Tehrani, Hamid. "Iran's Revolutionary Guards Take on the Internet." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 8 Jan. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

Tehrani's post addresses an announcement made at the end of 2008 by a branch of the Iranian army that it plans to launch 10,000 blogs for military forces. The ideologically-motivated group sees blogs as a threat to the Islamic Republic and are concerned that it might lead to a non-violent revolution. Tehrani claims that a chief cause of the Revolutionary Guards' action is fears over the state's lack of control over the internet; the Iranian government controls all other media. In 2008, detailed information about corruption was posted and spread on blogs. As Iranian citizens spread the word, public outcry grew, causing many high-ranked officials to resign. Tehrani notes that this government accountability is much more prevalent now that Iranian citizens themselves have the ability to publish information. He remains skeptical about the Revolutionary Guards' efforts, stating that Iranian conservative media has never been able to attract readers--despite the lack of competition from other sources.

Tehrani's post mentions an intriguing policy decision that demonstrates changing attitudes in Iranian government. This "if you can't beat them, join them" belief is a shift from a policy of attempted censorship and filtering that has been largely ineffective. The post is also one of the few sources that mentions the existence of conservative blogs. Interestingly, mullahs and conservative politicians have also been turning to blogs to express their views, and many are well-read. Tehrani's critique of the government policy, however, is that these blogs will essentially be "mass-produced". The government is likely to keep a strict eye on them in order to ensure they reflect official policies. This regulation is counterintuitive to the spontaneous, often-opinionated dialogue that makes blogs so popular in Iran, which is likely to render them ineffective as propaganda tools.

Doostdar, Alireza. "'The Vulgar Spirit of Blogging': On Language, Culture, and Power in Persian Weblogestan." American Anthropologist 106.4 (2004): 651-662. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.doostdar.com/articles/vsob.pdf>.

Doostdar, a blogger himself (writing in both English and Persian), opens his article by providing background on the vulgarity debate (bahs-e ebtzeaal) among Iranian bloggers. The debate concerns whether it is important to observe standard orthography and grammar, and whether the use of colloquial Persian is appropriate. Doostdar argues that the debate sparks mostly from the increasing separation of blogging from "offline" media, as well as a political clash between intellectuals and a larger group of people who use the internet to be free from any kind of authority or "intellectual pretense." He also challenges the naive assumption that the emergence of the internet will necessarily result in social, cultural, or political revolution. Doostdar points to many orthographic traits of blog writing to hint at the oral tradition of blogs. He continues on this idea to explain the "dialogic" nature of blogs; that is, blogs engage other texts (and other blogs and bloggers) in a dialogue about material. Part of this dialogue is an established custom of reciprocity that obliges the host blogger to comment on a visiting blogger's recent entries (the practice is known as did-o baazdid: "seeing and re-seeing"). He then discusses the use of "vulgarity" as a form of resistance.

While Doostdar doesn't address the larger social context of Iranian blogging, choosing instead to focus on the blogging community, many of his arguments can be extended from a linguistic debate to a larger social issue. Most importantly, the questions of linguistic authority and legitimacy reflect the dissidents view that the Islamic Republic and its moral code are illegitimate. While Doostdar speaks of resistance in terms of social practices, that resistance can be extended to a more subversive resistance against political authority as well. It is interesting that Doostdar chooses to connect blogging to oral speech traditions; in many ways, Iranian blogs are the discussions that the Iranian public is unable to engage in. Doostdar also ignores the occasional need to misspell in order to avoid censorship or filtering. Still, by examining this debate among bloggers, Doostdar further examines the diversity of Iranian bloggers and demonstrates how impassioned they are about the issues. He also shows how established they are becoming as a community.