How about the D.C. Prostitute clientele list?
Only people who have signed non-disclosure agreements are forbidden from discussing classified material. That’s why the NY times can publish stuff from snowden.
So let’s forbid anyone from ever trying again…
I can think of a few more situations where publicly revealing accurate information may get you in trouble. Most of them are situations when the information has been given to you under the condition of confidentiality. Examples would be
giving away your company’s trade secrets, breaking doctor-patient confidentiality or warning criminals that they are being investigated.
Another instance where factual accuracy does not protect you from censorship are obscenity laws. Certain content, regardless of its factual accuracy may not be published unless it can be ensured that access is restricted to adults.
There have been instances where people have publicly displayed intimate pictures or videos of their exes after a failed relationship. That is illegal. I am not sure, if the verbal equivalent - i.e. verbally describing intimate details such as physical traits or sexual preferences - is also illegal, but if it is done with the intention to hurt the person described, I consider it to be unethical.
“Hate speech” may at times contain factual information, but that information is not usually what qualifies it as hate speech, so I suppose it is not relevant to this debate.
A couple of years ago I left a bar, and while walking to my car I walked by a fairly obvious unmarked car with a guy in the vehicle who appeared to be surveiling the bar.
I walked back into the bar and made an announcement. “ATTENTION Y’ALL: there is an unmarked police car parked on the street with a guy inside watching this place.” All sorts of discussion started.
The guy working the register was sure he was being investigated for allowing people to carry out too many ounces at a time. Someone suggested that maybe one of the customers was in some sort of legal trouble. Some folks thought I must be paranoid, so a group of guys walked outside. I pointed, “See? That dark green car with the black wall tires?”
I don’t think I broke any laws, but folks at the bar still laugh about that day.
IANAL, but “obstruction” and “interfering with a police officer” come to mind.
Attorney / client privilege
Protection of intellectual property
Doctor / patient confidentiality
Personal or private information
Information that has no useful purpose but to insult or hurt someone else’s feelings (really more self censorship)
Hate speech
Spoilers for this season of Game of Thrones
I believe the Supreme Court covered that last one in the previous session.
Ah, but does that ruling cover the season what was current during that last session, or does it set a precedent for what is the now current season?
I shared an observation with some friends, as running coach noted.
If the occupant of the unmarked vehicle was not uniformed, it is entirely possible that he was a private investigator. I doubt that it is against the law to reveal that there is some person of undetermined credentials watching the place, because such a person could just be a hired dick. How can you tell?
The difference is between content and speech.
For example, I recall seeing a great movie from the 40s, I believe it was “Wake Island” or something like that, it was about a bunch of marines. Anyway what I found funny was it was a great movie, told a great story but was devoid of cuss words and foul language.
Yet it got the message across clearly so well, you didn’t notice it. Now come on, a bunch of marines fighting the Japanese in WWII are certainly going to cuss and use foul language but the movie was well written and acted enough that you didn’t need that.
It’s one thing to censor words another to censor their content and meaning. Also there is a time and a place for everything and people need to re-learn this.
The only thing I can think of is video or audio that was taken w/o the consent of the person being recorded. If someone videotapes you naked w/o your consent, that should be censored. Other than that and national security I can’t think of anything that would justify censorship.
“Does this dress make me look fat?”
Any private information.
Kayaker’s actions were equivalent to someone using the WAZE app to report the location of speed traps. I’m quite certain it’s not illegal, but you might find some overzealous cop willing to arrest you for it, and / or an overzealous DA willing to prosecute you for it, like nearly happened in the “flashing headlights” case.
Spam reported (jack244). Or, at any rate, the post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
There is evidence (PDF) that when people suspect free will is an illusion they act in more selfish, unethical ways. Again. One could have a discussion on whether philosophers, researchers and publications should self-censor these results or any evidence or persuasive arguments that free will doesn’t exist or instead attempt to educate the public about the effect in an attempt to counter it. I’m not aware of any studies showing if that works.
Roy Baumeister:
Political correctness didn’t start out as censorship but it has become a form of censorship, particularly for unorthodox liberals.
And I’m sure people will jump in but the medical professions disproportionate focus on guns is a villianization of guns. There have been threads on this board about how doctors will discuss the dangers of guns but not the dangers of having a back yard pool when the danger posed by a back yard pool are much higher than the danger posed by owning a gun.
I am not familiar with restrictions on the EPA releasing global warming studies. I was under the impression that they released a pretty big one when they started regulating carbon as a pollutant.
The CDC is not prevented from studying gun related deaths. You’ve been lied to. The CDC is prevented from promoting or advocating for gun control, they have decided to steer clear of the subject matter until Obama recently directed them to study gun violence. Many long time members of the CDC will at admit they handled gun research poorly before the ban on advocacy was put in place. Research by a government agency should not have the promotion of a particular policy as an end goal.