Talk:Censorship in Canada

message: This currently reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. I gave the lead a little cleanup and tagged it. Ifnord 17:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there a censorship in North America template if there is only one other country with a working link? The line about increasing censorship of social conservatives cries out for a reference, and perhaps someone with better skills than me to parse it for POV. The line has been modified and now reads: "Recently, censorship issues in Canada have had an increasing impact on those promoting social conservative views." I think this is currently true and somewhat justified by the Christine St-Pierre, Chris Kempling and CUSA examples cited in the article. However, I don't think much (if anything) would be lost by deleting the sentence entirely - it does read as an editorial statement and could easily be overidden by new censorship events occurring. (206.116.158.46 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: This section is a little unclear/a little POV (or so it reads for me). I'm not quite sure how, but it's worth looking at and either clarifying or eliminating for now. --Jammoe 07:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" which better reflects the actual policy. Anti-choice would be the best term, but I'm not sure that the issues involved would be as clear? The citation is very good, but I don't think it is properly formatted - don't know how to fix that :) (206.116.158.46 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, anti-abortion in Wikipedia redirects to pro-life, probably based on the accepted common use of the term. By changing it to anti-abortion you are making a point experimentally on this page rather than taking the issue head-on in the main pro-life article.  See WP:POINT for more information. ie., You should instead go and win your argument there by renaming the pro-life article, and then only if it sticks come back and change the naming convention used here.  This is particularly true for controversial topics. Deet 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this even censorship at all? Just the student union denying space, funding, and saying they wont support it? That just puts the group on equal standing with non-recognized student groups and individuals. 24.5.79.220 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say.  Certainly their motivation was clearly to silence them on campus.  However, their technique for white-washing may not have been directly censorship. Deet 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: University censorship

message: I don't think that the Canadian ratings are necessarily more lenient.
*When CTV (At least our affiliate) aired some episodes of The Daily Show/Colbert Report, they were rated 14+. But underneath this Canadian icon was an unnecessarily large US icon that said TV-PG. NUMB3RS is regularly rated 14+, while only occasionally TV-14 in the U.S.
However, it is a little more acceptable (although not necessarily completely) to say that Québec TV ratings are more lenient than English Canadian ratings.
*In Québec, Lord of the Rings was rated 8+, while in English Canada it was rated PG. Their 8+ can mean either C8 or PG, as they don't have an individual rating.
The article does not discuss ratings - which are strictly informational/advisory in nature - but actual broadcast standards which affects what can actually be shown. I think it is self-evident that currently Canadian standards are more lenient than American standards and is supported in examples throughout the article. (206.116.158.46 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technically incorrect

message: Something might not be right with our safe haven. I have quickly viewed on APTN that they rebroadcast last night's "Night Owl movie" at 01:00 PM. Some of these movies during the night are rated 18+, and rebroadcast it during the day with the same rating. Are they just as uncut as the night that they aired, or are they slightly altered for daytime?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wait a minute!

message: The paragraph that asserts that people can be disciplined by their employers for writing to newspapers is overly broad, and probably factually wrong as it's current written. This definitely needs a cite. Cerowyn (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just click on either of the two names mentioned. There are citations in the linked articles. Deet (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Print

message: Should this article not include some mention of publication bans in court cases?  E.g., the things that happened during the Bernardo/Homolka trials?  (Cable companies blacking out — or not blacking out — US TV news shows discussing the case; the prosecution of the guy who distributed a bunch of copies of an American newspaper with coverage of the case; the exclusion of foreign reporters from Homolka's one-day trial; etc., etc.)
Also, how about the law (since overturned?) prohibiting news sources from disclosing national election results from eastern Canada while polls in the west were still open?  Richwales (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication bans?

message: #"Some prominent academics" constitutes the use of weasel words.
#Outlining that certain Harvard and Princeton professors support the protest is unnecessary. Why explicitly mention these institutions and not others?
#Perspective is necessary. Several dozen of the 7,000 members of APSA are protesting the Toronto location. This should be identified. Mft1 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: APSA Meeting

message: Could this article also address media which is not public, but also media which is held for private possession? There are cases like R. v. Sharpe involving this as well. One would expect laws dictating what can be shown/sold in public to be more restrictive than those for private use. Tyciol (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Published or broadcast by media

message: My understanding is that, in Ontario, the film review board no longer requires (& maybe even no longer has the authority) to order cuts.  All they now do is rate a film, so that potential viewers are 'warned' with the appropriate information.  But no film can be edited or banned by the Board.  If a film contravenes the criminal code, then police would have to prosecute, not the board.  My understanding was that this is also broadly the approach in some (most?) other provinces now.  If this is true, then the section on movies should be updated.  Any thoughts?
204.40.1.129 (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Movies

message: Why is there nothing about the government press censorship systems in the two World Wars? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wartime Censorship

message: The article is woefully out of date. The CHRC is effectively dead; some mention is needed of the MP and the bill that killed it. Only two or three provinces have retained their own HRC's. BC is one of them and its controversial case against Arthur Topham would bear some exposure in the article as well. Orthotox (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dated Data

message: I boldly removed the following sentence from the lead:
:Canada is believed to have more hate crime legislation than any other country in the world.
That sentence was added in 2009 by an editor who is has not edited since 2011 so I haven't bothered to ping the original editor.
It is supported by a reference which may well support the claim. However, I haven't located an online version of the article. Obviously, references do not have to be online. I am removing it, not because I can't access the reference, but because the data the reference is 1994. The form of the Senate sentence suggest it's currently true, and a lot has happened in Canada and the rest of the world in terms of hate crime legislation in the last quarter century. One option is for someone to track down the reference, confirm that it is accurate and rewrite the sentence to clarify that it's true as of at least a quarter century ago. In my opinion, such a senates may belong in the article but not in the lead. A better option is for someone to do some contemporaneous research to find out if it's true currently.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that change.  Since that article was published, the federal Parliament has repealed s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was the lightning rod for a lot of the criticism.  The Criminal Code provisions are still in place.  I'm not sure how it's possible to say that one country has the most hate speech provisions, since in a federation, no one country government, federal state or province, has exclusive jurisdiction over the entire country.  A unitary country may have only one law, but it covers an entire country, but in a federation, there may be several laws, but the entire country is not covered.  I agree that deleteing the reference for further research makes sense, in light of the repeal of s. 13.  I've updated the article accordingly. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS - in your post, did auto-correct make it "senate" instead of "sentence"?  I've been trying to puzzle that out. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Oops, talk to text blunder and incomplete review,--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  Ykes, I really did miss my review of tmy edit. Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold edit to lead 

message: This section seems to be editorialized from the articled cited. It makes it seems like the content of the letter is what resulted in her suspension, implying her opinion is being censored. However the cited article states, 
“Journalists are not allowed to express their personal opinions in outside publications. [...] She broke the rules ”, slices the director of the news of Radio-Canada, Catherine Cano".
''
Which would seem to imply that her employer had something like a non-compete clause where she could not write opinion articles in other publications. 
I'm wondering, if after correcting the paragraph, would this even be worth keeping since it is irrelevant to the broader topic?
DrDogs (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits of Speech - Christine St. Pierre