Good description on generating characters for D&D.
Category: Rules (Page 1 of 3)
Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
At CNN, integrity and accuracy are of the utmost importance to the brand, and systems are in place to maintain them. For example, stories are thoroughly reviewed by producers and particularly sensitive stories are reviewed further by a team of senior editors, standards and practices specialists, and lawyers before they are broadcast.
From Wikipedia, Bellingcat:
It uses open source and social media investigation to investigate a variety of subjects ranging from Mexican drug lords to conflicts fought around the world. Bellingcat brings together contributors who specialise in open source and social media investigation, and it creates guides and case studies so others can learn to do the same.
On their contact page, I spotted something interesting about their journalistic standards.
Making a complaint
We can look into complaints about items we have published which are in our control. We adhere to the Standards Code adopted by IMPRESS and can only deal with complaints which relate to an alleged breach of the standards set out in this Code. http://www.impress.press/standards/.
We can only deal with your complaint if you are:
- personally and directly affected by an alleged breach of the Code
- a representative group affected by an alleged breach of the Code, where there is public interest in your complaint
- a third party seeking to ensure accuracy of published information
It’s an interesting problem they’re dealing with, since their source documents are all public. Having a standard or code of some kind is really useful and probably necessary here.
“Trending topics: You may not automatically post about trending topics on Twitter, or use automation to attempt to influence or manipulate trending topics.”
Multiple posts/accounts: You may not post duplicative or substantially similar Tweets on one account or over multiple accounts you operate.
… “Abusive behavior: You may not engage in any automated activity that encourages, promotes, or incites abuse, violence, hateful conduct, or harassment, on or off Twitter.”
I’ve been loosely following the story of Quebec’s so-called “Religious Neutrality” Bill 62, which recently passed and which prohibits full face coverings in the context of receiving a variety of government services. Text of the bill may be found on the Quebec Assembly Nationale website in PDF form.
Relevant text from the bill:
SERVICES WITH FACE UNCOVERED
9. […] Similarly, persons receiving services from such personnel members must have their face uncovered…
Division III deals with criteria for determining religious accomodations to above, with references to section 10 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms of Quebec.
From the Charter, items 3 through 5 seem relevant:
3. Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.
5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.
Freedom of religion, right to safeguard of dignity, respect for private life. Also relevant, from a discrimination perspective:
RIGHT TO EQUAL RECOGNITION AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would break this down like so:
- The Charter grants religious freedom, and safeguards dignity and privacy.
- The covering of the face specifically targeted in Bill 62 is exclusively religious in nature.
- The Charter expressly prohibits limitation of the full and equal recognition and exercise of one’s rights and freedoms on the basis of religion.
- Were there many other common cases where individuals seek government services with faces covered, there might be a stronger argument to be made that Bill 62 does not have the effect of targeting people based on their religion, and preventing them from exercising their religious rights.
It will be interesting to see how this bill is challenged in the courts.
With respect to Picker, Franken.
Freedom of the arts and sciences
The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.
It strikes me that science free of constraint on it’s own could be potentially very destructive.
Of course, the Charter begins with Human Dignity:
Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.
And is followed by the Right to Life.
But it’s not until Article 37 where we talk about Environmental protection, and fairly weakly:
A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must
be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable
I understand well the reasons why human life is so primary in a document of human governance, and the risks to property rights people feel would be inherent in giving the natural environment greater protections.
But there’s an argument to be made, that Human Dignity and Right to Life come from fundamentally healthy and functional inter-locking planetary ecosystems.
To not constrain science within such a framework seems, to me, something we will look back on ruefully someday.
But what do I know?
Multi-branar agreement underpinning the Universal Free Realms, including access, transfer, and entity rights and privileges.
[This article is a stub. Improve it?]