Talk:Censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Picture

The picture used for the Wikipedia series on Censorship apparently displays a negative bias against the notion of censorship. It is rather an alarmist image: one of burnt books, and is not appropriate in an encyclopædia whose task is to elicit an informative, neutral view. PETF 12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Do we even need a picture to illustrate censorship anyway? Either way, the current one has to go. Shinigami27 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's Censorship

Time to put a section on censorship by administators who object to facts that don't conform to their world view. Thoughts?Kirin4 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. If you have problems with a Wikipedia administrator, take it up with them or go through dispute resolution. This article isn't the place for it. -- Kesh 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yes. Wikipedia is meant to be a free forum for everyone,but in truth you will never overcome an administrator and his fellow administrator buddies. FACT. (PS. I hope this doesn't get censored) Johnbiddle (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum at all. You're clearly confused. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me educate you, as you clearly have not thought out your point. Forum means a place of discussion. This man is talking about DISCUSSING the changing of an article with an administrator. You obvioulsy think that wikipedia is only the article pages. Let me tell you how wikipedia works. There is DISCUSSION on the "discussion pages" in order to decide what goes onto the article pages. Got it yet? Johnbiddle (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnbiddle, this isn't a forum though. Yes, a forum is a place of DISCUSSION but this isn't a forum now is it? A forum is a place where you log in and reply and create new topics and you can also use smilies and HTML, but on here, you cant use smilies OR HTML can you? So, before you educate someone, think about going back to high school and learning about the particular topic before giving someone falsem information. --121.91.91.101 (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Smilies" and "HTML" do not define what is a forum. Nothing you have said here has negated my previous statement. Wise up. Johnbiddle (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Uh, no. Just because you call it a free forum doesn't make it one. It has a forum-like feature,the discussion pages, but to call Wikipedia a forum would be a misnomer. As analogy, that would be calling Facebook an IM service because of its recently-added chat feature. In both cases, the "peripheral features" of forum and chat, are not distinguishing properties of their internet web spaces. If you were to describe Facebook as an IM service, most people would think you were ignorant of its essential function as a social-networking site, and they would be right. Monkeyfiction (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Monkeyfiction

Why are you talking about Facebook??? Please don't bring analogies into the equation and put them in my mouth. If we are still talking about Wikipedia then refer to my statement below.Johnbiddle (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnbiddle, Wikipedia is not a forum; it is an online open encyclopedia. To say that Wikipedia is a forum because it has discussion pages is incorrect because you're mistaking the non-essential feature, the discussion page, for an essential feature. If the administrators decided to remove these discussion pages entirely, Wikipedia would still be an online open encyclopedia, albeit it would be less reliable since no one could discuss any articles or edits they disagreed with. Monkeyfiction (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Monkeyfiction

Let me clarify once again. Wikipedia DOES have discussion pages, therefore is a forum. Look in the dictionary ! I am using the literal "dictionary definition" of the word, NOT the new connotations that have came around since the dawn of the internet.Johnbiddle (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So any website with a discussion area is a forum now? Is Google a forum for having the Google Groups feature? Is GameFAQs is a forum for having Boards?--Hamster X (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OMG, you kids just don't get it. People were using the word forum long before the internet became popular. You can only think in terms of a DEDICATED "forum website". Please can people read the previous statements and fully comprehend them before reiterating the same misguided points again and again. Johnbiddle (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7228460.stm) of a person using the word forum in reference to a website(Ebay), without implying that it is a dedicated internet forum used for general chat.Johnbiddle (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what your point is, but this discussion page (or "forum" if you want) is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Anything else is inappropriate. Do you have any specific and reliably-sourced changes to this article that you would like to make? --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Loonymonkey, you have just said you're not sure what my point is. I cannot debate with you if you are too slow to understand my point. Wise Up. Johnbiddle (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation, for photographing caskets, inappropriate

I deleted two references, using the example of the government's policy of not showing photos of caskets from the Iraq War, because it is not a very good example of censorship.

Calling a military policy, of not allowing American caskets to be photographed, government censorship is somewhat stretching the definition of the term. The Wiki sections where this example was used were either inappropriate or already had a better example. In the context that the caskets issue was used, as an example of censorship used in the Iraq War, is an incorrect narrowing of a policy that dates back to 1991. This is not an issue attributable to the second Iraq War. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/23/iraq/main613365.shtml. It's usage, as written, was factually incorrect because it was being cited as an issue of the last war.

It is a bad example for defining censorship because revealing the photos did little to change the perception of the war since the number of dead soldiers was routinely reported from the start of the war. The rationale for the policy had nothing to do with keeping information from the public. It was strictly an internal policy, to respect the families of the dead soldiers, and is not inconsistent with funeral homes not routinely allowing photographers into their establishment to snap photos of the dead. This policy did not have the strength of law behind it and nobody went to jail for publishing the photos. That again points to this being a policy issue rather than outright censorship. Censorship, performed by governments, has legal penalties. In this specific case, the only punishment was firing the government worker, who violated policy for photographing the caskets. The government had no rights to take punitive action against the news outlets that published the photos. If a funeral home employee published photos of that mortuary's dead on a website, that employee would likewise probably be fired. There are so many better examples of censorship that can be used.

The casket reference was inappropriate under "Military Censorship" because the policy had less to do with military matters than political. In fact, the second part of that Wiki section should probably be deleted ("Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. This is also considered acceptable by even democratic governments as necessary for the preservation of national security"). When the military restricts information to alter the perception of the public, the topic shifts from censorship to propaganda. A reference to the Pentagon Papers would be more appropriate under military censorship because that was a historical revealing of dirty secrets that the military tried to suppress by classifying them secret.

Using the casket reference under "Censorship of state secrets and prevention of attention" is very trivial compared to the existing citation of what was done under the Stalin regime. Adding it offers nothing new to what is already there. The act of trying to literally rewrite history by altering photographs and written records dwarfs the significance of preferring not to make a public spectacle out of dead soldier caskets. The silly thing is that the author even recognized that the example wasn't a good form of censorship, "This particular example obviously represents an incomplete or failed form of censorship, as numerous photographs of these coffins are often printed in newspapers, magazines, and on the web." That's a good way of saying that it wasn't censorship to begin with. Including the reference in this section is more a political bone than a clarification of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldsrich (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.3.72 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Censorship

What is the definition of censorship and would an encyclopedic definition differ from that of a dictionary?

It's obviously important to come to a consensus over the encyclopedic definition of the word "censorship" because that defines what is appropriate within the category. A dictionary defines words as they are commonly used and can define the act of censoring at so broad a level that it may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example, the 5th definition, from the American Heritage Dictionary (quoted below), provides this definition: "The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship". That refers to the ability of people to censor their own words, something everybody does in their day-to-day lives. The opinions verbally expressed by people often do not match the true inner thoughts about the matter being vocally exercised. A person may censor out curse words based on the person they are talking to or leave out details that could be controversial to avoid conflict. That definition probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia under the subject of censorship.

For an encyclopedia, what exactly is censorship? Funk & Wagnalls has a good definition for censorship with: "Supervision and control of the content in periodicals, books, theatrical productions, motion pictures, and other media of communication before or after they are produced and for the purpose of preventing the publication or production of material deemed by the censoring group to be immoral or against the interest of the public. In a broader sense, censorship denotes the attempt to limit the circulation of ideas in any setting".

Censorship focuses on a small number of factors and a discussion is necessary to determine the import of those factors for inclusion in the encyclopedia definition.

1. Preventing publication - Not every bit of information in the world is appropriate for publication. The act of not releasing information is not automatically censorship. Otherwise, not releasing privacy information would be broadly classified as censorship. Using the Pentagon Papers incident as an example, the act of the military guarding that information was not censorship. It wasn't until the papers were published in newspapers and courts prevented further publication that censorship became an issue. The prevention of publication ought to be the cornerstone of the definition of censorship. Maintaining a secret, whether it be personal or corporate or government, is not censorship until somebody tries to stop publication of that secret outside of the entity maintaining the secret. The act of not releasing information is secrecy, not censorship. No attempt is being made, in this definition, to determine what secrets are appropriate for publication. Withholding information may make it difficult to find information for publication, but it isn't censorship until an entity tries to stop publication of the same information gleaned from other sources or through an improper release within the source withholding the information.

2. Degree of information suppression - The degree makes a difference. The broad powers of enforcement that governments can employ can lead to the most oppressive forms of censorship because governments can absolutely prevent the publication of views not allowed by that government. An individual, that creates an internet forum, can limit the views published in that person's forum, but doesn't have the broad power to limit what other forums can say and cannot effectively suppress information other than in the microcosm that forum controls. The company, that owns the forum site, can provide a greater degree of information suppression within all the forums under that company's control. That company cannot suppress information that another internet forum company provides. Personal levels of censorship are meaningless when there are many other sources of information not being censored. Maybe all examples are appropriate for inclusion and only needs to be broken out by the different degrees of censorship.

3. Legality - Should an encyclopedia definition of censorship take legality into account? This is probably not suitable for the definition because a dictatorship can censor publication without specifically enacting a law that defines what is allowable. It was mentioned in one definition I found. Legality becomes a subset of degree of suppression.

The definition, at the time of this writing, for Wikipedia censorship, is "defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." The problem with including "withholding of information" is that it isn't part of other definitions that I've looked up. That's an awkward aspect of the definition because later clarification had to be made that "withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds." What exactly is "withholding information"? What is "within bounds"? Is every bit of information, that is not published, being withheld and therefore censorship? A definition is pretty bad when it requires additional clarification for what belongs in the definition and what doesn't. Even though the Wiki definition excludes "withholding of official secrets" from the definition of censorship, the section "Aspects of Censorship" immediately defines military and political censorship as withholding information. Either the definition is wrong or the examples are wrong or both are wrong. The other aspects of censorship are defined by preventing publication of information rather than withholding information.

Modifying the definition to address the "prevention of publication" will eliminate the need for that clarification and get rid of the contradicting examples being used. Incorporating "withholding of information" within the definition holds the definition hostage to defining what secrets are appropriate for inclusion. Instead of defining what secrets ought to be included, the clarification only states what secrets aren't inclusive and that leaves the definition unbounded to what ought to be inclusive. That's a bad definition.

The downside of adopting a better definition is that a lot of what is currently encompassed, by the subject of censorship, may be considered inappropriate under the new definition.


DEFINITIONS FOR CENSORSHIP

Wictionary - The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1979) - Supervision and control of the content in periodicals, books, theatrical productions, motion pictures, and other media of communication before or after they are produced and for the purpose of preventing the publication or production of material deemed by the censoring group to be immoral or against the interest of the public. In a broader sense, censorship denotes the attempt to limit the circulation of ideas in any setting.

Webster - 1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors; especially: censorial control exercised repressively 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor Censor - : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

American Heritage Dictionary - 1. The act, process, or practice of censoring. 2. The office or authority of a Roman censor. 3. Psychology Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form. Censor - 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. 2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security. 3. One that condemns or censures. 4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals. 5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

Reynoldsrich 20:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldsrich (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
From the introduction to the article itself: Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. This is the consensus definition the article has been operating under for some time, now. -- Kesh 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Longevity of a definition doesn't necessarily make it right. History is fraught with long-lived mistakes that eventually are corrected. The definition for censorship used here incorporates "withholding information" when two major dictionaries and a print encyclopedia do not. Wikipedia's own dictionary is in disagreement with the definition here. Since "withholding information" is only defined by what it exludes and not by what it includes, it's a very weak term to include in the definition. Censorship is an active process that takes away what the public otherwise had or would have. Withholding information is a passive process that doesn't give the public information.
Keeping the current definition requires more exclusions to the definition or more inclusions to covered categories. Sports secrets, by this definition, represent censorship and the recent ruckus over videotaped plays should not have been punished, but lauded for revealing censored information. Not making private information publicly accessible, by the current definition, represents censorship. Use the definitions, provided by the dictionaries, and these areas are not censored activities. Every secret, or withheld piece of information, is not censorship. Every attempt to suppress the publishing of information is censorship. Reynoldsrich 07:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I think you're leaning too much on the negative connotations of the word "censorship." Yes, those sports secrets were censored in that they were not made available to others. For good reason, as far as the sports teams were concerned. Why should the other team be "lauded" for learning that material?
Secondly, you claim that "withholding information" is passive. Really, it's an active decision to hide information, rather than withdrawing information that was originally public. Government documents with black bars over words is "withholding information," as that information was never originally released. -- Kesh 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between secrecy (withholding information) and censorship. It's a secret when a body decides not to publish information it could publish. It's censorship when a third party prevents that body from publishing. Both can have ill effects, but they are different things. Withholding information is passive compared to releasing information. It takes more work to publish than to not publish--there is an additional step involved. Until a third party prohibits or alters that published work, it is not censorship. If a body withholds information, it could be called self-censorship and that has its own topic (and defines it as censoring one's own published works). A censor acts on the works of others. Until somebody decides to publish, a censor has nothing to act on. Government documents, with black bars over words, represent self-censorship because the government created the document (nowadays, a publicly releasable version will be word-processed without any evidence of removed words). Personal correspondence, from soldiers, with black bars on the words, is censorship because the government has altered the published works of the soldiers. An official government secret, by the Wiki elaboration, is not censorship.
I've provided three dictionary definitions and an encylopedia definition and none incorporate "withholding information" as part of the definition. The current article definition has been highlighted to provide a citation. Is there a dictionary definition that agrees with the Wiki definition? If you agree with the current definition, can you elaborate about what is included under the definition. Current exclusions include: "The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication". Is withholding privacy information censorship? What withheld information, not currently excluded, qualifies as censorship? What is the definition of "reasonable bounds"? These are, at the moment, very subjective things and not appropriate for a definition. There is no common understanding of exactly how the definition works. That problem does not exist with the dictionary definitions. Reynoldsrich 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] useless line

'Typically censorship is done by governments, religious and secular groups'. Every group is either religious or secular- effectivly, this says that censorhip is gone by Governments, groups... Is it just me, or is this truely useless? It doesn't narrow down it at all. Larklight 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

—I agree with Larklight; the above seems rather redundant. PETF 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Fahrenheit 451

I'm thinking it might be best if the paragraph on F451 be removed. It makes the claim that the book was originally about censorship, which it wasn't even though people still regard it as such:

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/16524/

It also claims that there were many various edits to the version presented in schools but there are no references to this. I think it might be best if the paragraph either gets changed (with actual references to it's claim) or removed altogether. FreedomFighterXL (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship#Brazil

I've redirected the contentious article back here, and tried to tightened it up. In looking at the main source I'm wondering if it really is a decent example of censorship? Two people were filmed without their knowledge or consent. The video appears on YouTube. The couple object. YouTube says it's against their rules anyway, and remove it. People upload it again, and the couple go to court to get the video removed again. Is this censorship or an example of infringement of the couple's own rights? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good section.

Good to see that 'educational censorship' was mentioned.

Observations:

Special interst groups exploiting education for financial benefits.

As a graduate of a school of business, some marketing companies are exploiting marketing education to 'suggest' that all businesses spend some 10% on marketing.

The other observation is whereby trade journals are reluctant to print material contrary to the advertisers in their journals. So the advertisers use their advertising dollars to exercise some sort of subtle, powerful force on the media.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Ma

Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example:

Similar to the reluctance of 'the media' to address the child molestation within the Catholic Church for decades. It was finally allowed only to attacking the Catholic Church, but not to isolate the problem to homosexual pedofiles (80% of abuse cases) in the priesthood; that was and still is unacceptable; I heard one bishop mention this phrase.

My original research on 'half-truths discovered a 'connected' anti-male, anti-mother, anti-family agenda, orchestrated by many including some radical. Odd very few would allow this material to be published, because it was 'too sensitive', or 'barriers' had been set up not to allow its acceptance.

Now what do you do ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I really don't know where you're going with this. This is the discussion page for the Censorship article, not a forum to discuss censorship in general. Please try to limit the discussion to tangible suggestions for editing the article. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, medical peer review journals would not print various material because it was contrary to the 'intersts' of the owners...

If you rely on 'publications' then those who control those 'presses' are free to print or not to print...censoring various truths.

My original research in Canada saw the Children's Aid Society, 1987, isolate Men, as abusers...the same "black and white" various so called interested parties have never printed this; why ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your original research; in fact it is specifically prohibited. See WP:NOR. If you have specific suggestions about improving this encyclopedia article, please make them. --Lquilter (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

What is wrong with this edit? The WND link provided balance, was from a reliable source, was directly on point regarding preexisting information, and WND has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking or it simply would not be as highly rated as it is; WND is the Internet's largest private news organization, or something around that. Is this another one of those pages where biased people ensure Wikipedia only presents one side of a story? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "worldnetdaily is not a reliable source" evidences an editor's not fully understanding wiki rules and policies. Hint, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the reliable sources policy. Are you? Perhaps you should read through the extensive discussions on this subject in the archives, starting here. The consensus is that worldnetdaily is not a reliable source. No, it does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, quite the opposite. It has a reputation for publishing fringe theories, distortions, half-truths and outright falsehoods. It is not a news organization and is not beholden to traditional journalistic practices. It is not peer-reviewed. It is simply a blog with the pretension of being a "news outlet." You are perfectly welcome to make a similar edit, you just need a reliable source for it.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Then guidance for anyone trying to add the information, fine, just get a main stream media source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CensoredRhodesiaHerald.jpg

Image:CensoredRhodesiaHerald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

The "See also" section of this article is so utterly bloated as to be completely useless. Ideally this should be shortened into much smaller bulleted list. Neitherday (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Censorship

  1. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately. | This sentence lacks a reference and I'll be removing it.

Yeah, obviously partisan and doesn't have any proof. Blaqsparrow (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of state secrets and prevention of attention

In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with the intent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an enemy. had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism. | The sentence "had condemned to execution" seems out of place and I have removed it. If anyone has the entire sentence then feel free to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klemet15 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mess Up

the page cantians "Censorship is the suppression or deletion of homosexuals which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a straight dude". this is inapourpre. I dount know how to make it beter.

sourly about my spelling. 99.139.222.90 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the vandalism. I have reverted it. Instructions on how to revert can be found at Help:Reverting. -Neitherday (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship is something good

Freedom of speech regarding morality and the truth is excellent, but morally-correct censorship will contribute to the wellbeing of public morality.

Censorship to immorality is a basic standard.

Phalanx Pursos 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article only, not for discussing your personal views on the subject. Remember, this is not a forum. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military/Political Censorship ?

  • Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. This is also considered acceptable by even democratic governments as necessary for the preservation of national security.
  • "censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage "

Does this clearly identify and include the involvement of 'efforts' to restrict information from being printed or communicated by the active involvement of active 'moles' within public information agencies, to actively not print information, after it has been released, so as not to record it 'in history'  ?

As in a 'historical conspiracy' not to allow to be printed important truths or promote them once they are received or known ?


--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)