I found my sites  by searching “international censorship” in a .org field in Google. After searching through a few sites I picked the ones that seemed the most relevant and reputable.

I first came across the Committee to Project Journalists:

Committee to Project Journalists. 1981. 26 Nov 2008.

<http://cpj.org/>

Author/Audience: In the about section on the site is the only place where I can find any sort of credibility. The site is run by a large panel of journalists who are said to be very reputable. The site has a large following with many supporters. It protects and supports journalists all over the world.

Summary: This site is mainly about the international censorship of journalists. On the home page there are up to date accounts of journalists who have been killed and kidnapped. The site really wants its readers to be informed by writing detailed accounts in articles of censorship in other countries. They record a variety of atrocities committed by governments around the world.

Critical Comment: This is a very biased site that has a one sided view. I think it is good that they are exposing governments who have killed, imprisoned, and tortured so many journalists, but it is hard to find out exactly how reliable they are. There is not proof for all of their findings.

Relevance: This site records thousands of incidents around the world and these reports can get pretty extreme and shocking. When I searched for reports in the United States the results were very few, especially compared to countries in Asia and Africa. Foreign journalists are portrayed on this site in a way that appears they fear more than American journalists do. In recent articles only minor arrests have been made against the American journalist. In other countries around the world over thirty have been killed just in this year. This difference is impeccable.

The second site I came across was the Media Action Center:

Media Action Center. Nov 2003. Center for International Media

Action. 26 Nov 2008. <http://www.mediaactioncenter.org/>

Author/Audience: This site is moderated by a large panel of board member and consultants. Everyone’s name is provided on the site. This site is also a wiki, on appropriate pages anyone who is a member can contribute by writing their own subject appropriate articles. The site is geared toward those looking to change the media system in the United States by exchanging information.

Summary: This site provides a variety of articles and links providing a large amount of information on events, views, ideas, etc. There is an up to date calender that records all events that the audience may be interested in attending such as protests, award ceremonies, workshops, retreats, etc. The site is very interactive, people often argue their views on media censorship.

Critical Comment: This site seems like a great idea to get people involved, but does not appear to be very effective. The audience is mostly biased and contributors appear to be saying the same things over and over, though it does provide ample coverage of events and statistics.

Relevance: The site really leans toward covering everything American while trying to mention the most shocking and outrageous events happening outside the states. These tactics are meant to scare the US to think that this is what it could be like, as if to say “don’t let it get that bad, speak up now.” This site portrays that censorship in America is not a dangerous a topic as it is in other countries, but if action is not taken it could be.

I was correct to think that censorship in America was very different from other countries. Americans seem to be more concerned with censorship on the tv and other countries are worried for their safety. When I started my research I did not know the severity of the journalists’ concern for safety.

http://student.uncw.edu/ejl6939/web/lib.html

oops^

EDIT:

ftp://student.uncw.edu/ejl6939/web/lib.html

Correct site^

I really enjoyed the class on copyright November 19th. I think we all learned a lot about copyright laws that we didn’t know. I really liked that this class didn’t just go over a bunch of legal cases that had nothing to do with us, Rachel also clarified that we had rights to everything we have written, drawn, performed, etc. I think that the intention of this class was to let us know what we have the rights to and to really inform us about free use. I walked away from the class with a greater knowledge of what copyright really is and was surprised to learn that copyright and plagiarism are not the same. A neat addition to this class would have been to have everyone put a copyright with one of their works. It could make the little symbols have more of a meaning to us.

I actually enjoyed the exam review class on October 13th. I liked that the reward of a three point boost created competition which made us work harder. I think it was intended for us to use this class as motivation to review and study the material. I got a good review out of the class and I think it helped to work with a partner to catch little mistakes. I don’t think I would change anything about this particular lesson because it generated a great review, much better than listening to a professor repeat what they’ve already said over and over, like I’ve seen too many times.

Chapter seven by Lawrence Lessig is mainly about Jon Else’s dispute with Fox. When Else wanted to use a Simpson’s clip in his documentary he found that it would cost $10,000. Lessig thought that Else could get out of paying this by using fair use which means that he would not need permission to use the clip. As it turns out there were too many other contracts, insurances, and lawyers that would keep him from using fair use in a court of law.

I had no idea that fair use existed. It is interesting that there are ways to slip through the system just by throwing something like fair use out at people who are suing you for copyright.

It is important to be aware of copyrights when conducting research. Sometimes citing a source means paying them a large sum of money to refer to their work. Even quoting people can prove to be a fragile way of researching. Some people don’t want to be quoted, which makes it hard on the researcher to accurately publish and cite their work.

I have researched many topics in many classes and I think it is important to know about fair use when conducting research in any field, especially if you ever want to publish your work.

I found articles first by going to the UNCW library catalog and doing an advanced search for ”censor*” in the UNCW periodicals. This result came up with a single scholarly journal which turned out to be very helpful and relevant to my subject, but I did not see any results I could use for a popular article. Next I tried searching the Opposing Viewpoints database for magazines on censorship. Here I was immediately drawn to articles from magazines around the world which proved to be very helpful for my particular topic.

• Popular:

Quirk, Matthew. “The Web Police: Internet censorship is prevalent

not just in China, but throughout the world. Can the Web be

tamed?” The Atlantic 4 May 2006: 50-51.

Author/Audience: Quirk has written many articles for The Atlantic and has proved himself to be dedicated to his work through his in depth research. The common audience for this particular article is the common subscriber to The Atlantic magazine. The magazine is geared toward those interested in political science and foreign affairs.
Summary: The article is about web censorship in other parts of the world with a focus on China. It includes many examples of censored material.
Critical Comment:I feel this article was written to persuade the reader to not automatically think of China when they hear the word ‘censorship’. It felt like Quirk wanted to inform the general public about something that wasn’t only happening in a communist country, but in other parts of the world as well. It is impressive how much research went into this article.
Relevance:When referring to other countries around the world Quirk mentioned a lot about the government playing a large role in Internet censorship. For example, searches for the words democracy and freedom are blocked and most websites are composed of business and government propaganda.

Bonfante, Jordan. “What ever became of NC-17? (feature film ‘No

Children, 17 or older’ rating).”  Time 139.4 (1992): 64.

Author/Audience: Bonfante has contributed to a wide range of reputable magazines. The intended audience is primarily the common subscriber to Time magazine with an interest in movie ratings.
Summary: This article is about movie ratings and how many scenes are more acceptable for a younger audience that would not have been as acceptable a few years ago.
Critical Comment: This is a biased article that is seemingly against extreme violence and sex in movies intended for a younger audience. Even though he includes many different opinions he still leans toward one side.
Relevance:I think this article is a very accurate portrayal of Americans’ outlook on censorship. It shows that this particular author is very concerned with maintaining innocence in younger members of our society. There is no mention of government coming in to hide an idea, just that there are movie companies trying to push boundaries to fit a standard of a certain rating.

• Scholarly:

Malik, Maleiha. “Speech Control.” Index on Censorship 36.4 (Oct.

2007): 18-21.

Author/Audience: Malik is an accomplished writer who knows a lot about the topics she writes about; censorship of Muslim culture in Europe. Any subscriber to this journal who is interested in the censorship of speech of Muslim culture would be the audience of this article.
Summary: This article is mainly about how Muslims have been censored in a large variety of ways in many parts of the world and it does not stop in Europe.
Critical Comment: This article is against censorship. Malik describes many ways Muslims are censored and why they should not be.
Relevance: This article was written to persuade people internationally to really think about the oppression of a particular culture.

Zagol, Ethio. “The Hazards Of Dissent.” Index on Censorship 36.4

(Oct. 2007): 59-63.

Author/Audience: The author of this article is not named Ethio Zagol, this name is actually a type of pen name used by multiple people. Because there is so much danger involved with writing independently, most people in Ethiopia write anonymously.
Summary: It is about censorship in Ethiopian media. When a blogger speaks out against the government they are often imprisoned and tortured.
Critical Comment: The author is understandably biased against this type of censorship not only because they are a writer but because they will be facing their own freedom if they are caught. He/She says it is against human rights. It is told from a very personal viewpoint which makes it more effective.
Relevance: Censorship in other countries are much different from our own. They fear for their lives while people in the US wouldn’t think twice about speaking out against the government.

Searching in a Database is much different then just doing a quick search in Google. When using a database it is important not to include stop words such as; if, or, in, of, etc. Depending on your search you should use quotations with these words or just leave them out all together.

Proximity searches can be very helpful when searching in a database when you want to expand your search. When searching for a combination of words within a sentence that may or may not be adjacent to eachother it is helpful to include the proximity search n5.

Truncation – broaden search by ending part of the beginning of a word with an astrick (*) in place of any suffix. ex: medic*=medicine, medical, etc.

Wildcards – like truncation, instead replace any unknown character with ‘?’