|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet censorship article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.|
- 1 Sahara
- 2 United States Communications Act of 1934
- 3 USA and Google do not support the UN move to control the Internet
- 4 Are protection of intellectual property and copyright forms of censorship?
- 5 What if Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed and became law?
- 6 Questionnaire results rounded up?
- 7 Criticisms section?
- 8 RfC concerning the Lavabit email service
- 9 Treatment of Google in sub-section on " Major web portal official statements on site and content removal"
- 10 Internet censorship map colors?
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 communication1
- 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, iPpads, 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 2chapter; 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.3
Congress attempted to censor unsafe wire communications twice but these attempts were stopped from being enforced by the Supreme Court. 47 USC §230 4 was followed by 47 USC §231 5. These two attempts will be followed by the ideas that can be read in "47 USC §232" 6. 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 7 to the complaint in the Western District of Arkansas Federal Court in Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (5:12-cv-5208) 8.CurtisNeeley (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
USA and Google do not support the UN move to control the Internet
USA announces they will not stand with the UN vote to regulate the Internet.
FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)
- Cf: Global_Internet_Freedom_Task_Force — FYI also, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like something for the Internet governance article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Are protection of intellectual property and copyright forms of censorship?
Several changes were made to the article that removed mention of intellectual property and copyrighted material as possible targets of or motivations for censorship. The changes were made at 15:54 on 11 February 2013 by User:Xenophrenic with the edit summary "wording per cited sources; (note cite actually says prop rights is regulation, not a major objective of filtering, pg 9); copy edit". I'm not sure if the problem here was that the statements did not seem to be well supported by the cited reference (in which case we could reword or look for better references) or if the feeling is that blocking access to intellectual property and copyrighted material aren't examples of censorship (in which case deleting the material is probably appropriate).
Here are the changes (emphasis added):
- There are several motives or rationales for Internet censorship: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting intellectual property rights and existing economic interests are two additional motives for Internet censorship. ...
- There are several motives or rationales for Internet filtering: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting existing economic interests is an additional emergent motive for Internet filtering. ...
- Protection of intellectual property and existing economic interests (sub-section heading)
- Sites that share content that violates copyright or other intellectual property rights are often blocked, particularly in western Europe and North America. In addition the protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services ....
- Protection of existing economic interests (sub-section heading)
- The protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services ....
- "Measuring Global Internet Filtering", Robert Faris and Nart Villeneuve, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
Should intellectual property and copyright as targets of or motives for censorship be removed from or included in the article? Or asked in much more concrete terms, is the fact that sites such as the Pirate Bay are blocked in some countries a from of Internet censorship or not? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Deleting the above noted content as unsourced was appropriate. You are correct, however, that a broader discussion could be had as to the definition of censorship, especially as it applies to intellectual property, creative works and content, etc. Most would agree that Wal-Mart's decision to not carry certain books, CDs, DVDs (because they find something objectionable) can be considered a form of censorship. Most would disagree, however, that Wal-Mart's decision to sell (for money) books, CDs and DVDs, instead of letting customers walk away with them for free, is a form of censorship. Likewise, when a state, government or major industry seeks to prohibit the public's access to property (intellectual, tangible, or otherwise), most would consider that a form of censorship; but seeking only to inhibit customers from walking away with the property for free, while still leaving its availability unrestricted to the public -- most would agree that does not constitute censorship. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
What if Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed and became law?
- There is some informtion on CISPA in the Internet censorship in the United States article as well as the separate article on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Questionnaire results rounded up?
I'm guessing they were since the question "Increased government control of the Internet would have no effect." adds up to 101%. Can someone fix this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Not done. The values for each question all add up to 99%, 100%, or 101%. The 99% and 101% values are due to rounding, but the rounding was done in the original report. So the material is quoted accurately and there isn't any good way to "fix it". It doesn't cause a real problem. I did add a note alerting readers to this issue. --
- Maybe. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be presented with a neutral point of view. It is hard to write "Criticism sections" that are neutral. Some, perhaps many, people feel that some Internet censorship is a good thing, depending on what is being censored (child pornography is one example). So any section needs to present both the "bad" and the "good" reasons for Internet censorship. Keep in mind that Wikipedia generally discourages pro and con lists in favor of a more general discussion integrated into the body of the article. And the discussion needs to offer a worldwide perspective and not just a U.S. or western perspective. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
RfC concerning the Lavabit email service
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
- Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.
Treatment of Google in sub-section on " Major web portal official statements on site and content removal"
User:Jarble and I have been going around about adding a link to Censorship by Google in the sub-section that talks about Major web portal official statements on site and content removal or even pulling out the three items about Google into a new sub-sub-section on "Content removal by Google". I don't think that Google should be singled out any differently than the other providers listed, either by adding a template at the top or by creating a new sub-sub-section. The article on Censorship by Google is already listed in the Censorship and websites template that appears toward the bottom of the article. The template has links to "Censorship by" articles for several other companies. If someone feels that the visibility of censorship by companies need to be raised in the Internet censorship article, that is fine. I just don't think the place to do it is in the sub-section on "Terms of service". And, if something is done, it should be done for all of the companies and not just Google.
Internet censorship map colors?
There is a discussion going on over in Wikipedia Commons about possible changes to the colors used in the Internet Censorship map and elsewhere. It would be good to get some additional editors comments on this. If you are willing, would you pop over to Commons:File talk:Internet Censorship World Map.svg and let us know what you think? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)