Talk:Censorship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Military Censorship

military has a formal censorship policy, but that's hardly noteworthy: every military in the world has a censorship policy. So does every government. So does every business. This isn't sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion in the article. If Israel's military were actively interfering in the editorial policies of the Israeli press, that would be an entirely different issue, and worthy of mention. BUT that is not what's going on, nor is is anyone apparently claiming that it is, so the inclusion of Israel can be regarded as one of two things: (1) POV-pushing or (2) Ignorance-pushing. Tomer ^TALK July 5, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

--The topic of the paragraph is wartime censorship. Israel is at war and carrying out occupation and there are many references to the press censorship issue. The predictable placing of Stalin and Hitler is what's really out of place. There is no POV pushing, except yours, and your blind spot. Read the preceding paragraph please.69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Please quit the blind vitriol. This is not a forum where you can slander an entity through egregious distortions and expect to get away with it. Here, the mix of points of view allows for checks and balances, and you're getting checked. Watch out for WP:3RR, please. HKT 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

Israel is at war? Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

---

Yes, Israel and Palestine are still at war. If you don't recognize Palestine, then you aren't even Pro-Israeli, or Pro-Jewish, you're Pro-Extremist, and Pro-Terrorist.

Corporate Censorship

I'm interested in adding information about "Corporate Censorship." Such as we see in the United States, that arises from sponsers of a network or program refusing funds if certain information or views are distributed, where would I put such comments? Look at Fox news, regardless of your personal views, it's obvious to see there's a slant. As is the case in all network news, the slant follows the money. I'm not trying to publicize my personal bias so much as add information about a growing trend, with peer review of course. How would I go about doing this?--Legomancer 08:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, eg. in light of the recent dust-up regarding "SouBold text'Bold text'Bold textI took out the line "Censorship is very evil" from the very beginning of the article. I didn't think it was an appropriate thing to put at the beginning of an encyclopedia-like article. Lime 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article “censor” should redirect to this censorship article. When most people use the word “censor,” they're using it as a verb, to describe the act of censorship. Such links should go directly to this article. The article about censors in ancient Rome should be renamed “Censor_Ancient_Rome” or whatever, with links provided for the small minority of people who are actually looking for that discussion when they type in or link to “censor.” -Blackcats 7 Feb, 2005, 04:30 GMT

It seems to me that the link to religion in the subject matter section should link to the censorship by religion article instead. I would make this change myself, but i don't know how (if someone does this then just delete this post, and if my comment should be somewhere else then feel free to move it there) 71.144.81.141 00:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, though it's a trivial matter. Skinnyweed 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• /Archive 1 - May 10 2004 and earlier

That's why you don't look up verbs.

Quotation

I don't understand the quotation and it doesn't seem relevant to the article (although it is an interesting logical fallacy). I'm removing it. Ambush Commander 04:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

which quotation?

Next

Question, is the edit policy of wikipedia a form of cenorship?

It can't be. Nothing is being 'banned' in that sense. Edits are to improve not to censor. -x42bn6 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

that is not true. It is the policy of Wikipedia to delete any post by a so-called "banned" user, regardless the quality of the post. In that regard, censorship serves as a tool to regulate community membership. Beyond that, there is an extensive list of what "Wikipedia is not". Edits that conflict with the goals of that ad hoc list are removed, i.e. censored. Edits believed by a sufficiently powerful individual or group of editors to represent a "point of view" that is not "neutral" are censored from Wikipedia. Censorship is the official exclusion of information ostensibly for the purpose of improving public discourse. Censorship is central to the editorial process of Wikipedia.

Rybold 23:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has censored references to Encyclopedia Dramatica. It has also deleted and banned the page on the GNAA (without regard for the deletion rules). Whether the policy is censorship or not, the administrators certainly are performing it. -Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.188.97 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

History needed

This article currently covers censorship as it exists at the moment, but is lacking in any sense of history -- and this is a subject with a large history, in which current positions and actions are much influenced by that history. (Some UK content is also needed.) DES 07:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli Censorship?

Why is Israeli censorship considered "POV pushing" when censorship by other governments is fair game in this article? I didn't write the deleted line but I don't agree with its deletion. What do others think? (this is the edit I mean) --csloat 1 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

The article mentions almost no other countries, the entry was unsourced and not representative of the true situation of freedom in Israel, and the editor in question is obsessed with finding negative to say about Jews and Israel, and has attempted to do so in close to a dozen articles now - that's POV pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

--Jayjg, you have attempted hundreds of false pro-Israel and Zionist edits. This is yet another case of your POV pushing. The subject of the section is wartime censorship. The IDF is the most notable group using press censorship at the moment. You are obsessed with pushing lies and pro-Jewish propaganda into Wikipedia. Reread the text and before you reactionarily edit. From Haaretz: [[1]] "A sense of deja vu has settled in at the newsrooms of the print press and the broadcast stations. The military censor, which had seemed to be an annoyance that had passed from this world, has been resurrected and once again is making things difficult for the free press in Israel.

Of all the countries in the world, it is Israel that has the least free press? No mention of the dozens of dictatorships and military governments which severely censor the press in Africa, South America, Asia? Israel ranks 44th on "Reporters without Borders" World Press Freedom ranking. Why don't you first focus on the 122 countries that scored worse that Israel? Obvious POV pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

Add them if you like, but stop deleting others' contributions because you have a pro-Israel POV. The IDF censorship issue is applicable to the text discussing wartime. Reread the text! Stop reverting and making ridiculous reactionary edits.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

NPOV demands that this (and every other) article focus on the most prominent examples of the phenomenon, and not simply emphasize relatively unimportant examples - otherwise you introduce systemic bias into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

I do know that Israel has a formal censorship policy. If you want to comment on what you know about other countries, please contribute as well. It would be POV pushing to delete factual information. Sorry. Please do a googletest and let us know the results. Until then, please stop the POV reverts.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed. New arguments only please. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

What seems to be happening here, is a fundamental failure to understand the difference between freedom of access and freedom of expression. Israel'sth Park"'s Scientology episode. Presumably you'd want to mention the documentary "OutFoxed," but also include censorship by the FCC; the FCC's possible expansion to new media; the McCain-Feingold Act; concentrated ownership of media vs. government restrictions on freedom of contract; reports that CNN held back damning info about Hussein's Iraq for fear for the safety of their reporters; the Jayson Blair scandal at the NYT; the "Fairness Act" rule for radio programming; the nature of political talking-heads shows where a liberal and a conservative scream at each other; the use of "blogs" as sources for traditional media; and Howard Stern's move from ClearChannel to XM Radio. Lots to talk about! --Kris Schnee 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is another kind of corporate censorship - the use of civil suits to stifle critical speech. This is covered in Lawrence Soley's book, Censorship, Inc.. I may add something about this down the line; others feel welcome to. Rlitwin 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

npov tag?

Someone added an NPOV tag with a claim that the article is "pro-socialist" and "anti-Western". Does anyone know what the hell he's talking about? More to the point, shouldn't an editor enter into conversation on the talk page before slapping an NPOV tag on an article? I don't see anything justifying the tag except perhaps a sentence or two that could easily be rewritten.--csloat 06:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From Implementation - Censorship is regarded among a majority of academics in the Western world as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems. Democratic nations are represented, especially among Western government, academic and media commentators, to have somewhat less institutionalized censorship, and instead are represented as promoting the importance of freedom of speech. The dichotomy might have as much basis in preferred self-perception as in fact, however. Studies of media in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics revealed most limits on media content were self-imposed by reporters and editors, while the process of content selection developed more from selection of personnel who report news. In much of the Soviet empire, there were few official censors. The same process is evident today in major Western media, where members of preferred social classes enjoy almost exclusive control of content production in print and broadcast media.

Claiming that there was only self-censorship in the Soviet Union, not systematic state-led censorship is a rather intellectually dishonest notion. The original author of the article asserts that Soviet media only practiced self-censorship similar to western institutions. That is a complete canard. The state owned all forms of media, so it was both the owner and the entity that would have benefitted from the self-censorship. Also, read the last sentence of that paragraph, arguing that "members of preferred social classes enjoy almost exclusive control of content production in print and broadcast media." That's a quote straight out of Marxist conflict theory, practically. Thirdly, look at the Links sections. You're telling me out of all the self-censoring entities in the world, the top 10 of which I would say are in the People's Republic of China, the author only found the State Department and the White House's webpage?

Finally, the reason I decided to NPOV the entire article is because that paragraph was written by the original author, hence it is quite a stretch to think that the rest of it does not have some inaccuracies. I'm not recommending its deletion here, just someone peer review it. Kade 02:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since your only stated reason for a NPOV complaint is your belief that the paragraph you cite was written by the original author, and since that assumption is incorrect and verfiably so by a review of the history page, I am removing the NPOV. I am not the original author, I am the person who expanded the article under a username Rybold.

You state, based on your not recognizing (or believing) author information available in the history section, that "it is quite a stretch to think that the rest of it does not have some inaccuracies" but describing the limitations of your thought processes does not inform an understanding of inaccuracies you suspect but do not cite.

I will add a sentence clarifying differences in ownership structure between the Soviet Union and the US. Other shortcomings you allude to, saying "You're telling me .... the author only found the State Department", can be resolved by you adding links to self-censoring entities of which you are aware.

You incorrectly state that social class analysis of media content originators "comes straight out of Marxist conflict theory". Though Marx might have reached similar conclusions based on his analysis of other cultural millieus, the analysis is simple informed observation coincident with widespread criticism of media in the United States. FAIR and Chomsky would more accurately be cited as inspirations for recognizing social class influence in major US media. RyboId 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Note the above was posted by RyboId (talk · contribs) (RYBOID) who appears to be spoofing Rybold (talk · contribs) (RYBOLD) who posted on this page on December 4. Blocked as an impostor. -- Curps 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Whomever blocked this username advanced bold assumptions without first inquiring of the user. The uninquisitive tone of hostility does not seem consistent with a genuine search for encyclopedic information, but does convey a sense of impatience, suspicion and lack of cooperation.

Admin Curps would do well to observe in good faith the consistent tone and interest of the two visually similar user name, to observe the constructive articulate nature of each user name's contribution, to note the lack of destructive edits by either user name, to consider difficulties encountered by harried volunteer contributors to an opensource project and to post an inquiry on the user's talk pages and wait an appropriate time before making dark allegations that a contributor is an impostor or is spoofing.

Now posting as Riebold, I have also posted as Rybold and as RyboId. I adopted a similar appearing user name after returning to read an article I had contributed to and discovering that I had forgotten the password to the original user name. The baseless allegation of "spoofing" does not contribute to the general community spirit nor to a general sense of credibility for this project. Riebold 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Information on GLAVLIT added.

One of the largest organs of state-sponsored censorship in the late 20th Century was Glavlit operating in the Soviet Union. It deserves mention here.

The "see also" list is getting long

It seems that there are categories or lists (that represent a relevant concept) that should be pointed to, not individual works. -- Fplay 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rationales for censorship

I found the list of rationales for censorship a bit oversimplified so I added the following:

"These rationales can often occur in combinations and intermediate forms. Historically, the military has often attempted to suppress bad news, such as defeats or high casualties, from the front not to prevent them from reaching the enemy (who presumably already knows) but to prevent the general public from knowing. They have argued that such bad news might hurt the morale of soldiers and civilians alike and thus hamper the war effort. This falls somewhere between the political and military rationales for censorship."

Historically, what I describe above is probably one of the most important forms of censorship. "First Casualty" is a good book on this.

Censorship in Portugal#The_Estado_Novo includes a few official reasons included in the law that established censorship. I'm in the course of translating the arcticle from portuguese, so proofreaders are welcome Galf 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

External and internal links are getting unwieldly. I removed the links to articles which were deleted. I think that the majority of the links should be outsourced to daughter articles. For example, a link to a politician who supports censoring video games may be germane in an article about the censoring of video games but not in the generic article about censorship. What is the statute of limitations on links to Censorship in X country which have not been created? Savidan 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish cartoon and censorship

There are breaking stories over censorship of editors (being scaked) who want to run the cartoon. Where can I find it?John wesley 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Corporate Censorship

I added a brief description of corporate censorship as I thought it odd that although in actuality it's the most common form people in the west are exposed to nowadays, there was little mention of it outside of the "Terms" paragraph aside from mild references to refusal to run certain opinion pieces and mentioning portraying certain servies in a positive light later in the article. I know there is a stub for "corporate censorship" but I believe many of the issues relating to "corporate censorship" would be better served in this main censorship article, as it is the form of censorship most prevalent these days.

Also, I'm not particularly happy with the wording as "corporations" in this context could just as easily be replaced with any privately owned small town newspaper. Although in "Terms" it does allude to how it is only really regarded as censorship when a large segment of the population is served, it is also censorship if a story only relevant locally was refused publiction in a local newspaper and so the wider local populance never becomes aware of it. (Dictionary definition of verb censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable")

Also, I think perhaps a brief mention of how reporters and editors in some privately owned news outlets will be expected to follow the owners ideological viewpoint closely in what information they are allowed to print and how it is presented. (See Rupert Murdochs tabloid newspapers for example, and to a lesser extent his Fox news network, or anti-europeanism in UK tabloids). Perhaps even a brief sentance on the rights and wrongs of private news' responsibilities? I dont want this to degenerate into a whole article on "Fair and Balanced", but I would prefer a much clearer linking between how propaganda and censorship are two sides of the same coin, and how corporations can follow an ideological bias of their own due to their controlling interests. (For example, see the role of the private media in the recent attempted coup in Venezuela). I think the final paragraph in the implementation section is a little too brief for such an important part of the modern censorship implementation.

Although I dont agree with much of the philosophy behind it, other takes on censorship perhaps worth presenting in brief are some of the ideas in Chomskys "Manufacturing consent" or "Media Control (2nd ed) : The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.".

Unlike the poster above, I don't think that this is the proper place to refer to specific cases of censorship or the article could baloon horribly. (For example, for just one example of corporate censorship, google for "corporate censorship fox and monsanto"). Perhaps there could be a link to mention of the sacking of editors over the printing of satirical cartoons of Mohammad, but I think perhaps that might be better placed in a link from the article on freedom of speech alongside a comparison of the sentencing of holocaust-denier David Irving to jail time in Austria. After all, the printing wasn't officially censored (although clearly there was a decision taken in many news outlets not to publish which amounted to de facto censorship), but instead the publishers of unpopular articles were punished after the fact.

Mouserat 05:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"sanitization" websites

None of the claimes are sourced. Blatant POV. Censorship is not including partial documents that are available somewhere else. If that were the standard, then Wikipedia would be "censoring" until all of Human Knowledge was recorded.--Tbeatty 04:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and am just about to remove that section, it seems to have an overtly political tone/nature.Dave 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how is this POV? It is just an example of a type of censorship. Remember, censorship and the introduction of dicatarorships often come incrementally. Just because you can still find the info somewhere else for awhile, doesn't mean anything. Metrocat 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Governmental"

I re-edited the first line back to an earlier version because censorship, though most often practiced by government, and only illegal in the U.S. when practiced by government, is not a concept limited to government. On this talk page we discuss corporate censorship, religious censorship, and censorship by militias, none of which are governments per se, but all of which are, in fact, forms of censorship.

I think that there's a bit of confusion about that because the legal definitions tend to dominate the discussion of the practice. The fact is, information is unquestionably censored whether or not there is legal redress for the censorship. Others seem to have trouble separating the concepts of "editing" and "censoring" without tying censorship to the government. The distinction is that editing is the practice of selecting information to publish, whereas censorship is the practice of taking steps to suppress, burden, or interfere with communication of particular ideas. It's the same as the distinction between cops and robbers--both of them shoot people, but they tend to choose different people to shoot.

The last reason that people tend to confuse this definition is that censorship requires power, and the state unquestionably has that power. But churches have that power, too (e.g., the Mormon church and the Salamander letter); large corporations have that power (e.g., ; arsonists who destroy buildings where incriminating records are kept have that power; even copyright holders, from time to time, act as censors. Private schools are censors, though they are not governments, because they hold the power over their students to get away with it.

Long story short, the Web is filled with definitions on both sides of this question. Half of them are wrong, no matter which half you support. But certainly, from the viewpoint of the study of communication, the concept and practice of censorship has long been practiced beyond the scope of government authority. Junkmale 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it again [2]. Censorship is, as you state, not an exclusive function of governments. ww2censor 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and thought I should copy this from elsewhere to explain further: whether or not there's a better way to phrase it, there's nothing about the "definition and etymology" that demands a government be the one doing the censorship, as some say there is. You can find competing definitions online, but there are just as many, if not more, that don't limit it to government than there are ones that do.[3] And to say that the "etemology" of the word requires it apply only to governments is a little silly--I mean, the etemology of the word is irrelevant to its modern use and scope. The word "dashboard" identifies a particular part of a horse-drawn vehicle, but it is just as properly applied to vehicles without horses.[4] Etemology just doesn't work to limit the scope of language.Junkmale 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Really it is very simple, especially as Junkmale says "definition and entomology' do not come into the current thinking, governments are not the only entity performing censorship. My experience is particularly with Postal censorship for more than 25 years and while governments are the most usual perpetrator of censorship I know of specific instances where non-governmental groups have exercised censorship on the mail. In that article the term 'most often' is used and I think that may be the best wording in this instance as its implication tends towards governments as those who practice censorship. It only takes one instance to prove censorship is not exclusively carried out by governments. By way of example, here [5] is a 1922 example of IRA mail being censored within a prison by the IRA on mail to the prison and this was not performed by the government authorities but by (a superior IRA officer of) the inmates themselves. ww2censor 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As addressed to the person who continues to revert this page to an incorrect definition that limits censorship to governments: show us where you get that definition of censorhsip, then. Webster.com defines it as "the institution or practice of censoring," with censor defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." [6] Dictionary.com shows that both Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language define censorship and censoring in the same way, without ever mentioning government. [7] Ditto Allwords.com.[8] Ditto Cambridge English dictionary[9] and its dictionary of American English. [10] The Columbia encyclopedia goes even further to disagree with your definition, stating that censorship "may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group."[11] So what, exactly, do you cite as authority for your position? Junkmale 14:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Politically Correct Info Abounds, Needs Work

This page, as it stands right now, is packed with a definite politically correct spin. Political correctness means the information is correct but only from a political point of view, not from reality. In reality, this page is in serious need of a makeover so that it reflects correct information, not politically correct information.

For example, the page says ,"Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of the values behind the material and limits access to it. An example is pornography." It is not censorship to keep a child from reading porn. Authority for this? The US Supreme Court and parents worldwide. On the other hand, the politically correct view is that it is age discrimination to keep a child from porn. Authority for this? The American Library Association. Be that as it may, the point here is the sentence I quoted is an example of incorrect, but politically correct, information. The point is this censorship page needs correct information, not politically correct information.

The sentence is inaccurate in another way. It says "the censoring body disapproves of the values behind the material...." Not true in the writer's stated example of pornography. Besides not being a censor in this example, the issue is not that a person disapproves of pornography. The issue is one of whether it is appropriate or not to allow children access to pornography, the same porn that the person might not disapprove of himself. So to say "the censoring body disapproves of the values behind the material...." is just plain wrong.

But, it is a politically correct statement, because by claiming it is the "censor" who "disapproves of the values," the obvious conclusion is the "censor" is wrong to substitute his own judgement for that of another or of the child. Indeed the argument is made that children should have access to all porn because they are capable of discerning for themselves what porn is inappropriate for them.

That is clearly false under the law and under community standards worldwide, yet that is the material as currently presented on this page. Something needs to be done to present the truth, not some politically correct view. --SafeLibraries 23:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example, the "School Textbook" section makes no mention of the SCOTUS case Board of Education v. Pico, 1982. --SafeLibraries 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example is the complete lack of information about how libraries make book collection decisions where very often "conservative" books somehow just don't make the cut. --SafeLibraries 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

For a sense of where this user is coming from, see Talk:American Library Association and Talk:Library Bill of Rights. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Rlitwin 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To be clearer... SafeLibraries has been editing pages with an obsessional purpose and attempts to use wikipedia as a soapbox. Rlitwin 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is very much using WP as a soapbox, and he shouldn't. But, in this case, at least he did so on the Talk page, which is much much better than just inserting his opinions into the article himself. The important thing, I think, is that he strongly follow the principle that if you want to change the article in controversial ways, the procedure is:

1. State the changes you want made on the Talk pages.
2. Let other people hear you out.
3. If there's a consesnsus, then THEY will make the changes.

That's the RIGHT way to try to do it. The WRONG way to do it is:

1. Insert your own POV into many articles.
2. All your changes get reverted instantly.
3. People get mad at you.
4. Eventually you get banned for Soapboxing and obsessional point of view.

SL has been oscillating back and forth between the two styles. His posting on this talk page is an example of the RIGHT way. His edits yesterday (e.g.diff) where he did 11 separate inserts of the same link-- that was an example of the WRONG way. Hopefully, he'll stick to the right way, and we can all pat him on the back even if we disagree with his views. Or, he'll continue using the wrong way, and Wikipedia has procedures to deal with that too.

--Alecmconroy 00:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alecmconroy, for helping me as you have. Indeed I am doing this on the Talk page for the very reasons you suggested and because this is how you have guided me to do so. My multiple minor edits were only of single links so I was not aware that for something that minor I needed to get approval on the Talk pages. Indeed most were kept, although editted, by the wiki community involved.

Rlitwin, it is clear you and I are opposites on the politically correct scale. You are often very hostile toward me. And you are again here. It may be this method of communicating that brings out the worst in people. I feel, however, that if you and I were to meet face to face to discuss these issues, that, while we would disagree on almost everything, we would still end up having enjoyed the conversation and perhaps looking forward to more. So please consider for the future.

Rlitwin, your response was totally nonresponsive. Instead, it was a personal attack against me and my unflinching style in counteracting your arguments. You are attempting place into people's minds that my words should not be considered because, according to you, I have "an obsessional purpose and [I] use wikipedia as a soapbox."

You fail to address the issues and always attack the credibility of the person. You have consistently failed to address issues in the past as well.

It is perfectly legitimate to raise the issue here, on the censorship page, that the "Student Textbooks" section does not refer to Board of Education v. Pico. Instead of attacking my credibility, why not build your own by addressing the issue? Is it not true that Pico should be discussed in that section? Why? Why not?

It is perfectly legitimate to ask why "conservative" books just coincidentally do not meet inclusion standards in public libraries, particularly where the ALA is the loudest voice shouting censorship all over the land. It is a legitimate question to ask why, given the organization that restricts the intake of "conservative" books is the same one that argues that keeping children from pornographic ones is censorship, should this censorship page not also include a section on how librarians themselves restrict information. This is not my soapbox and I am not asking people to debate whether or not the ALA is doing this. I am asking only whether such information should be included on this page. Necessarily, inclusion would mean wiki worthy proof. And that can be supplied. But right now the issue is whether a certain issue should be added to this certain page.

It is perfectly legitimate to ask what I asked in my first few paragraphs in this Talk subsection. Why not address yourself to the issues? Why not include the SCOTUS quote from US v. ALA that says all Justices agree that it is "legitimate, even compelling," that inappropriate material should be kept away from children and that is not censorship. The SCOTUS said this. Is there a higher source? Is it not wikiworthy? Does that quote not belong on this page? Have you addressed yourself to that issue? The point here is to invite input from all sides, not just mine. So your opinions are welcome too, but the personal attacks are honestly getting tiresome. I saw you even admitted on Alecmconroy's Talk page that you may have been too hard on me. So my source for my current views is an impeccable source, you!

What is even worse is you are attacking me for writing here on the Talk page, and the reason why I am writing here is, why? Why am I writing here? I am part of the wiki community and I was invited to. Invited! Indeed I added that section to the Talk page specifically because I was invited to. What a coincidence you automatically removed it before I added any substance to it. How was I invited? Why, besides the general invitation to edit all pages, I was specifically invited to edit this Censorship page. At the top of the page as I see it now it says, and I quote, "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page." Based on that alone I decided to add something. Based on my addition alone you decided to demean me publicly. I am following wiki directives exactly. You are essentially claiming that you personally trump wiki invitations and you removed my new section and then cast doubt on me personally without addressing the issues and without regard for specific directives on this very Censorship page to "discuss the issue on the talk page." Who's censoring whom?

Honestly, your constant attacks on my credibility without ever addressing the issues only make you look less and less credible. I am not fooled by your efforts and you are only fooling yourself if you think others are similarly fooled.

I urge everyone to comment one way or another on the issues I raise in this subsection, as specifically invited by the blurb at the top of the main page, and to add additional issues as desired. Thank you. --SafeLibraries 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do this and probably shouldn't, but as SafeLibraries has just accused me of being hostile towards him and of failing to address issues and using ad hominem attacks, I have to say I have not done this, and just for the record refer readers to Talk:American Library Association and Talk:Library Bill of Rights, which are the only other places where SL and I have interacted. I think those pages show nothing resembling what SL is accusing me of here. If it's inappropriate for me to put this here, please lend me a hand and come to my own talk page and give me some advice for how to deal with this. Thanks. Rlitwin 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just piling on, Rlitwin, proving my point further. I won't say any more now because you continue to make my case for me. But really, Rlitwin, who cares? Can we all please just stick with the issues? You stop what you are doing to marginalize my arguments, I'll stop exposing what you are doing that you have admitted to on my talk page on on Alecmconroy's talk page, and let's both just stick to the issues and go on from here like friends, okay?

Cutting uncited section here for discussion and developing footnotes

--- Begin cut section

Criticism of Unwanted Censorship

There has been problems between people and censorship around the USA (and possibaly other countries) that it isn't needed. One Unwanted censorship was from the banning of many websites such as Action Flash and rumored to be banned RuneScape in school. Websites like this aren't that much of nessesary of Censoring because they don't contain offensive materials (however Action flash changed its site so much that it included offensive material) in school however the Board of Education did state one fact that websites like this will interfeare with things like school. One popular website that was a blog site that is also banned is MySpace Teenagers wer dissapointed when their favorite blog site was banned as well.

Other unwanted Censorship can be found in Media, Newspapers, Music, Even Events like Hurracane Katrina and Terrorism as well. People in all the countries think that Censorship in media is a way of hiding us from evenst that are dangerous. They also think that its a form of getting people in danger.

--- End cut section

I find the above commentary has a lot of merit. But in my opinion it is lacking in citations to reliable published sources. The above commentary is controversial and not many people would agree, so it is important to cite to a reliable source so that the reader could check with the writing of the reliable source to examine the reasons and statistics behind the conclusions in the above commentary. Would you agree? --Rednblu 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That entire paragraph is so poorly worded with many grammatical and spelling errors. I would only put it back up after a lot of editing has been done. 20:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie

Folks, where on the line along censorship, whitewashing, political correctness, what have you, does this story below fall - where it appears USA Democrats are telling a TV station to change a movie critical of the Democrats or to keep it completely off the air?

Democrats Urge ABC to Withdraw 9/11 Movie, 7 Sep 2006, (included here under Copyright §107; Fair Use):

By Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

Chronicling events leading to the September 11 attacks, the movie suggests the Clinton administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal properly with the gathering threat posed by Islamic militants.

The furor comes as Democrats and Republicans jockey for political position in advance of the November 7 congressional elections over who can best secure the United States from another attack.

Democrats have chided Republicans for failing to implement security recommendations by the 9/11 commission, and Republicans have portrayed Democrats as soft on terrorism.

In recent days, former members of the Clinton administration also lodged complaints with Iger, urging ABC and Disney to fix or eliminate what they called errors and fabrications.

ABC issued a statement saying the production, "The Path to 9/11," was still being edited and that criticism of the film's specifics were thus "premature and irresponsible."

DRAMATIC LICENSE

Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that "there is dramatic license taken" in the docudrama to "render the program effective and accessible for viewers." Speaking to Reuters by telephone from London, he added, "We have no intention or desire to be political, to intentionally distort."

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats -- depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security adviser Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission -- was a "conflation of events."

Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

The September 11 attacks occurred about eight months after Clinton turned over the presidency in January 2001 to Republican George W. Bush.

For several years, Democrats have complained the Bush administration failed to capture or kill bin Laden when he reportedly was cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region in late 2001. They also argue the war in Iraq later took away resources for tracking down bin Laden.

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

"As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," ABC said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and served as a consultant for the ABC miniseries, defended the production as politically balanced.

"People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one," he said.

(Additional reporting by Steve Gorman and Ellen Wulfhorst)

Thanks - looking forward to your comments. --SafeLibraries 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly sounds like "censorship" to me, unless they're taking steps to prohibit it. I'm pretty sure writing letters to TV stations is considered protected speech rather than censorship. And I'm not sure how it is any different from the CBS Reagan biography controversy. In any case, I don't think the topic of censorship needs to become a political football on Wikipedia. Sure, incidents can be collected on either side of the congressional aisle in order to call the other side censors, but I'm not sure what value there is in that.

Don't get me wrong - as a pedagogical tool, this incident is pretty fascinating, since it brings up questions about documentaries and the relationship between "truth" and "fiction" that are fascinating. But I'm not sure there is much philosophical support or case law support for the claim that that question is a free speech question. Should the law prevent a documentary filmmaker from telling a story as they see it, even if they are manipulating facts in obvious ways? I can't imagine a free speech scholar answering that question yes, and I can't imagine congressional Democrats doing anything more than "urging" ABC to pull an objectionable documentary. (There are a few Republicans whom I could imagine doing so, I suppose, but, given the slew of anti-Bush documentaries in the past few years, of which Fahrenheit was only the tip of an iceberg, and given that many of those films play fast and loose with the facts, it is notable that they didn't). This seems like a simple issue of "more speech," though the speech does come from public officials, unless and until those officials threaten to actually censor the film.--csloat 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Does it change any when a former President demands a show not be shown? BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11 MOVIE; INSISTS NET PULL DRAMA. Mind you, I am not making political statements. Rather I am genuinely interested in hearing from experts on the issues I raise so those experts may update the article accordingly. After all, how often do former Presidents demand shows not be shown that make that same former President's acts be exposed to the public that he has been attempting so hard to cover up that his "sloppy" National Security Advisor Sandy Berger steals documents from the National Archives by stuffing them into his under garments and it happens to be on the very subject of the show the former President seeks to eliminate. --SafeLibraries 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I thought you said you were not making political statements. Everything you said after that was a political statement. Frankly, this still looks like "more speech" to me, on the part of "Bubba." "Insisting" something and actually stopping the flow of information are two different things. The first adds information to the public arena; the other removes it. When "Bubba" actually halts the movie from being shown or passes a law against it (can ex-presidents now have executive power?), or punishes ABC for showing it, then you will have a case of censorship, but there is nothing censorious about "going ballistic." There is no reason for your high horse here either - that is blog material, not wikipedia. There is no point to it here. I can easily cite many instances of hypocrisy and demands for self-censorship on the part of Republicans too, but what would be the point of such an exercise? Finally, let's not blow this out of proportion. Clinton is angry about this film because he believes it portrays things that are not true. Just as many members of the Bush Admin were angry about Fahrenheit 911 and other videos. If Clinton could prove actual malice and reckless disregard for truth were operational here, perhaps he could make a case for a defamation lawsuit, but even that is unlikely since he is such a prominent public figure.-csloat 09:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I agree with what you said and I too knew it looked political. But read the Sandy Berger page to see what I said is essentially fact, it's just that here, the truth is stranger than fiction. And ABC is reported to be editting the film as a direct result of all this. Surely ABC is being punished, only the spanking is of a different kind. The point to cite it was not that I was saying it belongs here, rather I was saying that's a possibility and experts might want to look into that possibility. --SafeLibraries 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NOW A FORMER PRESIDENT IS DEMANDED WABC CENSOR THE FILM! http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/09/in_new_letter_clintons_lawyer_demands_abc_yank_film --SafeLibraries 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pornography" is lousy example

The discussion about children's access to pornography above misses the mark--that should be a discussion about whether censorship is ever justified.

It is possible (and has been done) to argue that pornography promotes violence, in which case the question of limiting pornography is one of ensuring public safety, not far removed from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

The question of "What is pornography?" doesn't belong here, but a less ambiguous example would be more helpful.

Censorship in Japan

Was there an article on it that was deleted? It's odd that there is no page for it.

Yes there was, but it was purely spam. --TBCΦtalk? 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

seventeen techniques for... WTF?

I really don't see why this section was included in the article. It's original research, in an unencyclopedic tone and adds nothing to the article. I'm taking the liberty of deleting it until a better alternative is put forward. It's unacceptable (IMHO) at the moment. Justinmeister 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Defaced

It appears that an individual has chosen to vandalize this page. I will continue to watch it for graffiti. If the individual chooses to add some information with proper references I will not delete it again until proper discussion has taken place on the subject matter.

This particular page is certainly a target for vandals, but also should not be an example of what it is intended to describe.

It is fixed already now. You might see Wikipedia:Vandalism on how to fix vandalism yourself. andy

Reads like a conspiracy article

Seriously, much of this is anti-censorship stuff, but there are little or no things citing the positive effects of censorship. --Pichu0102 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a specific POV problem with the article, let us know what it is so it can be addressed. Asserting that it is missing the "positive effects of censorship" is silly -- what positive effects are you talking about? I notice there are no sections on the positive effects of genocide or fascism in the corresponding articles either; are you planning to tag those articles too? I'm also not sure what is "conspiratorial" about any of this. csloat 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article clean-up

I've had a go at cleaning up the article:

• There's now a halfway decent introduction (rather than an essay)
• Sections reorganized in a slightly more encyclopedic manner
• Essay and editorializm (including two paragraphs of absolutely awful WP:OR) put into a more encyclopedic style.

It still needs a lot of work, but hopefully this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenwash (?)

I was going to add a link to the "Greenwash" article to the SEE ALSO links at the end of the page, but then found myself wondering whether it was an example of censorship, or an example of spindoctoring.

(One is blocking information, the other is giving false or misleading information.)

Lies and censorship are linked, but so is truth and censorship - eg. You can block access to the truth, or block access to deliberate lies such as found on many racist sites.

Where is the dividing line? Does "Greenwash" fit in here or not? Mfgreen 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say Greenwashing is an example of spin and manipulation, but not outright censorship. It really doens't apply to this article. -- Kesh 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth image

[[Image:Observatory_Circle_Google_Maps.jpg|240px|thumb|Imagery could be censored, too. Although it doesn't have any [[profanity]] on the roof in the area. This location is the U.S. Vice President's residence as seen through [[Google Maps]], [[Globexplorer]], and [[Google Earth]].]]

I've removed the above code from the page. Google Earth's images are copyrighted, and it would be hard to argue Fair use with them, as Google licensed the images from another company. It's a bit too much of a legal tangle to sort out fair use from their images. -- Kesh 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Italy

It's pity that there is no wikipage about censorship in Italy. Berlusconi developed a very strong control of the media, including dismissal of popular media people because they criticised the regime.

Then why don't you go ahead and create one? :) --TBCΦtalk? 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is communism listed under "see also"?

Why is communism listed here? Don't capitalist countries provide oppressive regimes, specifically non-communist ones, with tools and resources for the implementation of censorship, quite often? In that case, since capitalist do so out of economic interests, shouldn't capitalism also be listed in "see also"? I have not added this, feel free to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.90 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the link. --TBCΦtalk? 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Name one communist country without total censorship. Capitalism cannot exist with economical censorship.Xx236 07:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Freenet links broken

The freenet links are busted - seem to point to localhost IP. Anyone have valid links to substitute? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I found an archived version of the Cleanex Experiment link, but none for the Choron links.--TBCΦtalk? 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Glavlit

This WIkipedia uses name Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press.Xx236 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More Google Earth Censorship

For what it's worth, I noticed a while back that the GE images of the US supermax pen at Florence Colorado has been altered to obscure some of the prison's buildings. The redactions looked like they'd been done with Magic Marker.

Basesurge 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)