Reporters Without Borders released its annual Press Freedom Index today.

The good news: the United States moved up 12 points from last year. (A higher ranking indicates more press freedom.) The bad news: we're still only #36 out of the 173 countries indexed.

RWB explains in its methodology (found here as a PDF) that press freedom is measured by several factors, including the frequency with which journalists are murdered, imprisoned, or threatened; how often the news media is censored; whether those who infringe press freedoms tend to be punished for their actions; and the degree to which a country's press self-censors.

Here's RWB's explanation of why the U.S. did better this year, but still not well enough to write home about: 

The United States rose twelve places to 36th position. The release of Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami Al-Haj after six years in the Guantanamo Bay military base contributed to this improvement. Although the absence of a federal “shield law” means the confidentiality of sources is still threatened by federal courts, the number of journalists being subpoenaed or forced to reveal their sources has declined in recent months and none has been sent to prison. But the August 2007 murder of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey in Oakland, California, is still unpunished a year later. The way the investigation into his murder has become enmeshed in local conflicts of interest and the lack of federal judicial intervention also help to explain why the United States did not get a higher ranking. Account was also taken of the many arrests of journalists during the Democratic and Republican conventions.

(via ThinkProgress)

If you’re taking “the great schlep” or are just in conversation with friends and family members about the coming election, there’s a very revealing profile of Sen. John McCain in the current Rolling Stone: read it here.

Glen Greenwald has a thoughtful and interesting reaction to the conviction of a man who might generously be called a “smut purveyor.”  After being found guilty of distributing pornography, the defendent, Paul Little, was sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in federal prison.  It probably doesn’t hurt to point out that the line between obscenity and art isn’t always easy to find (paging Robert Mapplethorpe!) but Greenwald takes a very different tact.  Why is it illegal to depict fake torture on film but legal to perpetrate real torture in Abu Ghraib?

So, to recap, in the Land of the Free: if you're an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years. The claim that no real pain was inflicted will be rejected; mere humiliation is enough to make you a criminal. But if government officials actually subject helpless detainees in their custody to extreme mental abuse, degradation, humiliation and even mock executions long considered "torture" in the entire civilized world, the DOJ will argue that they have acted with perfect legality and, just to be sure, Congress will hand them retroactive immunity for their conduct. That's how we prioritize criminality and arrange our value system.

Of course, consistency has never been one of the Bush administration’s strong suits.  And neither has adherence to the Constitution.

In honor of Gov. Sarah Palin and her book-banning bona fides — she reportedly "asked the library how she could go about banning books" while mayor of Wasilla, AK — participate in Banned Book Week this week!

The yearly event — organized by the American Library Association — is a great opportunity to read such salacious titles as: 

• “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
• “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
• "The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
• "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou

(Yes, all four of those titles were seriously among the books most frequently challenged in 2007. For the full list, click here.)

Also, make sure to check out the ALA's tips on what you can do to fight censorship in your hometown library.

More information came out this weekend about Sarah Palin's attempts to ban books while mayor of Wasilla, AK.

From a story in Sunday's New York Times:

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book "Daddy's Roommate" on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

"Sarah said she didn't need to read that stuff," Ms. Chase said. "It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it."

"I'm still proud of Sarah," she added, "but she scares the bejeebers out of me."

As Palin didn't even take the time to read "Daddy's Roommate" — which, as a 32-page children's book, would probably have taken her about five minutes to get through — she didn't know anything about the book beyond its title and cover. So presumably what she found "offensive" was the book's acknowledgement that homosexuality exists.

As for the book's content? Here's a description of "Daddy's Roommate" from Publisher's Weekly:

The story's narrator begins with his parents' divorce, and continues, "Now there's somebody new at Daddy's house."

The new arrival is male; Frank and Daddy are seen pursuing their daily routine (eating, shaving, sleeping — even fighting), and on weekends the three interact easily on their various outings.

"Mommy says Frank and Daddy are gay" — this new concept is explained to the child as "just one more kind of love."

Yeah, it sounds super-offensive to me.

ABC News ran a story last night on Sarah Palin’s attempt to pressure a librarian to censor the town’s collection of books.

It’s stories like this that make me really love librarians.

Luckily, the good folks at the ACLU have your back. They've just posted the concluding installment of "Congress-ese," a series of blog entries aimed at teaching you stuff about Congress you didn't learn in social studies class.

Find the answers to questions like:

The Anchorage Daily News has a nice rundown of Sarah Palin’s troublesome history of censorship.

Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired.