Being busy with my self publishing adventure, I’d not been paying much attention to the Internet, so I was surprised when I read Jay Rosen’s tweet about allegations against one of my favorite journalists.

Over the last few years I’ve developed a great deal of respect for Glenn Greenwald’s reporting. While I can imagine detractors calling Greenwald many things, “puppet” just seems… ludicrous. If I had an important controversial news story to break — like the Robert Redford character in the movie “Three Days of the Condor” — Greenwald is the reporter I would seek out. Clearly Edward Snowden agrees, because Greenwald is the man he took his story to.

Even without knowing what allegations were being flung, I added my support of Glenn Greenwald to Jay’s tweet:

— Laurel L. Russwurm (@laurelrusswurm) July 11, 2013

My tweet drew a challenge from a total stranger … someone I do not follow, and who does not follow me.

This stranger, who posts on twitter under the pseudonym A.T., suggested Glenn Greenwald needs to “answer the charges of sock-puppetry that [A.T.] happen[s] to find more than just plausible.”

What an allegation! In web parlance, a “sock puppet” is a fake persona some people use to bolster their own spurious arguments. Accusing Greenwald of being a sock puppet is a bit much, because Greenwald is a real live human being, an internationally well known journalist with a longstanding career and reputation.

an emply sock puppet

The irony in this allegation is that the person spreading this attack on Greenwald is him/herself pseudonymous, and so could easily be a sock puppet. When total strangers insert themselves in your conversation, they may well be trolling, which is to say, spreading misinformation or otherwise seeking to antagonize.

Yet the only way to guarantee free speech is to support citizen anonymity. There are all sorts of good reasons to protect your identity when speaking out. But when speaking anonymously, you must establish credibility, or you may be taken for a sock puppet or a troll.

In order to decide how much credibility this stranger might merit, I looked at his/her twitter profile. On the face of it, it doesn’t read like a troll feed. Perhaps this person is new to the net, and doesn’t have the jargon down; they might still have something valid to impart.

So I asked,

— A.T. (@innerproduct) July 12, 2013

Forgetting for a moment that some of us don’t “google” (we search), the Internet is a very big place.

Web searching is a complicated process. Not all searches are equal. Not even close. Even if I were to use Google to enact a web search, depending on:

  • the search terms I choose,
  • my geographic location,
  • my IP address history
  • the time of day,
  • even the browser I use,

the search results will be different. Google’s justification for collecting and aggregating personal information about us all, whether or not we are signed in, is to tailor the search results to the individual making the search. Since I am more likely to use a privacy respecting search engine like DuckDuckGo, StartPage or IxQuick, the search results I receive will be different than the search results returned to someone who uses “google” as a verb.

When making any allegation or argument online, it is not only reasonable, but essential to be able to back it up with supporting links. If this person read a specific article, or a series of articles that called Glenn Greenwald’s professionalism into question, this is when they need to provide that and any other link supporting their argument.

Telling me to google it is akin to suggesting I sift the haystack for a needle. (And finding the needle would very probably be easier.)

When someone can’t be bothered to back up allegations, or abruptly backs down, it is generally reasonable to assume such allegations are at best misguided, or worse, spurious. Or even malicious.

I’m guessing these particular allegations were inspired by the Washington Post article referenced in this article The journalistic practices of the Washington Post and Walter Pincus.

While I think A.T., my Twitter correspondent here, was merely misguided, allegations like the ones made by the Washington Post against Glenn Greenwald are a symptom of a serious issue. The deeper problem is that mainstream news media has largely ceased funtioning as the ‘watchdog press.’

If a reporter gets something factually wrong, people clamor for correction; but when an unsavory report is undeniably true, ad hominem attacks are often applied — which is why this type of attack must always be taken with a grain of salt, and, if possible, challenged.

We are fortunate that the Internet has allowed for the rise of citizen journalism. When the voices of ordinary and even anonymous people are raised online, by tweeting, blogging or sharing, we can spread the news ourselves, and sometimes even shame the news industry covering an unpopular story. But when ordinary people engage in citizen journalism, it is important to do so in a credible and responsible manner.

Free speech is not the same thing as attacking someone’s real life reputation from behind a screen of anonymity. When people are personally attacked they deserve the right to face their accuser.

When a journalist exposes government malfeasance, the state often fights back, either by attacking the journalist directly, or indirectly, through its shills in a bid to deflect the unwanted scrutiny. Slinging mud at detractors in an attempt to discredit them is a shell game that erodes democracy. The Government of the United States prefers to have its citizens diverted into the consideration of the personalities of journalists or leakers in hopes that concerns about warrantless government surveillance will fade away.

Sadly, it seems today’s Washington Post is not the kind of news outlet that could bring down a corrupt presidency so long as its policy embraces government “pravda.” I wonder if any news outlet operating within the United States can stand against government pressure? Any news outlet that sells out press freedom isn’t really a news outlet at all.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

The Guardian: Edward Snowden statement: ‘It was the right thing to do and I have no regrets’

glossary via Wikipedia
sock puppet


The Third of May

Laurel holds a "Free to Blog" sign with the hashtags #WPFD and #PressFreedomUnesco‘s “World Press Freedom Day 2013” is promoting the idea that people need to be able to use social media for freedom of expression, whether it’s on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Vkontakte, Tencent,, or blogs.  Many people don’t know that they should be free and safe to blog, to upload pictures, to watch online video., or that the freedom to receive & impart information & ideas through any media is promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As the western free press buckles under the control and demands of powerful special interests, the Internet has made citizen journalism possible just when we need it most. Unfortunately, sometimes people engaging in social media are targeted by repressive regimes.

In Canada, Byron Sonne’s Charter rights were violated by police, and charges were laid against him for posting photographs on Flickr and tweeting concerns about the billion dollar “security theatre” being staged in Toronto for the Toronto G20.  He was punitively denied bail for almost a year, and when finally granted bail it was under onerous conditions, so he was effectively a political prisoner for nearly two years.

In Syria, Internet activist Bassel Khartabil has been unjustly detained for over a year, without trial or any legal charges being brought against him.

Since March 15, 2012, our colleague and friend Bassel Khartabil has been in prison in Syria, held without charges and not allowed legal representation. Bassel is an open-source coder and leader of the Syrian Creative Commons program. He believes in the open Internet, and has spent the last ten years using open technologies to improve the lives of Syrians. Not only did Bassel build the CC program in his country; he worked tirelessly to build knowledge of digital literacy, educating people about online media and open-source tools.”

Catherine Casserly

Bassel needs to be #FreeToBlog again... Syrian Free Culture advocate has been held for more than a year without charges.
Syrian Free Culture advocate Bassel needs to be free to blog, not imprisoned without charges.

Around the world, we’re seeing increased restrictions on free speech as the breadth of copyright laws have been expanded to allow censorship, and we face an unending barrage of laws like SOPA and CISPA that allow government and corporate incusrions into our personal privacy, and trade agreements like ACTA and CETA.

Unesco is promoting the free exchange of ideas & knowledge that is possible with social media, and wants everyone to have a voice and be able to speak freely and in safety, no matter where they are in the world.

There is a growing awareness that ensuring freedom of expression must also necessarily extend to safety online. World Press Freedom Day 2013 focuses on the theme “Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media” and puts the spotlight, in particular, on the issues of safety of journalists, combating impunity for crimes against freedom of expression, and securing a free and open Internet as the precondition for online safety.”

Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media

Which dovetails nicely with the fact today is also the International Day Against DRM.  If DRM becomes a built in part of the HTML5, any hope of a free and open Internet will be lost.

Banner that can be used on facebook

DRM restricts the public’s freedom, even beyond what overzealous copyright law requires, to the perceived benefit of this privileged, powerful few.”

Letter to the W3C

DRM is “Digital Rights Management” or “Digital Restrictions Management” ~ either way it is “Technological Protection Measures” employed in the proprietary software and hardware we purchase.  DRM controls how we can use our digital media and devices.

This year the W3C is in the process of hammering out the new standard for HTML5, the language that the Internet is written in.  Some of the biggest, most powerful Internet corporations are trying to pressure the W3C to write DRM into the specifications. Adding DRM to HTML would cause a host of problems for freedom and interoperability on the Web, and we need to build the grassroots movement against it. Nobody except these big corporations want this change to the core of the Web, but most of the Web users that it would affect don’t know about the issue yet.”

Defective By Design: We Oppose DRM

Any DVD player would be able to play any DVD in the world but for region encoding, one example of DRM.  If you move to a different region, don’t plan on bringing along your DVD collection, because it won’t play there.  DRM is often employed to “protect” digital copies that are under copyright.

Corporations like DRM because it can be used to tie us in to their proprietary products — we need to buy this type of game machine to continue to use the games we’ve already purchased — or buy ink cartridges even though the ones in the printer aren’t actually empty but because the DRM says the ink is past it’s best-before date — or purchase the same music over and over again as digital media wears out or the device is declared obsolete.

A specification designed to help companies run secret code on users’ computers to restrict what they do on the Web would severely undermine that trust. ”

Letter to the W3C

Nothing is stopping these big companies from deploying DRM on their websites now, with the exception of consumer choice.  But if DRM is written into the HTML5 Specifications, DRM will become the default, and consumers will lose the few choices we have now.  It will become harder to free our devices and ourselves from the shackles of DRM.  And I rather expect it will have the unfortunate side effect of breaking the Internet.

No DRM for the Internet

You’re welcome to use my Day Against DRM Facebook Cover, my Day Against DRM Twitter Banner or the square “Don’t DRM the Internet” avatar.

Image Credits
Bassel Khartabil by Kristina Alexanderson released under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License

Map of the Internet – photo by the Opte Project released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 1.0) License

Both social media banners, Day Against DRM Facebook cover and Day Against DRM Twitter Banner incorporate the Opte Project Internet Map, tand so are released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) License

Facebook, schoolFeed, and Privacy, oh my

Yearbook mock-up page

I don’t use Facebook Apps because they all require ridiculous permissions. I am not willing to allow anyone else to speak for me, so I’m certainly not likely to allow some software run by total strangers to post in my name.


Even if I was willing to give permission for myself, I am certainly not prepared to give up my family and friends’ privacy.

Because I understand that I have abdicated any privacy control over anything I post on Facebook when I post anything there. No matter what “privacy setting” I choose, everything I put there is no longer private. (The same is true for most of the Internet, actually.) The problem is most people don’t understand this.


I recently got a message saying I had been “tagged” in my “high school yearbook” by a Facebook friend. This is a Facebook app called “schoolFeed” which is a “Classmates” site that exists to suck up all of our personal information.

In fact, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t actually tagged by my friend, but by the schoolFeed app posting in her name. Once she signed up, the schoolFeed app would have sucked up all the information about all of her Facebook friends. Then it would send all of us these messages as it added our Facebook avatars to the appropriate schoolFeed yearbook page.

Some of us, in turn, would go to schoolFeed to see what was what, but in order to do so, we in turn would have to give the schoolFeed app all the ridiculous permissions which allows it to suck up all of *our* Facebook friends and dump *them* into the schoolFeed yearbook pages. And so on.

It is the price you pay to be on Facebook.

I looked online to see what other people were saying about SchoolFeed… Oh… SchoolFeed: The Facebook app everyone needs to avoid [Updated with SchoolFeed’s response]

But it gets worse.

Apparently the schoolFeed isn’t happy with what it can suck down from Facebook, and is now actively asking people to:

Mail us your Yearbook!
Have your yearbook professionally scanned into schoolFeed
Your yearbook will be non-destructively scanned and returned!

Oh no… schoolFeed Now Has 160,000 Yearbooks to Browse Online

SchoolFeed will now be able to access personal information about people who may not even be on the Internet. People who have never used a computer. People whose only mistake was to be pictured in the school yearbook.

I don’t know about you, but I know people who have made a conscious decision not to use computers. And some who use computers, but don’t use the Internet. And others who won’t use Facebook, Twitter, or Google, instead choosing Friendica, Identica, duckduckgo or ixQuick, not because they are Luddites, but because they value their privacy.

Every yearbook sent to schoolFeed will give it more personal information that it can use and/or sell to third parties… which may be spammers, scammers or identity thieves.

If we send our yearbooks to schoolFeed, we will be giving it personal information about our old friends and classmates without their permission.

Don’t do it.

Tonight: Internet Democracy Café

TransitionKW and The Upstart Collaboratory for Collaborative Culture Designing have partnered again!

This time they have organized an Internet Democracy Café to consider and discuss  the loss of a democratic Internet, and look at what is needed to move toward a place where computer networks are free of undesirable government surveillance and unfair corporate control.

Tonight: September 26 (7-9:30 pm)!

Queen Street Commons – 43 Queen St. S., Kitchener (map)

multicoloured Internet cables plugged into jacks

There will be a short panel followed by a conversation café involving the audience. With this event, we want to connect people and resources to launch an ongoing process to ask:

  • What about the Internet is demanding attention and care from us all?
    To raise our awareness together among the widest possible demographic of the crucial role of the Internet in the lives and well-being of all of us as citizens of local, national, and global communities.
  • What’s going on with the Internet?
    To understand together more about where and how this Internet world is moving, changing, and being potentially constricted.
  • What can we do now?
    To create pathways of continuing dialogue, information and expertise exchange, and leading-edge cross-sectoral responsiveness in order to support the future of a democratic Internet and access to a shared citizen-driven knowledge base for everyone.

drawing of computers in chains used in Day Against DRM posterSpecific areas of focus could include, but are not limited to:

  • Internet-related legislation
    (e.g. Bill C-11, Lawful Access legislation), and
  • trade agreements
    (e.g. Trans-Pacific Partnership),
  • Internet connectivity issues,
  • Internet information filtering
    and sharing bans, and
  • Internet information storage
    and control issues.

Democracy Café Panel

The canadian Flag flies against a blue skyJames Howe,  the driving force behind the Social Media Breakfast in Waterloo Region

Alisa McClurg,  interested in the linkages between Internet democracy and resiliency, TransitionKW,

Paul Nijjar, on Internet connectivity issues, from The Working Centre

Kirk Zurell, proponent of the “Robot’s Rules of Order” and the “Digital House”

Jean Robertson, from the Upstart Collaboratory for Collaborative Culture Designing, will be facilitating.

This is a FREE community event, no registration is required.
Click for More Details
Check the Facebook page or follow the Twitter at #internetdemocracy hashtag.

I hope to see you there!

Legal Today, Not Tomorrow? ~ Bill C-11

Canadian DMCA logo

Bill C-11, Canada’s so-called “Copyright Modernization Act” has passed second reading in the House of Commons and is now before the parliamentary committee.

Since I am preparing my debut novel for eBook release, I’m trying not to pay attention, yet I find myself reading Russell McOrmond’s Bill C-11 Legisative Committee coverage.  Russell is both Live tweeting and blogging about each meeting day.   This legislation is simply too important to ignore, not just for me, as a self publishing writer, but for Canada, and the heritage and culture that is so much a part of who we are.

I can’t actually watch the proceedings myself, even though they are being broadcast online by CPAC.  Beginning with cable TV coverage, CPAC has provided Canadians with a ringside seat to Canadian parliamentary proceedure since 1992.   The problem is that this video is provided onsite in Windows Media Player format.

Problem: In order to watch video in the proprietary Windows Media Player, you need to have Windows, and I don’t.

It seems I can’t watch the livestream of the actual parliamentary committee meetings because I have chosen to use free software. I don’t use Windows anymore, nor do I use any of the various Apple computers. My operating system on *this* computer is Ubuntu, and the one on my desktop computer is Trisquel.

But of course, that’s the point.  Proprietary digital devices and content try to force the user to use the software or device specified by the manufacturer. Once you buy into any proprietary system, it is difficult to switch to another.  In this case it’s Microsoft, although it could as easily be Apple, or Sony, or any one of a plethora of rich and powerful companies that make proprietary software and hardware.

And why not? Microsoft built the Windows Media Player, and they want people to use it in their operating system.

In the past, circumventing proprietary formats might have resulted in a voided warranty. But it seems to me that Bill C-11 will make it illegal.

I expect CPAC paid rather a lot to be able to license the Windows media player.  But since Windows is still the dominant OS, it seems like a reasonable choice to reach the most people.  And CPAC wants all Canadians to have access to the video they create. That’s what they do.

And CPAC understands, because it attempts to circumvent the problem by  advising  us to copy the link below the video into our own video player if we are having problems.

I tried that, but it didn’t work on either the Ubuntu Movie Player or Banshee Media Player.   Even so, I wasn’t positive it was a proprietary issue the problem was until a friend tried to resolve it.

Apparently Flip4Mac WMV program converted the proprietary Windows video format to a proprietary Mac video format.

The other solution that CPAC offers is to use a program called VLC. Ironically I used that free software video player back when I still used Windows, but haven’t managed to get it to work in either of my gnu/linux machines.

The long and the short of it is that, because I am not able to run the proprietary Windows Media Player, I am effectively locked out of the digital government video CPAC routinely shares with Canadians.

An Illustration of Bill C-11

In a strange way this demonstrates why legal protection of TPMs — regardless of legality — is the central point of Bill C-11 that has Canadians concerned. As written, Bill C-11 would criminalize Canadians who circumvent TPMs (technical protection measures) even if we are legally entitled to access the content that is locked by these “digital locks”.

Although I’m neither a technical person or a lawyer, I think Bill C-11 would make software like the VLC player illegal in Canada because it circumvents proprietary TPMs.

And Bill C-11 will make both tools to circumvent and the act of circumvention of TPMs illegal.

It wouldn’t matter that CPAC wants to share their content with me, Microsoft would have to grant permission to convert proprietary formats into free formats, or else it would be illegal. Microsoft’s current policies indicate any such permission would be unlikely, but even if it did, the tools to circumvent the proprietary TPMs – like VLC – would be illegal, so I wouldn’t be able to do it anyway.

Lawyers like Michael Geist and Howard Knopf and tech folks like Russell McOrmond, Wayne Borean, Bob Jonkman and Cory Doctorow have said Bill C-11 would not be such a problem if TPM circumvention was only illegal if tied to copyright infringement.

the shape of things to come

But if they pass Bill C-11 as written, it will become illegal for Canadians to circumvent TPMs so we can watch our government in action. Or to back up our software, Or format shift so we can watch DVDs on MP3 players.

Depending on what TPMs manufacturers employ, it may become illegal to read public domain eBooks on our e-readers, or play DVDs that aren’t region encoded.  Which would mean that independent film makers wouldn’t be able to put their original movies on DVDs.  Independent musicians might be prevented from distributing their original work digitally.  The range of consequences are appalling.

How long until it becomes illegal to load free software on our computers?

If Bill C-11 passes, not long at all.

[Edited for readability (replacing a bit of awkward phrasing) but content remains the same.]

Image credits
Screencap cc-by 1111aether

Against DRM cc-by Nina Paley

no cyber-censorship, please

Today on I said:

When I was young, freedom wasn’t such a big issue.
Life experience has shown me how really important freedom is.

That is so true. Freedom is important to me on many levels: as a citizen, as a parent, and as a writer.
But the Internet is ultimately a series of tools:   hardware and software strung together. The problem is,
of course, that tools can generally be used for good or ill. Which is why we must all strive to ensure it stays free. That means all of us, not just programmers but all of the users.

World day against cyber-censorship

Reporters without Borders are very concerned with freedom. Naturally. It’s hard to do a good job of reporting without freedom, which is why Reporters without Borders is holding the 3rd annual:

World day against cyber-censorship

Visit the Reporters without Borders World day against cyber-censorship webpage.   The site has been mirrored to allow netizens in blacked out countries to access this information at

The site has goodies such as a map showing global geographic boundaries incidence of cyber censorship and the pièce de résistance the 2011 The Enemies of the Internet list.

I have to admit I was more than a little surprised to find the United States absent after all their efforts to take out WikiLeaks. The fact that the United States is not on the list is most likely due to the strong freedom advocacy offered by freedom fighting organizations like the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Public Knowledge (PK), and KEI (Knowledge Ecology International).

Twitter tightens its grip

Ironically, today readwriteweb brings word about Twitter’s decision to cut out 3rd party developers. Existing apps will be allowed to continue… on probabation. Last week my favorite writing live chat on Twitter didn’t work because none of the various third party apps people use to make live chat work could log in. Some of the regular participants gave it up because Twitter does not lend itself to live chat. In the light of this new announcement, the chat problem probably resulted from changes made to the Twitter api to discourage 3rd party apps.

My personal recommendation is that no step is to small to be the first step into freedom.

If you use Twitter, set up an account on

Setting up on is very much like setting up on Twitter, and you can link Identica to Twitter to stay in contact easily enough. will automatically send your notices and local “@” replies to Twitter, as well as subscribe to your Twitter friends on Identica. [Hint: it is best if you can use the same @name on both services.]

At least for now.

Twitter can pull the plug on that at any time. That is one of the biggest problems with proprietary web platforms… some one else owns it, controlling your access, as well as having access to all of your information. Proprietors like Facebook (or Darth Vader) retain total control, and can alter the rules in a flash. logo logo

Unlike Twitter, Identica is a service that makes up the central part of a growing federated network of microbloggers using the open source Statusnet software. Because the number of individual hostings of StatusNet is growing all the time, Identica far freer than Twitter in much the same way that a federated network of mirrors allowed WikiLeaks to survive the onslaught. You can set up your own, or connect to on their site or download the free version to use on your own. I strongly recommend that anyone concerned with net freedom should set up their microblog home on Identica.

personal security

For some excellent ideas on how to protect yourself, I recommend reading netizen @jimmorgan’s blog about his foray into security: Tor, XMPP, GPG, Internet security


Copyright is another incredibly important issue, particularly as the copyright maximalists are pushing for laws that allow copyright to be used as a tool of censorship. For some insight in why this is a problem in the here and now, I highly recommend watching the important film RiP: A Remix Manifesto I have much more to say about copyright, but the main thing is that it is an issue that we need to rethink. Allowing corporations to impose laws about how we access our own culture is both disturbing and detrimental to the common good.


I have been compiling lists of free culture and Creative Commons options available in the sidebar as I come to them. If you find any such links that you’d like to share, please forward them to me. Allowing corporations to control our freedom may in fact be worse than allowing governments to do so. Big Brother may in fact be wearing mouse ears. We must stand up for our rights, and encourage others to do the same.

We all must do whatever we can to fight for our online rights.

[and now back to editing/proofing my novel]

Placing Good Books at Risk

If you censor books for using words we would rather not hear, we’ll end up with a Pandora’s box of ‘bad’ words holding even greater power.   I believe it is far better to expose ‘bad words” to the light of day, because shining a light on the bad ideas that are invariably behind the bad words diminishes their power.

Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone stamp from the Royal MailOnce upon a time my child’s elementary school wrestled with the issue of whether they ought to ban a book called “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.”     Which is why I went out and bought a copy.   And then the rest of the series.   Movies.   Even going so far as to send away for the UK’s Royal Mail Harry Potter stamps…

Sometimes censorship is the most potent form of advertising.

cover art for Laurie Halse Anderson's book "Speak"

An ongoing Twitter campaign called “Speak Loudly” attempts to raise awareness and prevent Laurie Halse Anderson’s novel “Speak” from being banned by people with good intentions.

If you censor books because of the ideas within, there is no way to challenge the idea.   Instead of taking the opportunity to disprove it, or learn from it, or educate about it, you give the idea additional mystique.

The only way to guarantee free speech is to protect all speech.
Even speech we might not agree with.

The American Library Association lobbies against banning books.

The moment you start to ban bad books,

you place good books at risk.

But for one minute, let’s put all of that aside…. why on earth would any sane rational being even consider allowing any retail business to dictate our morality?

I learned about “Speak Loudly” from @Ren_Thompson and the Amazon Issue from @GeneDoucette

further reading:

Gene Doucette: In defense of Amazon

American Library Association: Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read

Speak Loudly: Fine lines and the futility of drawing them

Stephanie Perkins: Speak Loudly

Speak Loudly