200
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: + + + + + + + + + +
The more recent examples
:Even if you are an original thinker with much to share, I adjure you to work harmoniously here by adhering to our rules and customs. Be sure to avoid edit wars, particularly with sysops. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:Even if you are an original thinker with much to share, I adjure you to work harmoniously here by adhering to our rules and customs. Be sure to avoid edit wars, particularly with sysops. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
== The more recent examples ==
I see these have been added back to the article: the vandalism of a conservative newspaper in Bucknell college; the banning of official school prayer; and the ostracisation of people for their conservative or pro-life views.
Above, I have argued that these examples are not particularly good examples of censorship, and so substituted them with the examples of Google China, "clean" versions of CDs, Nineteen Eighty Four, and reaction to Galileo. All are clear-cut examples of different sorts of censorship, as everybody (I presume) would agree. In contrast, the destruction of a student newspaper by other students is a better example of vandalism than censorship; the ostracisation of individuals for their views is a better example of unfair discrimination or bigotry than censorship; and what is prevented by banning official school prayer is the implication of state endorsement of any ''particular'' religion. Prayer itself is not banned - the teachers and students still have their first amendment rights - so it is not a clear example of censorship.
When an encyclopedia illustrates a topic by providing examples, it should use the most definitive, "textbook" examples available. The examples I removed are not. I should add also that they are not any more recent than Google China or censorship of films and music.
They have, however, been returned to the article without comment, and without any reply to my reasons for removing them in the first place. I will not revert the edit, but instead will try to reach consensus, as Ed Poor kindly advised. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT)