Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Or, if you prefer, in video form:

It’s Sunshine Week, a week for dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. It’s a week for action. That part falls to you. Sunshine Week’s backers – most prominently the American Society of News Editors – describes this year’s worthy goals like this:

This Sunshine Week, we urge citizens to press their public officials to do more, seeking not just broad statements of support for greater transparency but specific pledges and plans of action to enhance the public’s right to know.

Sunshine Week 2011 can be a time when you as a citizen or civic organization make a difference by identifying local or state open government shortcomings and then asking your public officials to pledge and initiate specific improvements in local or state law and practice.

To assist your efforts, the Sunshine Week team presents a sample Open Government Proclamation that you, or your group, can take to your public officials to seek a commitment on open government with specific action that will lead to increased sunshine.

So get out there! Call your government to account. As a tribute (and a small push),  I offer some highlights of resources for local newsgatherers.

For Arizona journalists and bloggers alike, the Arizona First Amendment Coalition compiles great online resources. There’s a link to the Arizona Public Records Book, the Open Meetings Law, a journalist’s guide to Family Educational Rights and Policy Act. These are rules Arizona newsgatherers should know. No excuses – you can’t argue for your rights if you don’t know them. The coalition also posts a link to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letter generator to help you get started.

A note on public records requests: Ask for what you want firmly. In general, I am a huge fan of manners, but research shows that with records request, this approach doesn’t work. The University of Arizona’s David Cuillier publishes a study contrasting the approaches in the journal “Communication Law and Policy.” It’s definitely worth a read.

Also, a reminder: The First Amendment doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want. There are restrictions, the most famous of which involves fire and a theater. You can’t publish as fact something you know is false. Well, you can, but the trouble that will follow makes the prospect a dubious exercise in judgement. The First Amendment Center has great resources illuminating this point and others. Among my favorites are the yearly State of the First Amendment reports.

I can’t conclude this post without pointing you toward my very favorite resource for newsgatherers interested in government accountability – Investigative Reporters and Editors. Their site holds a treasure trove of tips on how to get information and how to interpret it. There are links to recent investigations, training opportunities and how-tos of many kinds. I guarantee a perusal of that site will leave you with a long list of story ideas and strategies. We will all be better off for it.

a baby, but not Facebook

Names have long been an irresistible topic for me, and in combination with Facebook and revolution, well, I certainly couldn’t pass that one up.

AllFacebook and TechCrunch, two excellent blogs on social media themes, posted today about a just-born Egyptian baby named Facebook. According to Egyptian state-run newspaper Al-Ahram as translated by TechCrunch, the father said the name was a way to “express his gratitude about the victories the youth of 25th of January have achieved and chose to express it in the form of naming his firstborn girl Facebook.”

The new father, Jamal Ibrahim, said that the girl’s family, friends and neighbors in the Ibrahimya region gathered around the newborn to express their continuing support for the revolution that started on Facebook. “Facebook received many gifts from the youth who were overjoyed by her arrival and the new name,” the newspaper reported (via TechCrunch). “A name [Facebook] that shocked the entire world.”

Allow me to paraphrase. Shock in two phases – the ousting of an autocrat 30 years in power, then the naming of a newborn babe. What a legacy! Facebook is unlikely to forget that piece of Egyptian history.

In the United States, the top baby names in 2009 were Jacob and Isabella, according to the Social Security Administration. I was once asked by an African professor to please name my children something that means something. I’m not yet a mother, but my record so far isn’t so good. My favorite stuffed animal was named Bunny.

What do you think?

Is it an honor to be named for a tool that changed the world? Or will she adopt her middle name as soon as she’s old enough to chose?

The State Department made this video available of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Feb. 15 speech.

Some key excerpts:

There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.

The internet has become the public space of the 21^st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules exist and should not exist and why, what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged and how.

Now, I know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of WikiLeaks, but it’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. Some have suggested that this theft was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. I respectfully disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.

In the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process, including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. This year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. We are taking a venture capital-style approach, supporting a portfolio of technologies, tools, and training, and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. We have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help, and our diversified approach means we’re able to adapt the range of threats that they face. We support multiple tools, so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. And we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them.

What do you think? Are Clinton’s comments on WikiLeaks hypocritical? Will the State Department’s strategy be successful? Is it a good idea? Is it possible for a government to completely back openness? I’d love to hear what you think.

The reasons for bloggers to use social media are many, but here are some key points as I see them.

1. To connect directly with your readers. Most of us write to communicate with other people. Isn’t direct contact with people who have read your writing and want to respond to it a good thing? Perhaps the conversation will push that idea at the root of your blog post further. Perhaps even more ideas will result.

2. To build community. Many bloggers choose a subject because they are passionate about it. (There’s not much money in it, after all.) Passion is often related to a desire for change, and that change is often easier to effect by a group than by an individual. Social media helps put us in touch with like-minded people. Sometimes those people are influential – online and/or off – people you may not have direct access to otherwise.

3. To ensure that potential readers can find your work. Search engine optimization has been the name of the game in getting readers to Web sites, but the algorithm being optimized is in constant flux. Social media are increasingly being factored into the formula for determining search results. Plus, broadcasting on more than one channel is not a bad idea. Why not send party invitations to more than one address?

In the wake of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and social media-aided protests across the Middle East, the State Department has announced a new policy on Internet freedom. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech is set for today. She’s expected to talk about social networks and funding for technologies that would allow people to circumvent policies put in place by repressive governments to curb dissent and organizing on the Internet.

The way the policy could shake out is far from clear. The State Department has in the past been criticized for funding technologies to get around firewalls that resulted in users being more easily tracked by the government. The department has been wary of funding the most popular such technology, which was created by Falun Gong, a group that China characterizes as an evil cult. The group is now getting funding, but the decision took months because of controversy within the State Department about whether it was worth China’s negative reaction.

With this new policy, the State Department is entering new and dangerous territory. The question of whether social media help or harm pushes for democracy is under hot debate. Clay Shirky and Malcolm Gladwell have been trading treatises on the subject for months, and the technology that affect which way the outcome goes change daily. If activists find that social media results in their work being more easily tracked, or worse, detentions or deaths, they presumably will stop using the technologies. But even that is not so clear.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is the resilience and usefulness of the technologies developed. That doesn’t come cheap. So how much is the State Department planning to put on the line?

On a (slightly) related note, the Tucson’s city government is receiving an award today for making good use of the Internet. The Old Pueblo ranked ninth among cities with more than 250,000 residents on the Digital Cities survey.