It's on a UWM cell called Internet Monitoring Centre for Civic Journalism.
Here's his reason for being:
"UWM Institute for Journalism and Social Communication in Olsztyn creates a Catalogue of Online civilian Media Warmia and Mazury and conducts investigation on this media sector.
"UWM Institute for Journalism and Social Communication in Olsztyn creates a Catalogue of Online civilian Media Warmia and Mazury and conducts investigation on this media sector.
We include media projects that:
- are not created by commercial companies and government institutions,
- their main intent is not profit,
- are created by persons surviving in Warmia and Mazury or those whose life centre is in that region,
- are not offensive, mocking or hurtful to others and do not usage hatred speech."
I wonder, what would court science, celebrated for its objectivity and inquisitiveness, feel about my activity? It seems that the first 3 qualities are fulfilled without appeal. The last criterion is assessed. Because, for example, if I compose stupid texts, isn't that an insult to the reader's intellect? They happen to me. Humoring is not my custom, though possibly mocking can be considered mocking. Especially at a advanced level of ego, characteristic of higher layers. Often, too, feeling hurt is subjective. If you put individual in a bad mood, you hurt them. Forced to reflect on problems that exceed abilities can be considered an act of aggression. In fact, no 1 gives what hatred speech is. For example, saying that he uses hatred speech can be a form of hatred speech. How does court discipline deal with a case like this?
This experimentally seems impossible to me, due to the fact that the resources for creating a catalogue of citizen journalism media have already been exhausted, and I do not want to exposure the budgetary institution to additional costs. Besides, I don't want to be the subject of an experiment. Because, for example, I don't know if I'm going to be hypnotized.
