What does viewpoint neutral mean? The concept of viewpoint neutrality is a well-known one. When government actions implicate the speech rights of groups and individuals, they need to be done in an even handed way.
What is viewpoint neutrality in state action?
viewpoint neutrality (or conversely, viewpoint discrimination) in state action. Given that viewpoint-based regulations are an “egregious form” of content discrimination, the Court applies some version of strict scrutiny.
What is a neutral point of view?
Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view.
Does the court have consistency in its determinations of viewpoint neutrality?
The Court has not provided consistency in its determinations of viewpoint neutrality (or conversely, viewpoint discrimination) in state action. Given that viewpoint-based regulations are an “egregious form” of content
Is viewpoint neutrality needed to protect free speech?
However, clarity is needed to protect free speech and to monitor potential suppression of ideas, both on the face of a statute targeting mixed speech and also through discriminatory application of a viewpoint-neutral statute. Only then will it be clear where viewpoint neutrality should be
What is Wikipedia neutrality?
Why should an article title be neutral?
What is NPOV in Wikipedia?
How to give undue weight to a minority viewpoint?
How to avoid NPOV disagreements?
Why are Wikipedia policies not interpreted in isolation?
When considering 'due impartiality', is it appropriate to include an opposite view?
See 4 more
About this website
What is an example of content neutral?
Examples deemed content neutral by the Supreme Court include: a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping (including as a form of protest) in certain federal parks, determined in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984);
What is a viewpoint based restriction?
Content-based restrictions limit speech based on its subject matter, while viewpoint-based restrictions limit speech based on ideology and perspective.
What does content neutral mean and why does it protect people's individual rights?
Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"-- the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content.
How do you present a neutral speech?
This is the audience that doesn't know much about you or your topic. They're neither hostile or positive....Use any of the following phrases:“I need your help.”“What is your opinion?”“What do you think?”“How would you do this?”“Do you have any ideas?”
Is viewpoint discrimination subject to strict scrutiny?
Doing so is called viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the First Amendment. The government may, however, subject speech to reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on its time, place, and manner. When considering government restrictions of speech in traditional public forums, courts use strict scrutiny.
What type of forum is a school?
A nonpublic forum is not specially designated as open to public expression. For example, jails, public schools, and military bases are nonpublic forums (unless declared otherwise by the government).
What does neutral mean in law?
"Neutral means an individual who, with respect to an issue in controversy, functions specifically to aid the parties in resolving the controversy.” A list of persons qualified to provide services as neutrals are referred to as roster. ( 5 USCS § 571)
What is viewpoint based discrimination?
When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints. For example, if an ordinance banned all speech on the Iraq War, it would be a content-based regulation.
What are the 3 restrictions to freedom of speech?
Time, place, and manner. Limitations based on time, place, and manner apply to all speech, regardless of the view expressed. They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights or a legitimate government interest.
What is neutral audience?
A neutral audience is usually a group who does not really know anything about the topic; they have yet to form an opinion on the topic. We have two jobs: "inform" the audience, and persuade them to accept our position.
What should I say before starting a speech?
“Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me. My name is ______ _______, and I am going to be speaking to you today about _______. To begin, _______ is important because…”...7 Memorable Ways to Open a Speech or PresentationQuote. ... “What If” Scenario. ... “Imagine” Scenario. ... Question. ... Silence. ... Statistic. ... Powerful Statement/Phrase.
How do you start a speech without saying good morning?
In a recent blog post, we came up with six ways to start a speech that will make you stand out:Tell a personal story.Share a shocking statistic.Ask a question.Quote a powerful person.Tell the audience to imagine.Refer to a historical event.
What was the main reason Alexander Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights?
Hamilton didn't support the addition of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution wasn't written to limit the people. It listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people.
What is a content-neutral restriction?
Content-neutral speech restrictions are restrictions that. “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech….” - Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771 (1976) .
What is an example of due process?
An example of due process is when a citizen is being arrested for a crime, they must be given notice of this crime, when the court case will be held, and given the right to an attorney.
How does the rational basis test differ from a strict scrutiny test?
The intermediate scrutiny test and the strict scrutiny test are considered more stringent than the rational basis test. The rational basis test is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue. The rational basis test is also referred to as "rational review."
Did Steven Crowder Just Expose Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias? Watch His ...
On entries regarding child transgender hormone therapy, the Texas heartbeat abortion law, and even the data regarding anti-Asian history — Wikipedia editors appear to have denied all of Crowder’s edits — allowing only one side of the argument to come into fruition.
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute - Wikipedia
Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of a NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for neutral point of view; see below).This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.. Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to ...
Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight - Wikipedia
Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at ...
What is Wikipedia neutrality?
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:
Why should an article title be neutral?
Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
What is NPOV in Wikipedia?
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are " Verifiability " and " No original research ".
How to give undue weight to a minority viewpoint?
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ .
How to avoid NPOV disagreements?
Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources . If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk .
Why are Wikipedia policies not interpreted in isolation?
These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
When considering 'due impartiality', is it appropriate to include an opposite view?
When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries ."
Is the former a viewpoint neutral?
The former is a content-based restriction, but it is still viewpoint-neutral. The latter is both content- and viewpoint-based. If you can classify the restriction properly, you will have no problem evaluating whether it passes that aspect of whatever scrutiny test you are applying!
Is a particular viewpoint a subset of a type of content?
It is perhaps best to try to remember that a particular viewpoint is a subset of a type of content. Thus, you can have a restriction that regulates speech based on its content (broader, but a bit more acceptable in very specific situations because we aren’t discriminating based on people’s opinions about that content), ...
What is viewpoint discrimination?
Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment ...
Why is the Supreme Court ruling against viewpoint based restrictions?
Because the government is essentially taking sides in a debate when it engages in viewpoint discrimination, the Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based restrictions to be especially offensive to the First Amendment. Such restrictions are treated as presumptively unconstitutional.
Why was the city engaged in viewpoint discrimination?
Because the city was using its new ordinance to invite or exclude each group based on its identity and message, the city was engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment?
Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court declared: “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”
Which amendment prevents the exercise of viewpoint discrimination by prohibiting permit schemes that give unchecked discretionary power?
First Amendment precedent prevents the exercise of viewpoint discrimination by prohibiting permit schemes that give unchecked discretionary power to speech-licensing officials. A seminal decision in this area was Schneider v.
Is viewpoint discrimination always written into speech regulation?
Viewpoint discrimination is not always written into the text of a speech regulation. More often, it is carried out less visibly — through the exercise of governmental discretion.
Is viewpoint discrimination a form of content discrimination?
Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”.
What is content neutral?
Content neutral refers to laws that apply to all expression without regard to the substance or message of the expression. An example of a content neutral law is a Minnesota rule prohibiting the sale or distribution of any merchandise, including printed material, in parks. The law was upheld in Heffron v.
What are some examples of content neutral laws?
Examples deemed content neutral by the Supreme Court include: a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping (including as a form of protest) in certain federal parks, determined in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984);
How do reviewing courts label a law as content based?
Reviewing courts often label a law as content based or content neutral by determining whether the government passed the law in order to suppress expression.
What is Wikipedia neutrality?
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:
Why should an article title be neutral?
Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
What is NPOV in Wikipedia?
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are " Verifiability " and " No original research ".
How to give undue weight to a minority viewpoint?
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ .
How to avoid NPOV disagreements?
Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources . If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk .
Why are Wikipedia policies not interpreted in isolation?
These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
When considering 'due impartiality', is it appropriate to include an opposite view?
When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries ."
Explanation
Handling Neutrality Disputes
- Attributing and specifying biased statements
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball s… - Point-of-view forks
A POV forkis an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia. All facts and significant points of view on a giv…
Controversial Subjects
- Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.
Common Objections and Clarifications
- Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try the policy talk page. Before asking, …
History
- "Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Wikipedia. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled "Non-bias policy", it was drafted by Larry Sanger in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Wikipedia's "rules to consider". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy sta…
See Also
- Policies and guidelines
1. Conflict of interest 2. Fringe theories 3. Words to watch 4. No original research 4.1. Avoid peacock terms 4.2. Avoid weasel words 5. Verifiability - Noticeboards
1. NPOV noticeboard