Talk:Nitke v. Gonzales

Problems with "Dissents" section
''Many believe that this is yet another victory for the American Republican Party, who are now able to use the most "restrictive community standards" to prosecute obscenity cases. Therefore, conservative agendas dictate that the "most restrictive community sets obscenity standards throughout the nation".''

The only source given for this is a blog - a WP:SPS - and even the blog doesn't make the statement about the Republican party; the closest is that some pseudonymous poster makes a comment about Republicans. This is far from being a reliable source on what many believe. And political parties do not prosecute obscenity cases.

"More importantly, a publisher will not publish anything at risk of violating the most restrictive standards of obscenity. This would definitely keep some non-obscene material from being published as well out of plain fear of being prosecuted."

What we have here is not a dissent from the ruling, but a blogger's description of what the defendant's stance was. To treat a defense argument as if it were fact is far from WP:NPOV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If there was a dissenting opinion in this case's ruling (and I haven't read the ruling to see if there was), then it certainly needs to be summarized in the article, which could due with some expansion. As for the points made above, maybe some or all of it could go into the current "Responses" section. Frequently, the political party affiliations of prosecutors (or their superiors) dictate, at least in part, how cases are prosecuted in the USA. Guy1890 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Undue emphasis
There are a couple problematic types of emphasis being used in this article. One is the use of bold, which the Manual of Style indicates should only be used in certain specified cases, and should not be used for general emphasis, which is how it is used here. The other is italics; I'm not always clear how it's intended to be used, but at times (as in the end of the lede) it comes across as more of an essay-like emphasis, noting what the writer thinks is truly important, rather than stressing for clarity, which is how italics are generally to be used in Wikipedia. Most of the emphasis should be removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nat!
I will update the page with the changes you suggested tonight. Thank you for helping me make my project much better! -Peter. Peter Nguyen (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2010 (PST)

Extra Changes
I have fixed the undue emphasis and made grammar revisions tonight. I want to thank Nat and Tyler for your contributions to my article. I would not have been able to have such a clear and concise article without you. Thanks again! -Peter. Peter Nguyen (talk) 24:16, 31 March 2010 (PST)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nitke v. Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090826165525/http://supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/032006pzor.pdf to http://supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/032006pzor.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nitke v. Gonzales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004206/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/521/521.US.844.96-511.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/521/521.US.844.96-511.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129203804/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Nitke_v_Ashcroft/nitke_v_ashcroft_ruling.pdf to http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Nitke_v_Ashcroft/nitke_v_ashcroft_ruling.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

saqib khan
saqib khan 203.135.46.61 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)