Talk:Censorship

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there something like a spoiler button to make the page look like "This page has been censored. Press this button to view." kind of thing? K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 20:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

there should be a Fun:Censorship page, with exactly the same text as this but with the CIA's black highlighter all over it. i'd do it myself if I knew how. Totnesmartin 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Go for it :) ħumanUser talk:Human 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

May I add the following quote?

Politically, there is only what the public knows to exist. ("Politicamente, só existe aquilo que o público sabe que existe.")
António de Oliveira Salazar, 1933, on the foundation of the Secretariado Nacional de Informação - National Secretariat of Information (the propaganda ministry)

Faunas (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Ads

When an advertiser pulls ads from a website because of something that was published on that website, is it censorship? It's definitely an attempt to force the publisher to self-censor, but is it literal censorship? ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 17:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that comment is a long time ago, but I'm just going to give my two cents. Most advertisers seek a website that, at least, consists of a target audience that both visits the website and may be interested in the products/services being advertised. However...

Should an advertiser be legally bound to continue advertising on a website even if said website started saying stuff advertisers don't want to get associated with?

Corporate bodies, while perhaps the whole 'corporations are people too' is kind of too far a leap for me, do have a right to be able to manage their own public relations to the best of their abilities. This includes who they associate with and do business relations with. A fast-food franchise would cut off ties with any suppliers that exercise bad animal welfare procedures, (it's a sound PR decision) and sponsorships have been pulled from sports players who make inappropriate remarks. My view is, so long as money is involved, no one, besides a legitimately democratically-elected government, has a legal capacity to tell anyone how to spend their money, but corporations want to look good, minimise bad press, or stop associating with anyone with views they do not want to be seen as tacitly advocating or endorsing. This is a PR and financial decision. It may be, in Frank Underwood's words, a "chickenshit move", but I assume there's no contract to break if no legal moves were made as a result.

Now, if the advertisers, were instead a web-hosting company doing everything for this website for free, and if they shut down the entire website over this issue, I'd be up in arms about censorship. But this is a merely a bruising, not a knock-out blow. Their views have been heard. Everyone has a right to speak, but as long as no one is trying to stop your views from being heard or attempting to end your existence, people may choose to react how they wish. If you are right, worry not about the doubters that stand before you, for history will prove you right. Fear not mortality, for only those who fear being wrong fear dying for the wrong cause. (Killing for your cause is an entire thing altogether I would discourage.) 121.6.128.117 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support