Violating Blogspot’s terms of service led to shutting down an artist’s blog with no notice. Many are crying censorship. Is there any sort of recourse when a company owns the platform that’s being used?
Earlier this month, Blogspot suspended artist and writer Dennis Cooper’s blog that he had maintained for the last 14 years with no notice. Cooper has hired a lawyer and made several complaints to Google. The compaints have gone unanswered. The blog remains removed.
The United Kingdom has been central in one of the stories that was chosen to dominate the news. No, I’m not going to be writing about the British Library’s termination of its international non-commercial document delivery service today, but the United Kingdom referendum to leave the European Union, “Brexit.”
Save the Date: There are only 61 more days until Banned Books Week! September 25th – October 1st, 2016
By: Ken Sawdon I was surprised to see many people over the internet excited about the UN Human Right’s Council’s resolution to, among other things, denounce intentional internet blackouts a […]
By: Ken Sawdon With Canada’s ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, the WIPO treaty will be brought into force in September, and many people are excited for the results. Properly, the […]
Katie Chamberlain Kritikos: The impetus for this talkback was the controversy surrounding the publication in January of this year of a children’s book called A Birthday Cake for George Washington. Because critics instantly condemned the book for its depiction of smiling slaves, publisher Scholastic Press withdrew the book and halted its distribution.
This withdrawal encapsulates the shifting social context of intellectual freedom in the United States. Traditionally, free speech advocates decry any attempt to suppress expression. A growing emphasis on social justice creates tension between the foundation and the future of intellectual freedom. This post considers the recent controversies over children’s books, trigger warnings, and free speech online to explore this crossroads of information policy.
Judith Platt: Let me begin by saying that, not surprisingly I’m pretty close to a free speech absolutist. I believe our First Amendment and what it represents and encompasses is the basis of every other human and civil right. I do not believe we can ever hope for social justice in the absence of unfettered free speech.
My previous posting explored the phenomenon of Sci-Hub, a site dedicated to providing free access to more than 50 million academic papers without regard to their ownership status or to copyright laws. This post looks at the legal issues involved, in contrast to the previous post’s articulation of the argument for open access.
For those of us in the Intellectual Freedom community, it’s easy to take the rattle of pitchforks at the gate as broad popular sentiment. But the truth is, the data prove, most Americans actually believe in, actually value, free speech. They just tend not to be so noisy about it.
Sci-Hub is an online repository of over 51,000,000 scientific academic papers and articles, available through its website. New papers are uploaded daily after accessing them through educational institutions. Founded by Alexandra Elbakyan from Kazakhstan in 2011, it began as a reaction to the high cost of research papers behind paywalls, typically US$30 each when bought on a per-paper basis. Academic publisher Elsevier has in 2015 filed a legal complaint in New York City alleging copyright infringement by Sci-Hub.