Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Miller17CU94/In defense of free speech


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus is that WP:NOT applies here, whether the issue poses a possible threat to Wikipedia or not. Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Miller17CU94/In defense of free speech
WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There's a lot of latitude allowed to editors for their userpages, but this is way beyond the pale. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC) --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear case of WP:SOAP and WP:WEBHOST.  There are lots of places to put things like this up but Wikipediais not one of them.  Eluchil404 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many userboxes in Wikipedia that are just as political as what was written. This is a matter of opinion that a user needs to put in, especially with the risk of the Fairness Doctrine being applied to the Internet in the near future, including Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not censored is applicable to this in the sense that it is a user trying to state what is on their mind.). Let us also not forget the userbox purge that occurred in January 2006 and the effect that it had on Wikipedia. Do we want to see another purge like this? I don't. Chris (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop telling people that the fairness doctrine will somehow apply to wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, soapboxing. If the user was working on developing a WP article here, that would be one thing, but this is a clear WP:SOAP case. Nsk92 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry, but I do agree this is a violation of SOAP. Propose that editor brings this to a blog or something, the points are pretty valid, seems well researched. :) -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but give the user access to the text if they want it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, with modifications. If the fairness doctrine would apply to the Internet, it would apply to Wikipedia.  (And sorry if the link from my user page led to the nomination.)  It appears one of the FCC commissioners believe(d) (according to a blog quoting him) that the Fairness Doctrine would apply to the Internet, and hence to Wikipedia.  This is arguably relevant, but probably should be moved to a VP page for further comment.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the same reason as the other user subpage below. This is not an appropriate use of userspace: it is political soapboxing, which is explicitly not allowed by our policies. Terraxos (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If an FCC commissioner feels the fairness doctrine should (or can) apply to "the internet", that is his misunderstanding. Let's not make it ours.  The FCC's power stems from broadcast licenses.  the government originally "owned" the airwaves in the united states.  We felt that it was infeasible to publicly operate broadcast organizations so we granted a monopoly to use that spectrum to some communications companies.  In return for this grant, we extracted certain concessions.  Those concessions can be seen today in the form of direct limitation on speech.  Notice that I can say "fuck" on wikipedia but I can't say it on NBC?  Notice that the first ammendment protects even patently offensive speech under almost all conditions but that you probably still can't say "Boy-howdy, political program X sure is fucked up" (what would otherwise be clearly protected speech) on NBC?  the reason for that is because of the terms of the broadcast licenses the communications companies had to agree to in order to gain their monopoly over the airwaves.  The application of this doctrine, or anything like it, to private servers which do not enjoy a government protected monopoly over some communications commodity, is unlikely.  Even in the unlikely event that the fairness doctrine would be reapplied by the FCC (as they haven't been willing to enforce provisions of it variously for over a decade), I don't suspect that it would be applied to anything other than television and radio.  even further: If the fairness doctrine rises from the grave.  If it is magically applied to private companies on the internet.  'WHY would be be required to honor it before the fact outside of articlespace?  Why wouldn't this hypothetical internet fairness doctrine apply to articles only(vis talk pages, project pages, user pages, etc.)?  Even further than that If the fairness doctrine is applied to all text on wikipedia, what countervailing opinion does this essay balance out?  finally If some version of the fairness doctrine is established and the foundation would see some legal exposure over the question of bias, the person to determine the policy steering us out of harm would be the foundation's legal counsel, Mike Godwin.  Not us.  at MfD.  delete this soapbox rant. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this is pure soapboxing. Hut 8.5 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.