Talk:Self-censorship

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism High‑importance

	Journalism portal 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksbochenski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological issues

This article is excellent, but it covers self censorship purely as a "rights" or political issue, ignoring the psychological issue of self censorship, or failure to self-censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.84.129 (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

I have attached the minor NPOV tag until the lines below are corrected to remove the present bias. This has been talked about at length in this discussion, and nothing has yet been done. "For instance, in the USA, media organisations (Media Matters for America, FAIR, Democracy Now!, ACLU) have raised concerns about the extent of the phenomenon in particular medias (notably FOX News) since the beginning of the "War against Terror"."

You are welcome to suggest a better version, or state precisely what is wrong with this one. At present, this is not very helpful. Rama 14:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: npov

To me, the article begins directly without a NPOV. I attempted to rewrite an intro but ran out of time today, so I'm posting it here for another to use.

Self-censorship occurs when a person or entity changes their thoughts or output to coincide with those of another party. It may be practised willfully, viewed as a required method of gaining acceptance or otherwise achieving a goal. However, the term is usually employed to express when the practicioner is unaware of the process, or. In this sense, self-censorship is practised by anyone who tries to fit in or assimilate to a group.

It is important to differentiate the more common view of self-censorship with the much maligned view which occurs in a professional context. The difference being, arguably, the effect of the censorship on society as a whole. Professionals with an obligation to present fair and accurate aaron 22:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

someone trying to be politically correct here?

the guy who flagged the article as biased is biased himself. he is trying to pursue typical political correctness that ruined free speech in many cases and is self censorship at its best.

Hopefully this article stays as it is, because it describes very exactly what self censorship is.

based on the examples from Japan and other countries incl. US, it is clear that self censorship exists in top medias.

--85.216.133.254 14:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article is biased towards negative self-censorship

I've always considered one of the more positive forms of "self-censorship" to be a simple tactful choice. Included under this would be: the choice to refuse to speak about a touchy subject in the presence of sensitive company, such as an honest opinion of someone deceased to avoid stress to the bereaved, or the choice to refuse to reiterate an already broached subject to avoid unnecessary filibustering, or the diplomatic choice to hold off on discussion of a sensitive topic until a more appropriate time, or the choice simply to not add to the chatter in a noisy environment. Perhaps this is not a neutral point-of-view, but is there really such a thing concerning the topic of censorship? --gnomelock 06:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines, there should be some discussion of "standards and practices" departments in media organizations. MisfitToys 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is bias in the first few paragraphs of the article. Since it talks about widely undesirable forms of Self-Censorship. And is not until later in the article that desirable forms of Self-Censorship are mentioned. Also the mention of fear as a motivator is negatively biased. This is understandable since people are drawn to the negative aspects of social life, but it does need to be corrected.

Examples of socially-desirable self-censorship are:

+ Blurring credit card numbers in photographs to prevent fraud, or crossing out telephone numbers to protect people from personal attacks.

+ Withholding details on criminal investigations that would otherwise help criminals avoid justice. Since investigations commonly involve government, the honesty in this kind of self-censorship can be controversial. But the principle itself is understood and in my opinion generally accepted.

+ Not publishing crucial details of tests or competitions could also be considered positive self-censorship since they could render the results invalid or meaningless.

I just don't have a reference on the subject and It would be great to have one. If anybody can think of one please write it here.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in encouraging democracy we are trying encouraging free speech, even though we might not agree with what everyone says. Unfortunately even the Nazis, as well people who are like Jim Carey, Sasha Baron Cohen (Borat, etc), fire and brimstone types, people listening to violent music, swearing - noisy people are allowed, but this is because the priority is on freedom of speech- which is the freedom from which all other freedoms are derived. Speech is allowed. What some people say is can be very unpopular, obnoxious or even wrong, but it is not accepted but is permitted. If you outlaw what one person says you outlaw them all. Civil Liberties is kind of like supporting crazy anarchy, but this is what freedom of speech is.The Internet is good for freedom of speech and so are places like speaker's corner in England or the rude streets of NY. The price paid I guess is politeness and good taste which is less important than the idea of freedom of speech in a democratic society (or one that is trying to be). There are cases of socially desirable self censorship, and they exist, but these are usually kept down to the necessary minimum. Really what people in a democracy don't tolerate is conformity even though some people are really square and dont understand democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.171.193.241 (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters

Regarding this : Reuters is not accused to censoring its reports. It does give the information it has. Whether they choose to abide to a particular standard of wording has nothing to do with censorship, and particularly, the fact that neo-conservatives shoudl brandish the term "censorship" does to suffice to make it so. Rama 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socially Acceptable Self-Censorship

[Hey, this section was blank when I found it...]

Self-Censorship in Audiences

Sometimes self-censorship is practiced by the intended audience of works; i.e., sometimes people refuse to read a certain book or watch a certain movie, out of some deference to authority, even though no force or pressure is present. I think the main article ought to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.31.156 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of self-censorship

I notice this article discussed the concept of self-censorship, but doesn't include many specific examples. Well, here's one: in 1972, Stanley Kubrick withdrew his film A Clockwork Orange from distribution in the United Kingdom due to the controversy it had generated, and real life crimes it had allegedly inspired. It didn't become available again until after his death. I'd add that to the article myself, but I'm not sure what category it fits in. Robofish (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)5.80.73.136 (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5.80.73.136 (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)as someone who is British I wouldn't call that an example of 'good censorship', I still remember watching the film at the age of 13 the only reason why I watched it so young was because that was the first time in Britain was shown back in 2001, I haven't gone on to murder or rape anyone even though I was at the prime age to be influenced by it. Also the idea that there were copycat killers is a myth, British tabloids were crying Clockwork Orange crimes before the movie was even released (before it was pulled), the hysteria surrounding this movie is no different that the hysteria surrounding natural born killers which was denied a rating by the bbfc for months while they went through every crime supposedly inspired by the movie.5.80.73.136 (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Self-censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Self-censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Self-censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050118214825/http://www.fair.org/media-woes/censorship.html to http://www.fair.org/media-woes/censorship.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Opinions&articleID=1099
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051104_smearing_chomsky_the_guardian.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "river crabbing"

In the section Reasons for self-censorship- Legal, the term "rivercrabbing" is used in place of "censorship". I don't see any particular reason why river crabbing is the appropriate term here, especially considering it is in reference to capitalist nations and the source cited after that sentence makes no reference to rivercrabbing. It seems like it only really serves to obfuscate the meaning, but I'm checking here in case there's a valid reason for its usage that I've missed. Jth125 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]