Talk:Censorship in Denmark: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 17 February 2009

Denmark Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Child pornography

I reverted two edits by User:87.59.76.136 containing the following text:

Additionally, the Internet is censored for any content deemed to be child pornography(sexual content involving persons under the age of 18). Attempting to access such pages in Denmark will result in a warning page notifying that that the content is illegal and has been censored according to § 235.<ref>Danish legislation on child pornography, [http://www.redbarnet.dk/Default.aspx?ID=1951]</ref><ref>Om blokeringsordningen mod børneporno, [http://www.politi.dk/da/borgerservice/boernepornofilter/om_blokering.htm]</ref><ref>Kritik af Dansk Internetcensur vers. 1.1, [http://itpol.polcast.dk/sager/censur/aftale]</ref>

I did so because I'm not convinced that this qualifies as censorship. It may, and it may even belong in the article, but being controversial, I think we need to discuss it here on the talkpage first. According to the article, censorship is not allowed in the form that anyone is free to express their "ideas in print, in writing, and in speech". Blocking child pornographic sites may or may not violate that, I'm not entirely sure that it does. But at least one of the sources the anonymous editor provided did call it censorship, so it would appear that there are some who believe that it does. However, Wikipedia should reflect all common aspects of an issue, so what is the general debate on this? I live in Denmark but I haven't really come across any media discussions on the topic. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not really noticed any kind of debate in Denmark about this either, even though I do agree that the way the blocking is carried out with no judicial authorities involved is very questionable. Wikinews and Wikileaks has an extensive coverage of this though. The quotes from Wikinews "can be used to censor anything" and claims "most sites on the list are still censored (i.e must be on the current list), even though many have clearly changed owners or were possibly even wrongly placed on the list." should be sufficient, but I am not aware whether Wikinews is an acceptable source in Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:37, 17 February 2009 edit Lilac Soul (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 18,936 edits Child pornography and censorship ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:57, 17 February 2009 edit undo Saddhiyama (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 23,958 edits cmt Next edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:

	I did so because I'm not convinced that this qualifies as censorship. It may, and it may even belong in the article, but being controversial, I think we need to discuss it here on the talkpage first. According to the article, censorship is not allowed in the form that anyone is free to express their "ideas in print, in writing, and in speech". Blocking child pornographic sites may or may not violate that, I'm not entirely sure that it does. But at least one of the sources the anonymous editor provided did call it censorship, so it would appear that there are some who believe that it does. However, Wikipedia should reflect all common aspects of an issue, so what is the general debate on this? I live in Denmark but I haven't really come across any media discussions on the topic. -<span id="Lilac Soul" class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[[User:Lilac Soul\|Lilac Soul]] <sup>([[User talk:Lilac Soul\|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Lilac Soul\|contribs]] <small>•</small> [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name={{urlencode:Lilac Soul}}&wiki=wikipedia&lang=en <span style="color:#002bb8">count</span>])</span></sup> 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)		I did so because I'm not convinced that this qualifies as censorship. It may, and it may even belong in the article, but being controversial, I think we need to discuss it here on the talkpage first. According to the article, censorship is not allowed in the form that anyone is free to express their "ideas in print, in writing, and in speech". Blocking child pornographic sites may or may not violate that, I'm not entirely sure that it does. But at least one of the sources the anonymous editor provided did call it censorship, so it would appear that there are some who believe that it does. However, Wikipedia should reflect all common aspects of an issue, so what is the general debate on this? I live in Denmark but I haven't really come across any media discussions on the topic. -<span id="Lilac Soul" class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[[User:Lilac Soul\|Lilac Soul]] <sup>([[User talk:Lilac Soul\|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Lilac Soul\|contribs]] <small>•</small> [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name={{urlencode:Lilac Soul}}&wiki=wikipedia&lang=en <span style="color:#002bb8">count</span>])</span></sup> 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

			:I have not really noticed any kind of debate in Denmark about this either, even though I do agree that the way the blocking is carried out with no judicial authorities involved is very questionable. [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikileaks_tells_Wikinews_why_they_published_Danish_child_porn_censorship_list Wikinews] and [http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 Wikileaks] has an extensive coverage of this though. The quotes from Wikinews ''"can be used to censor anything" and claims "most sites on the list are still censored (i.e must be on the current list), even though many have clearly changed owners or were possibly even wrongly placed on the list."'' should be sufficient, but I am not aware whether Wikinews is an acceptable source in Wikipedia. --[[User:Saddhiyama\|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama\|talk]]) 18:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)