Talk:Gag order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Expansion[edit]

This article should be expanded by someone more knowledgeable than I. The ideas for topics to add include the problem of balancing free speech (especially regarding the press) vs. ensuring a fair trial and past controversial issuings of gag orders. --Cab88 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Citation[edit]

"A National Security Letter, an administrative subpoena used by the FBI, has an attached gag order which restricts the recipient from ever saying anything about being served with one.[6] The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders.[7] The gag orders have been upheld in court.[7]"

This seems to indicate that the gag order that keeps the recipient from saying anything about being served one has been upheld by the courts. However, the citation only says the gag order remains in place blocking the ISP from revealing the contents of the letter, not that they recieved it. It is also blatantly contradicted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter :

"They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case."

The second quote is from a much older source. However, I think its merely a case of bad wording, where the gag order in NSL's have been upheld, just not the part about not saying if you received one?

On a side note, If the gag order was still working as indicated, I can see a very interesting first amendment case happening :D.

StarDolph (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe that point should be changed to reflect the current state of NSL's and their, now unconstitutional, gag-order.

--Helios2k6 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act[edit]

Anyone know what "However, the gag provisions of the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act have been upheld." is referring to? The article on the act does not use the word 'gag' anywhere. A search on google for the terms also brings up nothing. I'm assuming they are talking about things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy ; but it is not clear. StarDolph (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)