaining readers through your reputation for those things."

All true! But that's where Lam loses it: when he uses his treatise on integrity in journalism as a defense for a prank that showed an utter lack of integrity (or if not that, at the very least it showed a complete absence of class). "Our prank pays homage to the notion of independence and independent reporting. And no matter how much access the companies give us, we won't ever stop being irreverent. That's what this prank was about and what the press should understand," claims Lam.

Sorry, Brian, that's not what the prank demonstrated. What it showed was that your employees don't know how to behave in a public, civilized setting. You can still ask the tough questions, demand the the truth, not publish corporate talking points, and check facts before publishing without acting like delinquents. Irreverence shouldn't mean classlessness, and independence shouldn't demand that you act like misbehaving children at professional trade shows.

In the long run, who will the prank hurt? Probably no one. CES isn't likely going to stop handing out blogger credentials (except to the single Gizmodo blogger they banned for pulling the stunt), companies aren't likely going to stop inviting bloggers to press events or take us off their press release lists or deny us any of the access we've gained (though some companies may take Gizmodo less seriously). And as Lam says, the TVs turn back on. But please, Mr. Lam, don't try to equate a silly prank with a show of journalistic integretity. Annoying people at CES doesn't make you a better journalist -- or a journalist at all, for that matter.

Toward the end of today's post, Lam mentions his blog's interview with Bill Gates. "We got the guy to open up and talk about Windows and its shortcomings like he never has before, not even on 60 minutes," Lam says. "If that's not journalism, I don't know what is. If we had been in the pocket of this industry, we never would have asked such a risky question."

That is the sort of thing that makes you a journalist. And what's wrong with letting the questions you ask prove your independent spirit? No amount of silly pranks will ever do so much to prove your integrity as will the actual reporting you do. That's something that any blogger who wants to be taken seriously as a journalist must learn. Actions might speak louder than words, but not if your actions are juvenile stunts that obscure your reporting.