Talk:Internet censorship

Sahara

really there is no censoreship? oh.. maybe there is no internet at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.87.136.197 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2011‎

Rate this page results?

I noticed that this page has been rated by 30 people (see the Rate this page box at the bottom of the article) and that the average scores are pretty much middle of the road, not terrible, but not particularly good either (2.5 Trustworthy, 3.0 Objective, 2.0 Complete, and 2.5 Well-written on a scale from 1 to 5).

What needs to be done to improve this article? Jeff Ogden (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As of 4 July 2012 the page had been rated by 87 people and the ratings are substantially better than they were back in August 2011:

          Time     Ratings Trustworthy  Objective  Complete  Well-written
      August 2011:   30        2.5         3.0       2.0         2.5
        July 2012:   87        4.5         4.8       4.3         4.8

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

SOPA and PIPA

If these become a law (which I definitely hope not), the United States on this map will have to change from "no evidence" to "pervasive":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Censorship_World_Map.svg

Jonghyunchung (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not look like SOPA or PIPA will become law anytime soon, but it does seem likely that the bills will at some time in the future be renamed, rewritten, and reintroduced. If these acts or ones like them were to become law, I wonder if organizations such as the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom House would see that as a strong enough reason to change their classification/rating of Internet censorship in the U.S. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, guess what. Ireland ignored the people's protests and approved SOPA in their country. Someone's gonna have to color Ireland fuchsia pink (pervasive censorship) right away. Jonghyunchung (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How does this article relate? Global_Internet_Freedom_Task_Force — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Finnish Wikipedia Censored a Page for Political Reasons

Finnish Wikipedia administrators have a lot of sympathy towards the Green League political party. Mostly due this they have made a decision to prevent irritating facts appear about the gay spouse of the other presidential candidate until the final round of the voting is over. People asking about it on the discussion page have faced several day bans. They have made this decision by saying that "Spouses are not meaningful and therefore they are not going to allow anyone to make an article." This gay spouse has a criminal background (drunk driving, lying to a spouse, violence in bars, surprisingly low incomes etc.) I found (by Google) this article about it. Where this kind of censorship should be placed? The spouse is named Nexar Antonio Flores. http://slashdot.org/submission/1920791/wikipedia-censored-a-gay-article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.3.50 (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey! This is big news! Wikipedia sysop has restricted everyone to write to a certain page for political reasons. --109.240.181.154 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an article on Censorship of Wikipedia where this might be included. That article usually talks about censorship of Wikipedia by others and this sounds as if it is censorship of Wikipedia by Wikipedia itself. There was once an article on Censorship by Wikipedia, but today that is a redirect to the main Wikipedia article where the only mention of censorship is censorship of Wikipedia (which has always seemed a little odd to me). Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in Pakistan

While there is plenty of blog activity on censorship in Pakistan, and the PTA is also involved in actively censoring content officially, there isn't much coverage by newspapers and the like to link to for citation. Despite that, there is blatant censorship. LastFM and a few lyrical websites are blocked. All major porntubes are blocked. As such, I propose to put Pakistan in the list of countries actively censoring content. 58.27.243.214 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - This article doesn't really put countries on particular lists. That is done by the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), Reporters Without Borders (RWB), Freedom House, and less often by other watchdog groups. This article uses the information from those organizations to summarize the state of Internet censorship in the various countries and to organize the countries into the categories used in the article (Persuasive, Substantial, Selective, Under surveillance, Suspected, and No evidence). Pakistan is currently in the substantial category, the second highest level of censorship. Isn't that close enough to being on a list of "countries actively censoring content"? Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which map?

Please see and comment on the discussion at Talk:Internet censorship by country#Which_map? about what version of the Internet censorship map should be used in this and several other Wikipedia articles. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Switched to an updated map that includes information from RWB and ONI through mid-March 2012. Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in the USA?

I don't see any mention of the Department of Homeland Security's monitoring of social networks, which is detailed on its own website. It also has a lengthy list (in part provided on its site) of red flag words which include searches for 9/11, anarchy, protest... Or how about the NSA's monitoring of virtually all traffic? I don't know what the standards are for making the surveillance list but it's hard to imagine more sophisticated spying than our own. And certainly it can lead to self-censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.250 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Also, stating that the censoring of Wikileaks enjoyed widespread support as if it somehow minimizes the censorship is silly. One should mention it also sparked worldwide outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.250 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - The statement being referred to in the above comment is a general one talking about censorship related to security concerns and not something that is specific to Wikileaks. The list of examples that follows includes Wikileaks, but is a list of sites that have been filtered due to security concerns and not a list of sites for which there is widespread public support for censorship. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Does SOPA section belong in this article?

The following sub-section was added to the article by User:Pass a Method at 10:57 on 4 July 2012:

==SOPA==

SOPA is an acronym for Stop Online Piracy Act. It is a United States bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to tackle online trafficking of copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Provisions include stopping search engines from linking to the sites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the sites. The law would expand criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

I added the following to the end of the new section at 12:19 on 4 July 2012:

In January 2012 following many online protests, Rep. Smith stated, "The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution".

I don't think this information belongs in this general article. It is too U.S. specific and consideration of SOPA has been delayed. The article does not talk about any other laws (proposed or otherwise) in the U.S. or other countries. SOPA is covered in Internet censorship in the United States and in a separate article that is just about SOPA. What do others think? I am inclined to delete the new section unless support for keeping it is expressed here in the next few days. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and deleted the section. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, SOPA is one of the mst oft quoted censorship in modern times. It obviously deserves a place on the article. Pass a Method talk 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only did you disagree, but you put the section on SOPA back in. I still don't feel that it belongs in this article. I think we need to get some other editors to comment so we can resolve our differences.

I will note that SOPA was a proposed law in the U.S. that has not been enacted and is not currently under consideration. So so far SOPA has censored nothing. SOPA is covered in its own article and in the article on Internet censorship in the United States. Those seem like the more appropriate places for the description. Please address these issues and not simply say "it obviously deserves a place in the article". --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Does SOPA section belong in this article?):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Internet censorship and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think this text doesn't belong. The arguments that SOPA is not a law and is not international both make sense here. I wonder if the motivation to include SOPA here is not because of SOPA itself, but because of the reaction to SOPA on the Internet, which resulted in its abandonment by Rep. Smith. I would support inclusion of some text about the events surrounding SOPA and the internet blackout under the anti-censorship activism section proposed below, if the consensus is to include such a section. But this is because of the notability of the internet blackout protest, not the notability of SOPA. Abhayakara (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. SOPA section deleted. Please do not reinsert unless a consensus to do so is reached based on further discussion here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a number of See also links under a new sub-heading "Laws and proposed laws" that include PIPA and SOPA as well as links to articles about the associated protests. This could serve as a starting point for a discussion of anti-censorship activism as suggested by Abhayakara above and as outlined in the section that follows. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-censorship activism section

I moved the following comment about Anonymous to be under "Organizations and projects" in the See also section of the article, rather than in a separate sub-section within the Overview section:

===Anti-censorship activism===

Online hacktivist group Anonymous has expressed its opposition to internet censorship through protests and online hacking in several countries.

I'm creating this talk page section to allow for discussion of this move since the comment about Anonymous has already been moved around a bit within the article by several people.

My own thinking is that a section on Anti-censorship activism would be a welcome addition to the article, but it needs to cover the topic generally and not just include one sentence about one group. For now the See also section covers some of this material by presenting a list of Wikipedia articles about organizations and projects engaged in Internet censorship issues. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

United States Communications Act of 1934

The Communications_Act_of_1934 authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promote the safety of wire communications and this law REQUIRING censorship is ignored by the FCC as well as most people on Earth including every editor of this article so far. This editor is prevented by NPOV from adding it here.

(59) Wire communication

The term “wire communication” or “communication by wire” means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.

Wire communications has been the definition of all internet wire and internet radio telecommunications since 1934. This definition does not need to be adjusted to require the Federal Communications Commission to censor interstate and world-wide wire communications used in commerce to promote the safety of these internet wire and internet radio telecommunications.

People using cellphones, Ipads, Iphones and other "wireless" devices are simply using wire communications along with using radio communications for the last jump from the wires to the "wireless" device.

47 USC § 151 - Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter. (Bold added above.)

[sic]"Internet" is simply a common slang term generated from the contraction of (interactive, international, interconnected, interesting, inquisition, etc) and (network) and [sic]"Internet" is not suitable for legal documents or laws due this imprecision. e.g. warmer, cooler, etc.

Telegraph machines and fax machines are nothing but the wire communications apparatus that are usually being replaced by computers today. These can be physically set up in a courtroom for demonstration to judges and jurors. There is one aspect of the communications component that is generally thought missing and this is immediate verification of delivery. This communications component is not actually missing except by choice.

Congress attempted to censor unsafe wire communications twice but these attempts were stopped from being enforced by the Supreme Court. 47 USC §230 was followed by 47 USC §231 . These two attempts will be followed by the ideas that can be read in "47 USC §232" . This proposed law will be sought as the new FCC policy and will not require congressional action or protesting. This proposal is pending as last pages of Exhibit B to the complaint in the Western District of Arkansas Federal Court in Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (5:12-cv-5208) .CurtisNeeley (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)