Wednesday, October 14, 2009

INTERNET ETHICS

The basic principles of INETHICS (Internet Code of Ethics)
by Evgeny Yadryshnikov
Evgeny Yadryshnikov, head of the group and author of “Ethical Code” project is a postgraduate student of Moscow state University, Philosophy faculty.

1. Operates, following the ethical guidelines of the Codex.

2. Respects the freedom of speech, informational transparency and efficiency

3. Observes the laws of one’s country

4. Respects honour and dignity of people. Insulting is eliminated

5. Considers public accessibility of Internet including children

6. Distributes truthful information only.

7. Respect copyright. Plagiary is intolerable.

8. Opposes mixed-type content that deteriorates the site's reputation and makes it difficult to search for information efficiently.

9. Seeks the purity of the native language.

10. Respects moral and cultural values

11. Shows fidelity in fighting spam and network attacks.

12. Admits mistakes and corrects them promptly.

13. Creates in people stronger trust in Internet.

Facebook's Holocaust Controversy

By Douglas MacMillan

Facebook is under fire for allowing Holocaust denial groups to remain on the site, claiming they don't violate the social network's terms of service

Facebook is under pressure to take a stand on groups that want to use its pages to air views that are at best controversial and at worst hateful.
A series of blogs brought the issue to light when they decried the proliferation of groups on Facebook that endorse the idea that the Holocaust didn't occur. "The Holocaust denial movement is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like-minded individuals to do the same," Dallas attorney Brian Cuban wrote in a May 10 "Open Letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg."

HATE SPEECH ONLINE

The presence of Holocaust deniers on Facebook underscores the challenge faced by social media in cases where content is offensive but may not overtly violate laws or a site's terms of service. Facebook and other social networking sites, for example, prohibit pornography and hate speech but are reluctant to ban groups simply because their views are inflammatory. "All of the fault lines of society and all of the hatemongering that existed long before Facebook was ever even conceived have now moved front and center to their corporate reality," says Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international human-rights organization.

After extensive internal debate, Facebook opted not to remove the groups. "The mere statement of denying the Holocaust does not constitute a violation of our policies," says Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt, noting that users are forbidden from posting material that is "hateful" or "threatening." It later removed two of the groups identified as offensive by Cuban after users posted comments to those pages that did violate service terms. Cuban is the brother of investor, blogger, and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

Controversy surrounding speech on Facebook won't end with the removal of a handful of offensive groups. A report slated for a May 13 release by the Simon Wiesenthal Center will shine added light on hate speech on the Web. The number of Web pages and shared online documents promoting racism or other forms of hatred has surged to 10,000, a 25% increase from last year, according to the report. Cooper estimates that Facebook is the biggest venue, accounting for about 30% of all these online instances of hate.

CRITICS PRESS FOR TOUGHER RULES

David Ardia, an attorney and director of the Citizen Law Project at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, says that by allowing controversial groups, Facebook is acting well within its rights. "Facebook can decide what's appropriate for its users," Ardia says. The social network was lambasted by bloggers who said its reluctance to ban the groups was cowardly. "If Facebook doesn't want to take a moral or ethical stand on the issue, they can easily make a case that the groups violate their terms of service," tech blogger Michael Arrington wrote on May 10. Unlike other forms of speech, Holocaust denial has been outlawed in several countries, including France.
Facebook has come under attack in the past for hosting anti-Gypsy groups. The site currently contains several groups defending "white pride."

In February, Cooper met with Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, to discuss the existence of offensive content. He brought along a PowerPoint presentation filled with examples of potentially hateful material on the site. "The scope of it at this point may be overwhelming them somewhat," Cooper says.

FACEBOOK POLICY REVIEW

Facebook's Schnitt says the company does not actively patrol for such content; instead, Facebook relies on users to flag objectionable material. That list goes before a team that is trained to "use their judgment" to delete or permit each item based on guidelines drafted by the company's lawyers and communications staff, Schnitt says. In exceptional cases, including Holocaust denial groups, the operations staff escalates content for the higher-ups to debate.
At the same time, the company seeks outside counsel. "We don't pretend to know everything," Schnitt says. The company regularly meets with groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center, as well as government agencies such as the State Dept., to help inform its view of what should and shouldn't be permitted.

Cooper says he disagrees with Facebook's view that the Holocaust denial groups on its site are not threatening. "Holocaust denial in the Muslim world is a way to express hatred for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to call a group of people a bunch of liars, and it is a threat," Cooper says.

Of course, Facebook isn't alone in having to deal with controversial or offensive groups and other content. It and other companies, including Twitter and News Corp.'s (NWS) MySpace, may have to get more explicit about their policies, rather than continue to debate what can be considered "hateful." "As we see in the [Facebook] terms of service, they have very broad discretion," says Harvard's Ardia. "They can describe other things which are far less hateful. So far, Facebook has been very circumspect in exercising that control but they don't have to be."
Douglas MacMillan is a staff writer for BusinessWeek in New York.


Open Letter To Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

May 10, 2009
Mark:
The last 7 days have seen much debate on the issue of Holocaust Denial Groups on Facebook. There has been a lot of focus on the issues of free speech, open discussion of controversial issues and Facebook Terms Of Service(TOS).

While I have made it clear that I would like to see these groups removed, I have done a poor job in articulating why. I attempted to take a short-sighted, back door “lawyer’s approach” with Facebook by alleging that Holocaust Denial was illegal in other countries and, therefore, a violation of Facebook TOS. While at the time, these were legitimate issues, I should have focused on the real issue. The issue of the proliferation of Facebook groups that promote hatred of religious and ethnics groups and the hate speech those groups perpetrate. While you may have your doubts, I submit that this includes those who promote the fringe revisionist theory of Holocaust Denial.

The Holocaust Denial movement is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like minded individuals to do the same. Allowing these groups to flourish on Facebook under the guise of “open discussion” does nothing more than help spread their message of hate. Is this the kind of open discussion that Facebook wants to encourage? Is this really where you want to draw your line?

It is undisputed that as a collective , Holocaust Deniers are overwhelmingly antisemitic. One cannot be separated from the other. They use a fringe, discredited historical theory as a pretext and rallying point to perpetrate and promote their message of hate using Facebook as recruiting ground. By allowing these groups whether they number 1 or 1000, Facebook is not promoting open discussion of a controversial issue. It is promoting and encouraging hatred towards ethnic and religious groups, nothing more.

By claiming open discussion as the rationale for allowing these groups to exist, Facebook is playing games with semantics. Facebook is taking form over substance to protect their imaginary subjective corporate line in the sand they have drawn.

If Facebook is serious about encouraging open discourse on controversial subjects, let’s start with Facebook itself. Let’s talk about the controversial decision to allow Holocaust Denial groups. Let’s talk about transparency. Sending out canned email answers or spouting canned corporate-speak in an interview is not transparent. I would like to see transparency on the specifics of how Facebook went about arriving at this controversial decision. I would like you to address the following questions:

In a CNN interview, Facebook representative Barry Schnitt stated:
“It’s a difficult decision to make. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk about it,” Schnitt said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”

Mark, I would like to know who at Facebook was involved in the “internal debate” that resulted in the decision that Holocaust Denial does not constitute hate speech. Were you involved? Do you offer any input in these types of discussions? How does Facebook define “internal debate”? How many people were involved? What was their expertise to discuss this issue? Did they bring their personal beliefs to the table? What safeguards were employed to ensure objectivity in a decision that is innately subjective? Were attorneys consulted that have experience in such matters or was it general counsel? Do you agree that something can be legal but still constitute hate speech? Was the final decision yours? Did the buck stop with you?

I would also like to know what experts were consulted on this issue. Were any Holocaust Denial experts consulted? Were any experts on antisemitism consulted? Were any hate speech experts in general consulted? If so, I would appreciate it if you would identify these experts spoken of by Barry Schnitt in his CNN interview.

Finally, Mark, in an interview for the CNET blog “Technically Incorrect”, Barry Schnitt stated:
“One thing to consider that someone actually mentioned in the thread was the idea that there may be a benefit to having these ideas discussed in the open. Would we rather Holocaust denial was discussed behind closed doors or quietly propagated by anonymous sources? Or would we rather it was discussed in the open on Facebook where people’s real names and their photo is associated with it for their friends, peers, and colleagues to see?”

Is this an official corporate statement from Facebook on how Holocaust Denial should be addressed in society? What kind of open discussion was Mr. Schnitt talking about? How was he defining “open discussion”? How does Facebook define “open discussion”? What experts did Facebook consult in coming to the conclusion that “open discussion” was the most appropriate way to deal with this subject? Are you aware of the Jewish/Holocaust historical significance of such a statement Mark? I sent an email to Facebook asking for clarification of his statement but received no response other than the canned ,”we received your email”.

Mark, I hope you will take the time to respond to these important questions and issues, not just with regards to the Holocaust Denial issue, but with regards to transparency in how Facebook subjectively comes to these types of decisions in general.

Sincerely,
Brian Cuban

On the side of this site is a quiz entitled "Facebook Holocaust." Click on the quiz and answer the questions. Provide you name when answering the quiz.

You can also click this link to take the quiz. Leave a comment on the comment box of this post after answering the quiz to let us know how you did. Any reaction will be greatly appreciated
.

http://www.quizyourfriends.com/take-quiz.php?id=0910141519419930&a=1&

Thank You :)


QUIZ QUESTIONS:


Q.1) What is the globalsocial networking website that is under pressure to take a stand on groupsthat want to use its pages to air views that are at best controversial and atworst hateful.


facebook
friendster
twitter
facebuko
flicker

2) What group placed that networkingwebsite under fire for remaining on the site, claiming they don't violatethe social network's terms of service?

A
The House for Sale
B
The Hole in the Wall
C
The Hall of Fame Denial Group
D
The Hologram Denial group
E
The Holocaust Denial Group

3. Who wrote an open letter to that website's CEO Mark Zuckerberg?

A
Attorney Rey Cubano
B
Director Bobby Syjacu
C
Judge Luisa Boyleto
D
Dallas attorney Brian Cuban
E
Mayor Sunny Belmonto



Q.4) Who said that allowing controversial issues like this would benefit other people to discuss and clear the issue without violating the terms and services of the website?


A
Harvard's school for Internet hackers
B
Society for Special purposes
C
Philippine Society of Internet Criminals
D
Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society
E
National Society for Culture and the Press

Q.5) Who was the website's representative who said the following:
“It’s a difficult decision tomake. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk aboutit,” He said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it takenoff [The site]. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss allkinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”


A
Drew Barrymore
B
Barry Schnitt
C
Barry Boiles
D
Barry Much
E
Schint Zo Phrenic

SCOREBOARD
Facebook Holocaust
RANK NAME SCORE
1 jessica davila 100
2 JOHN REY L. ATIENZA 100
3 Reynald R. 100
4 alyssaborromeo 100
5 april celis 100
6 TOLENTINO, J. K. R. 100
7 Joren G. Paulino 100
8 Maria Nerizza Acero 80

Yahoo! faces lawsuit over Chinese human rights violations

by Alex Donohue, Brand Republic 28-Aug-07, 09:20

LONDON - Yahoo! is facing legal action from human rights group The World Organization, over the digital giant's alleged involvement in the handover of personal information to the Chinese government, which was used to convict and torture internet users on censorship grounds.

The World Organization has filed a lawsuit in the US against Yahoo!, for handing over information on three internet users who spoke out against the Chinese government and were subsequently convicted of charges of breaking the country's tough freedom of speech laws.

The human rights group states it has strong evidence that two people, Wang Xiaoning, who is serving a 10-year sentence for writing articles calling for democratic reform in China, and his wife Yu Ling, have been tortured by the Chinese authorities during their time in prison.
Yahoo! admits to handing over the email and IP addresses of Xiaoning and Ling, but said it had a duty to comply with the laws of the countries in which it operates and denies any involvement in the detention of the convicted.

In a separate case, Chinese journalist Shi Tao is serving a 10-year sentence for making comments about the Tiananmen Square massacre. The World Organization said Tao's conviction came as a result of information that was handed over to the Chinese authorities.

The prosecution case, which was brought by The World Organization in San Francisco yesterday, states that Yahoo! has failed in its "ethical responsibilities" by not asking the Chinese government what it intended to use the personal details for.

The organization claims that the three convicted individuals have been tortured and subjected to other human rights abuses in China, which has the fastest growing internet market in the world.
In a statement, a Yahoo! spokeswoman said: "This is a political and diplomatic issue, not a legal one. The real issue here is the plaintiff's outrage at the behavior and laws of the Chinese government. The US court system is not the forum for addressing these political concerns."

Yahoo! states that it has knowingly handed over personal details to the Chinese authorities in the past, but said there was "little connection" between the information and the arrest, conviction and charge of the accused.

China, which has some of the toughest internet censorship laws in the world, has a ban on all foreign media and has been known to incarcerate individuals making pro-Western and anti-Chinese comments on all forms of internet communication, including blogs, emails, forums and in the online press.

China's treatment of "cyber dissidents" has led human rights campaigners such as Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International, to question Google, Microsoft and other internet company's business practices in China.

Google, which set up a censored Chinese language search engine in 2005, came under intense criticism for seemingly advocating internet censorship by complying with the Chinese government's demands on preventing searches on a host of subjects, including Tiananmen Square, Tibet, democracy, and Falun Gong.

Morton Sklar, executive director of at The World Organization, said: "While it's clear that American corporations are obliged to follow foreign laws, they also must abide by US and international law."


On the side of this site is a quiz entitled "Mind Tickler." Click on the quiz and answer the questions. Provide you name when answering the quiz.

You can also click this link to take the quiz. Leave a comment on the comment box of this post after answering the quiz to let us know how you did. Any reaction will be greatly appreciated.


http://www.quizyourfriends.com/take-quiz.php?id=0910141508099542&a=1&

Thank You :)


Quiz Questions:

1. Which among the following Internet Code of Ethics do you think Yahoo! has violated?

a. Seeks the purity of the native language
b. Shows fidelity in fighting spam and network attacks
c. Observes the laws of one’s country
d. Considers public accessibility of Internet including children

2. What are some of the restricted subjects cited in the article that China demanded to Google to prevent from searching?

a. Western blog sites, emails and forums
b. On-line press releases
c. Human rights campaigners on-line
d. Tiananmen Square, Tibet, democracy

3. Morton Sklar said that, "While it's clear that American corporations are obliged to follow foreign laws, they also must abide by US and international law.” to which of the following Internet Code of Ethics do you think it would have a conflict with?

a. Respects honor and dignity of people. Insulting is eliminated
b. Respects the freedom of speech, informational transparency and efficiency
c. Respect copyright. Plagiary is intolerable
d. Respect moral and cultural values


4. The Chinese authorities tortured Wang Xiaoning with his wife Yu Ling during their time in prison. The reason for their arrest was:

a. They were writing articles calling for a democratic reform in China
b. They were blogging pro-western comments
c. They were searching for the words China had censored
d. They are recruiting rebels through the internet

5. Who is the other Chinese journalist serving a 10-year sentence for making comments about the Tiananmen Square massacre?

a. Cyber dissidents
b. Falun Gong
c. Shi Tao
d. Yu Ling

SCOREBOARD
Mind Tickler



1 JOHN REY L. ATIENZA 100
2 Reynald 100
3 alyssaborromeo 100
4 Joren G. Paulino 100
5 jessica davila 80
6 TOLENTINO, J. K. R. 60
7 Maria Nerizza Acero 60
8 april celis 20
9 warren_wafu 20

Baristas at another Grab-N-Go espresso stand charged with indecent exposure

By Diana Hefley and Debra Smith
Herald Writers

EVERETT -- Five women recently accused of engaging in prostitution at an Everett bikini espresso stand are not Bill Wheeler's first Grab-N-Go baristas to be in trouble with the law.

Two baristas were charged earlier this month with indecent exposure outside the Grab-N-Go Espresso stand at 11323 Highway 99, in a county area south of Everett. The women are accused of showing customers more skin than permitted under Snohomish County's ordinance, according to court documents.

Five baristas at Wheeler's stand at 8015 Broadway in Everett were charged Wednesday with multiple counts of prostitution and violating the city's adult-entertainment ordinance following a two-month undercover police investigation.

Those baristas, whose ages range from 18 to 24, are accused of stripping off their undergarments and flashing customers. Everett police also reported witnessing the women charge customers up to $80 to touch their exposed private parts.

Wheeler, who owns at least four stands around the county, said the charges against the baristas at his stand in the city were made up to push through Everett City Council's agenda to ban bikini espresso huts.

He also called the earlier charges against two baristas at his other stand bogus. The sheriff's office is on a witch hunt, Wheeler said.

"There was nothing indecent on either of them," he said.

The first incident was reported July 10 by a driver passing by the stand across from the Wal-Mart on Highway 99. She told Snohomish County sheriff's deputies a barista in pasties and a thong was shaking her exposed buttocks toward the highway.

The witness told police she isn't a prude, but the barista's behavior and clothing were offensive.The deputy questioned the barista, who at the time was wearing pasties and leather-type pants that exposed her buttocks from the waist down. She denied shaking her backside at the highway.

The Snohomish woman, 26, pleaded not guilty to the charge Thursday in Everett District Court.Another barista, 20, also denied an allegation of indecent exposure. That charge was made after a man complained to deputies July 31 that he hadn't received 75 cents owed to him after paying for his coffee and giving the barista a $2 tip.

He told police it was his third visit to the stand. Each time he hadn't received his change.This time when he asked for the change, the barista insisted that her boss didn't provide coins to give to the customers, a deputy wrote. The man told deputies the barista took 50 cents out of her tip jar and threw it at him, causing him to drop his coffee, court papers said.The man told police he visited the stand just to see the baristas but was upset that they would automatically keep his change even after he gave them a $2 tip, according to the police report.

He told the deputy the barista's nipples could be seen through her pasties. The man told the deputy it was the first time he'd seen that much of a barista at the stand, court papers said.The Everett woman was arrested and booked into jail. She bailed out and later pleaded not guilty to the charge.Wheeler said a "rogue deputy" harassed the women by asking them to stand up, turn around and bend over so he could measure if their clothing met decency standards.

He also said the woman who complained on July 10 harassed the barista by driving up and down the street. He said the barista reported the harassment to police but they ignored her."I know for a fact these two girls aren't guilty of anything, and when you get to court you will find that out," he said.Wheeler said nothing illegal involving the baristas has ever happened at his espresso stands.His baristas sign an agreement guaranteeing that they will not behave inappropriately, he said.Wheeler called The Herald's coverage of complaints about his stands hypocritical and one-sided.

More attention should be focused on real problems such as drunken drivers, murderers and "hookers walking down Evergreen Way," he said.


Reader's Comments:

The first real question is why wasn't the July 10th complaint about these stands an issue? Why only 3 months later after and a second complaint did this warrant attention? This goes for all news outlets not just the Herald.

If the Herald wanted to make the community a better place like Mr. Pattison has stated in an earlier post in this article the July 10th complaint would have made an appearance in the paper BEFORE September.

Question 2 - Why did the Herald not address the issue of police misconduct? If this was researched by the reporters and found to be false it should be stated. All issues of police misconduct should be taken seriously no matter who makes the complaint, or why to suggest otherwise is a free pass for an abuse of power.

Question 3 - Mr. Pattison states they spoke to neighbors of the business, law enforcement, and the owner, in one of articles they even spoke to community members, but when asked if they interviewed or spoke to patrons he remained silent, why? It would seem that patrons have a right to an opinion as random people on the street.

Question 4 - Why was this article run for 3 days, when the fire at another stand over a year ago was only run once. Arson is felony, these crimes a misdemeanors, if not to inflame public opinion and increase sales it seems in order to "better serve the community" the other crime should receive as much attention if not more.

Question 5 - The question has been asked online, Was the undercover sting in the first article was a good use of police time?, Does city council have nothing better to focus on? Mr. Pattison says in a reply that this was not the only thing his paper has reported on and cites the extreme county budgets cuts as one, but makes no mention or attempt to address the issues of public concern that in these times money would better spent elsewhere, he would rather attack the people then make sure their voices are heard.

SOURCE: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090926/NEWS01/709269873/0/BIZ

NOTE:


Herald newspaper had reported more than 5 stories for the past months regarding the baristas of Grab-N-Go in Everett, Washington. The news headlines were:

Crowd voices outrage over bikini barista, but some come out in support 10/7/09
Bikini baristas are now on one county councilman's radar 10/5/09
5 baristas’ trials set for December 10/3/09
Everett tightens laws for baristas 10/2/09
Former baristas claim boss told them to wear pasties 10/1/09
Prostitution accusations untrue, bikini coffee stand's owner says 9/25/09
Five Everett bikini baristas charged with prostitution 9/24/09
Everett's rules would target bikini baristas' scant attire 9/16/09

Their reports were mostly about the alleged indecent exposure of the baristas and the complaints of some people. The news above had run for 3 days in their website. The news included interviews with the police, with the complainants, with the owner and with the baristas.



On the side of this site is a quiz entitled "Ethical Trojan on News Online." Click on the quiz and answer the questions. Provide your name when answering the quiz.

PARTICIPANTS PLEASE READ THIS:
There are key correction choices on the "Ethical Trojan on News Online" quiz. In the last item (#5) of the quiz, the choices should be:

  • News Sensationalism
  • Only distributes valid information
  • Biased/One-sided Reporting
  • Observe the laws of one's country
In the key correction choices, the right answer is still in the correct placement. So in the last item of the quiz, bear these key correction choices to be able to get the right answer. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience.


You can also click this link to take the quiz. Leave a comment on the comment box of this post after answering the quiz to let us know how you did. Any reaction will be greatly appreciated.

http://www.quizyourfriends.com/take-quiz.php?id=0910141442109159&a=1&

Thank You :)

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

1. What was the news all about?

Espresso served by the baristas
Prostitution at an Everett bikini espresso stand
Policemen's way of getting the accused
One-sided reporting of the HeraldNet

2. When was the first incident reported?
June 10
July 10
August 10
September 10

3. How many times did the event happened?
1
3
5
7

4. How many baristas were recently accused of prostitution at Grab-N-Go espresso?
8
7
6
5

5. What internet code of ethics they violated most?
Observes the laws of one’s country
Respects honour and dignity of people. Insulting is eliminated
Only distributes valid information
Seeks the purity of the native language

SCOREBOARD
Ethical Trojan on News Online



1 JOHN REY L. ATIENZA 100
2 april celis 100
3 alyssaborromeo 100
4 Joren G. Paulino 100
5 jessica davila 80
6 Reynald 80
7 Maria Nerizza Acero 80
8 TOLENTINO, J. K. R. 80

Web site targeting local politics shut down

Here is an article posted by Yvonne Mintz of The Facts, a weekly African American newspaper, that discuss the case of Steve Olafson a.k.a Banjo Jones in violating the journalist’s Code of Ethics through the use of the World Wide Web. At the end of this article, you are required to answer some questions that will help you analyze the importance of this article.




Web site targeting local politics shut down
By: Yvonne Mintz

The Facts
Published July 26, 2002


For more than a year, Steve Olafson, the Houston Chronicle's Brazoria County reporter, kept an online diary criticizing elected officials and commenting on local politics.

While alter-ego "Banjo Jones" wrote unabashed commentary about local businesses, government and Brazoria County newsmakers on a Web site, Olafson covered some of the same issues for The Chronicle.

The Web site, which often lambasted The Facts and even took digs at the Chronicle, was shut down Tuesday.

"When we learned about the Web site and Steve's involvement with it, we asked him to take it down," said Jeff Cohen, the Chronicle's executive vice president and editor.

Contacted at his Lake Jackson home Wednesday, Olafson declined comment.

Opinions vary among local officials about whether Olafson did anything wrong. But journalism ethics analysts said the Web site posed a clear conflict that could hurt Olafson's credibility.
Cohen would not comment on whether Olafson's involvement in the Web site violated the Chronicle's code of ethics or whether any action would be taken against Olafson.

"I can't talk to you about how we handle violations of policy because we would not discuss that externally," Cohen said.

Olafson continues in his capacity as a Chronicle reporter, Cohen said.

Cohen, who took the Chronicle helm six weeks ago after holding the same position at the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union, did not know how the Web site was constructed or whether Olafson used a Chronicle computer and Internet account to create the Web site. He said he was unaware of anyone at the Chronicle who knew of the Web site before Tuesday.

One man's soap box

The site, brazosportnews.blogspot.com, debuted in May 2001 as one man's soap box, the place for views on local issues that were frequently scathing, often humorous. The site quickly gained a following, and people soon wondered about the identity of its writer, Banjo Jones.

That identity became public after a local newsmaker, who had been criticized on the Web site, delivered information to The Facts outing Olafson as Banjo Jones. That newsmaker asked to remain anonymous.

Before it disappeared, there were entries on the Web site where Olafson discussed Chronicle stories, written by himself and others.

The Web site's "reader survey" named District Attorney Jeri Yenne the best elected official in Brazoria County. Commenting on reasons for her popularity on the Web site June 27, Olafson, as Banjo Jones, referred to his own Chronicle story about Yenne.

"The Chronicle did a glowing article on her last Sunday, so maybe that's influencing the vote," the Web site read.

The Web site also mentioned Yenne's success in prosecuting the Lake Jackson Woodhollow Apartments fire murder case, a trial Olafson covered for the Chronicle.

Also on June 27, the Web site criticized the Chronicle's placement of a story about the "Women of Enron" in Playboy, saying that putting the story on the front page contradicted the writer's apparent disdain of the media attention the pictures garnered. And on the Web site, Olafson skewered the Chronicle's Washington columnist for buying a fur once owned by Katharine Graham, the late Washington Post publisher.

"It's good to know the Chronicle's man in Washington is sniffing out the important stories we buy his paper for," the Web site read.

No secret attacks

Fred Brown Jr., past president of the Society of Professional Journalists and the organization's former national ethics chairman, said all reporters have biases, but "a good reporter never lets them show."

"You are not supposed to secretly attack the people you are trying to cover in an objective manner," Brown said. "It's not just damaging to the reporter, it's damaging to the newspaper's credibility."

In fact, a Statement of Professional Principles adopted by the Chronicle's parent company, Hearst Newspapers, states that employees should avoid active involvement in community issues or organizations "to the extent that their participation might cause the paper's objectivity to come into question," according to the statement posted on the American Society of Newspaper Editors Web site.

Don Heider, assistant professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, said the Web site could have a "devastating effect" on Olafson's relationships with sources.

"I don't think there's any way you could go back to some of those sources that you've been writing scathing material about and expect them to treat you the same way," Heider said.
Many reporters freelance, and some media outlets allow reporters to write opinion page commentary, Heider said. Combining those with anonymity causes a problem, Heider said.
"If a reporter wanted to put a Web site up with their name on it and publish what they thought and let people know it was them, I think that's a whole different question as to whether you go on anonymously and sort of become the tattletale of the county," Heider said.

Before knowing the writer's identity, John Toth, owner and publisher of The Bulletin, asked to run some of the columns in his Angleton-based weekly newspaper.

Toth, who covered Brazoria County for the Chronicle for 12 years before Olafson took the job in 1995, published the Web site's commentary on the Lake Jackson golf course saga and State Sen. J.E. "Buster" Brown's interim report, a newsletter sent to households in Brown's district.
But Toth got permission by e-mail to run the columns in his free publication and didn't know Olafson was the writer, he said.

"I e-mailed him an offer to run exclusively in The Bulletin, and I would pay him for it," Toth said. "I was wondering why he didn't take me up on it."

Toth started The Bulletin while he covered Brazoria County for the Chronicle. He also did a weekly radio commentary show. In both cases, however, Toth received prior approval from editors and used his own name, he said.

"I would have run that past my boss," Toth said. "Being a reporter is different than being a Dow operator where you get off at 5 o'clock and you still do what you want. Being a reporter has a different burden."

Some good commentary

Ethical questions aside, many said they would miss the Web site.

Yenne said the site was good political satire. And "Banjo Jones" took some digs at her, too, she said, recalling his depiction of her reveling in a former opponent's primary election defeat while eating "a big box of sweet and chewy chocolate bon bons."

"Do I forfeit all my rights to say what I think because I'm a public official or because I'm a reporter?" she asked. "I don't think so."

Toth said he enjoyed the column and would miss its "semi-sarcastic" tone.
"You really don't get that too much in this area," Toth said. "I don't think those columns did any harm. It was just fun to read."

District Judge Robert May read the Brazosport News and speculated about its author, but was never mentioned there and would not have guessed Banjo was Olafson.

"Even though he certainly has a First Amendment right to do it, he may have to pay the price with his employer," May said.

Still, May admired the writing."This revealed he had a keen political sense," May said. "He ought to write a novel."



On the side of this blog site is a link wherein you can find a quiz entitled "Aprille's Quiz" Please click on the link found on the side of this site and answer the following questions provided. Choose the best answer and give whatever is needed and asked by the website.

You may also click this link to access the quiz.

http://www.quizyourfriends.com/take-quiz.php?id=0910141304513955&a=1&

Thank You. :)

Quiz Questions

1. Given the INETHICS or the Internet Code of Ethics, what do you think is the main ethical violation of Steve Olafson?

a. Distributes truthful information only.
b. Seeks the purity of the native language.
c. Plagiarism
d. Creates in people stronger trust in Internet

2. In above article, it is said that Steve Olafson is a respected ______ and at the same time, he is ______.

a. A news reporter … a sports reporter
b. A news reporter … a blogger
c. A journalist … a professor
d. A professional journalist

3. What name did he use in running his warmly-regarded pseudonymous Brazosport News blog?

a. Benjie Blue
b. Banjie Jones
c. Banjo Jones
d. Bravo Jones

4. In this article, it is said that many reporters freelance, and some media outlets allow reporters to write opinion page commentary. Given this statement, what makes it a big problem for Steve Olafson to criticize in his blog?

a. He used harsh words in his blog articles.
b. Being anonymous is what makes it a big problem.
c. He posted unpleasant photos in his blog site.
d. He showed disrespectfulness in his blog articles.

5. According to the journalism ethics analysts, what would Steve Olafson lose as a respected news reporter in violating the journalism code of ethics?

a. Credibility
b. Integrity
c. Responsibility
d. Rewards

SCOREBOARD
Aprille's Quiz



1 JOHN REY L. ATIENZA 100
2 april celis 100
3 TOLENTINO, J. K. R. 100
4 Joren G. Paulino 100
5 Reynald 60
6 jessica davila 40
7 Maria Nerizza Acero 40
8 alyssaborromeo 20

Internet Videos (Youtube)

Click on the links below and Watch the videos and answer the questions.



PEMBANTAIAN KAUM KAFIR KRISTEN TERHADAP MUSLIM POSO SULAWESI is the title of this video. This video was posted on September 28, 2009 by a Youtube member/user with a username of khairulanwar56. The video received 1 rating and 16 comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59gFTmg0S_Q&feature=related

This second video is entitled POSO and was posted on April 1, 2009 on Youtube by a user with a name of glendegamo. The video received 2 ratings and 7 comments.
Questions:
1. Do you think there is an ethical violation commite in posting this videos in the internet? If Yes, what are these violations? If you answered None, explain your answer.
2. What do you think is the reason why these people uploaded such videos? What pushed them to upload these videos?
Type in your answers in the comment box. You may comment on each other's answers. Be sure to indicate your names when answering.
Thank you for your cooperation.

GENERAL ACTIVITY

Please answer the following questions BRIEFLY on the comment box provided. Do indicate your name when answering the following questions.

1. Define the World Wide Web’s ethical code or the internet code of ethics from your own personal point of view based on the posted internet code of ethics above.

2. Enumerate five (5) internet codes of ethics.

3. As a group, site one (1) case of ethical violation in using internet.

4. Give Suggestions/Proposals on the battle against ethical violations in using the internet.

5. Define Research Ethics in your own understanding and discuss its importance in your career life.

Thank you for participating! :)