Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-15T21:55:13Z

Prof4ever: /* Rewritten intro */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I tried to edit the introductory section that should have defined what censorship is but did not. I cannot get into it. Therefore, I’ll attempt to define "censorship" in this section.
In the United States there are many definitions of “censorship” but they all have the following characteristics in common: 1) action to stop or hinder others from gaining access to a written, graphic, video or oral source of material, 2) the person or people taking the action have logical, rational and/or emotional reasons for blocking access such as one or more of the following bases: morality, age appropriateness, national security and protection, invasion of privacy and libel or scandalous material and 3) the person or people either have legitimate power [government (legislative, judiciary or executive)], legal recourse by group/groups or assertions with the power of numbers (i.e., parental groups) or use other bases of power (i.e., referent, expert authority, etc.).

In America, censorship has been a relatively innocuous issue. Historically, the term has been reserved for the practice of officially examining books, literature, movies, art, video games, etc. with the intention of suppressing unacceptable parts deemed unacceptable by a group on the basis of a standard of morality, a religious belief or standard of violence...typically on the basis of age inappropriateness. It has not reached the depths of that’s its reached in other countries. It has had few political overtones.

The American news media (print and television) have had periods of controversy and have had accusations of liberal bias leveled against it by conservative political groups including the Republican Party. This has never escalated to accusations of censorship. Recently, accusations of political bias have been heard in the opposite direction: with a few liberal political groups suggesting that the news media provides a narrow vacuous source of useless type of political news... “the Republicans said, the Democrats said” type of news…offering no commentary nor analyses. If there is a bias, neither party is crying foul. Again there has been nothing approaching accusations of censorship. However, the “alternative news media” on the Internet especially those that use legitimate news standards of analyses, have grown in number and size. All operating within the current political climate of polarity.

The term “censorship” has been used in other countries, in other time frames and in other contexts: South and Central American dictatorships censor newspapers/airways, China’s communist dictatorship censor political demonstration and dissent and Hitler censored all but Nazi propaganda in Germany. [[User:PMiller|PMiller]] 04:32, 15 September 2011 (CST)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm wondering if some of the writers are aware that an Encyclopedia must adhere to standards...fact-based support from reputable sources and/or well articulated argument of logic. There are excellent conservative arguments (well articulated, supported by principles, etc....i.e., Standards) to discuss school prayer but simply asserting that it has been censored is not acceptable. When a writer asserts, s/he is using opinion and opinion is not ever the basis for arguing for a position. If a writer cannot find support for his/her opinion, please do not use it and do not write it. Please refer to my definition of Censorship under "What Censorship is Not". --[[User:PMiller|PMiller]] 04:54, 15 September 2011 (CST)

== 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent points that are so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion on Conservapedia. We must keep in mind that absolutely nothing on this site should be "opinion-based". Isn't "censorship"

Censorship is not simply a condemnation of a different opinions, is it? I do not think soAt the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --[[PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-15T21:34:56Z

Prof4ever: /* What is not censorship? */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I tried to edit the introductory section that should have defined what censorship is but did not. I cannot get into it. Therefore, I’ll attempt to define "censorship" in this section.
In the United States there are many definitions of “censorship” but they all have the following characteristics in common: 1) action to stop or hinder others from gaining access to a written, graphic, video or oral source of material, 2) the person or people taking the action have logical, rational and/or emotional reasons for blocking access such as one or more of the following bases: morality, age appropriateness, national security and protection, invasion of privacy and libel or scandalous material and 3) the person or people either have legitimate power [government (legislative, judiciary or executive)], legal recourse by group/groups or assertions with the power of numbers (i.e., parental groups) or use other bases of power (i.e., referent, expert authority, etc.).

In America, censorship has been a relatively innocuous issue. Historically, the term has been reserved for the practice of officially examining books, literature, movies, art, video games, etc. with the intention of suppressing unacceptable parts deemed unacceptable by a group on the basis of a standard of morality, a religious belief or standard of violence...typically on the basis of age inappropriateness. It has not reached the depths of that’s its reached in other countries. It has had few political overtones.

The American news media (print and television) have had periods of controversy and have had accusations of liberal bias leveled against it by conservative political groups including the Republican Party. This has never escalated to accusations of censorship. Recently, accusations of political bias have been heard in the opposite direction: with a few liberal political groups suggesting that the news media provides a narrow vacuous source of useless type of political news... “the Republicans said, the Democrats said” type of news…offering no commentary nor analyses. If there is a bias, neither party is crying foul. Again there has been nothing approaching accusations of censorship. However, the “alternative news media” on the Internet especially those that use legitimate news standards of analyses, have grown in number and size. All operating within the current political climate of polarity.

The term “censorship” has been used in other countries, in other time frames and in other contexts: South and Central American dictatorships censor newspapers/airways, China’s communist dictatorship censor political demonstration and dissent and Hitler censored all but Nazi propaganda in Germany. [[User:PMiller|PMiller]] 04:32, 15 September 2011 (CST)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent points that are so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion on Conservapedia. We must keep in mind that absolutely nothing on this site should be "opinion-based". Isn't "censorship"

Censorship is not simply a condemnation of a different opinions, is it? I do not think soAt the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --[[PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-15T21:32:59Z

Prof4ever: /* What is not censorship? */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I tried to edit the introductory section that should have defined what censorship is but did not. I cannot get into it. Therefore, I’ll attempt to define "censorship" in this section.
In the United States there are many definitions of “censorship” but they all have the following characteristics in common: 1) action to stop or hinder others from gaining access to a written, graphic, video or oral source of material, 2) the person or people taking the action have logical, rational and/or emotional reasons for blocking access such as one or more of the following bases: morality, age appropriateness, national security and protection, invasion of privacy and libel or scandalous material and 3) the person or people either have legitimate power [government (legislative, judiciary or executive)], legal recourse by group/groups or assertions with the power of numbers (i.e., parental groups) or use other bases of power (i.e., referent, expert authority, etc.).

In America, censorship has been a relatively innocuous issue. Historically, the term has been reserved for the practice of officially examining books, literature, movies, art, video games, etc. with the intention of suppressing unacceptable parts deemed unacceptable by a group on the basis of a standard of morality, a religious belief or standard of violence...typically on the basis of age inappropriateness. It has not reached the depths of that’s its reached in other countries. It has had few political overtones.

The American news media (print and television) have had periods of controversy and have had accusations of liberal bias leveled against it by conservative political groups including the Republican Party. This has never escalated to accusations of censorship. Recently, accusations of political bias have been heard in the opposite direction: with a few liberal political groups suggesting that the news media provides a narrow vacuous source of “the Republicans said, the Democrats said” type of news…offering no commentary nor analyses. If there is a bias, neither party is crying foul. Again there has been nothing approaching accusations of censorship. However, the “alternative news media” on the Internet especially those that use legitimate news standards of analyses, have grown in number and size. All operating within the current political climate of polarity.

The term “censorship” has been used in other countries, in other time frames and in other contexts: South and Central American dictatorships censor newspapers/airways, China’s communist dictatorship censor political demonstration and dissent and Hitler censored all but Nazi propaganda in Germany. [[User:PMiller|PMiller]] 04:32, 15 September 2011 (CST)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent points that are so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion on Conservapedia. We must keep in mind that absolutely nothing on this site should be "opinion-based". Isn't "censorship"

Censorship is not simply a condemnation of a different opinions, is it? I do not think soAt the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --[[PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-15T19:51:05Z

Prof4ever: /* Internal Contradiction */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent points that are so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion on Conservapedia. We must keep in mind that absolutely nothing on this site should be "opinion-based". Isn't "censorship"

Censorship is not simply a condemnation of a different opinions, is it? I do not think soAt the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --[[PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Censorship

2011-09-14T22:52:15Z

Prof4ever: /* The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S. */

[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|400px|thumb|Adolf Hitler's rise to power was greatly aided by '''censoring''' his critics.<ref>]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/censorship_in_nazi_germany.htm Censorship in Nazi Germany]</ref><ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677 US Holocaust Museum]</ref><ref>[http://www.historyofpainters.com/entartete.htm Censorship of media and the fine arts]</ref><ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/index.php?content=1933_bookburning Essay on Bookburning</ref>]]
'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons and is a [[liberal]] tactic. Current examples include:

*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom.<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the removal of [[conservative]] ideas from Wikipedia. 
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements.<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>
*the vandalizing of pro-life displays and conservative websites.

*Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref> See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
*protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses.<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/ At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder] Ny Sun, October 5, 2006</ref>
*Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>

*the destruction or theft of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*Censorship of [[conservative]] [[talk radio]] via the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

*[[Internet censorship]] employed by a country, which can include such things as the filtering of anti-government sites in [[China]] or the censoring of [[women's rights]] or anti-[[Islam]] sites in [[Middle East|Middle Eastern]] countries

*Schools banning or using [[placement bias]] to keep students from books such as the [[Bible]], or books critical of the [[theory of evolution]].

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the best-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

It's not state or teacher censorship when an individual teacher does not permit a spoken prayer in the classroom. S/he is only following the law, the Supreme Court and the U.S.Constitution. The First Amendment cited above also includes the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." There were many good, solid reasons in 1776 as there are now to keep the church and state separate. One of the largest must be that there are other religions in America in addition to Christianity and all of them must be respected. Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. Public schools are state schools; however, prayer is permitted in private and religious schools... as it should be --PMurdock 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabian prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion, or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the First Amendment.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

==See also==
*[[Censorability]]
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]
*[[Liberal censorship]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Censorship

2011-09-14T22:36:17Z

Prof4ever: /* The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S. */

[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|400px|thumb|Adolf Hitler's rise to power was greatly aided by '''censoring''' his critics.<ref>]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/censorship_in_nazi_germany.htm Censorship in Nazi Germany]</ref><ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677 US Holocaust Museum]</ref><ref>[http://www.historyofpainters.com/entartete.htm Censorship of media and the fine arts]</ref><ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/index.php?content=1933_bookburning Essay on Bookburning</ref>]]
'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons and is a [[liberal]] tactic. Current examples include:

*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom.<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the removal of [[conservative]] ideas from Wikipedia. 
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements.<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>
*the vandalizing of pro-life displays and conservative websites.

*Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref> See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
*protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses.<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/ At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder] Ny Sun, October 5, 2006</ref>
*Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>

*the destruction or theft of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*Censorship of [[conservative]] [[talk radio]] via the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

*[[Internet censorship]] employed by a country, which can include such things as the filtering of anti-government sites in [[China]] or the censoring of [[women's rights]] or anti-[[Islam]] sites in [[Middle East|Middle Eastern]] countries

*Schools banning or using [[placement bias]] to keep students from books such as the [[Bible]], or books critical of the [[theory of evolution]].

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the best-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the First Amendment.

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabian prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion, or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion. Censorship is not condemnation of differences of opinions, is it? At the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --PMurdock 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== Quotes ==
*''All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

==See also==
*[[Censorability]]
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]
*[[Liberal censorship]]
*[[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-14T22:34:02Z

Prof4ever: /* Internal Contradiction */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent point that is so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion.
Censorship is not condemnation of differences of opinions, is it? At the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --[[PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-14T22:31:05Z

Prof4ever: /* Internal Contradiction */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent point that is so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion.
Censorship is not condemnation of differences of opinions, is it? At the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --PMurdock 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-14T22:30:11Z

Prof4ever: /* Internal Contradiction */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent point that is so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion.
Censorship is not condemnation of differences of opinions, is it? At the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. --PMurdock

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-14T22:28:11Z

Prof4ever: /* Internal Contradiction */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Dollfuss brought up an excellent point that is so obvious that it slipped by everyone. Censorship is NOT solely a liberal trait otherwise there wouldn't be such rancor over including differences of opinion.
Censorship is not condemnation of differences of opinions, is it? At the heart of any intellectual, open discussion is DIALOGUE. I'm concerned with a prevalent attitude on Conservapedia that rushes to judgment especially about the liberal point of view. The liberal point of view is NOT the enemy: it's a legitimate perspective (i.e., a large percentage of the population have it) and it deserves a fair hearing. fair presentation of its perspectives/views. Would we not expect the same? I haven't read much on this site but what I have read begins to give the impression that this is not an open forum of DIALOGUE. It's beginning to sound like war: as if one side is all wrong and the other is all correct. Somewhere between the two extremes is the Truth. Better yet...somewhere between the two extremes will be found commonality and perhaps the political polarity will be resolved. PMurdock

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-14T22:02:58Z

Prof4ever: /* Classroom prayer */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate. --[[User: PMurdock|PMurdock]] 05:01, 14 September 2011 (CST)

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.

Talk:Censorship

2011-09-14T21:57:26Z

Prof4ever: /* Classroom prayer */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rewritten intro ==

The intro as it stood was not very good. The examples given weren't very good (the prevention of official school prayer, for example, is not censorship) and one of them linked to a highly unencyclopedic article about "liberal friendship". I have replaced these with better examples of censorship, and a better introduction to what exactly it means. Also deleted the history section (which was only a single sentence and didn't warrant a whole section to itself) and incorporated it into the opening.[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

User:EdPoor, you reverted some of my last edits and restored some of the examples that I had replaced, without giving any reason on the talk page.

There are three examples in question: the removal of school prayer, the destruction of conservative newspapers on college campuses, and the ostracization of students for their pro-life or conservative views. I removed these for the following reasons:

1. Regarding school prayer, I am of the opinion, as are many others, that it does not constitute censorship. What is prevented under the establishment clause is official school-led prayer, not prayer ''per se''. If this is censorship, it is certainly not a particularly clear example of it, unlike the Google China situation, or the fictional examples from ''1984''. It is far better to give examples of things which are clearly, unambiguously, censorship, than it is to give as an example something which is hotly contested.

2. The destruction of conservative newspapers links to a news report of one such instance in Bucknell college, which is cited as being an act of vandalism by other students. Therefore it is not a particularly clear example of censorship. An article which seeks to give an overview of a topic should give the most "textbook" examples that it can.

3. Ostracization is not the same as censorship. A university which denies tenure to a conservative (for no other reason than their conservative views) is guilty of discrimination, not censorship. A liberal student who refuses to talk to a conservative student (again, for no other reason) is guilty of several things: foolishness, closed-mindedness, ignorance, etc, but not censorship.

What happened in South Africa when the government could ban its political opponents from being quoted in any media is censorship. The burning of books is censorship. The limits imposed upon journalists living in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall amounted to censorship. The blocking of human rights websites and references to the 1989 Tianamen square protests on Google China is censorship. These examples you gave are not nearly as definitive. To mention them ''in the opening sentences'', frankly, demeans the more serious examples.

If you disagree with me, I am happy to discuss our disagreement here. Until then, as per the reasons given here and in my previous post, I am reverting the page. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, [[unmarked]] ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

: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]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 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)

: Eoinc, the ''sine qua non'' of censorship is the suppression of speech by ''others'', not oneself. Our examples fit that bill; many of your examples do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jpatt's censorship line ==

I think Jpatt's line ''"protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses."'' needs a little more elaboration. By and of itself, this may not constitute censorship, but if the college adminsitration allows the protestors to disrupt and stop the conservative speaking engagement and does nothing to stop it, then it would constitute censorship. Any thoughts? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:I still don't think that would constitute censorship, because if they administration really wanter to censor, they would just dissallow the speaker or refuse to give funding. (The latter has happend to the conservative group at Bucknell numerous times). I just think that if we are going to have a list of examples (which we probably shouldn't, but that's another debate), we should keep it short and filled with very cut and dry examples. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::if not censorship, then it is a failed attempt at censorship. Not by administrators but by others. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::In my argument above, I was thinking censorship at the college administration level ''by proxy'' in not preventing a mob from disrupting an authorized speaking engagement. Are there any examples of such that could be used here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems to me a distinction should be made between protesting and disrupting. The latter may be censorship, but making one's opposition known through lining up outside a venue waving signs is a healthy part of free speech and assembly. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 13:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::JP: failed attempts at censorship aren't really great examples of censorship then. I just don't see the need to find as many examples as possible. (I've said this before on some other talk page, but I don't remember where anymore). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer ==

Can anyone explain to me why a refusal to allow classroom prayer amounts to censorship?

I suggest that it be removed from the examples listed in the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 17:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:Happy to help. I recently argued that censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. The class prayer fits all of those. It's the state removing information because it disapproves of Christian religiosity. Open & shut. Have you ever read the classroom prayer cases, by the way? They're ludicrous.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Thanks for the prompt response. Your definition is interesting. I wonder about some aspects, however. For example, point 2 seems too broad to be meaningful. What does "removal of information" mean in the context of prayer? Surely censorship requires the prevention of information passing from one person to another. That is at the heart of my comment above. Prayer, as I understand it, is between an individual and the Almighty. I do not see how any human authority could prevent such communication. Further, refusing to allow classroom prayer does not stop anyone diseminating Christian (or other religious) ideas at school. Free discussion is still allowed (so far as I am aware). It seems to me to be a doubtful example at best. Do the cases that you refer to throw any light on the issue? I have not had the pleasure of reading them. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The individual teacher is only following the law/Supreme Court/ U.S.Constitution. It cannot be called censorship because the teacher is not acting on her free will. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof has....". Prayer is not permitted in public schools because that was the founding fathers intention to keep the church and state separate.

== made some edits ==
made some edits to the page. Feel free to comment. They regard the baning of books, mostly from school libraries
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

: You've fallen for the liberal hype. Please learn how to spell "banning".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::ummm...How isnt it censorship. They were banned right? Well, HArry Potter has never been removed for long, but even if we agree with it, isnt this supposed to be a trustworthy encyclopedia, One we can rely on for information like this?
[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::Do you protest the removal of Bibles from the same school libraries? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:44, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::Yes. I dont openly protest anything, since their IN my school library. But if they were removed and someone was making a petition to get them back in, I'd sign it...its not a matter of what i support anyway. I want this to be a good encyclopedia[[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 09:48, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Guess what, WE want this to be a good encyclopedia too, that is why were going to make it SAFE for the kids and the parents who supervise them. Which is why we're not going to tolerate the likes of trash such as ''Heather Has Two Mommies''. So, it's safe to say that we are going to be selective in what is posted here, and what is thrown out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::...Essentially Censorship. Your pretending these things don't exist. Your deciding for peoples parents that homosexuality is bad, rather than pointing out the facts and letting them decide. saying that the book is banned in some places does not make this encyclopedia in support of their agenda, btw. Your denying the facts [[User:RickPorter|RickPorter]] 10:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not pretending these things don't exist; I know full-well they do. I also know that there are many sites out on the web that in one form or another can and do practice censorship. What is clearly implied here in your postings is not so much something against censorship, but you with an agenda that we change our view here and allow what the mob thinks should be. No, we're not going to allow either Heather or her two mommies; no, we're not going to support Heather's two mommies; no, we're not going to expose the kids to Heather's two mommies; and no, we're not going to give lip-service to a clown who thinks that every library in town (and this site) is being very naughty for censoring Heather and her two mommies. We've got an encyclopedia to build; you have an agenda to push, which is not here. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 17 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::So, it's not censorship, but merely "not exposing the kids to Heather's two mommies"? How on earth is refusing to even present an idea not censorship? If conservative positions are really better, shouldn't it be obvious, and thus not require censorship to "protect" people from ideas? It truly does appear that the Irony Meter has asploded.[[User:JHC|JHC]] 20:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::It's whether or not we want the kids exposed to what amounts to the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. I think kids should be exposed to good ideas only, not bad ones, or bad ones disguised as good ones. For example, it's not a good idea that you, KrisTree, should come back after a block to create a new sock - JHC - just to rant about what you think is censorship here. Bad idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Internal Contradiction ==

I'm honestly not 'trolling' or trying to insult anything or anyone here... I want to be respectful. But isn't it a contradiction to say that censorship is a liberal trait, when this website itself censors edits and talk pages? Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause offence, just wondering. -- Dollfuss.