EFF Launches "Takedown Hall of Shame"

netbuzz writes "Recognizing that public shame is a potent weapon, the Electronic Frontier Foundation today launched a new Web site — its Takedown Hall of Shame — that will shine an unflattering spotlight on those corporations and individuals who abuse copyright claims to stifle free speech. Among the early inductees are NPR, NBC, CBS, and Diebold."

Comments

They forgot one

[TubeSteak]

How about the Church of Scientology?
Their censorship is the entire reason the /b/tards started harassing them.

Re:They forgot one

[Penguinisto]

...what, and get sued?

(sadly, while originally typed that in a half-assed attempt to be funny, I can almost seeing the Xenuphiles doing exactly that...)

NPR is on here?

[commodore64_love]

Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?

Stand for Marriage Maine (SMM) created an ad criticizing same-sex marriage that excerpted a brief portion of an All Things Considered interview. Although the ad's use of the content was clearly necessary to its critical political message, NPR sent a takedown demand to YouTube resulting in the removal of the video. NPR failed to recognize that SMM's excerpting is simply another clear-cut example of a fair use in political speech -- the 21st century equivalent of an issue pamphlet.

Clear number 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the number one "shame" spot go to the congress that passed the DMCA?

Re:NPR?

[Locke2005]

The one thing I hate the most is hypocrites. I'm a staunch advocate of same-sex couples having the same legal rights as mixed-sex couples, but fair use is fair use. Your principles should apply equally to those whom you esteem and those whose viewpoints you find repugnant. Opponents of same sex marriage have a first amendment right to use any legal, non-threatening method to communicate their viewpoint to others. I'd prefer they stick to facts, but apparently they have no legal obligation to do so, and except for being taken out of context, use of this clip was entirely factual. As Voltaire is credited with saying, "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Re:NBC - MSNBC ?

[bennomatic]

That's one of the sillier posts I've ever seen. There are lots of things that a media outlet can do that are worthy of complaints even if they are not under the umbrella of censorship.

Examples:

• Promoting lies and misrepresentations as if they were facts.
• Creating a fake "grassroots" movement and promoting it as if it were real.
• Publishing verbatim talking points from one political party as if they were objective news.
• Claiming to be a news agency while dropping any hints of objective reporting.

Now, it's normal for a media outlet to have its own slant or bias; even a corporation evolves a "culture" which colors what is reported. However, Fox is not even rationally consistent with its judgements; take, for example, back to back reports on Britney Spears' younger sister being pregnant vs. Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Bill O'Reilly went from calling Spears' parents "pinheads" to saying that "the liberal media's judgement of Palin is outrageous" without taking a breath. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Local Fox affiliates have normal news. The parent news agency, with their "Fox and Friends", Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and more, are entertainment at best, a propaganda agency at worst, even in those segments where they claim to be news.