Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:52:51Z

WilliamA: STOP CENSORING ME

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons, as in the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of blocking people with whom you disagree, when they start to make too much sense.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karajou&page=</ref>, or removing comments that reveal an administrator's arrogance or stupidity.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_deceit&diff=411283&oldid=411282</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:51:22Z

WilliamA: This part wasn't verifiable. Sorry.

Talk:Censorship

2008-03-23T19:50:29Z

WilliamA: Censoring censorship

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Inserted for the record [http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm] reads at the bottom of the page,
*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:You people...you people....who do you think you are talking to, Ross Perot? [http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1996/11/05/Resources/Guest.Column.Perots.RaceBaiting.Hurts.Everyone-2176171.shtml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Examples ==

This page would really benefit from some examples of censorship. American examples that come immediately to mind are various parent groups removing books like ''The Catcher in the Rye'' from schools, the military blacking out parts of letters sent by soldiers during wartime, and ratings systems like those for movies keeping some content away from audiences. I can see how the Michelangelo example can be written with an anti-Catholic sentiment, but reporting the true historical incident is not inherently anti-Catholic, just like talking about the Holocaust today isn't inherently anti-German. So, that may be a good non-American example to keep if it can be rewritten. China's policy of censoring most media content entering the country provides another international example that would be instructive. {{unsigned|AnilaWafer}}

:I agree with you for the most part, though movie ratings aren't censorship, because you can still put whatever you want into movies (plus they are voluntary, despite their ubiquitousness). CP is an open encyclopedia, so as long as you follow the [[conservapedia:commandments|rules]], feel free to add new material to the article! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== What is not censorship? ==

I don't know about all of you, but when I open an article on any given subject, I like to be told '''what it is''', maybe throw in some history of censorship, it's origin ('''does not''' belong at the end of the article) etc. etc.

Will somebody please be a dear and redo this article [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 06:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Censoring censorship ==

DanH is trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=411328&oldid=411326 hide the truth], or expel, thsi diff. Help me stop him.-[[User:WilliamA|WilliamA]] 15:50, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:49:37Z

WilliamA: My links were true and verifiable. Prove they weren't!

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons, as in the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views,<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]]</ref> or the form of blocking people with whom you disagree, when they start to make too much sense.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karajou&page=</ref>, or removing comments that reveal an administrator's arrogance or stupidity.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_deceit&diff=411283&oldid=411282</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Abortion deceit

2008-03-23T19:49:08Z

WilliamA: i can has topic header?

==Wherin Andy is pwned==
Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-[[abortion]] types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly ''less'' for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that ''it is possible'' that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I don't know whether they have made it freely available. It sounds like you have a copy or access to it, based on your post above and the fact that you wrote an article discussing it, but if you no longer have it let me know here and I can download and email it to you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: They are directly connected. [[Abortion]] advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: HelpJazz, please try harder. An [[abortion]] by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some [[liberal]] women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every [[abortion]] costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.

: I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because [[abortion deceit]] has been so good at fooling all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: And can I see a cite on that "fact" about making more money than they spend? And also on the $400,000 per household as well. Is that in a year, in 10 years, in a lifetime? Do you want to put any kind of reality in that statement or just throw a number out there and see if it sticks? And I did take an economics course, so feel free to use big words. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem to miss the point. The [[economic]] cost of abortion is primarily the [[opportunity cost]] of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: So is abstinence costing us $500,000 per missed sexual opportunity? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Crocoite, deleting the above comment was [[censorship]] and in bad form. Jdellaro made a valid point: if Andy's arguing the opportunity cost of a life is to be taken into account, he's arguing ''for sex and childbirth,'' not ''against abortion.'' It's a similar tactic we've seen before: when he tries to "link" abortion and breast cancer, because childbirth reduces the risk of cancer, he's just arguing ''for childbirth'' and ''for its natural predecessor, sex.'' This "article" - at least Andy's additions - all help promote ''sex'', not impugn ''abortion''. Jdellaro pointed that out, and you ban him for it? You're just showing your own idiocy.-[[User:WilliamA|WilliamA]] 15:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
== I was asked to help find cites ==

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually ''uses'' the claim. That's what I need help finding. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion and Infertility==

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how '''abortion''' actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with '''sex'''... [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:48:06Z

WilliamA: 2 points!

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons, as in the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views,<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]]</ref> or the form of blocking people with whom you disagree, when they start to make too much sense.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karajou&page=</ref>, or removing comments that reveal an administrator's arrogance or stupidity.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_deceit&diff=411283&oldid=411282</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:47:30Z

WilliamA: improved!

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons, as in the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views,<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref> or the form of blocking people with whom you disagree, when they start to make too much sense.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karajou&page=</ref>, or removing comments that reveal an administrator's arrogance or stupidity.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_deceit&diff=411283&oldid=411282</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:47:14Z

WilliamA: Undo revision 411322 by Special:Contributions/DanH (User talk:DanH)

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons, as in the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views,<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref> or the form of blocking people with whom you disagree, when they start to make too much sense.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=</ref> <ref<http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karajou&page=</ref>, or removing comments that reveal an administrator's arrogance or stupidity.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_deceit&diff=411283&oldid=411282</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Censorship

2008-03-23T19:45:23Z

WilliamA:

'''Censorship''' is the prohibition of speech from a medium or audience for ideological reasons, as in the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom or destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref> Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views,<ref>See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref> or the form of blocking people with whom you disagree, when they start to make too much sense.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=</ref> <ref<http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karajou&page=</ref>, or removing comments that reveal an administrator's arrogance or stupidity.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_deceit&diff=411283&oldid=411282</ref>

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; however, these standards tend to fluctuate depending on time and place. Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be the case in conservative Muslim countries.

== History ==

The word '''censorship''' derives from the name of the Roman officials who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Abortion deceit

2008-03-23T19:45:15Z

WilliamA:

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? Also, you might want to add an item noting that pro-abortion folks like to claim that most Americans support their position, when the opposite is true (as per the item currently on the Main Page).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-[[abortion]] types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:I would argue that 9 statements need 9 references (or maybe 18, since each statement is a double). And I'm not sure I understand how #3 works. Could someone explain that? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I can add cites. I'll work on that now. Help is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Number 7 (33 of 39 studies discussed in the Lancet article) is misleading. First of all, there were 53 studies discussed, not 39. Interestingly, the 14 that are left out here are the ones where there are prospective data on whether the study subjects had abortions (as opposed to asking those diagnosed with breast cancer whether they ever had an abortion, which is considered more reliable, partly because many of the studies derived data on abortion from national registries in countries that mandate abortion reporting by law, and partly because self-reported data are collected much closer to the time of an abortion and are less subject to bias). When the data from the 14 overlooked studies are summed, they show that for these studies, the risk of breast cancer is significantly ''less'' for those who had an abortion than for those who did not. As for the 39 studies that are reported here, it is also misleading to say that 33 showed increased risk of breast cancer with abortion, because only one of those 33 actually shows a statistically significant risk. This paper, in general, suggests that ''it is possible'' that induced abortion contributes to the risk for breast cancer, but it is far from conclusive, because it is possible that it is an artifact of the study design. And misstating what was found is not an effective argument. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Part of [[abortion deceit]] is to equate a small study with a large one. I'll take a look at the other 14 studies, but my recollection is that they are either small or obviously flawed. Moreover, it is statistically significant and should be reported when 33 of 39 large studies show an increase in risk. As to the comments about study design, that is baseless speculation as it is not clear that one approach to polling is better than another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It is speculation in this particular case that the difference between the 2 sets of findings is explained by one being more accurate. In general, prospective data are given more weight. That's my point - there were different findings from one design type relative to the other. It is not clear why. As far as the size of the studies, by my math the 13 prospective studies (ie, the ones that show no increased risk) have an average sample size of 12,493. The 39 retrospective studies have an average sample of 2,228, which is about 17% of the size of the prospective studies. There is also the issue that nearly all of the 33 retrospective studies that are quoted here as showing a risk show that the risk is not statistically significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:58, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually I misread the table initially. The 13 prospective studies have, on average, a sample of 3,374, compared with 2,176 for the retrospective. So the latter are actually, on average, about 2/3 the size of the former. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'll have to pull the article again and reexamine this to respond. Did Lancet ever post the article online for public scrutiny?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I don't know whether they have made it freely available. It sounds like you have a copy or access to it, based on your post above and the fact that you wrote an article discussing it, but if you no longer have it let me know here and I can download and email it to you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

If no one minds, I'm going to delete #4. Even though fertility declines with age, that has nothing to do with abortion, and abortion doesn't cause STD's. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 17:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:[[Abortion]] certain does encourage promiscuity, and you'll find a higher rate of STD's among women who have had abortions than those who have not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::The myth doesn't have anything to do with the "in fact" in this case. Perhaps they should be two (or three) different cases? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: They are directly connected. [[Abortion]] advocates falsely deny, and omit, how it causes infertility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::OH! I missed the "which cause infertility", sorry. However, the statement about age and fertility doesn't seem related, since it has nothing to do with abortion. Or did I misread that one too? (It's quite possible). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:45, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: HelpJazz, please try harder. An [[abortion]] by its very nature postpones the age for the mother's childbirth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm trying my hardest, I promise. The article says "fertility declines sharply with age", and the footnote (and citation) say nothing about this being due to abortion. Fertility declines even for those women who have never had an abortion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: HelpJazz, when a woman chooses abortion rather than childbirth, then she is postponing her childbirth to a time when she is less fertile. That woman is then more likely to encounter fertility problems when she does try to have a child. In addition, the promiscuity encouraged by abortion is also likely to take her fertility away. Get out more and talk to some [[liberal]] women who practiced what they preached and are now struggling against infertility in their 30s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Wow, ok. I see now what you were arguing; I thought you meant that abortion actually lowers your fertility/age progression. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Can you explain this to me. How does an abortion end up costing more money then raising a child? I don't quite get what you're getting at here. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: People make more money than they spend. They pay taxes and still, on average, have an excess of over $400,000 per household. Every [[abortion]] costs an average of over $500,000, including savings and lost taxes.

: I'm sure that surprises you. It surprises everyone, because [[abortion deceit]] has been so good at fooling all of us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:: And can I see a cite on that "fact" about making more money than they spend? And also on the $400,000 per household as well. Is that in a year, in 10 years, in a lifetime? Do you want to put any kind of reality in that statement or just throw a number out there and see if it sticks? And I did take an economics course, so feel free to use big words. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::Why/how/in what way does an abortion cost that much, somehow I don't believe that's the price clinics charge. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 20:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem to miss the point. The [[economic]] cost of abortion is primarily the [[opportunity cost]] of a life. Have you ever taken a course in economics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: So is abstinence costing us $500,000 per missed sexual opportunity? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Crocoite, deleting the above comment was [[censorship]] and in bad form. Jdellaro made a valid point: if Andy's arguing the opportunity cost of a life is to be taken into account, he's arguing ''for sex and childbirth,'' not ''against abortion.'' It's a similar tactic we've seen before: when he tries to "link" abortion and breast cancer, because childbirth reduces the risk of cancer, he's just arguing ''for childbirth'' and ''for its natural predecessor, sex.'' This "article" - at least Andy's additions - all help promote ''sex'', not impugn ''abortion''. Jdellaro pointed that out, and you ban him for it? You're just showing your own idiocy.-[[User:WilliamA|WilliamA]] 15:45, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
== I was asked to help find cites ==

I have done some research, but I am having trouble. I have added some cites, but perhaps someone could help me out a bit. I can't find a source which tries to argue that "abortion saves money" -- the only cites I can find which back this claim up are from conservatives who are attempting to disprove the claim. I can't find any primary source. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: I already supported that one with a citation. Thanks anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:29, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::But you haven't supported (and I can't verify) that anyone actually ''uses'' the claim. That's what I need help finding. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion and Infertility==

I just have to pick this up, how does abortion actually lead to infertility? Sure a woman who has an abortion may not be able to conceive at a later date because she has grown older, but it is not abortion which causes this infertility, rather age (infertility refers to the ability to conceive a child, rather than actually having children, a nun can be very fertile even if she does not have children). Also, the claim that 25% of girls have STD's which lead to infertility is not supported by the cite, which simply states that 25% of girls have STD's, not that all of these lead to infertility. And I'm at a loss as to how '''abortion''' actually lead to girls getting these STD's, I believe you may be mistaking it with '''sex'''... [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)