Organization Detail | Investigative News Network | INN Membership in the Investigative News Network is open to nonprofit or fiscally sponsored news projects that comply with INN membership guidelines. Membership connects you with a growing community of news organizations working at the cutting edge of investigative journalism practice and sustainability. Members enjoy free and discounted services and programs, and become an integral part of a local, regional, national and international network of professional news organizations. Here are some of the many reasons to join INN: Technology INN offers free website hosting and development for members through Project Largo, our open-source WordPress platform. Revenue Generation and Cost-Savings Opportunities INN members can participate in potential revenue and cost-saving opportunities negotiated by INN, including grant offerings, partnerships and selling articles to third-party news publishers. Editorial Collaboration Fiscal Sponsorship Third-Party Resources: Software, Insurance, Legal Advice
Banned Books Week The Banned Books Week coalition presents a Google+ Hangout on Air (www.youtube.com/bannedbooksweek) featuring +Cory Doctorow author of the novel Little Brother, to discuss the importance of fighting censorship and the value of Banned Books Week. In addition to discussing the current controversy surrounding Doctorow's novel, the sponsors of Banned Books Week will offer tips on how you can celebrate this year's theme, which focuses on graphic novels. The live hangout will be moderated by +Charles Brownstein Executive Director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and Nanette Perez, Program Officer of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. Also present will be Dave Gladney, Director of Communications Technology from the Association of American Publishers and Michael O'Neill from the National Coalition Against Censorship, to provide an overview of additional ways in which publishers and literacy non-profits fight book banning.
Censure A censure /ˈsɛnʃər/ is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.[1] Among the forms that it can take are a stern rebuke by a legislature, a spiritual penalty imposed by a church, or a negative judgment pronounced on a theological proposition. Politics[edit] In politics, a censure is an alternative to more serious measures against misconduct or dereliction of duty.[2][3] Canada[edit] Censure is an action by the House of Commons or the Senate rebuking the actions or conduct of an individual. Louis Riel faced Parliamentary censure for his role in the Red River Rebellion, and was expelled from Parliament April 16, 1874.[4] Japan[edit] On August 28, 2012 a censure motion was passed by the LDP and the New Komeito Party against Prime Minister Noda himself. United States[edit] Censure is the public reprimanding of a public official for inappropriate conduct or voting behavior. Explanation and use[edit] More serious disciplinary procedures may involve fine, suspension, or expulsion.
Delete Censorship.org Resources resources... Archive of Censorship Cases "Was there a time or place in history in which censorship did not exist? Was there ever a group of human beings that was able to survive without censure? ... Despite the impossible nature of attempting to define censorship, The File Room is a project that proposes to address it, providing a tool for discussing and coming to terms with cultural censorship." Case of Hustler Magazine v. Censorship IQ quiz from KidSPEAK! Flag-Burning Page Author and editor Warren S. First Amendment First Aid Kit from Random House Publishers America's booksellers, librarians, and teachers have long been on the front lines of the battle against censorship. Free Expression Clearing House "The Free Expression Network (FEN) is an alliance of organizations dedicated to protecting the First Amendment right of free expression and the values it represents, and to opposing governmental efforts to suppress constitutionally protected speech. ...
XS4ALL maakt met Ziggo vuist tegen Brein Nieuws - Provider XS4ALL mengt zich in een juridisch geschil dat Ziggo heeft met piraterijbestrijder Brein. Brein eist dat Ziggo torrentsite The Pirate Bay blokkeert. Eerder liet XS4ALL al weten Ziggo te steunen in de zaak tegen Brein. Nu laat de provider weten zich ook juridisch in de strijd te willen mengen. Daarom voegt XS4ALL zich in het kort geding dat maandag 28 juni dient bij de rechtbank in Den Haag. Brein eist dat Ziggo de Pirate Bay blokkeert voor zijn gebruikers, nadat de Nederlandse rechter de torrentsite al verboden had links naar illegale bestanden te plaatsen. Via het opleggen van dwangsommen lukte het tot nog toe niet de site offline te krijgen. Principekwestie "XS4ALL voegt zich in de zaak omdat zij principieel tegen censuur is en precedentwerking wil voorkomen", zo laat de provider weten. De providers zijn bang dat een blokkade van The Pirate Bay ook de deur op een kier zet om de toegang tot andere sites via de rechter te verbieden. Entertainmentindustie
Censorship Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, place, and content.
Troll (Internet) This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[7][8] Usage The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls." Application of the term troll is subjective. As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (January 25, 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. The "trollface" is an image occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture.[15][16][17] Origin and etymology
How to tell if you're a comments troll Etiquette in today's digital world can be tricky. Andrea Bartz, left, and Brenna Ehrlich are here to help. Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich are CNN.com's "netiquette" columnists Take their quiz to find out if you're an internet troll Are contributing to the online dialogue or just grunting unintelligibly? Editor's note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and soon-to-be-book Stuff Hipsters Hate. (CNN) -- So you're surfing along on your favorite website when you see something that gets your plasma boiling -- so much so that that pulsating vein above your eye is about to burst. The cause of this Web-induced stress could be an opinion that just doesn't jibe with yours. But be careful, impassioned Interneteur -- at this very moment you have the potential to transform from a perfectly pleasant person into that most loathed and feared Web dweller: the troll. Ask yourself: Are you contributing to the online dialogue or just grunting unintelligibly? a). b).
Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster - The Boston Glob On Monday, May 17, at 2 p.m., a breaking news article headlined “Obama’s aunt given OK to stay in United States” hits the home page of Boston.com. In a matter of seconds, the first anonymous online comment appears. A reader with the handle of Peregrinite writes, “of course she can . . . can someone appeal.” Certain topics never fail to generate a flood of impassioned reactions online: immigration, President Obama, federal taxes, “birthers,” and race. This story about Obama’s Kenyan aunt, who had been exposed as an illegal immigrant living in public housing in Boston and who was now seeking asylum, manages to pull strands from all five of those contentious subjects. In the next few minutes, several equally innocuous posts follow, including a rare comment in favor of the judge’s decision. News websites from across the country struggle to maintain civility in their online comments forums. Newspapers find themselves in a strange position. Clearly, anonymity is under attack.
Are You a Comm.Troll? For the most part, Mashable's commenters are tech-savvy and full of wit, but we're well aware of the lure some Internet lurkers feel when to comes to entering the realm of trolldom. When a story's subject/author/factual errors/typeface sends one into a fit of rage, it can be hard to hold back one's ire. Last week, The Boston Globe's Neil Swidey wrote a rather intriguing story on the subject, even tracking down and profiling a few real-life trolls (it's lengthy, but worth a read). And, inspired in part by said story — as well as the comments sections of many a favorite website — my Stuff Hipsters Hate co-writer Andrea Bartz and I chose to delve into this subject in our most recent Netiquette column for CNN. Check out the top of the piece here, and then head over to CNN to see the rest! image courtesy of iStockphoto, morozena
Godfrey v Demon Internet Service Godfrey v Demon Internet Service [2001] QB 201 was a landmark court case in the United Kingdom concerning online defamation and the liability of internet service providers. Facts[edit] Judgment[edit] Ruling on a pre-trial motion, the court found that an Internet service provider can be sued for libel, and that any transmission by a service provider of a defamatory posting constituted a publication under defamation law. There have since appeared several misrepresentations of the second of the two interlocutory judgments of Mr Justice Morland in the (first) Godfrey v. The judge described as "provocative" those words alleged by the Defendant to have been posted by Godfrey. Significance[edit] Laurence Godfrey commented that he was happy with the settlement.[1] Godfrey was subsequently the plaintiff in a variety of other internet-based libel suits.[2] Following Godfrey v Demon, ISPs began to remove defamatory statements as soon as they received a complaint about them. References[edit]