Talk:Censorship/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 January 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Spoiler

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? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 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)

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)

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)

Comics

Could link to Comics Code Authority in US and add something about UK's Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955. Annquin (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2016 (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: 62.236.217.68 / talk / contribs}