Wikileaks.org, a whistleblower website that allows people to publish uncensored information anonymously, has suspended operations owing to financial problems.

Its running costs including staff payments are $600,000 (£377,000), but so far this year it has raised just $130,000 (£81,000).

The website claims to be non-profit and relies on donations. A statement on its front page says it is funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists and the general public. WikiLeaks does not accept money from governments or corporations.

Investigative journalist Paul Lashmar said he had been startled by the effectiveness of WikiLeaks in publishing suppressed information. However he thought that the funding issue would not be easily resolved: (Web) users aren't interested in how the people behind sites make their money, he said. The problem for the self-funding model is that sites like WikiLeaks will not find it easy to attract funding through advertising. At some point people who care about free speech will realise that free speech has to be funded, otherwise it's not free.

Update: Minimum Achieved

6th February 2010. Based on article from thelondondailynews.com

Much to the annoyance of government departments and big business everywhere, whistleblower website Wikileaks has been saved.

In December it cease publishing leaked documents, concentrating on raising donations, this week they succeeded yet staff have still not been paid. That target of around £400,000 has not been reached.

Their main site is still dedicated to raising money and there is no indication when normal operations will resume.

In an update via Twitter late on Wednesday night, Wikileaks announced that it had reached its minimum target: Achieved min. fundraising goal. ($200k/600k); we're back fighting for another year, even if we have to eat rice to do it.

Music Freedom Day
3rd March 2010

The annual Music Freedom Day has grown into a truly global event which inspires increasing numbers of musicians and concert organisers to join.

Mumbai, Cairo, Amman, The Hague, Paris and New York are some of the cities planning to organize Music Freedom Day events in 2010 — a day that will see the release of the Freemuse CD Listen to the banned.

Several national broadcasting stations in – among others – Germany, Norway and Sweden will produce and present special programmes on music censorship and freedom of expression, and in the Hague in Holland the day is observed with an event which will run over two days, organised by MusicForce.org.

The Dutch Human Rights Ambassador, Mr. Arjan Hamburger, will attend the opening event in Holland, which focuses on rap and hip-hop culture.

Seminar in Jordan In Amman, the capital of Jordan, plans are underway to organise a seminar focusing on the situation for alternative music. In India one of Mumbai's international music clubs plans to present Pakistani music to mark the day, and in New York, the Impossible music series plans to run a Freemuse CD launch party.

Why Music Freedom Day?

Death threats to musicians in north-west Pakistan, imprisonment of musicians in Burma, Cameroon, and Syria, radio airplay restrictions on music in Somalia, endless court cases in Turkey... You could very well get the impression that musicians are an endangered species.

Radio reports Which is why Freemuse invites you to take part in the event as well. The Music Freedom Day is an opportunity to take a thorough look at the subject – in many languages, cultures, countries and points of view. This website features several original radio interviews and radio reports which are offered to radio stations in broadcast quality, free of charge.

House of Lords Questions
11th January 2010

Lord Patten asked the government what is their stance on the resolution promoted by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference before the United Nations General Assembly on the defamation of religion.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): The Government share the concern of the Organisation of Islamic Conference that individuals around the world are victimised because of their religion or belief. We all need to do more to eliminate religious intolerance and to ensure that those who incite hatred or violence against individuals because of their religious beliefs are dealt with by the law.

But the Government cannot agree with an approach that promotes the concept of defamation of religions as a response. This approach severely risks diminishing the right to freedom of expression. We believe that international human rights law already strikes the right balance between the individual's right to express themselves freely and the need for the state to limit this right in certain circumstances. International human rights law provides that only where advocacy of religious hatred constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should it be prohibited by law.

We believe that the concept of defamation of religions puts in danger the very openness and tolerance that allows people of different faiths to co-exist and to practise their faith without fear. It risks changing the focus of international human rights law from examining how countries promote and protect the right to freedom of expression to censoring what individuals say. If this happened, people might feel unable to speak out against human rights abuses or hold their government to account. It is also inconsistent with the international human rights legal framework which exists to protect individuals and not concepts or specific belief systems.

For this reason the UK, along with our EU Partners and other like-minded countries, voted against the resolution put forward by the Organisation of Islamic Conference at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly on Combating Defamation of Religions.