Difference between revisions of "Talk:Censorship"

Revision as of 03:33, October 18, 2007

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

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --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. --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. 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 [1] 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? [2] 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.