Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

Government (FCC) to stick its nose into newsrooms[edit]

Have you heard about this? DrHurd: government researchers in newsrooms Investors.com on same WSJ on same JRSpriggs (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, JRSpriggs, perhaps you'd like to write a Wikinews article about this? — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Some more links (from Google) about this "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs": the study design Breitbart Nalip talkers benton bennetlaw allaccess

Negative reaction from conservatives seems to be causing FCC to have second thoughts about this. The Wall Street Journal article, which appears to have prompted the uproar, is behind a pay-wall so I cannot read it.

The points I would make are: 1. FCC has no business regulating or even studying newspapers, cable TV or the Internet since they do not use the supposedly 'public air-waves'. 2. Broadcast radio and TV (which FCC is supposed to regulate) would be intimidated by the study since FCC has the power to remove their licenses, if they refuse to cooperate. 3. The only reason to do such a study would be to serve as a basis for regulating the production of news which is clearly a violation of the First Amendment, regardless of the ostensible motivation to achieve 'fairness', ethnic balance, suppression of hate speech, etc.. 4. The public is quite capable of choosing different news sources, if they are not satisfied with what they get from the existing sources. No FCC involvement is needed to help them. 5. In any case, the government cannot be trusted to be objective. Instead, it would end up pushing certain favored POVs to the exclusion of all others, leading to ignorance and corruption in society. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, the Obama administration has not yet given up on this coup d'état against the constitution. See [1] and [2]. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Article in scope? The Hindus: An Alternative History[edit]

The Hindus: An Alternative History was removed from Indian stores as the result of a court case. I'm thinking this puts it in our scope because it is the subject of censorship, even though censorship is not the subject. Do y'all agree? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 08:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 0x0077BE, most certainly seems relevant. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I added it as start-class, low-importance. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Why was no notice of this discussion posted on the book's talk page, the author's talk page, WT:INDIA or WikiProject Hinduism talk page. And how has consensus been achieved on the basis of one response in a mere 8 hours? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fowler&fowler that all those notifications are appropriate. But it shouldn't seem cause any issues to simply add {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}} to an article's talk page, the mere placement of another WikiProject on an article talk page doesn't change anything about the article's actual text in main article space. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid it does. It changes how a book is viewed. A publisher in India has decided to stop publishing the book; no court in India has banned the book, neither has the Indian government. Penguin New York continues to export copies of the book to India. Indians continue to buy the book on Amazon and kindle. What freedom of speech are we talking about? As a result of a "court case?" It was part of settlement with plaintiff to a lawsuit brought before an Indian district court. The Indian legal system hasn't spoken. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It changes how a book is viewed, by whom? — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that those notices are appropriate as anything more than a courtesy - we don't have to post notice about whether we want something to be in our scope. If Wikiproject Football wants to list Sturnidae as within their scope, that's their decision, no matter how anyone else feels about it. It's an internal matter for the people here who are interested in editing articles relating to free speech. I also don't buy the argument that it "changes how the article is viewed". If anything, it changes the view of the article accurately to reflect that people on this wikiproject are interested in the subject! 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with this comment by 0x0077BE, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm afraid they are, besides, consensus hasn't been achieved here. Ask at the Village pump and get consensus. @Cirt: By anyone who reads Wikipedia. It casts the book in a slightly different light. Again, Penguin India has decided to not sell the book anymore. But Penguin New York has just exported 3,000 copies to India. Any Indian bookstore can sell those copies. The book has not been banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Easy fix. Just use {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and then specify added parameter |collapsed=yes. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: - Getting to the meat of the argument, the reason they stopped selling the book was because there was a court case against the publishers of the book which could have been costly to them. It's self-censorship due to Chilling effects. Either way, though, it's been getting a lot of press as a free speech issue, which makes it appropriate here whether or not any government censorship happened. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hogwash. Penguin India has a lot more money than the little piddling outfit which challenged it. This sort of thing happens all over the world. @Cirt: I don't see how that changes anything, just makes it unobtrusive. Besides I don't see you guys on The Satanic Verses, Lady Chatterly's Lover, Topic of Cancer (novel), ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As for the first claim, the point isn't how much money they have - they're a business. If they are looking at more money in legal fees and a possible judgement against them than the book is going to make in India, they'll stop selling it. As for the second position - good point. I think that those articles are all also in scope. Might be a good topic for a taskforce. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing troubles[edit]

Over at The Hindus: An Alternative History, there's some ongoing trouble regarding the book. Could use some more eyes, as the user above is not being particularly responsive to any of my concerns and seems to be pushing some sort of POV. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This might not be appropriate for this particular issue, but as a sidenote it might be a nice idea to setup a WikiProject peer review process specialized for this topic of freedom of speech related articles. Could be standalone on itself, before, after, or and/or in addition to the normal peer review process. — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is #0033BE who is making the clueless edits. He know nothing about Hinduism, India, Doniger, or the book. He's jumped in there and making edit after faltering edit, summarizing a petition which has a number of statements (see a list of some highlights of the petition in Outlook magazine, a semi-academic magazine published in India) among which are: "That it is a shallow, distorted and non serious presentation of Hinduism." "That it is a haphazard presentation riddled with heresies and factual inaccuracies," "That it is written with a Christian Missionary Zeal and hidden agenda to denigrate Hindus and show their religion in poor light," "That the entire list of the books authored by Doniger concentrate and focus on the negative aspects and evil practices prevalent in Hinduism," "That the words used by Doniger for referring to various Hindu Gods are highly objectionable," "That on the book jacket of the book Lord Krishna is shown sitting on buttocks of a naked woman surrounded by other naked women," "That Doniger depicted Lord Krishna in such a vulgar, base perverse manner to outrage religious feelings of Hindus," "That Doniger's approach has been jaundiced, and 'is that of a woman hungry of sex'" And those are just the highlights. :) It is a poorly written petition to be sure, but user#00etc has summarized that summary as, "alleging that the work had "heretical" content which hurts the feelings of Hindus." Hinduism, whatever its faults, is not an Abrahamic religion. The concept of heresy doesn't exist as a major feature, let alone heretical. There is no canon, no one God, no one school. It is common sense to not use that word in a WP summary, especially not to summarize a long petition in that manner simply on the basis of putative WP policy on RS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you continue to attack me rather than my edits. I've justified everything I've done so far, on the talk page, and when I ask you for specific problems with what I've written, you rarely address these requests for information. By contrast, any time you ask me to justify something, I am very forthcoming in answering your questions. I don't need to know anything about Hinduism or India because original research is forbidden. All I'm allowed to do is take information in the sources and put them on the page. If my purported "ignorance" of India (of which you have no evidence, since none of my edits have been related to India or Hinduism) is causing problems on the article, address it on the talk page. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 21:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the suppression of observations that do not coher with Establishment views of history[edit]

I am bewildered by the poor access to public view certains aspects of recorded history receive, when they challenge the heavily redacted accounts that appear on some biographical pages. I am thinking of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's involvement in arms sales to Saddam Hussein (and the subsequent massacres of the Al-Anfal campaign), as even tangential allusions to those events are not even entertained on her page. How would one achieve appropriate and balanced additions? Or is this observation ironically to be hastily removed from this page also? Post by: Andrew David Harrison 109.152.74.233 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hate speech laws in <Country> articles - importance[edit]

I stumbled across Hate speech laws in India and added our template. I rated it "high" on the importance scale based on the rating of Freedom of speech in the United States, but I could be convinced to bump it down to "mid" importance. Any objections to that rating? I think there are similar articles for other countries, Hate speech laws in Canada, Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom, etc. I don't want to tag-and-rate them all and then have to re-do it again if the consensus is that these are something like mid-importance. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 21:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A long time ago I ran into conflict with users over the "importance" of articles related to certain projects. So therefore, when in doubt, I always rate lower, rather than higher, to avoid such issues. So I'd go with "mid" rather than "high" for this one, but I'll leave it up to you. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That sounds about right. I was on the fence about the "high" rating anyway. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay sounds good. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Marjorie Heins article -- content dispute help[edit]

Hi. Another editor and I are having difficulty reaching consensus on content on the Marjorie Heins article. I'd really appreciate some third-party eyes on the content, and some other editors to weigh in on editor conduct issues (see Talk:Marjorie Heins). Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nimmer on Freedom of Speech: Treatise on Theory of First Amendment[edit]

  • Nimmer on Freedom of Speech: Treatise on Theory of First Amendment (1984), by Melville Nimmer (1923-1985)

Nimmer on Freedom of Speech might be an interesting one for a new Wikipedia article.

Or certainly, at the very least, a good reference work on freedom of speech.

Cheers,

Cirt (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars for GA[edit]

I've nominated Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars for WP:GA consideration. — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

GA nom for Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence[edit]

I've nominated for WP:GA candidacy, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence. — Cirt (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)