Censorship and Debate

Is censorship bad? I think most people would say so. I'd agree. But is it what we you think it is? Is it only by government? Are there other, more subtle, forms? And, even official censorship isn't always bad.

Censorship in time of war. Censorship when it comes to children and violence or sexuality (done through a ratings system). There is always censorship in any society. When we say "censorship", we really mean "excessive, undesired, censorship".

In 1939, the use of the word "damn" in the movie "Gone with the Wind" was controversial. It was forbidden to be used except under an amendment to the Production Code passed that year by the Motion Picture Association. Compare that to the language commonly used in today's movies.

In 1962 there was a controversy over the casting of Sue Lyon (then 14 years of age) to play the title role in "Lolita." In the 1997 remake, Dominique Swain was 17 when she was cast in the role and there was no controversy. But the remake was much racier, more daring, than the 1962 version.

But there are several types of censorship we need to consider. The first one we think of is governmental and primarily political. It is the one actually addressed by the First Amendment. Political speech is protected under that Amendment. In time, rulings by the US Supreme Court extended that protection to a great many other areas of expression. Today, I think the Founding Fathers might be appalled (or at least surprised) by the loose interpretation of Freedom of Speech.

Parental censorship is common and considered proper. Few question the right of a parent to determine what his or her child can view or hear. Which often leads to community issues like library access to the internet and how unrestricted it should be.

There is also self-censorship. This covers a wide area including, but not limited to, how you speak in public, what you consider acceptable to write about in a blog, even in speaking to a loved one. Honesty may not always be the best policy so you censor your comments about how your wife (or husband) has gained a few extra pounds.

But there is another form of censorship, one I like to call social censoring. It probably has gone on since humans first began gathering in clans or tribes. For centuries it was the means by which a segment of society has been silenced. In more modern times, with the spreading of the concept of freedom of speech, that has been lessened. But a new form has taken hold, a form which we call "hate speech" restrictions. Certain terms have been made taboo, even actionable. For the most part, this has done good. People have become more aware of offensive terms, more sensitive to others' perceptions of insult.

In some ways, however, it has gone a bit far. When college students steal student papers from newsracks on campus because they find the opinions expressed to be "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic". When otherwise well meaning groups stage large protests outside of churches because of the religious support of an initiative, when hecklers attempt to disrupt a speech, or shout down a speaker, or demand one be uninvited, the concept of freedom of speech is threatened. Demonstrations which are aimed at denying others the freedom to express themselves simply because the ideas expressed are deemed "hate speech", or "offensive", are wrong, in my opinion.

You cannot have public debate if only one side is considered to be acceptable to be expressed. That is not freedom of expression, just the opposite.When even defending the right of someone to say what society might consider to be offensive is considered to be defending the concepts expressed, well, that is the worst brand of censorship.