Talk:Censorship

The Constabulary has removed a conversation here that either in whole or in part did not meet Citizendium's Professionalism policy. Feel free to remove this template and take up the conversation with a fresh start.

I'm sorry, Robert, I was simply an ass. I will endeavor to do better in the future. Yes, even the Editor-in-Chief fails miserably from time to time. --Larry Sanger 21:57, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Then-Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the Supreme Court in March 2002: "It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information. It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 12:29, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Can you provide a context for this quote? An article, a book, anything? I don't want to simply add that in there without any reference. --Robert W King 12:32, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Washington Post - March 21, 2002 - "The Limits of Lying" - p.A35. [1]Full quote is all over the Internet. Olson said it on 17 March 2002.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 12:36, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

I can find the quote all over indie media opinion pieces but I can't find it at the Supreme Court or Office of the Solicitor General sites.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:47, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Here you go. Supreme Court Transcript:[2] (By the way, I found it here: [3]Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 12:52, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Maybe that Supreme Court transcript was censored (haha), because only the first line is there: "There are lots of different situations where the Government quite legitimately may have reasons to give false information out."Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 13:00, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Supreme Court transcript is also here: [4]Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 13:05, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Nature of censorship

I've never heard of NDAs as being tools of censorship. Not all information control is censorship. My medical records are private; that surely doesn't mean they are censored.

Generally, this article badly needs a meaty discussion of what political theorists have had to say about censorship. For instance, see this and this--and notice the important connection between free speech and censorship. --Larry Sanger 12:55, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Here's a snippet from http://www.delhifilmarchive.org/rahul.htm,

"In the summer of 2003, more than two hundred documentary and short filmmakers from across India displayed unprecedented solidarity to come together under the banner of the Campaign Against Censorship. The spark that triggered off this collective protest was the attempt by the then BJP-led government to introduce censorship for Indian films at the Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF2004), the premier documentary and short film festival of the country.

Through a new clause that required only the Indian filmmakers to submit censor certificates while submitting their films to MIFF, the government sought to censor and control the festival that had been free of censor certificates since its inception in 1991. The campaign is now preparing itself to face similar censorship tactics being employed by the Congress-led UPA government. Under the NDA government a politically motivated selection committee followed a simple procedure: films critical of the state on communal violence, environment, politics, globalisation, sexuality related issues had to be kept out. Moreover, if the filmmaker was in any way associated with the campaign, that too became a reason for his or her film to be kept out." --Robert W King 13:04, 16 October 2007 (CDT)