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? K61824Practicing involuntary celibacy 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 :) ħuman 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
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)|
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.) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Human rights tribunals
The section "Censorship dressed up as human rights" is very vague, largely unreferenced, and possibly misleading. I assume it is principally a reference to the Canadian system (see Hate speech laws in Canada); although parts of the Canadian law were apparently repealed in 2013 and it varies significantly from province to province. The only cited example given is of somebody being cleared of hate speech, which hardly indicates a desperate threat to human rights. And the British situation, which is legally quite different, is dropped in the middle. I was going to delete large chunks as uncited and possibly biased or out of date, but I figured I should see if anyone wants to defend it and reference it, or offer a more accurate account. Annquin (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the phenomenon of people managing to legislate against having to be offended is real, and I — for one — am a dedicated opponent of such laws. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Censorship by private entities
While traditionally censorship, and indeed by dictionaries, only goverments can censor. However, should the entry at least mention private entities which suppress expression? Such as religious and ideological parties.— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
Censorship vs Criticism
"There is probably an overlap with self-censorship, in that vociferous criticism may lead to self-censorship. But what is required is not an absence of criticism but a free debate in which both sides can put their case and the better argument wins."
That certainly sounds good on paper, but first of all, sometimes it's not the better argument that wins, but the loudest or the most popular argument, even if said arguments are rooted in populist opinions rather than pure logic. And if that still meets your personal definition of "better", then my second point; should it be justifiable for an offended minority to be able to force a change contrary to the artist's vision through sheer social pressure? Finally, I would point out that it's disingenuous to use the term "self-censorship," when oftentimes it's the guy from PR caving on the artist's behalf.
With regards to video games, sometimes changes can be made without compromising the vision. The gamergate types may whine about the dev "giving in", but I see it as a win-win. Some artists are open to new points of view, which may lead to new inspiration. Other times, the artist has a specific vision in mind, in which case his freedom of expression should be respected, even if the vision itself is open to criticism. The line is blurry and situational, which is something both sides seem to overlook at times, but it should be respected. To put it bluntly, I support both the concepts of social progress and creative expression, but feel the latter is more important. You're right in that I don't see many folks on the Left calling for censorship and boycotts, but the debate is worth having. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
While there are a large number of apocryphal religious Jewish and Christian religious texts, very few of them were ever widely regarded as authentic
What's the criteria for authenticity? It's well established that the nominal authors weren't responsible for the texts (being as they were mostly of a legendary nature). --Scherben (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Scherben Being a fictionalized entity does make it difficult to write books, or do much of anything for that matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)