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.

Rahimi, Babak. "Cyberdissent: The Internet in Revolutionary Iran." Middle East Review of International Affairs 7.3 (2003): 101-115. 7
     Apr. 2009

Rahimi's paper argues that, despite the government's efforts to regulate internet use, the rapid expansion of the internet and its uses in Iran has given political dissidents new ways to challenge state authority. The article opens with a historical overview of the development of the internet in Iran and the government's subsequent response. Rahimi notes that the number of Internet users in Iran is growing exponentially (at the time of the article, use was expected to soar from 1.2 million in 2003 to 15 million in 2006). Initially, the Islamic Republic welcomed the internet, hoping that it would boost the country's commercial and educational sectors and alleviate economic troubles caused by the Iran-Iraq War. While the Internet did promote economic competition (particularly for the development of private telecommunications and technology sectors free from state-control), the internet has become an important medium for interactions both within Iran and with the outside world. Internet users, particularly women, are turning to blogs as a medium for the expression that is denied them by strict society. By telling their stories, these women are defying the government's strict moral code.

It was not, however, until 2003 that the Iranian government employed any systematic method to block websites or filter internet content. Access providers were held responsible for preventing access to immoral or dissident content, but this requirement was, at the time Rahimi wrote, rarely enforced. This is largely explained through the government's lack of technological expertise, need for the economic benefits of the internet, and officials' desire to use the new medium to promote government policies and reputation. In the face of censorship and closure of print media organizations, the internet has provided a new arena of confrontation. Starting in 2000, the judiciary began to shut down specific newspapers and websites. In November 2001, the government declared that all ISPs would be required to submit to state control. Most recently, the government has attempted to filter activity, arrest web designers, and enact restrictions in the production and reception of content. Bloggers have increasingly been imprisoned.

Rahimi's article provides interesting background on the history and development of the Internet in Iran. By explaining the diversity of Iranian internet users, the article indirectly explains the wide variety of content found on Iranian servers. Similarly, Rahimi notes that regulation in Iran was the result of specific historical events. He thus demonstrates that in order to fully understand the rise of blogs and the policies used to regulate them, it is important to understand the larger context of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the principles that guide the Islamic Republic.