The following is a transcript of an interview conducted by Joseph Robertson, Cafe Sentido’s editorial director, with Davoud Geramifard, a Persian mixed-media artist and filmmaker living in Toronto, Canada, whose documentary Voices of the Unheard was screened at this year’s Human Rights Watch Film Festival in New York City…

CafeSentido (editor Joseph Robertson): Was it a difficult choice to film undercover in Iran knowing you might not be able to return as a result?

Davoud Geramifard (director): Going back to make this film was a conscious decision. I knew that I might be arrested, or even killed, as it happened before to many Iranians who tried to do the same thing. The saddest case was Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian who was murdured and raped just for taking pictures outside the notorious Evin prison. But how could I live in peace if I had chosen to be indifferent or silent about the brutalities that I felt for many years in Iran. Someone had to do it, and I hope others continue on this path, because unless we expose these critical issues, we would not be able to gain what our people has been fighting for.

CS: How are the people who were filmed? Have any of them expressed concerns about repercussions? Or are they excited to be speaking out?

DG: My participants are OK at the moment. I have constant contact with them, and till now, there has not been any issue for them. However we are still preventing the mass distribution of the film, and our goal is to show the film in festivals across the globe for now. My participants are proud of what they did, otherwise, they would not have been in the film from the beginning. The Iran that they have portrayed has been missing from the the psyche of outside world for such a long time, that they wanted to take the chance and speak out. I think now it is the responsibility of the international community to respect their courage and HEAR their stories, and do not leave them alone.

CS: Did you have a specific structure of three or four key areas you wanted to cover? Or did you break the film into chapters only after shooting?

DG: I had the structure planned carefully prior to the shoot. I did an academic research that took about two years. I identified and categorized various secular communities, and wanted to have the best structure, so that each category could have a member in the film. I knew the style that I wanted to use, and I wanted to add something to the filmmaking language as well as being fare to the topic. Each participant and his/her environment actually dictated and formed the style, and I wanted the film to allow them to be comfortable.

CS: If there’s a corner of life (or multiple) in Iran you’d like to film but weren’t able to, what would it be? And why? Will you try to do that work without a change in administration?

DG: There are many topics that I want to explore and put into film in Iran. Currently I’m working on my next documentary, Cyber Revolution which is about the use of web-based social media in the formation of emancipatory movements in Iran. This is something I can do without returning back to Iran. I dream of doing docs on topics such as the woman’s rights movements, worker’s situation, and the bitter story of the Iranian oil industry which from my perspective is the real problem of Iran and Iranians. I’m also writing a script for my first fiction film, which I hope I can bring in front of the camera it in a neighboring country, before it is too late!

CS: What role do you believe economic trends play in the mindset of the people you spoke to? Does this vary by generation?

DG: Economics trends play a crucial role. Many of my participants see Iran as a rich country that should be strong, regardless of its oil reserves. The new generation needs work, they demand a good lifestyle, at least something similar to their father’s generation, but the Iranian government prefers to spend the Iranian money on expanding their influence in the region, or buying more arms and building a stronger repressive “Revolutionary Guard”. Inflation rate is galloping in Iran, gas is rationed, but they send billions of dollars for Hezbullah. Iranian people are not happy with that. I personally believe that the deterioration of economics combined with free communication with the outside world will be the Achilles heel of the Islamic Republic. The moment they cannot find buyers for their oil, they are on the verges of collapse.

CS: What issues (aside from political change) did you find are central to the reformists’ agenda?

DG: I think that the 30 years-long experience of the Islamic regime has convinced a fraction of the “insiders” (AKA the reformists) that free trade can prevent the total collapse of the regime. These people who are also famous as “technocrats” want people to have jobs and a little bit of freedom, so that they can be able to buy, spend and be “happy” on a consumerist or liberal democratic level. In order to make this minute change take shape, they have to for example give more freedom to the women, or to the students. Real political change, or the change of the constitution or the theocratic system has not been a part of their agenda. This notion has been forced on them just after the election, by the people whose need for change is much more drastic than the change the reformists were seeking.

CS: Were you conscious of crafting an aesthetic or a mood for the film or for any of its chapters?

DG: Absolutely. I wanted the film to have something to say with its form and aesthetics. Documentary filmmaking is an important part of cinema. I have studied it in academia and as a maker I wanted to add to this rich legacy. I studied form in both fiction and documentary extensively and wanted the film to blur the boundary between these two, because that is what satisfy me the most as a maker. In addition to that, I wanted the film to be poetic and non-expository. Poetry is the most important form of art in Iran. Even in our daily conversations we use tropes, so I always and almost unconsciously go back to that legacy and try to use it in a visual way. Finally I should mention that I think the style of this film was partly dictated by the subject. I wanted the viewer to feel as a member of the communities that they are encountering in the film. Thus I went for a verite style to create that comfort.

CS: What role did sound play in how you put the final cut together?

DG: Music and sound are my passion right after cinema. Sometimes I feel if my love affair with cinema was not this much dominant, I would have been a musician. However this secondary love story has crafted a good listener out of me. I think sound and music should add another layer to a film, and they should be able to speak for themselves. In the film, if you compare the use of sound in the opening of the first chapter with the second one, you will get the most important message of the film. In urban Iran, one wakes up with the dominant sound of religion in the morning (call to prayer); that is how ideology tries to penetrate one’s personal space. But in a nomadic regions with the lack of a religious order, one wakes up with the sound of nature, the sound of a rooster.

CS: Are there more unheard voices you feel it would be important to highlight?

DG: There are many. Iran has not passed its civic rights movement yet. Discrimination is vivid in that society. Gender inequality still persists. Gay rights has been ignored in Iran. Women rights are neglected on daily basis. Religious minorities still does not enjoy equality. In fact Iranian constitution only recognizes 5 religions officially, and there is no chance for agnostics or atheists to voice their existence openly. Ethnic minorities are heavily suppressed to a degree that their languages cannot be taught in the schools of their region. Iran has once been the land of diverse groups of people who shared the same motherland, regardless of their differences. It is heartbreaking to me as an Iranian to see what this regime has made out of Iran. But one day we will take it back, we will build it again and once that day comes if I was alive, I’m going to make sure that no human being faces repression and voicelessness in our land.

CS: What advice would you give journalists and filmmakers who want to report on situations like the one in Iran?

DG: Please familiarize yourself deeply with Iran before going there. Please read the contemporary history of Iran, as well as a bit of ancient history. Iranians are still sad about Alexander’s attack, the Arab invasion, and the Ajax operation. We live with our past, so learn it well before going there. Please read from authentic sources, I will recommend Edward G. Browne, and Morgan Shuster to begin with. Please recognize our 150 years fight for democracy. Please go inside the houses, rather than staying outside on the sidewalks. Iranians cannot speak freely with you in the middle of the streets. The Iran you will see in people’s houses is the uncensored Iran. If you want to understand Iran, travel in every region. Iran is not only Tehran.

Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, has reportedly been transported by military helicopter to a secure location, on a military base outside Tehran. Reports emerging from Iran suggest the security forces’ brutal crackdown on unarmed civilians during the festival of Ashura has sparked active resistance. There are now reports of ongoing clashes across the capital.

According to Global Post:

Witnesses described demonstrators constructing street barricades and fighting against security forces for the control of squares. Unverified reports claimed that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had been transported to a military base in a helicopter from his residence in central Tehran.

“There’s fighting going on across the north of the city, and the number of killed is far more than the four whose death has been announced,” said one witness who described the kind of weapons used as “Colts and a larger handgun.”

There were sporadic reports Sunday of calls for a nationwide general strike for today, to protest the violence against civilians and show support for those killed. The Islamic revolution that brought Khamene’i's predecessor, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to power, and established the current constitution of the Islamic Republic, coalesced around students who had staged a nationwide general strike that shut down the nation’s petroleum industry.

Online reports earlier this month cited unnamed opposition sources saying Khamene’i had been temporarily removed to a “secret place” and that there may be a helicopter standing by to remove him to somewhere in Russia, should the anti-government protests turn the tide against his security forces. There is reason to believe such measures are being taken again, as numerous reports suggest violent clashes continue in the north of the capital.

There are also reports that the son of a state television host is among those killed in the Ashura crackdown. Opposition figures reportedly under arrest include the son of Ayatollah Taheri, Alireza Beheshti —aide to Mousavi aid and administrator of kaleme.org—, two managers of former president Mohammad Khatami’s Baran Foundation, and others.

PBS’ FRONTLINE Tehran Bureau is quoting a nurse in Isfahan, saying of the Ashura crackdown:

They brought a few of the injured today to the Al Zahra hospital in Isfahan. One man, in his 30s, was so severely beaten that he was unconscious and immediately taken to the resuscitation room. He had sustained multiple rib fractures causing a condition known as flail chest, head trauma (he had a depressed skull fracture) and a broken arm, the doctors said.

Minutes after his arrival, plainclothes agents turned up and ordered hospital officials to immediately transfer the man to the Sadoughi Hospital, which is run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. At first there were some protests because of his critical condition, but hospital staff eventually relented and the IRGC agents took him with them. This man needed immediate surgery. I can only hope that he has received the care he needed. He was registered as a motor vehicle accident victim at this hospital.

There are now 9 reported deaths associated with the security forces’ assault on demonstrators. Emerging anecdotal reports suggest there may be more deaths as yet unconfirmed or being concealed by elements close to the Khamene’i-Ahmedinejad power bloc. There are reports of Basij militiamen threatening religious leaders considered critical of the regime and openly calling for the death of dissident figures.

FRONTLINE cites Mohammed Sadeghi, a Facebook administrator for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, relaying reports from the holy city of Qom:

Beginning this morning, a group ranging from 50 to 250 people — the number fluctuated throughout the day — surrounded the end of two streets, chanting slogans. The streets were cordoned off because one of them led to the office and home of the late Ayatollah Montazeri, and the other to the office and home of Ayatollah Sanei.

Guests and locals were attending ceremonies at these two homes.

Meanwhile, Basijis surrounded Ayatollah Sanei’s office and started chanting, “Death to Sanei,” “Sanei is an unbeliever,” “Sanei is a source of emulation for the British,” and “BBC, Sanei, congratulations on your union.” One slogan they kept repeating was, “This army that has turned up is for the sake of [out of love for] the Leader,” apparently referring to themselves.

The whereabouts of Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i are reportedly unknown at present, and opposition figures say his “disappearance” is a sign the pro-government clerical establishment is “scared” of the demonstrations and believes there is a real possibility Khamene’i will be toppled. There are no known reports as of this writing suggesting opposition figures have urged the Assembly of Experts to convene to remove Khamene’i on charges of violating his constitutional obligations or abusing power, though previous attempts have been reported.

The UN General Assembly, which brings together every head of government in the world, to offer their country’s position on issues, their country’s demands regarding trade and conflict negotiations, their country’s hopes for a more harmonious world, this year truly grapples with issues of global consensus. Economic recovery, for many parts of the world, will require an unprecedented expansion of women’s rights and sustained attention to responsible environmental stewardship.

Climate change, or global climate destabilization, has come to the fore as the most severe and pervasive security threat of the 21st century. The G20 summit in Pittsburgh later this month will work in part as a prelude to the Copenhagen climate conference to be held in December. The goal is to achieve worldwide consensus on a comprehensive, binding strategy to reduce carbon emissions and to protect against the unwinding of climate patterns that have remained consistent throughout all of recorded human history.

Women’s rights is now being viewed by more nations and by more major international organizations as key to the economic and political stability of fragile nations. The Obama administration, under the leadership of Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, has made women’s rights a priority and has laid out goals for helping to promote women’s rights through economic development, modernization of educational systems, and democratization of the political processes in nations around the world.

A consistent theme of Sec. Clinton’s travels around Africa this summer was the need to end the out of control violence against women that plagues many African nations, and bring women into the fold of the political process and economic structures. She visited the eastern Kivu region of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where one of the world’s most desperate and protracted civil wars continues to put women in jeopardy of random attacks on a daily basis and where mass rape has been used as a weapon of war.

Her message was clear: the United States does not intend to continue directing aid to regimes that do not combat the extreme conditions of violence and repression in which millions of women find themselves, but aid will be directed toward those policies that are designed to empower and protect women. There will be efforts to persuade China, which strongly backs some of the worst offending nations, like Sudan, to demand better treatment for women.

Pres. Obama has called for a global initiative to move toward the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons, which he admits may not occur during his lifetime. He and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev have already begun the process to establish a new comprehensive strategic arms reduction treaty (StART). Iran, under intense pressure from the international community to cease uranium enrichment, has also proposed a framework for eliminating all nuclear weapons worldwide.

The nuclear question looms large, and will consume a lot of words in open and back-room negotiations. The UN Security Council can be expected to receive new pressure from western powers to threaten sanctions against Iran if it does not halt uranium enrichment. And the recent announcement of the Obama administration’s plans to scrap Bush-era plans for stationing missiles in Poland is thought to be in part a call on Russia to support sanctions against Iran.

In a recent CNN interview, with Fareed Zakaria, Pres. Medvedev sounded tougher on the Iran question than at any time previous: he said Russia would only ever provide Iran with “defensive” weapons equipment and would neither help Iran develop long-range ICBM nor come to Iran’s defense if it were attacked. He called on the international community to come together to secure peace and prevent conflict in the middle east.

Medvedev also confirmed that he had met in secret with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. He said the meeting was kept secret at the Israelis request and that he had “honored the wishes of our partners”. He revealed that in that meeting Netanyahu, who has been under intense pressure from the west to tone down bellicose rhetoric, said Israel had no plans to attack Iran or destroy any of its research facilities, adding that he trusted Israel and hoped new partnerships could be created to prevent further conflict in the region.

Pres. Obama has invited PM Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to meet with him to discuss the path to lasting peace, during the UN General Assembly in New York. The two have accepted, setting the stage for what might be breakthrough negotiations on concessions from both sides that could lead to a two-state solution.

As the Wall Street Journal reports:

In a break from the Bush administration, Mr. Obama pressed early in his administration for new, U.S.-brokered talks between the two sides. In another departure, Mr. Obama has ratcheted up pressure on Israel, publicly calling for a total freeze in Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank.

That issue has blocked progress in restarting talks so far. Palestinian negotiators have demanded a total freeze before agreeing to any substantive negotiations. Mr. Netanyahu has refused.

The US and NATO nations may refrain from openly pressing Russia on its interventions in the volatile Caucasus region, but the problem of Georgia and the former Soviet Republics along its borders must be dealt with. Abkhazia has declared independence with Russian diplomatic backing, and Georgia has sought to blockade Abkhazia as a protest against that declaration of independence. There are fears the blockade could lead to another bloody Russian intervention against a state that seeks to join NATO.

There is, however, an opportunity for a new era of cooperation between the Russian Federation and NATO. European leaders have proposed that with the US putting aside missile defense basing plans for Poland, the opportunity may exist to come together and create a unified missile defense system covering all of NATO and the Russian Federation.

But economic empowerment and global financial regulation may turn out to be dominant themes of the General Assembly meetings. The 2008-2009 global economic crisis has shown the vulnerability of poor nations to the unraveling of sometimes delicate international trade pacts and resource flows. The threat from intercontinental climate destabilization could result in the collapse of food supplies to half the world’s population and the migration of hundreds of millions of people, if one year’s monsoon doesn’t materialize.

The empowerment of poorer nations to be capable of competing for internationally trade resources, including food and water, is vital to preventing mass climate migration and the resulting destabilization of nation states in coming years and decades. The beginnings of these negotiations, to prevent protectionist measures and expand the internationally accessible resource base, will be taking place as world leaders meet in New York.

Rights and democracy as such will also be highlighted. The election of 12 June 2009 in Iran has stirred a global firestorm of opinion over what measures might be taken to guarantee transparency and prevent massive fraud engineered by leaders of government. More than 100 nations whose leaders will be in attendance have significant voting rights issues that must be addressed in order to legitimate their electoral processes and improve transparency.

The US will seek to lead on this question, even as dozens of its own states struggle to clarify election process and balloting laws, to ensure manipulation is not possible and guarantee the transparency of upcoming elections. New Jersey might be held up by some foreign states as an example of a state that still won’t guarantee its voters paper proof of their votes, while Venezuela may claim legitimacy on this point, a contrast that is sure to make for contentious negotiations on standards for international voting rights and ballot-counting transparency.

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has thrown off the veil of pretending to honor democratic constitutional process, calling for the prosecution of opposition candidates for their criticism of his policies and the handling of the election. Even as Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, the supreme leader, acknowledged Wednesday that opposition leaders are not in league with any foreign power, Ahmedinejad has said they should be prosecuted for crimes against the state.

Calling on the state to prosecute his political opponents “decisively” and “mercilessly”, Ahmedinejad’s rhetoric radicalizes the clash between the government’s handling of the elections and the pro-democracy position of those who say the process lacked transparency and ignored rampant irregularities. While Ayatollah Khamene’i said he did not believe opposition leaders had conspired with foreign powers to destabilize the country, he maintains that some of the protests were spurred by organizing efforts abroad.

Khamene’i's position would seem to be at odds with Ahmedinejad’s claim that the opposition leaders themselves were co-conspirators in a plot to destabilize the Islamic republic. Khamene’i also seems to be more sensitive to public opinion, which still supports the view that the election was not wholly transparent and the final count possibly flawed. Prosecution of major party leaders would strip away any semblance of democratic legitimacy for the 12 June vote, and Khamene’i seems to understand this better than Ahmedinejad.

According to Ali Akbar Dareini’s reporting for the Huffington Post:

While there were calls for unity in the weeks following the disputed June presidential election, the confrontation between the clerical leadership and the opposition has begun to look increasingly like an all-or-nothing fight.

Hard-liners in the leadership paint the entire reform movement as a tool of foreign enemies bent on overthrowing the cleric-led Islamic Republic. The opposition counters that the ruling system – beyond just Ahmadinejad’s elected government – is losing its religious and political legitimacy because of the harshness of the postelection crackdown.

High profile prosecutions have already put over 100 opposition leaders on trial for conspiring to bring down the conservative government through a “velvet revolution”, which the Ahmedinejad-Khamene’i power bloc says is illegal. In fact, Iran’s constitution guarantees the right to free assembly, except in cases where the aim is to “undermine Islam”.

The opposition leadership has been careful to demand that all protesters remain non-violent and that they rely on the moral integrity demanded by their faith to critique the allegedly corrupt election process. Government critics continue to decry the violent and bloody crackdown that took an unknown number of protesters’ lives as militia and security agents fired into crowds of unarmed civilians, and some say the entire process of prosecutions is nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from those alleged government-backed crimes.

There has been mounting talk of an ideological and tactical split between Pres. Ahmedinejad and Leader Khamene’i, though the veil of legitimacy they both seek to maintain seems inextricably linked to a perception of common cause. While Ahmedinejad wants to see his opponents “decisively” eliminated from Iranian politics by way of prosecution, Khamene’i may be wary of violating the constitution by using state power to jail opposition figures.

The Iranian constitution specifically notes that the supreme leader is, like all other citizens, equal before the law and subject to all of the constraints of the constitution. Should his conduct specifically violate any one constitutional principle, his arch-rival, the Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a leading cleric and former president, might be able to marshal support in the Assembly of Experts of the holy city of Qom to vote for his removal as leader.

The use of the powers of the leadership of the democratic Islamic republic to jail legitimate democratic leadership could be the proverbial last straw, pushing sentiment among skeptical clerics toward Khamene’i's removal as head of state. Ahmedinejad appears to be taking a harder line in order to raise the stakes and put himself at the head of the spear, so to speak, in hard-line conservative circles, daring others to follow him into the breach.

• Iran Opens 4th Mass Trial of Opposition Supporters
• Iran Closes Opposition Newspaper, Bans Protest Over Closure
• Iran Opens ‘Riot’ Trials for Opposition Protesters
• Iran Prisoner Abuse Stokes Outrage Against Government
• Khatami Calls for Referendum to Judge Iran Government’s Legitimacy
• Iran Government Attacks Civilians During Friday Prayers
• Rafsanjani Decries Iran Crackdown, Urges Release of All Political Prisoners (updated)
• Iran Association of Researchers & Teachers of Qom Declares Vote-count Illegitimate
• Iran’s President Ahmedinejad Orders Probe into Shooting Death of Neda Soltan
• Kalemeh, Mousavi’s Web Site, Shut Down by Iranian Authorities
• Detained Reformists Reportedly Tortured to Induce Testimony About ‘Foreign Plot’
• What Happened at Baharestan Square?
• Iran Protesters Reportedly Attacked ‘Like Animals’ by Security Forces
• Iran’s Guardian Council Finds Ballots Cast Exceeded Number of Voters in 50 Cities
• Massive Opposition Rally in Tehran Mourns Slain Demonstrators (video)
• Pro-Mousavi Demonstrations & Iranians’ Constitutional Rights (video)
• Iran Opposition Movement Forces Khamenei to Investigate
• Iran Crackdown: Is it Tacit Admission Vote was Rigged?
• Iran Declares Ahmedinejad Winner, Results Widely Questioned as Fraudulent
• Rivals Ahmedinejad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election

Access to the internet must be a basic human right, across the globe, for a number of reasons. First of all, legitimate, transparent democratic processes of government require in today’s world that information flow freely and that citizens be empowered to share information and to find information, according to their choices and their needs.

Socio-economic barriers to such free flow of information are just another kind of information control that establishes dangerous demographic stratification into privileged and marginalized groups. Governments across the world are using web filtering technologies to censor the information available to their citizens and crack down on dissent.

In China, in Iran, in Cuba, aggressive web filtering measures and electronic spying technology have been used to prevent the spread of information unfavorable to the government leadership, to obscure corruption, and to hunt and persecute members of a would-be democratic opposition. In China, web filtering censorship has perhaps reached its zenith, with major multinationals collaborating in the “Great Firewall of China”.

Web searches routinely rule out links that contain information banned by the government, and the government has explored barring any website not entirely in Mandarin from being viewed inside China. Talk of the parallel Chinese internet has given way to concerns the government has opted for a technologically more realistic total filtering program.

“Cyber dissidents” are now an entirely new area of press targeted by government censors and security forces. In China and Iran, cyber dissidents are jailed simply for linking to materials that the government has sought to keep away from the public eye. Iran’s government has repeatedly shut down opposition websites in order to prevent democratic assembly, to cover up violence against civilians or to obscure challenges to official diktat.

China recently delayed plans to implement a draconian filtering system based on a new “green dam” software platform. The government is believed to have been taken aback by the broad-based and persistent expressions of anger over the plans, as the nation’s population continues to move into contact with the online medium and is demanding more transparency.

But Pres. Hu Jintao came to office promising a “smokeless war” against the press and cyber dissidents, and China has been criticized across the world for efforts to manipulate the information made available to its citizens, including distortions of the unrest a year ago in Tibet and Sichuan and now in Xinjiang, which many say could foment violence against people of Tibetan or Uighur ethnicity, depending on the case.

Efforts to use internet filtering to cover up the massacre of unarmed civilians at Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989 are part of that ongoing war against the free press. The Beijing government fears acknowledging what took place there could delegitimize the current regime and sow political unrest. Pro-democracy advocates say that like any government in a free democracy, China’s government could acknowledge its mistakes, promote electoral reform, and liberalize its political process, without destabilizing the country.

In remote regions like Darfur in western Sudan or North Kivu in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, conditions of extreme danger for aid workers and violence against journalists means information filters very slowly through the population, worsening already catastrophic situations of persistent conflict and human suffering.

Violence against women in Darfur is persistent in part owing to the fact that Darfuri women have virtually no access to information distribution systems. They are almost never able to report crimes against them to any public authority or international group. And medical service workers are often unable to locate people in need of help, as the remote region is plagued by lack of communicative media.

There is also concern about the effects of internet usage on the development of human cognitive abilities. Social cognitive structures are thought to be directly affected by use of communicative media, and the internet as achieved fundamental alterations in the communicative structure of society; facing that reality, it must be a universal right of all people to participate in the direction and development of that medium in reference to their own daily lives.

In May, I reported on this for The Hot Spring Network:

“Cognitive science has revealed a human brain notable for its plasticity. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the Internet not only shapes itself to the mind but shapes the mind to itself”, writes Ana Menéndez in this month’s Poets & Writers magazine.

What can we do to impede the erosion of some of our most prized social-intellectual habits of mind, rooted in organic brain structure and in social networking (from campfire to empire, parliament to newsprint, to Twitter and The Hot Spring Network), while taking advantage of the power of the web?

The internet and attendant communications technologies have a visible decentralizing effect that enhances the democratic influence average people can exert in the public sphere. In the US election of 2008, that was evident in online information sharing and organizing. In the Spanish election of 2004, it was evident in the popular outcry that was so ably communicated by sms, that helped uncover a government disinformation campaign.

Clay Sharky, of the TED initiative, explains in a video address how social networking services and a new generation of web applications and smart phones, are coming together to empower individuals across the world and bring about the end of “top-down” controls in the political sphere. This effect is operating even in authoritarian societies, where in some cases the best information available comes from individuals posting anecdotal reports online.

Perhaps the world’s most developed and advanced campaign for net neutrality, or legal constraints on internet service providers’ (ISP) ability to plan or carry out systematic filtering of content, has taken root in the US. Motivated by a fierce defense of First Amendment rights and an understanding of the democratizing effects of open flows of information, the net neutrality movement has won important victories both in Congress and among federal regulators.

In March 2008, I reported for Cafe Sentido that “We are on the verge of a major communications and global economic revolution, in which major media, technological advances, cloud computing and dispersed optimization, adapt to and take over new models for living and producing in human society.” But that moment is being met with stepped up efforts by governments and businesses to control the freedom of ordinary people to access and control information.

Such efforts are a direct assault on democratic freedoms, and measurably impede the ability of people to gather information related to risks to their health or safety or to orchestrate the dissemination of information that may favor their social, economic or ideological interests. As the US Bill of Rights‘ commitment to a first-order freedom of the press shows, all other democratic rights are built on the foundation of a free and independent media culture. So access to the web must begin to be treated as a basic measure of human rights everywhere.

Follow these links for more information on:

• Press Freedom & Persecution of Journalists
• Net Neutrality & Internet Freedoms
• Human Rights & Democratic Freedoms

12:30 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Today, I want to start by addressing three issues, and then I’ll take your questions.

First, I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in Iran — some in the Iranian government, in particular, are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others in the West of instigating protests over the election. These accusations are patently false. They’re an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States or the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they — and only they — will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That’s precisely what’s happened in the last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests [sic] of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we’ve watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we’ve witnessed. We’ve seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We’ve seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard. Above all, we’ve seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we’ve experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion. That’s what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

[For official Farsi translation of Obama's remarks on Iran]

Now, the second issue I want to address is our ongoing effort to build a clean energy economy.

This week, the House of Representatives is moving ahead on historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America. This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.

This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power. It will also spur new energy savings, like efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.

These incentives will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. And that will lead to the development of new technologies that lead to new industries that could create millions of new jobs in America — jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.

At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe. It also provides assistance to businesses and communities as they make the gradual transition to clean energy technologies.

So I believe that this legislation is extraordinarily important for our country; it’s taken great effort on the part of many over the course of the past several months. And I want to thank the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman; his colleagues on that committee, including Congressmen Dingell, Ed Markey, and Rick Boucher. I also want to thank Charlie Rangel, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Collin Peterson, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, for their many and ongoing contributions to this process. And I want to express my appreciation to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer for their leadership.

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve — it’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation. And that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.

The last issue I’d like to address is health care.

Right now, Congress is debating various health care reform proposals. This is obviously a complicated issue, but I am very optimistic about the progress that they’re making.

Like energy, this is legislation that must and will be paid for. It will not add to our deficits over the next decade. We will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system — some of which we’ve already announced.

We will also ensure that the reform we pass brings down the crushing cost of health care. We simply can’t have a system where we throw good money after bad habits. We need to control the skyrocketing costs that are driving families, businesses, and our government into greater and greater debt.

There’s no doubt that we must preserve what’s best about our health care system, and that means allowing Americans who like their doctors and their health care plans to keep them. But unless we fix what’s broken in our current system, everyone’s health care will be in jeopardy. Unless we act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of the uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans. Unless we act, one out of every five dollars that we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And the amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on everything else today.

When it comes to health care, the status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury, it’s a necessity. And I hope that Congress will continue to make significant progress on this issue in the weeks ahead.

So let me open it up for questions, and I’ll start with you, Jennifer.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran’s leaders remains open. Can you say if that’s still so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won’t cross where that offer will be shut off?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously what’s happened in Iran is profound. And we’re still waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn’t possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.

We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we’ve been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging, in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don’t know how they’re going to respond yet, and that’s what we’re waiting to see.

Q So should there be consequences for what’s happened so far?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what’s taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone not only for Iran’s future but also its relationship to other countries.

Since we’re on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from Huffington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

Q Yes, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, we didn’t have international observers on the ground. We can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It’s not an isolated instance — a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that’s why I’ve been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with peaceful dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we’ve been seeing over the Internet and what we’ve been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

Jeff Mason of Reuters.

Q Right here, sir. Switching gears slightly, in light of the financial regulation and reform that you have made, how do you rate the performance of the Fed in handling the financial crisis? And more specifically, how do you rate the performance of Ben Bernanke, and would you like him to stay on when his term ends in January?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to make news about Ben Bernanke — (laughter) — although I think he has done a fine job under very difficult circumstances.

I would say that all financial regulators didn’t do everything that needed to be done to prevent the crisis from happening. And that’s why we’ve put forward the boldest set of reforms in financial regulation in 75 years, because there were too many gaps where there were laws on the books that would have brought about a prevention of the crisis; the enforcement wasn’t there. In some cases, there just weren’t sufficient laws on the books — for example, with the non-banking sector.

I think that the Fed probably performed better than most other regulators prior to the crisis taking place, but I think they’d be the first to acknowledge that in dealing with systemic risk and anticipating systemic risk, they didn’t do everything that needed to be done.

I think since the crisis has occurred, Ben Bernanke has performed very well. And one of the central concepts behind our financial regulatory reform is that there’s got to be somebody who is responsible not just for monitoring the health of individual institutions, but somebody who’s monitoring the systemic risks of the system as a whole. And we believe that the Fed has the most technical expertise and the best track record in terms of doing that.

But that’s not the only part of financial regulation. One of the things that we’re putting a huge amount of emphasis on is the issue of consumer protection — whether it’s subprime loans that were given out because nobody was paying attention to what was being peddled to consumers, whether it’s how credit cards are handled, how annuities are dealt with, what people can expect in terms of understanding their 401(k)s. There’s a whole bunch of financial transactions out there where consumers are not protected the way they should, and that’s why we said we’re going to put forward a consumer financial protection agency whose only job it is to focus on those issues.

Now, the Fed was one of the regulators that had some of those consumer responsibilities. We actually think that they’re better off focusing on issues of broad systemic risk, and we have just one agency that’s focused on the consumer protection side.

Q But is the Fed getting too powerful?

THE PRESIDENT: If you look at what we’ve proposed, we are not so much expanding the Fed’s power as we are focusing what the Fed needs to do to prevent the kinds of crises that are happening again. Another good example is the issue of resolution authority. I think it wasn’t that long ago where everybody was properly outraged about AIG, and the enormous amounts of money the taxpayers had to put into AIG in order to prevent it from dragging the entire financial system down with it.

Had we had the kinds of resolution authority, the kinds of laws that were in place that would allow a orderly winding down of AIG, then potentially taxpayers could have saved a huge amount of money. We want that power to be available so that taxpayers aren’t on the hook.

All right? Major Garrett. Where’s Major?

Q Right here, sir. In your opening remarks, sir, you were — you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long to say those words?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think that’s accurate. Track what I’ve been saying. Right after the election, I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was. As soon as violence broke out — in fact, in anticipation of potential violence — we were very clear in saying that violence was unacceptable, that that was not how governments operate with respect to their people.

So we’ve been entirely consistent, Major, in terms of how we’ve approached this. My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what’s happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House; that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people. And so we’ve been very consistent the first day, and we’re going to continue to be consistent in saying this is not an issue about the United States; this is about an issue of the Iranian people.

What we’ve also been consistent about is saying that there are some universal principles, including freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, making sure that governments are not using coercion and violence and repression in terms of how they interact with peaceful demonstrators. And we have been speaking out very clearly about that fact.

Q Are Iranian diplomats still welcome at the embassy on the Fourth of July, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think as you’re aware, Major, we don’t have formal diplomatic relations with — we don’t have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years, in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations. But that is a choice that the Iranians are going to have to make.

Q But the offer still stands?

THE PRESIDENT: That’s a choice the Iranians are going to have to make.

David Jackson.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two of the key players in the insurance industry, America’s Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, sent a letter to the Senate this morning saying that a government health insurance plan would “dismantle” private insurers. Why are they wrong? And secondly, this public plan, is this non-negotiable? Would you sign a health care bill without it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let’s talk first of all about health care reform more broadly.

I think in this debate there’s been some notion that if we just stand pat we’re okay. And that’s just not true. You know, there are polls out that show that 70 or 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have. The only problem is that premiums have been doubling every nine years, going up three times faster than wages. The U.S. government is not going to be able to afford Medicare and Medicaid on its current trajectory. Businesses are having to make very tough decisions about whether we drop coverage or we further restrict coverage.

So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we’re doing and that’s okay, that’s just not true. We have a longstanding critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy, it’s burdening families, it’s burdening businesses, and it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?

So if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we’re going to have to bring about some serious changes. What I’ve said is, our top priority has to be to control costs. And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn’t mean just lopping off reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we’re trying to fix our budget. It means that we look at the kinds of incentives that exist, what our delivery system is like, why it is that some communities are spending 30 percent less than other communities but getting better health care outcomes, and figuring out how can we make sure that everybody is benefiting from lower costs and better quality by improving practices. It means health IT. It means prevention.

So all these things are the starting point, I think, for reform. And I’ve said very clearly: If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that’s not a bill I can support. It’s going to have to control costs. It’s going to have to be paid for. So there’s been a lot of talk about, well, a trillion-dollar price tag. What I’ve said is, if we’re going to spend that much money, then it’s going to be largely funded through reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system but aren’t being spent well. If we’re spending $177 billion over 10 years to subsidize insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, when there’s no showing that people are healthier using that program than the regular Medicare program, well, that’s not a good deal for taxpayers. And we’re going to take that money and we’re going to use it to provide better care at a cheaper cost to the American people. So that’s point number one.

Number two, while we are in the process of dealing with the cost issue, I think it’s also wise policy and the right thing to do to start providing coverage for people who don’t have health insurance or are underinsured, are paying a lot of money for high deductibles. I get letters — two, three letters a day — that I read of families who don’t have health insurance, are going bankrupt, are on the brink of losing their insurance; have deductibles that are so high that even with insurance they end up with $50,000, $100,000 worth of debt; are at risk of losing their homes.

And that has to be part of reform, making sure that even if you’ve got health insurance now, you are not worried that when you lose your job or your employer decides to change policies that somehow you’re going to be out of luck. I think about the woman who was in Wisconsin that I was with, who introduced me up in Green Bay — 36 years old, double mastectomy; breast cancer has now moved to her bones and she’s got two little kids, a husband with a job. They had health insurance, but they’re still $50,000 in debt, and she’s thinking, my main legacy, if I don’t survive this thing, is going to be leaving $100,000 worth of debt. So those are the things that I’m prioritizing.

Now, the public plan I think is a important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we’ve said is, under our proposal, let’s have a system the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where — we call it an “exchange,” or you can call it a “marketplace” — where essentially you’ve got a whole bunch of different plans. If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor. If your employer is providing you good health insurance, terrific, we’re not going to mess with it.

But if you’re a small business person, if the insurance that’s being offered is something you can’t afford, if you want to shop for a better price, then you can go to this exchange, this marketplace, and you can look: Okay, this is how much this plan costs, this is how much that plan costs, this is what the coverage is like, this is what fits for my family. As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here’s a public option that’s not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price — as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

Q Won’t that drive private insurers out of business?

THE PRESIDENT: Why would it drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

Now, I think that there’s going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly, that over time they can’t compete with the government just printing money.

So there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape. But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they’re giving consumers the best possible deal, that they can’t compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what’s the best deal. That defies logic, which is why I think you’ve seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan. All right?

Q Is that non-negotiable?

THE PRESIDENT: Chip.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Following up on Major’s question, some republicans on Capitol Hill — John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for example — have said that up to this point, your response on Iran has been timid and weak. Today, it sounded a lot stronger. It sounded like the kind of speech John McCain has been urging you to give, saying that those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history, referring to an iron fist in Iran — “deplore,” “appalled,” “outraged.” Were you influenced at all by John McCain and Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid and weak?

THE PRESIDENT: What do you think? (Laughter.) Look, the — I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues, and I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail. But only I’m the President of the United States, and I’ve got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries.

I mean, you guys must have seen the reports. They’ve got some of the comments that I’ve made being mistranslated in Iran, suggesting that I’m telling rioters to go out and riot some more. There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this — all of which are patently false. But it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into. So the — members of Congress, they’ve got their constitutional duties, and I’m sure they will carry them out in the way that they think is appropriate. I’m President of the United States, and I’ll carry out my duties as I think are appropriate. All right?

Q By speaking so strongly today, aren’t you giving the leadership in Iran the fodder to make those arguments that it is about the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I mean, I think that — we can parse this as much as we want. I think if you look at the statements that I’ve made, they’ve been very consistent. I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplore the violence. And so I think that in the hothouse of Washington, there may be all kinds of stuff going back and forth in terms of Republican critics versus the administration. That’s not what is relevant to the Iranian people. What’s relevant to them right now is, are they going to have their voices heard?

And, frankly, a lot of them aren’t paying a lot of attention to what’s being said on Capitol Hill, and probably aren’t spending a lot of time thinking about what’s being said here. They’re trying to figure out how can they make sure justice is served in Iran.

Q So there’s no news in your statement today?

THE PRESIDENT: Chuck Todd.

Q Mr. President, I want to follow up on Iran. You have avoided twice spelling out consequences. You’ve hinted that there would be, from the international community, if they continue to violate — you said violate these norms. You seem to hint that there are human rights violations taking place./

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not hinting. I think that when a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car, that’s a problem.

Q Then why won’t you spell out the consequences that the Iranian –

THE PRESIDENT: Because I think, Chuck, that we don’t know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I’m not.

Q But shouldn’t — I mean, shouldn’t the world and Iran –

THE PRESIDENT: Chuck, I answered –

Q — but shouldn’t the Iranian regime know that there are consequences?

THE PRESIDENT: I answered the question, Chuck, which is that we don’t yet know how this is going to play out.

Jake Tapper.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Before I ask my question, I’m wondering if you could actually answer David’s. Is the public plan non-negotiable?

THE PRESIDENT: That’s your question. (Laughter.)

Q Well, you didn’t answer –

THE PRESIDENT: You think you’re going to — are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps? (Laughter.) What’s your — is that your question? (Laughter.)

Q Then I have a two-part question. (Laughter.) Is the public plan non-negotiable? And while I appreciate your Spock-like language about the logic of the health care plan, the public plan, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for profit, unlike private plans, and may possibly benefit from some government subsidies, who knows. And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you’re promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have.

THE PRESIDENT: I got you. You’re pitching, I’m catching. I got the question. First of all, was the reference to Spock — is that a crack on my ears? (Laughter.) All right, I just want to make sure. No?

Q I would never make fun of your ears, sir. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: In answer to David’s question, which you co-opted, we are still early in this process, so we have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are underinsured. Those are the broad parameters that we’ve discussed.

There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It’s too early to say that. Right now I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense.

Now, let me go to the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to complete. If, on the other hand, the public plan is structured in such a way where they’ve got to collect premiums and they’ve got to provide good services, then if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they’re doing their best to serve their customers, that they’re in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what? I’d like insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can’t we? And that’s good for everybody in the system. And I don’t think there should be any objection to that.

Now, by the way, I should point out that part of the reform that we’ve suggested is that if you want to be a private insurer as part of the exchange, as part of this marketplace, this menu of options that people can choose from, we’re going to have some different rules for all insurance companies — one of them being that you can’t preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, you can’t cherry pick and just take the healthiest people.

So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies, because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there, health care is there when families need it.

But I’m confident that if — I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on their ability to deliver good care to families. And if that’s the case then this just becomes one more option. If it’s not the case then I think that that’s something that the American people should know.

Q I’m sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won’t have to change plans even if employers –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, no, I mean — when I say if you have your plan and you like it and your doctor has a plan, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.

Now, are there going to be employers right now — assuming we don’t do anything — let’s say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, oh, this is not the time to do health care, we can’t afford it, it’s too complicated, let’s take our time, et cetera. So let’s assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there’s a possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they’re not going to end up having the same health care they have, because what’s going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions: We’ve got to raise premiums on our employees; in some cases, we can’t provide health insurance at all.

And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That’s exactly why health reform is so important.

Margaret, from McClatchy. Where’s Margaret? There you are.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting. But with the new law that you signed yesterday regulating the tobacco industry, I’d like to ask you a few questions. How many cigarettes a day –

THE PRESIDENT: A few questions? (Laughter.)

Q How many cigarettes a day do you now smoke? Do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people? And do you believe the new law would help you to quit? If so, why?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, the new law that was put in place is not about me, it’s about the next generation of kids coming up. So I think it’s fair, Margaret, to just say that you just think it’s neat to ask me about my smoking, as opposed to it being relevant to my new law. (Laughter.) But that’s fine, I understand. It’s an interesting human — it’s an interesting human interest story.

But I’ve said before that, as a former smoker, I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don’t do it in front of my kids, I don’t do it in front of my family, and I would say that I am 95 percent cured, but there are times where — (laughter) — there are times where I mess up. And, I mean, I’ve said this before. I get this question about once every month or so, and I don’t know what to tell you, other than the fact that, like folks who go to AA, once you’ve gone down this path, then it’s something you continually struggle with, which is precisely why the legislation we signed was so important, because what we don’t want is kids going down that path in the first place. Okay?

Macarena Vidal?

Q Mr. President, you’re meeting today with Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. You’re meeting next week with Alvaro Uribe from Colombia. Two months ago in Trinidad at the Summit of the Americas, you said that — you called on Latin American countries to help you with deeds, not words, particularly towards less democratic countries. Have you noticed any particular progress in these two months, and can you give us examples?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I’m very much looking forward to seeing President Bachelet. I think she’s one of the finest leaders in Latin America, a very capable person. If you look at how Chile has handled the recession, they’ve handled it very well in part because the surpluses that they got when copper prices were high they set aside. And so they had the resources to deal with the downturn. It’s a good lesson for the United States. When we had surpluses, they got dissipated.

We think that there’s enormous possibilities of making progress in Latin America generally. One of the things that I’ll be talking about with President Bachelet is the coordination and cooperation between the United State and Chile on clean energy. We’ll have an announcement when we do our press conference after my bilateral meeting on some important clean energy partnerships. We’re making important progress when it comes to exchanges on cancer research. We continue to have a robust trade regime with Chile. And, by the way, Chile has actually entered into some very interesting partnerships not just with the federal government, but also with state governments like California.

So I think the relationship that we have with Chile — which, by the way, does not fall in line with U.S. foreign policy on every single issue — but it’s a respectful policy. Chile is an important partner. I think that’s the model that we want: partnership. The United States doesn’t dictate how Chile should view its own interests, but in fact we’ve achieved great cooperation. And I will be looking at President Bachelet giving us further advice in terms of how we can take the kind of relationship we have with Chile and expand that to our relationships throughout Latin America.

Q But my question is not only about that — Chile, but about Latin American countries giving you a hand on — against less democratic countries.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the point is, is that I think Chile is leading by example. So I’m using Chile as an example. But the same is true in Brazil, for example. I mean, President Lula came in, and he’s got a very different political orientation than most Americans do. He came up through the trade union movement. He was perceived as a strong leftist. It turns out that he was a very practical person, who although maintains relationships across the political spectrum in Latin America, has instituted all sorts of smart market reforms that have made Brazil prosper.

And so if you take a Bachelet or a Lula, and the United States has a good working relationship with them, then I think that points the way for other countries that may be where the democratic tradition is not as deeply embedded as we’d like it to be. And we can make common cause in showing those countries that, in fact, democracy, respect for property rights, respects for market-based economies, rule of law — that all those things can in fact lead to greater prosperity, that that’s not just a U.S. agenda, but that’s a smart way to increase the prosperity of your own people.

Okay, Hans Nichols. Hans.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. If I can just return to the economy more generally. When you were selling the economic stimulus package, you talked and your advisors and economists talked about keeping unemployment below 8 percent. Last week you acknowledged that unemployment is likely to reach double digits, being 10 percent. Do you think you need a second stimulus package?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, not yet, because I think it’s important to see how the economy evolves and how effective the first stimulus is. I think it’s fair to say that — keep in mind the stimulus package was the first thing we did, and we did it a couple of weeks after inauguration. At that point nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like. If you recall, it was only significantly later that we suddenly get a report that the economy had tanked.

And so it’s not surprising then that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go. I think it’s pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. And we’re still not at actual recovery yet.

So I anticipate that this is going to be a difficult — difficult year, a difficult period.

Q What’s the high water mark, then, for unemployment? Eleven percent?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not suggesting that I have a crystal ball. Since you just threw back at us our last prognosis, let’s not — let’s not engage in another one.

Q Does that mean you won’t be making predictions ever? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: But what I am saying is that — here are some things I know for certain. In the absence of the stimulus, I think our recession would be much worse. It would have declined — without the Recovery Act — we know for a fact that states, for example, would have laid off a lot more teachers, a lot more police officers, a lot more firefighters, every single one of those individuals whose jobs were saved. As a consequence, they are still making their mortgage payments, they are still shopping. So we know that the Recovery Act has had an impact.

Now, what we also know is this was the worst recession since the Great Depression, and people are going through a very tough time right now. And I don’t expect them to be satisfied. I mean, one thing that — as I sometimes glance at the various news outlets represented here, I know that they’re sometimes reporting of, oh, the administration is worried about this, or their poll numbers are going down there — look, the American people have a right to feel like this is a tough time right now. What’s incredible to me is how resilient the American people have been and how they are still more optimistic than the facts alone would justify, because this is a tough, tough period.

And I don’t feel satisfied with the progress that we’ve made. We’ve got to get our Recovery Act money out faster. We’ve got to make sure that the programs that we’ve put in place are working the way they’re supposed to. I think, for example, our mortgage program has actually helped to modify mortgages for a lot of people, but it hasn’t been keeping pace with all the foreclosures that are taking place. I get letters every day from people who say, you know, I appreciate that you put out this mortgage program, but the bank is still not letting me modify my mortgage and I’m about to lose my home. And then I’ve got to call my staff and team and find out why isn’t it working for these folks, and can we adjust it, can we tweak it, can we make it more aggressive?

This is a very, very difficult process. And what I’ve got to do is to make sure that we’re focused both on the short term, how can we provide families immediate relief and jumpstart the economy as quickly as possible; and I’ve got to keep my eye on the long term, and the long term is making sure that by reforming our health care system, by passing serious energy legislation that makes us a clean energy economy, by revamping our education system, by finally getting the financial regulatory reforms in place that are necessary for the 21st century — by doing all those things, we’ve got a foundation for long-term economic growth, and we don’t end up having to juice up the economy artificially through the kinds of bubble strategies that helped to get us in the situation that we’re in today.

Okay. I’ve got time for two more questions. April. Where’s April?

Q Right here. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: There you are. How are you?

Q I’m fine. Back on the economy, Mr. President, people are criticizing this road to recovery plan. Specifically, there are reports in The Washington Post that say that the African America unemployment rate will go to 20 percent by the end of this year. And then you had your Chairman of Economic Advisers say the target intervention may come next year if nothing changes. Why not target intervention now to stop the bloodletting in the black unemployment rate?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, first of all, we know that the African American unemployment rate, the Latino unemployment rate, are consistently higher than the national average. And so, if the economy as a whole is doing poorly, then you know that the African American community is going to be doing poorly, and they’re going to be hit even harder. And the best thing that I can do for the African American community or the Latino community or the Asian community, whatever community, is to get the economy as a whole moving. If I don’t — hold on one second, let me answer the question — if I don’t do that, then I’m not going to be able to help anybody. So that’s priority number one.

It is true that in certain inner-city communities, the unemployment rate is — was already sky high even before this recession. The ladders available for people to enter into the job market are even worse. And so we are interested in looking at proven programs that help people on a pathway to jobs.

There was a reason why right before Father’s Day I went to a program here locally in Washington called Year Up, which has a proven track record of taking young, mostly minority people, some of whom have graduated from high school, some maybe who’ve just gotten their GED, and trained them on computers and provide them other technical skills, but also train them on how to carry themselves in an office, how to write an e-mail — some of the social skills that will allow them to be more employable. They’ve got a terrific placement rate after this one-year program. If there are ways that we can potentially duplicate some of those programs, then we’re going to do so.

So part of what we want to do is to find tools that will give people more opportunity, but the most important thing I can do is to lift the economy overall. And that’s what my strategy is focused on.

All right. Last question. Suzanne.

Q Thank you. Back to Iran, putting a human face on this. Over the weekend, we saw a shocking video of this woman, Neda, who had been shot in the chest and bled to death. Have you seen this video?

THE PRESIDENT: I have.

Q What’s your reaction?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking. And I think that anybody who sees it knows that there’s something fundamentally unjust about that.

Q We also have people on the ground who have been saying that the streets are quieter now and that is because they feel that they’re paralyzed by fear — fear of people gone missing, fear of violence, that perhaps this is a movement that’s gone underground or perhaps is dying. Do you have any concern over that?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I have concern about how peaceful demonstrators and people who want their votes counted may be stifled from expressing those concerns. I think, as I said before, there are certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression –

Q Then why won’t you allow the photos –

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That’s a different question. (Laughter.) And I think it’s important for us to make sure that we let the Iranian people know that we are watching what’s happening, that they are not alone in this process. Ultimately, though, what’s going to be most important is what happens in Iran. And we’ve all been struck by the courage of people. And I mentioned this I think in a statement that I made a couple of days ago. Some of you who had been covering my campaigns know this is one of my favorite expressions, was Dr. King’s expression that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” We have to believe that ultimately justice will prevail.

All right. Thank you, guys.

END
1:25 P.M. EDT

As Iran’s presidential election has morphed into a massive international spectacle, with opposition protesters demanding justice and a full accounting of how votes were tallied, the regime has used every technological advantage at its disposal to obstruct online communications and mobile phone traffic. The government now has a wealth of powerful technologies, from western firms, it can use to spy, block communications, and even alter messages before they are delivered.

Attempts to ban the use of sms and online messaging sites like Twitter have been circumvented, incrementally, and by fits and starts, by an increasingly tech-savvy youthful electorate. And the use of proxy servers has allowed an evolving system of cat-and-mouse blocking and re-opening of channels to global web portals like Twitter and YouTube. This has allowed opposition supporters and ordinary Iranians to ‘broadcast’ anecdotal reporting to the world, ramping up pressure on the government to levels not seen since 1979.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that:

… in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts.

The monitoring capability was provided, at least in part, by a joint venture of Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, and Nokia Corp., the Finnish cellphone company, in the second half of 2008, Ben Roome, a spokesman for the joint venture, confirmed.

Ben Roome, a spokesman for the Siemens-Nokia joint venture (Nokia Siemens Networks), reportedly said “If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them”. But Roome also said the Nokia Siemens project does not provide internet intercept capability that would aid the Iranian government in censoring or propagandizing their population.

The WSJ report suggested that Iran’s leadership may only have begun to fully apply the technology’s monitoring and control capabilities in efforts to obstruct opposition activities leading up to or following the election. It is unclear whether or not the NSN technology is being used to intercept and examine specific online messages or whether it might be used, as the venture’s spokesman suggested, to intercept or listen in on local telephone communications.

• Iran’s Guardian Council Finds Ballots Cast Exceeded Number of Voters in 50 Cities
• Pres. Obama’s Statement on Iran (transcript)
• Larijani Says Majority Suspect Election Fraud; Rafsanjani Relative Detained
• Iran Says ‘Terrorists’ Caused Saturday Clashes; New Evidence of State Violence (UPDATED)
• Update on State Violence Against Demonstrators in Iran (video)
• Reports of Shots Fired at Iranian Demonstrators (video, links & updates)
• Khamene’i Demands End to Protests, Says Disputed Results Will Stand
• Open Letter from Iranian Academics to UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon
• UN Rights Chief Warns Iran not to Use Violence
• Iranian Dissident Leader Detained in Hospital ICU, Jailed without Charge
• Massive Opposition Rally in Tehran Mourns Slain Demonstrators (video)
• Iran Government Targets Press as More Demonstrations Planned (video)
• Rafsanjani Calls for Emergency Meeting of Assembly of Experts
• Pro-Mousavi Demonstrations & Iranians’ Constitutional Rights (video)
• Iran Opposition Movement Forces Khamenei to Investigate
• Iran Crackdown: Is it Tacit Admission Vote was Rigged?
• Iran Declares Ahmedinejad Winner, Results Widely Questioned as Fraudulent
• Rivals Ahmedinejad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election
• Iranian Polls Kept Open Several Hours Longer than Planned
• Iran Votes, with Popular Reformist Challenging Hardline Ahmedinejad

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

• Larijani Says Majority Suspect Election Fraud; Rafsanjani Relative Detained
• Iran Says ‘Terrorists’ Caused Saturday Clashes; New Evidence of State Violence (UPDATED)
• Update on State Violence Against Demonstrators in Iran (video)
• Reports of Shots Fired at Iranian Demonstrators (video, links & updates)
• Khamene’i Demands End to Protests, Says Disputed Results Will Stand
• Open Letter from Iranian Academics to UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon
• UN Rights Chief Warns Iran not to Use Violence
• Iranian Dissident Leader Detained in Hospital ICU, Jailed without Charge
• Massive Opposition Rally in Tehran Mourns Slain Demonstrators (video)
• Iran Government Targets Press as More Demonstrations Planned (video)
• Rafsanjani Calls for Emergency Meeting of Assembly of Experts
• Pro-Mousavi Demonstrations & Iranians’ Constitutional Rights (video)
• Iran Opposition Movement Forces Khamenei to Investigate
• Iran Crackdown: Is it Tacit Admission Vote was Rigged?
• Iran Declares Ahmedinejad Winner, Results Widely Questioned as Fraudulent
• Rivals Ahmedinejad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election
• Iranian Polls Kept Open Several Hours Longer than Planned
• Iran Votes, with Popular Reformist Challenging Hardline Ahmedinejad