Why this archive exists.
The Knock Report is a nonpartisan public archive documenting incidents where speech, journalism, protest activity, online expression, or political viewpoints allegedly resulted in government contact, investigations, institutional punishment, censorship pressure, or retaliation.
We do not adjudicate guilt or innocence. We record, verify, and publish what can be substantiated—so the public has a searchable, durable record of how expressive conduct intersects with state and institutional power.
Document first. Verify always. Publish transparently.
Our mission is to preserve a public record of incidents that might otherwise be fragmented across local news cycles, social posts, and FOIA responses. By centralizing these records—tagged, dated, geolocated, and scored—we aim to support researchers, journalists, policymakers, and the public in understanding patterns that no single story can reveal.
How the record is built.
Entries are assembled from public records, court filings, FOIA and state-law transparency responses, on-record interviews, and primary documentation such as body-cam footage, dispatch logs, financial correspondence, and published cease-and-desist letters.
Discovery
We monitor court dockets, news reports, social media, and public-submission tips. Every lead is logged before any entry is drafted.
Corroboration
An entry is not published until at least one independent primary source confirms the core factual claims. Hearsay and anonymous allegations are excluded.
Severity scoring
Each incident receives a 1–5 severity score based on documented harm, institutional overreach, and chilling effect. Scores are revised as new evidence emerges.
Transparency
Every record links to its sources, shows its verification status, and carries a revision history. We do not hide our gaps.
Three states of confidence.
Every entry in the database carries a verification badge. These labels are not judgments of the incident's merit—they describe how well we have confirmed the factual narrative.
Corroborated by at least one independent primary source—court record, official document, verified media, or direct documentation. We stand behind the factual claims in the summary.
One or more primary sources have been identified but not yet fully reviewed, or we are awaiting a records response. The summary reflects what we know now; the status updates as sourcing deepens.
A named party has publicly contested the factual claims, or two credible sources present materially incompatible accounts. We publish the dispute alongside the record so readers can assess both narratives.
Show the work.
Every incident page lists its sources with direct links or citations where available. When a source is offline, we archive a reference or note the original URL. If a source was obtained through a public-records request, we identify the agency, the request date, and any redactions.
We do not publish the identities of vulnerable submitters without explicit consent. Anonymous tips are evaluated on the strength of corroborating documentation, not on the name attached.
Errors are corrected promptly and visibly.
When we identify a factual error—whether from our own review or a reader submission—we update the record within 48 hours. The correction is appended to the incident page with a date stamp and a brief explanation of what changed and why. We do not silently edit headlines, dates, or severity scores without noting the revision.
To suggest a correction, use the Submit page and select “Correction” as the type. Include the incident URL, the specific claim in question, and any supporting documentation.
When accounts diverge, we label—then listen.
If a named party in an incident disputes our summary, or if new evidence contradicts the original narrative, we flag the record as disputed and append the counter-narrative or new documentation to the incident page.
We do not remove disputed records unless the underlying sources are retracted or discredited. Our goal is not to arbitrate truth but to preserve a durable, revisable record of what was alleged, when, and by whom.
"A public record is only as useful as it is honest about what it does and doesn't know. We label everything."