Talk:Censorship in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Restored Page-- The page had been replaced with a chain letter. I went to edit page which showed the article in whole but was not displaying such when looking at the article proper. I simply re-posted the page, all seems to be working fine now.

[edit] Media distraction

Removed from article: Some would propose that in place of simple censorship, the United States and many other Western-Style democracies have a more sophisticated approach to manufacturing consent. Political parties and corporate interests will hire public relations firms, who will use spin (a form of propaganda) and distraction to direct people's attention away from issues they prefer not to be discussed, or towards others.

In addition to the disinformation techniques discussed under propaganda, the following media distraction techniques (many based on logical fallacies) are also very popular and effective:

[edit] See also:

Disinfopedia.

How is Example: We Chinese know that our government is working in our best interest, and we don't believe the attacks in the foreign press an example of Censorship in the United States? I can see how it could be used if it referred to "those Chinese", or something like that, but as it stands now, it reads more like something about beliefs or propaganda in China. -- John Owens 23:37 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

You asked for it, John, you got it! I've changed the example to an American one. But there's no reason why the Chinese can't learn from American techniques, either... -151.38.27.208

Let's try to write a general article on censorship in the United States. To do this, we'll have to provide examples. This should be easy, because there have been many -- and not all political.

examples are exactly what is provided Ed. If you have problem with the examples all being political, just add some more non political ones

But let's NOT write an essay amounting to a diatribe against censorship. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Uncle Ed 19:44 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

then, just add the "for" side of it Ed, instead of censoring.
Perhaps Ed is right, and the article "Censorship in the United States" should be entirely blank. That would show that the U.S. is a country of perfect free speech! Especially when there was an article listing in detail all the methods of censorship that was then censored by an American. Great going, Ed, you win the irony award.
Now Ed, I honestly can't see how this is a diatribe "against" censorship (although some terms like 'insidious' should be removed, I admit.) It is a simple listing of types of censorship found in the democratic nations. It is by no means a diatribe, it advocates no action or change. If you prefer to add some POV in favor of censorship, feel free. If you feel that these techniques are listed inaccurately, or that there are others used far more frequently, go ahead and alter. But I honestly can't see how removing the whole article serves any purpose, except to display a "we see no censorship here" attitude. If you honestly believe that there *is* no censorship in the United States, then you don't want to be the only censor, do you?
You'll recall, Ed, that we've discussed offensive content before (see Talk:Bugs Bunny) and I seem to recall we agreed. I still hold that content offensive to some, but that harms nobody, should be included. If you have changed your stance to the point of being a blatant censor, what has changed your mind?

151.38.27.208Steverapaport.

The censorship in the United States page, as it stood Friday and stands today, is not an article. I'm going to keep deleting it, until any of the following happens:

  • someone changes it into an article
  • my account is blocked by Jimbo

By the way, I am against censorship -- but I'm also against people putting forth their views in the guise of a neutral article.

Please write an encyclopedia article which describes what censorship is, and how it has taken place in the United States. Better yet, how it has taken place in other democratic countries, as well as in dictatorships.

--Uncle Ed

I thought it was an encyclopedia article. But I don't see how you can personally decide it's not, and remove it. I seem to recall that the "vandalism guidelines" are quite clear: If you think something is vandalism, and there's some doubt about it, you discuss it on the village pump, you don't just unilaterally delete it.

Pages to be deleted should be listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion before deletion takes place. That way, other Wikipedians can have a chance to argue for and against the removal of the page. If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped.

Uncle Ed, I'm sorry, but all the articles in this encyclopedia, at least in first draft, reflect someone's point of view. The responses to that include adding the opposing point of view, neutering the language, or adding more information. Nowhere has it ever been Wiki policy to just wander in and delete the article. You've been a good contributor before, I have faith that you can be so again.

If you really believe that this can't be an article, please say exactly why, and what could be changed about it so it is one. Your claim that only removing it entirely could make it an article is simply antisocial, and does not contribute to the discussion.

Furthermore, I just added several new references and examples, and you've deleted them. That's just plain un-neighborly of you.

Steve Rapaport.

Steve, it's precisely the opposite: none of the articles in the Wikipedia should be from someone's point of view -- at least not on controversial matters. I think you know this, don't you? Rather, an article should describe what those points of view are.

You could very easily convert the diatribe into an article, if you would agree with the following:

  • Wikipedia should not espouse a point of view on controversial subjects
  • Articles touching on controversial matters should attribute each point of view to its primary adherents.

We are not discussing vandalism, but violation of the NPOV policy.

I think it can be an article; I've begun to say what should be changed.

Continually reposting a diatribe in the guise of an article is un-neighborly, and could get you banned. "Good fences make good neighbors."

Please work with me, not against me. Or at least explain what you're up to... --Uncle Ed 15:56 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, I looked at the text you deleted, and I think it should be very possible to NPOV it without resorting to wholesale deletion. Wesley
The contested text is quite good. But it doesn't belong here. It could usefully be moved to a more approprite title, leaving "Censorship in the US" to talk about what censorship is, as opposed to what other things are a bit like censorship. Which more appropriate title? Good question! Tannin 16:19 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
Censorship on Wikipedia appears to be quite a good title ? What do you think ? ant
First of all, Ed, I have never ONCE reposted my article. I also, in good faith, have posted my own name to everything, so don't begin accusing me of anonymous stuff. If others have reposted my article, maybe that indicates its worth, not that I'm running around doing it myself.
Second, I have explained, very clearly, what I'm up to. I'm trying to document the forms of censorship (or distraction, or spin, or whatever you wish to call it) that exist in the United States. This list, as other people have said, is a good piece of documentation, and deserves to be somewhere. I didn't originate the article title (I found it there), and I decided to help by adding what I knew about it.
If you believe it's not NPOV you are encouraged to edit whatever is not. But as several others are remarking above, my article deserves to live.
Thanks, Steverapaport 17:01 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
A.K.A. 151.38.27.208 when i forget to login

Can someone please tell me where this article belongs so I can post it without Ed Poor continually threatening to censor it and ban me? This is getting quite frustrating. I'm happy the article is growing, but the list of techniques is important, and I'm not happy having it removed without "votes for Deletion". I've also added extra content and it was removed too.

Steverapaport 17:11 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think the problem is that whatever your list of techniques is, it is not censorship. Something to do with Public opinion, maybe. Rmhermen 17:22 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
Manufacturing Consent? Manipulation? -- John Owens 17:28 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to Steve for clearing that up. I summarized the gist of your "diatribe", as the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article. I hope you no longer think I was trying to censor the idea that there is censorship in America. This was all just apparently a misunderstanding. No hard feelings?

By the way, here are two links on media "distraction":

--Uncle Ed 17:51 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

who are you exactly trying to fool here Ed ??? It was plain and regular censorship and nothing else. And not only was it censorship, but also sysop abuse, as you hinted at the fact someone *you* were engaged in an war edit could be banned if he kept reverting the article (it was apparently not even him who reverted it).

Somewhere is written that a sysop should not use his sysop power in a war edit, and that what you threatened to do. As it is, Steve article is not there anymore, an article sanctified by you is there instead. If this is not censorship, I wonder what it is. I also notice that you don't even care to answer questions left to you on this talk page. All I can conclude from this is that it might be that censorship doesnot exist in the USA, but it sure is that censorship exist on Wikipedia.

Note, that Steve never refused his article to be edited, and that apart from you, no one here appeared to think that article was so biased it could not be acceptable on wikipedia.

Anthere

(I put that before the edit conflict - it might change my mind)

Is Bias a book? The way it's capitalized, and used in that context, it sounds like it, but the link doesn't have any book listed. -- John Owens 18:11 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind. -- John Owens 18:15 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

A "Censorship in the United States" article is more specific, obviously, than a "Censorship" article. So, this article needs a few questions answered. Specifically, how is censorship in the United States different than censorship elsewhere, and how is it similar. Also, what are the specific court cases that have shaped censorship issues in the United States? Kingturtle 18:32 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Steve,

I'm done mucking around with the Censorship in the United States article for today. I'm not tring to censor your views but incorporate them properly into the article. I'm not going to ban you.

Please put back into the article, everything I moved to talk, which you feel contributes to a NEUTRAL encyclopedia article on censorship.

Just bear in mind that the term censorship may be getting stretched out of shape here. Some of the bad things people do to suppress ideas or distract the public or trick people, might need to go into an article with another name. Like public relations techniques or techniques of propaganda or How to influence public opinion.

I want ALL THAT STUFF in the Wikipedia -- but (a) in the right place and (b) neutrally written. Please don't confuse editorial advice with censorship. It would be ironic indeed if you accused someone trying to help you write about censorship, with censorship. ^_^ Uncle Ed 18:39 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I am a little bit relieved at what you put here Ed. But, I won't remove my indication that you meant to threaten another contributor in a war edit you were involved in. And this is very incorrect.

I think Ed's treatment of other contributors to this article has been heavy-handed, but I agree with his point that the term "censorship" is being used too broadly in this article as it currently stands. This is a problem for various reasons. For one thing, the article as currently stands does not include any examples of real censorship as it has occurred historically and continues to occur in the United States. Censorship, in the form of "prior restraint" (i.e., preventing something from being published at all) has occurred with regard to books by Henry Miller and James Joyce, Hollywood movies and military secrets. Some of that is occurring today, and this type of censorship has increased post-9/11. Other types of activities, such as after-the-fact punishments, take all sorts of forms, such as libel lawsuits, economic sanctions and so forth. Moreover, a number of techniques exist that effectively censor certain things without formally censoring them. For example, Hollywood's ratings system has virtually killed off the R-rated film and has *definitely* killed off X-rated and M-rated films. It hasn't done this by physically obstructing them from being made, just by making them economically unprofitable. Some would argue that this is effectively a form of censorship; some would argue otherwise.

An article titled "censorship in the United States" should discuss all of these aspects and should also note that most "thought control" in the United States takes the form of techniques such as advertising and public relations rather than censorship as the term is commonly understood.

I'd take a stab at making some of these changes to the article myself, except that right now I'm extremely busy on a big project, and what little time I have available must go into my Disinfopedia for the time being. Maybe I'll be able to revisit this in a month, after my schedule frees up. In the meantime, I thought I'd at least throw in my two cents. --Sheldon Rampton 19:47 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

As a factual matter, more R rated films are made than other types of films. As for X-rated films that aren't sold as porn, there's a large question of the market for them. If the rating system wasn't around, would there be more X-rated films, or would hard R-rated films drop, as theaters and individuals start to impose their own ratings system more? --Prosfilaes 21:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A suggestion: how about an article on Corporate propaganda. worldwide of course, since many of the corporations involved in this are multinationals, but it seems to me it could include much of what people have written here. -- Tarquin 19:46 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC) (edit: we don't even have an article on multinationals? shame on us!!!!)
All great suggestions, thanks! This is Steve Rapaport again. Let me for a moment try to defend the (admittedly controversial) idea that Ratings systems, Media Distraction, spin, and propaganda should at least be tightly linked to, if not included in, the main title Censorship.
This is an Encyclopedia. If you were a student, using this Encyclopedia to write a project about the question "Is there Censorship in the United States?", would you know to look for "Media Distraction" or "Ratings" or "Propaganda"? Or would you type "Censorship" and look around?
It seems to me that if all articles on "censorship-like techniques" are moved to unlikely titles, that will prevent the earnest student from finding them, and perhaps that student's hypothetical essay will conclude that apart from song lyrics and movies, all speech in the United States is always free. Even if that's true right now, I think it would be good to set people on their guard against possible future abuses of Media Distraction by helping them recognize them.
Ed's summarizing of the thinking while omitting the examples is probably a disservice to all readers (especially those being influenced by the techniques), because it keeps these techniques abstract, as if they never occurred in real life, and gives people nothing concrete to recognize in the future. All the suggestions about changing the title are well taken (I would choose something like "Media manipulation"), and if that's the consensus, let's at least make sure it's well linked to this article and others. But if our hypothetical student goes looking for ways to suppress ideas, he's more likely to type "censorship" than "ways to suppress ideas", methinks.
Best to all, Steve Rapaport, 151.38.27.208 20:26 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
And what would be the problem if we give him a page that describes just the literal, strait-and-narrow censorship, and a number of links, labeled "See also:", such as media distraction (no caps please!), ratings (movies), and propaganda, among others? -- John Owens 20:51 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
media distraction has been created. Ideally it should be made general - not talking purely about the USA, and not talking purely about modern times. Martin

On reflection, I can see that when I wrote the following, it could be interpreted as a "threat to ban":

Continually reposting a diatribe in the guise of an article is un-neighborly, and could get you banned.

After all, I am a sysop --something I tend to forget -- not that forgetting is an excuse.

Steve, I'm sorry that I wrote that continually reposting could get you banned. Please believe that I would never ban you: it would be an abuse of my "rights" as a Developer and Sysop. Only Jimbo is allowed to ban signed-in contributors, and I often argue against such bans.

However, as Anthere suggested, I tried to think about how I would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. And what I wrote about banning seemed -- at best -- heavy-handed, and -- at worst -- well, kind of scary.

So, as penance I'm taking an indefinite period of time off from Wikipedia. -- Uncle Ed 21:54 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


If media distraction is deleted because fat little bouda thinks it poorly named, I will put the content of this article in Censorship in the united states. User:anthere

Code HaysMarc Venot 03:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No protest zone mention?

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention Bush's `protest zones'. The article on censorship does mention `free speech zones' which is pretty close, but the idea of saying that a protest can only happen over here certainly belongs in this article too.


[edit] Needs History

as this article currently stands, it is very much focused on the present day. Greater historical depth is IMO needed in this articlae to give a proper idea of censorship and how it has been practiced, and opposed, in the US. I may try a rewrite/expansion later this week. DES 20:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do. There's a lot of overlapping info scattered in various articles - I tried to list them all in the "see also" section. Mirror Vax 14:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] opinions...

Eh, seems funny to me that any article shouldn't contain some opinion. While opinion isn't always correct, sometimes it is. Being right for the wrong reasons...while...sometimes unethical, is usually not viewed in the light of life as intolerable. Plato argued in the form of a dialectic, which was really a critique of an issue through several lenses (and opinions) in the form of a dialogue...Arguing with a demonstration of the 'philosophical temperament' to find the 'truth' of an issue. Truth is truth, no matter what color it is, and can't be sugar coated. However, finding the difference from true opinion and knowledge is important to the philosopher for a variety of reasons. There's always 2 sides to every issue...and well, even plato argued for certain types of censorship (in the republic). eh, I believe, that if howard stern could be censored, so should the news. After all, while howard stern talks about sex...the news continually talks about rape, murder and rascism...among other tangible evils. Yet heed, no vendor in his right mind would deny even a 4 year old a news paper (providing that four year old could read). I remember once, long ago, I was cutting class in school. However, I was also reading a book while wandering the halls. Where other class-cutters were stopped by security and suspended, I was left entirely alone. Obviously this demonstrates a clear cut respect for the power of the written word....No matter what words they are.

See WP:NPOV for why we are supposed to maintian a Neutral point of view in wikipedia articles. That generally means that articles are not supposed to contain the opnions of the article's authors/editors. They may well contain the opnions of those who have written or spoken about the topic elsewhere, but those opnions should be attributed and if possible cited. DES 15:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WOW

"The courts have ruled that the First Amendment protects "indecent" pornography from regulation, but not "obscene" pornography. Enforcement of federal obscenity laws has increased under the Bush administration. People convicted of distributing "obscene" pornography face long prison terms and asset forfeiture."

I don't like Bush either but this really is an insane oversimplification of our obscenity laws.207.157.121.50 07:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Asserting that it's an insane oversimplification doesn't help; what part of it is an oversimplification? Sounds like simple statement of fact; under the Bush administration, enforcement of federal obscenity laws has increased, which could be a positive or negative thing depending on your opinion.--Prosfilaes 01:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would think that graphic description of oral and anal sex would be considered "obscene" but I can nonetheless drive down the street to my local video store and buy movies (legally) that have people engaging in these acts. I've always been under the impression that pornagraphy laws were regulated at the local level by "community standards" and, while not protected under the first amendment, varies from state to state with regard to it's legality216.231.162.9 17:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Always?

"However, there has always been Censorship in the United States."

This article talks mostly about current censorship. The only real nod to this is a link to the alien and sedition acts. That hardly justifies starting this article with "always". Savidan 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The concept of censorship

Hello. I am about to make some changes to this article, and I am going to explain myself first to avoid any miscommunication. Very little of what is described in this article is actually qualifies as censorship according to the common definition. Here are some definitions I found for 'censorship' on Google define:

  • deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
  • broadly, any government restrictions on speech or writing; more precisely, government restrictions on forms of expression before they are disseminated
  • The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.
  • System of controls by which the circulation of any printed matter or the production of any play or film is prohibited unless official permission is granted.
  • Action taken to prevent others from having access to a book or information; a public objection to words, subjects and/or information in books, films, and other media with the idea of depriving others from reading or viewing them.
  • Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so.

Now let's look at the sections one by one:

Broadcast Media - Mentions indecency fines. This qualifies as censorship according to some of the definitions, but it fails according to most of them, because a fine does not prevent the release of the material said to be censored. It is also important to note that the legal rationale behind the fines is that the air, which is used for the broadcast of AM/FM radio and network TV, are public space which gives FCC limited powers to regulate the content. This is not mentioned in the article.

The fine does prevent the release of the material. If you know that if you release something, you will be shut down with massive fines, you won't release it. You can't release it. --Prosfilaes 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The section goes on to cite some unsourced POV, constructed of Weasel Words.

Restrictions on political campaigns - This indeed qualifies as censorship according to all the definitions. No problem here.

War reporting and national security - We have a couple of pertinent claims about censorship in WWII, then once again, then some assorted propaganda followed by a totally irrelevant quote by Donald Rumsfeld. The ACLU section is utterly out of place--demanding access to records is not censorship.

The Pentagon papers certainly were censorship, and the ACLU section also covered the gag order forcing the person who recieved the request to not reveal that they had recieved it.

Pornography - No problem here.

Cryptography software - This is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. The export of software is not the supression of content. This has no place in the article.

Then how did he win the case on First Amendment ground? A court of law ruled it was censorship.--Prosfilaes 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Libel - Once again, most of the definitions for censorship exlude this, as libel suits generally do not preempt the publication of information. They can, however, and I have no problem mentioning this. But a general blurb on libel is out of place here, IMHO.

Again, the difference between someone telling you can't release something, and if you do, we'll do bad things to you, and someone telling you you can release something, but if you do, we'll do bad things to you is practically nil.--Prosfilaes 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Production Code link has nothing to do with censorship. An industry willfully choosing not to release certain material is not censorship according to any of the definitions. --rehpotsirhc 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The industry didn't willfully choose to do anything. They saw the handwriting on the wall with the Congressional hearings, and said that it would be better to be censored from within than from without. --Prosfilaes 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In summary, you can't delete the most common examples of censorship because you don't like them. Your definition of censorship is not the most commonly used one, and your treatment of this is not NPOV.--Prosfilaes 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Censorship Issue

To the person(s) who keep adding the following to the Censorship in US article:

Censorship of Democrats
Shows which regularly feature non Republican War Veterans (Fighting Dems) running for Congress are currently being censored by the AFN. [1]
I've listened to the referenced link, the audio file, and understand the concerns of the guest on that program. To recap: This man is a veteran that is running for public office. His son was serving in Iraq. His son tried to stream an audio file about the "Fighting Dems" from a base computer, but it was blocked by "Military Censors." When his son tried to view other streaming audio content, such as the right wing Rush Limbaugh, it worked fine. The guest concluded that he was being censored by military authorities.
The above situation and the further above statement about democrats being censored are both incorrect.
1) AFN, or Armed Forces Network, has nothing to do with Internet services in Iraq. Internet services in Iraq are provided by DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency), NOT AFN. AFN provides radio and TV programs to troops downrange, not Internet. Also, AFN is never mentioned in the referenced audio file.
2) The fact that this item is block is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE BY DISA. All streaming audio and video is SUPPOSE to be blocked due to computer security issues. The fact that the Rush Limbaugh Show is not block in Iraq is 1) because it was not blocked in error, or 2) Someone has put in the appropriate paperwork for it to get "unblocked" as discussed in the streaming audio link provided above. Considering more troops listen to Republican radio than Democrat radio, this is likely the case.
3) The statement in contention, which has been removed repeatedly, is also in the plural form, as in many shows that feature democrats have being censored. The provided reference only talks about one show.
4) The gentelmen that discuss this in the interview are self admitedly guessing that they are being censored. Therefore it is speculated that must be the reason it can not be streamed from the Internet. Speculation and wild quesses have no place in an encyclopedia.
If you would like to re-add that link to the page, please, let us discuss it here, first. I am open to your views and opinions on this matter. I am not Republican or Democrat, I just want the truth up here. Integrity and elightmentment are values that are anti-censorship. By continually re-adding, without discussing or listening to the fact, you show neither. Please discuss.

[edit] PROTESTS

What about censorship of protests, ie Free speech zones? Remember what happened in NYC and Seattle?

ChristopherMannMcKay 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DMCA

any thoughts on whether the effects on free speech could be notable to this article, eg., numbers being censored, source code or binaries illegal, or should it be in the article about the DMCA? I'm talking about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act

[edit] {{cleanup-rewrite}}

This article is very badly written, disorganized, and ignores a lot of the WP:MOS. It lacks sources at places. Furthermore, even a pedestrian knowledge of censorship in the United States knows about things such as the Cointelpro and Jim Crow laws which in a large part contravened free speech and used censoship as one of its tools.

This article needs a complete re-write to make it a quality encyclopedia article. As a sort of guideline we could use Censorship in the People's Republic of China--Cerejota 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


I appreciate the edits but it still needs the tag...--Cerejota 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Lax?

The sentence:

Censorship in the United States of America has ranged from excessive to virtually nonexistent throughout the country's history, but today is very lax

Is unsubstantiated, and disputed. Reports Without Borders do not consider the US to have a 'very lax' standard of press freedom, for example. [2]The US ranks alongside Croatia and Botswana, below most European countries, South Korea and Japan.

Unless there is any objection I am going to radically alter this sentence (and probably include the RSF link). Damburger 20:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagreed with this sentence too (while it still was there). Especially the broadcast media censorship is DEFINITELY NOT "lax". Jarskaaja 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've done my best to flesh out this article. I'm the one that filled in the history sections and added the sections for the Patriot act and free speech zones. Any comments would be appreciated. Also, I don't see where the neutrality tag is coming from so I will delete it barring further protest.--138.87.249.5 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of Religion

I was going to edit the Freedom of Religion section on school prayer, but on further consideration I suspect the entire section should be deleted. The descriptions of the cases are at best misleading, at best written by someone who grossly misunderstands what the court cases say and mean. In the United States students have a constitutionally protected freedom to pray in school. That fact is not challenged by any of the linked court cases. Every single cited court case was ruling upon the legality of official acts of government establishment to impose or induce prayer by students. These are absolutely not cases of government censorship of private speech. They are cases saying that the force of government may not COMPEL religious speech, nor may the force of government be applied for the purpose of inducing, suppressing, or altering the free religious speech of students.

I hesitate to unilaterally delete an entire section, so I am posting here first and will place this on my watch list. If no one objects, I'll delete it in a few days. If there is objection... at minimum I intend some sort of rewrite on the highly misinformative text. As written now it sounds like government censorship prohibiting students from praying in school, which is the opposite of the truth. Students are garanteed the right to pray if they wish. Alsee (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)