Talk:Gag order

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article should be expanded by someone more knowledgeable than I. The ideas for topics to add include the problem of balancing free speech (especially regarding the press) vs. ensuring a fair trial and past controversial issuings of gag orders. --Cab88 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A National Security Letter, an administrative subpoena used by the FBI, has an attached gag order which restricts the recipient from ever saying anything about being served with one.[6] The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders.[7] The gag orders have been upheld in court.[7]"

This seems to indicate that the gag order that keeps the recipient from saying anything about being served one has been upheld by the courts. However, the citation only says the gag order remains in place blocking the ISP from revealing the contents of the letter, not that they recieved it. It is also blatantly contradicted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter :

"They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case."

The second quote is from a much older source. However, I think its merely a case of bad wording, where the gag order in NSL's have been upheld, just not the part about not saying if you received one?

On a side note, If the gag order was still working as indicated, I can see a very interesting first amendment case happening :D.

StarDolph (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I believe that point should be changed to reflect the current state of NSL's and their, now unconstitutional, gag-order.

--Helios2k6 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what "However, the gag provisions of the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act have been upheld." is referring to? The article on the act does not use the word 'gag' anywhere. A search on google for the terms also brings up nothing. I'm assuming they are talking about things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy ; but it is not clear. StarDolph (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gag order. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201309210051
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606194238/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/crown_court_reporting_restrictions_021009.pdf to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/crown_court_reporting_restrictions_021009.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gag order. 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/20120327121629/http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/en/revistas/volumen-vii/ to http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/en/revistas/volumen-vii/

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gag order. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=29048
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117063142/http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/04/pfor2-1404.html to http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2014/04/pfor2-1404.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2013, the Japanese newspaper

Kim Jong-un.^[1][2] North Korea responded by saying that 'reptile media' had insulted its "highest dignity" by spreading lies.^[2][3] Sources inside North Korea reported it had become a major scandal with many rumors spreading despite an official gagging order.^[4]