Talk:Thoughtcrime

message: What crime is more a Thoughtcrime than taking illegal drugs?
See Defending the boundaries of human identity and The War on Drugs and the Holocaust -Second Cousins
:This is highly debatable.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical behavior restraint

message: labelling unapproved thoughts with the Newspeak term thoughtcrime.
The [Newspeak] term is "crimethink". --Random|832 13:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Crimethink

message: The remarks on whether Orwell was a democratic socialist in the section on thought crime are not particularly balanced and are in any case out of place here - a reference across to the main Orwell article would serve better. I may edit Linuxlad 09:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who put some of this detail in I suppose I had better defend it.  I felt some kind of perspective was needed on where the idea came from over and above saying 'it is from 1984'.  Also the scope of the term is important as Orwell was careful to try and limit his political language and avoid making very broad generalisations.  He probaby did not mean thoughtcrime to be compared directly with religious heresy although it is right to show how the term has grown.  My aim was to show that he probably thought of thoughtcrime because he was accused of it himself. MeltBanana 11:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: BUT my issue is whether the statement that Orwell considered himself to be a democratic socialist is a) relevant here;  and b) especially whether it needs to be linked HERE to his strong criticism of the Stalinist model (and its sympathisers) and whether that criticism strengthens or weakens that claim to be democratic socialist. The line taken is unnecessarily contentious, and issue is much better treated in the main Orwell article.
Linuxlad 12:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic socialist

message: A section called "Religious thoughtcrime", consisting of the single sentence:
:The Christian concept of Internal sin, analogous to "thoughtcrime",  started with Jesus's teaching in Matthew's gospel.
...was deleted here without explanation.  It's not an unreasonable assertion being made, though I suppose it's debatable, and might constitute original research...  Comments? GTBacchus 19:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained deletion

message: For some strange reason, the thought police article was deleted and wrapped into this article, despite the fact that thoughtcrime is a far less commonly used term.  The latter garners four times the number of goofle hits as the latter.  Perhaps this oddity of suppression can be explained by politically correct bias?  Ombudsman 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thought police

message: This is a fascinating passage:
:In the New Testament, Jesus states, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28).
Could/should it be expanded upon?
Maerk 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but not in this article.  I think that the term "thoughtcrime" lends itself to creating false prejudgements on the part of the reader and could easilt be seen as implying something offensive. 72.179.144.152 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If not in this article then where ? Thougthcrime like many other coneptions first come from some work of art but then it's meaning is broadened to real life - i think that is the power of Orwell's book. In many religions there is possible to commit a thoughtcrime because religions nearly always assume that there is an all knowing entity (or multiple of it) that can see neuron firings in every human head simultaneous and make decisions and judgments concerning particulate people according to some code of desirable behavior and put those decisions in effect in this or other life after death. In real life it is not possible because we do not have such a technology (yet) to look with necessary precision inside people's brains. But maybe some day it will become reality. I think the first group of people to undergo such procedure of thought controlling would be pedophiles because there always is strong social acquiescence in these matters. pwjbbb (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology/Thoughtcrime 

message: One interesting parallel is the treatment of badges of chairman Mao during the Maoist era.  Citizens were told to keep their badges clean and well represented.  A portrait of Mao had to be presented in residences.  Inspections of whether the portrait of Mao was presented correctly were enforced on citizens.  Some chinese reported the infliction of psychological pressure was making them think they were actually guilty of "thought crime" against Mao.
:Interesting that the author of the previous comment (that started this topic) apparently didn't want to put his name on the comment. In terms of a twisted joke, "The first rule of thought crime is don't talk about thought crime." I was actually looking in the article for something like "historical examples". For example, during WW II there was actually a branch of the Japanese police who most translators describe as "thought police", though the literal translation would be more like "special police", and there were also military police (憲兵隊) who did similar work. However, I actually entered the topic from a more narrow perspective. I was searching on Wikipedia for a list of thought criminals, with today's example being Peter Strzok... Unlike the AotPC, I'm willing to commit the thought crime of putting my name on mine. (Evidently I still regard Wikipedia as relatively safe for thinking?) Shanen (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel in history 

message: The article doesn't define thoughtcrime. It wd be a good idea to define it in the context of the book. --Gurubrahma 06:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning ? Context? 

message: The lengthy essay weakly tries to label some unpopular government restrictions, in the West, to "thoughtcrime". First of all, this is not what Orwell was talking about. He meant trying to control the way people actually think. Secondly, the analogy between the Purported Instances and 1984 is not clarified. This is original research, at best. --Uncle Ed 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purported instances

message: === In Canada ===
In Canada certain credentialed medical practitioners may, apparently at their sole discretion, make state sanctioned investigations into and diagnosis of "mental illness" that can involve or result in involuntary detainment and "treatment" of the investigated persons. These diagnoses appear to be based at least in part, and in some cases entirely upon, the investigator's perceptions of the subject's thoughts and beliefs. This aspect of diagnosis is manifest in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) glossary definition of "delusion" which begins; "A false belief based on...", and is found on page 821 of the DSM-IV-TR. Significantly the presence of "delusions" seem to form a primary criterion for the diagnosis of the majority of DSM-IV-TR "psychotic" disorders including Schizophrenia and Scizoaffective Disorder (Criterion A1 in the case of Schizophrenia). The DSM-IV-TR also states that "No laboratory findings have been identified that are diagnostic of Schizophrenia". This statement is also applied to Major Depressive episodes and Manic episodes.
The application of DSM-IV-TR criteria to the various pieces of federal health and provincial mental health law in Canada seems to still occur in spite of their conflict in this respect with Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  which guarantees the "fundamental" "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression". Part VII -- General, of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 states that "any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution "...(which contains the Charter)..."is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect".
The potential for state sanctioned involuntary detainment and treatment exists pursuant to these health acts. The Ontario Mental Health Act for example contains references to circumstances under which involuntary admission to psychiatric "hospitals" can occur as a result of such diagnosis.
Incidentally legal involvement and involuntary detainment and treatment is not fundamental to the DSM-IV-TR nor are implications of violent behavior at frequencies exceeding that of the general population attributed to those diagnosed. To a significant degree courts are in fact cautioned against the use of DSM-IV diagnosis in the DSM-IV introduction itself in its introductory section entitled Use of DSM-IV in Forensic Settings.
Indeed the position of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, stated in The Confidentiality of Psychiatric Records and the Patient's Right to Privacy(2000-21S), holds that "in recent years, serious incursions have been made by governments, powerful commercial interests, law enforcement agencies, and the courts on the rights of persons to their privacy."
In the Canadian criminal justice system, again, in spite of the Charter freedoms, individuals continue to be subjected to discrimination based on DSM IV diagnosis within the context of part XX.1of the Criminal Code of Canada. This part sets out provisions for, among other things, court ordered attempts at "treatment" before individuals receive a trial as described in section 672.58 of the Criminal Code.
Also provided for are external court ordered "psychiatric assessments" that may involve detention and the selective procurement of anecdotal accounts, psychiatric records, and records of past diagnosis and treatment. This process as it occurs in the Canadian Province of Ontario is illustrated in The Forensic Mental Health System In Ontario published by The Centre For Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.
With a finding of "Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder" as described in section 672.34 of the Criminal Code lifelong restrictions on freedom, mandatory "treatment", and indefinite detention subject to periodic non-judicial review are possible well beyond the scope of set limits for detention for those found to be criminally responsible for the same or even much more serious offenses. Section 672.12 of the Criminal Code states "The court may make an assessment order at any stage of proceedings against the accused of its own motion, on application of the accused or, subject to subsections (2)and (3), on application of the prosecutor" implying that the test is not universally applied.
----
I cut the entire section above, because it is not about "thoughtcrime" but about alleged abuses of psychiatric diagnoses in Canada. None of the abuses document any political aspects, so I conclude this diatribe is in opposition to the use of psychiatric power to label people "crazy" because of false beliefs in general. 
Perhaps a better place for this information would be an article entitled Psychiatry in Canada, or more generally Psychiatric abuse. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this whole Canadian section just doesn't look right for this article and needs to be in its own article. Most (if not all) countries in the world have mechanisms for "sectioning" (a UK term) under some Mental health act and I would imagine that Canada is no different. Thoughtcrime is about identifying that which challenges the ruling authority so the Soviet era section is more relevant and the Canadian section less relevant unless we have cites that show that the certification of people was for the purposes of maintaining the political status quo. That doesn't really seem to be the case with Canada whereas it does with the Soviets.Ttiotsw 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: In Canada certain credentialed medical practitioners may, apparently at their sole discretion, make state sanctioned investigations into and diagnosis of "mental illness" that can involve or result in involuntary detainment and "treatment" of the investigated persons. These diagnoses appear to be based at least in part, and in some cases entirely upon, the investigator's perceptions of the subject's thoughts and beliefs. This aspect of diagnosis is manifest in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) glossary definition of "delusion" which begins; "A false belief based on...", and is found on page 821 of the DSM-IV-TR. Significantly the presence of "delusions" seem to form a primary criterion for the diagnosis of the majority of DSM-IV-TR "psychotic" disorders including Schizophrenia and Scizoaffective Disorder (Criterion A1 in the case of Schizophrenia). The DSM-IV-TR also states that "No laboratory findings have been identified that are diagnostic of Schizophrenia". This statement is also applied to Major Depressive episodes and Manic episodes.
The application of DSM-IV-TR criteria to the various pieces of federal health and provincial mental health law in Canada seems to still occur in spite of their conflict in this respect with Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  which guarantees the "fundamental" "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression". Part VII -- General, of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 states that "any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution "...(which contains the Charter)..."is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect".
The potential for state sanctioned involuntary detainment and treatment exists pursuant to these health acts. The Ontario Mental Health Act for example contains references to circumstances under which involuntary admission to psychiatric "hospitals" can occur as a result of such diagnosis.
Incidentally legal involvement and involuntary detainment and treatment is not fundamental to the DSM-IV-TR nor are implications of violent behavior at frequencies exceeding that of the general population attributed to those diagnosed. To a significant degree courts are in fact cautioned against the use of DSM-IV diagnosis in the DSM-IV introduction itself in its introductory section entitled Use of DSM-IV in Forensic Settings.
Indeed the position of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, stated in The Confidentiality of Psychiatric Records and the Patient's Right to Privacy(2000-21S), holds that "in recent years, serious incursions have been made by governments, powerful commercial interests, law enforcement agencies, and the courts on the rights of persons to their privacy."
In the Canadian criminal justice system, again, in spite of the Charter freedoms, individuals continue to be subjected to discrimination based on DSM IV diagnosis within the context of part XX.1of the Criminal Code of Canada. This part sets out provisions for, among other things, court ordered attempts at "treatment" before individuals receive a trial as described in section 672.58 of the Criminal Code.
Also provided for are external court ordered "psychiatric assessments" that may involve detention and the selective procurement of anecdotal accounts, psychiatric records, and records of past diagnosis and treatment. This process as it occurs in the Canadian Province of Ontario is illustrated in The Forensic Mental Health System In Ontario published by The Centre For Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.
With a finding of "Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder" as described in section 672.34 of the Criminal Code lifelong restrictions on freedom, mandatory "treatment", and indefinite detention subject to periodic non-judicial review are possible well beyond the scope of set limits for detention for those found to be criminally responsible for the same or even much more serious offenses. Section 672.12 of the Criminal Code states "The court may make an assessment order at any stage of proceedings against the accused of its own motion, on application of the accused or, subject to subsections (2)and (3), on application of the prosecutor" implying that the test is not universally applied.
----
I cut the entire section above, because it is not about "thoughtcrime" but about alleged abuses of psychiatric diagnoses in Canada. None of the abuses document any political aspects, so I conclude this diatribe is in opposition to the use of psychiatric power to label people "crazy" because of false beliefs in general. 
Perhaps a better place for this information would be an article entitled Psychiatry in Canada, or more generally Psychiatric abuse. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this whole Canadian section just doesn't look right for this article and needs to be in its own article. Most (if not all) countries in the world have mechanisms for "sectioning" (a UK term) under some Mental health act and I would imagine that Canada is no different. Thoughtcrime is about identifying that which challenges the ruling authority so the Soviet era section is more relevant and the Canadian section less relevant unless we have cites that show that the certification of people was for the purposes of maintaining the political status quo. That doesn't really seem to be the case with Canada whereas it does with the Soviets.Ttiotsw 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Canada 

message: Editors should cease attempting to list things such as Karson VA Tech or the prosecution of Holocaust denial in this article.  Regrettable as such censorship may be, it represents the criminalization of speech acts, not of thought per se.  There are three levels here:
#Thought
#Advocacy
#Practice
Just as outlawing the third should not be confused with outlawing the second, outlawing the second should not be confused with outlawing the first. —SlamDiego←T 09:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that at present there is no other way to gauge someones thoughts other then by his or hers expressions makes your argument specious.Indeed, one could argue that in the spirit of the law, restrictions posed on speech implicitly imply restrictions on thought. 145.97.222.121 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''thought''crime ≠ ''speech''crime 

message: The article states "One episode in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes finds Calvin once again objecting to compulsory education. In the middle of one of Miss Wormwood's lectures, Calvin cries out: "This is a big fat waste of my time!" The final panel shows Calvin trying to escape the room, screaming "HELP! IT'S THE THOUGHT POLICE!"", can someone give a source to this? wich calvin and hobbes book contains that strip? -- 87.184.85.180  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the media - Calvin and Hobbes 

message: Most ironic, how do we determine New Left?
Any movement once established in government and thus seeking to retain hegemony power, will seek to persecute dissent and dissenters rather than reason the criticism from  the Dissenting Party, sounds like David Horowitz indulging in  Campus Watch -style witch hunts, solution:  call the 'persecuted' 'persecutionist' and the  problem is solved, doesn't Daniel Pipes employ this method to justify himself? Well, isn't this glorified academic bullying to silence critics.
Was Frank Zappa an artists or politician, how did you arrived at the conclusion that Frank Zappa had  counter-cultural descendants in Politics? Is this a form of 'Guilt by Association'?. How did he get to have New Left political descendants any way?
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic commentary  "In the media - Frank Zappa" 

message: Re: the reference to Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention ("Who Are the Brain Police"). I find it incredibly ironic that the counter-cultural descendants of Frank Zappa (the "New Left?") are the most zealous enforcers of ideological purity and conformity of thought. I wonder what old Frank would have made of it? GuyInCT (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the media - Frank Zappa 

message: The article is about Orwell's thoughtcrime, not other people's interpretation of what it is or its other implications. Have therefore been bold and removed the following:
— a number of technologies have been developed to try to detect thought and emotional states. There are attempts to create image-recognition software that detects possible wrongdoers by looking for signs of anxiety. Other technologies range from lie detectors,(ref>Albanese, Jay S.; Justice, Privacy, and Crime Control, p.18, 1984; University Press of America</ref) the penile plethysmograph which was used to try to detect "homosexual or pedophile thoughts", and more modern attempts to use magnetic resonance imaging to try to detect brain chemical activity supposedly corresponding to memory or thoughts.
I dare say that it could be developed as another article - something along the lines of "Influence of Orwell's Thoughtcrime in modern society" -  but it smacks too much of original research, even if individual cases are referenced.--Technopat (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed irrelevant text 

message: The Christian concept of internal sin is the idea that sin (a crime of religion) may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind, quite apart from any external manifestation. Thought crimes were as old as heresy, but the Reformation's alarms received new emphasis at the Council of Trent (Session XIV, chapter. v). ADM (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal sin

message: I was wondering what exactly is wrong with the saxon genitives that were removed here. I suppose the paragraph works all the same (although it does seem to me the meaning changes a little), but what was wrong with the way it was originally?
LjL (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Apostrophic possession"

message: I don`t think is belongs on a page dealing with the orwellian concept of thoughtcrime. The "Thought" is not forbidden at all. This is about the persecution of neonazi propaganda, relativation of mass murder and historical counterfeit. I feel more than uncomfortable with the political implication of this labeled "thought crime". 
I feel very uncomfortable with the political implication of this labeled thoughtcrime.
:I agree, and I'm removing it. A racist has apparently inserted that. 92.45.233.120 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Laws against holocaust denial"

message: Political Correctness - it is a thought crime apparently. Can we just edit it out?--66.233.55.145 (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being respectful to minorities? THOUGHTCRIME IN TEH 21st CENTURY! 

message: Here . I feel little sympathy for this kind of men, but i think that such a verdict itself makes a dangerous precedent. Anybody can be sentenced now based on his alleged "intentions" and confessions extorted under torture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.12.194 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wannabe jihadist gets 27 years 

message: Geez, is this a wiki or Ron Paul's message board?  Anyway, I deleted the word "illegal" from the intro.  I quote from the book: "The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws)..." - thus the word "illegal" never comes into play here.  Also, it's clear from the book that thoughtcrime is the criminal act of thinking crimethink, and the wording has been changed accordingly.
Ataru (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "illegal" 

message: >”For some, the written word is more powerful than the pictures. For some, the written word promotes a graphic image in their mind.” - Sir Paul Beresford
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.89.131 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK to become first country to introduce thoughtcrime 

message: Substituted at 08:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Thought Crimes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 2#Thought Crimes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thought Crimes" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]