Reporters Without Borders. Reporters sans frontières - Internet - Iran. 2004. 8 Apr. 2009.

This report by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontieres, or RSF) is part of a series of studies that examines obstacles to the flow of information over the internet. RSF's main concern with blogs is that they provide a more-objective source of news than the traditional Iranian media and that they allow for the organization of anti-government protests and demonstration. The RSF report also details the history of Internet regulation in the country, naming the bureaus responsible for controlling access and content on the internet. RSF reports cases of both reformists and conservative hard-liners using government in order to control the Internet. It then details the stories of three cyber-dissidents who have suffered harrassment at the hands of Iranian government officials.

The RSF report provides great background on internet regulation. While efforts at regulation were intensified after the report was published, RSF's concerns remain valid and many of the government policies remain the same. The report also situates the Iranian case in a larger context of internet censorship, which helps by providing opportunities for comparison and contrast. Furthermore, the report demonstrates that both factions of the Iranian government are taking steps to control the spread of information free from government control, perhaps presenting an argument to the idea that this new technology will inherently lead to democratization.

Van Buren, Chris. "Morozov: The Internet No Democratic Cure." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 3 Apr. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

In a post on The Berkman Center's Internet & Democracy Blog, Van Buren responds to Evgeny Morozov's piece in the Boston Review on cyber-utopianism. He agrees with Morozov's assessment that intellectuals tend to overestimate the Internet's power to democratize, pointing to the fact that access to the Internet has not removed human rights abusers from power. Van Buren is concerned that online dissidence has led to a wave of heavier repression and authoritarianism that opposes the democratization many intellectuals seek to promote. Yet while believing that intellectuals' idea of technological determinism is naive, he also sees a possiblity for the web’s influence on democratic reform to exist, but in a subtle and slow manner. In order to defend this point, Van Buren examines the Iranian case. The sheer number and variety of Iranian blogs mean that total censorship is impossible, and this promotes the free speech necessary for democratic change. By doing so, Van Buren argues, freer speech becomes more of a norm, and this slowly will defeat censorship. Van Buren also notes that the blogosphere gives a voice to moderates who would otherwise be excluded from the traditional media's emphasis on polarized viewpoints.

Van Buren examines the implicit effects of the existence of so many Iranian blogs. While there is a dispute as to whether or not all Iranian bloggers seek to effect political change, the fact remains that the forum to discuss virtually anything remains open and free to access. Van Buren is suggesting that a social norm will be transferred from the Internet to the real world. At the same time, however, Van Buren ignores the recent efforts of the Iranian government to curb blogging through legal consequences such as imprisonment.