What Exactly Is Censorship, And Why Should We Care?
What are the limits of free speech, as protected by the First Amendment? This is a touchy subject, especially today, with the White Supremacists demanding (and receiving) speaking platforms at our universities. Where does a civilized society draw the line?
Though this may be a gray area, there are verbal expressions that are actually crimes, which obviously can’t be protected. Examples are threats of violence, offers to sell illicit substances, and anything that endangers people’s lives, e.g., shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. FWIW, this is the basis on which I would deny the neo-Nazis protection of free speech; waving a swastika is tantamount to saying, “If you’re not a Caucasian, I mean to harm you.”
In any case, the intent of the First Amendment is to protect American citizens from censorship. Anyone should be permitted to express a thought that doesn’t falling under the heading of the crimes described above.
Here’s a current example of censorship that hits particularly close to home for us here at 2GreenEnergy. Three government scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were informed late last night that the presentations on their recent climate change findings that they were scheduled to deliver at a conference in Rhode Island this week were abruptly and without reason canceled.
From this article:
“The silencing of government scientists is a scary step toward silencing anyone who disagrees.”
—Robinson Fulweiler, Boston University
“They (EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and other top White House officials) don’t believe in climate change, so I think what they’re trying to do is stifle discussions of the impacts of climate change,” John King, professor of oceanography, University of Rhode Island
“The silencing of government scientists is a scary step toward silencing anyone who disagrees. The choice by our government leaders to ignore the abundant and overwhelming data regarding climate change does not stop it from being true or prevent the negative consequences that are already occurring and those that are on the horizon. The EPA’s move is an abuse of power.” – Robinson Fulweiler, Boston University ecosystems ecologist
“Muzzling our leading scientists benefits no one.” —Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
As EcoWatch reported late last week, the EPA scrubbed more than a dozen mentions of climate change from its website recently as part of “the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to pretend that climate change doesn’t exist.” Trump’s EPA has also issued a four-year “strategy” document that doesn’t include the word “climate,” threatened to “purge” scientists who refuse to toe the fossil fuel industry line, and overwhelmingly privileged the views of oil and gas industry representatives over those of environmental groups.
So where do the limits of free speech end? Again, this is an open question, but the answer can’t be shutting up our top scientists who are desperately trying to save our civilization from disaster.
Craig,
You seem to be slowly moving toward sharing a very similar definition of “Free Speech” to that of every covert totalitarian.
What you seem to want is “Free Speech” for those you agree with, but not those who dissent.
You are correct when you state there are limits on free speech.
The Constitution allows for limited exceptions. Government employees, or those entrusted with sensitive or confidential information,( even commercial information) relinquish to right to free speech as a condition of employment or office holding.
(Members of the Military are a good example)
The US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to include certain types of advocacy encouraging breaking laws, (burning draft cards) while ruling other forms of advocacy not protected.
In general the acts not protected must be overt, direct and extreme (Violent overthrow of the Government, actions promoting a denial of civil rights etc.Direct threats of violence against individuals etc).
But here’s the real difference you seem to be missing. The Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment protects the right to be offensive ! You may be offended by fools waving a Swastika Flag, but the wavers are entitled to wave any archaic symbol they wish, secure in the knowledge the Constitution allows them the right to be idiots.
In itself, the Swatika Symbol is harmless, and much older than National Socialism. The idea a bunch of losers can recreate the conditions of post WW1 Germany is absurd. Banning such activity would only grant a gravitas it doesn’t deserve.
If a movement arose waving the horse hair emblem of Genghis Khan or the Fleur-di-Lis of Royalist France, I doubt whether it would attract many followers !
White Supremacists are stupidly obnoxious, but so are adherent of organizations like the Westboro Church with their perverted teachings, Anti-fa and other extreme leftist groups, Black Muslims and all kinds of extreme crazies.
For some reason you only find the Ult-Right offensive. Like most “progressive liberals”, you seem to be selective in both your outrage and support for the first amendment.
For myself, I support the First Amendment for all. No matter how crazy, I don’t discriminate. What annoys me is these fools hi-jack legitimate community issues with their antics and prevent civilized debate.
But that’s the price for free speech.
The point is, you can’t restrict the freedom of your opponents without restricting your own.
Government employees are not free to voice their own opinions. The reason is obvious. Government employees can’t become involved in political or policy decisions or announcements. When they speak, even as private individuals, they still carry the imprimatur of their government employment.
Such activities are the sole prerogative of elected officials and those authorized by elected officials to carry out those duties.
This is a long established principle, without which representative democratic government couldn’t survive.
It’s not an issue of Free speech for any government to insist government employees adhere to government policy in public. That’s a long established principle.
Employees who dissent, and in conscience can’t remain silent, are free to resign and attack the government as private citizens.
They’re even entitled to campaign, get elected, and become the government !
That’s what free speech means. Free expression within certain rules and conventions. Those rules must apply to all equally, once any individual or group is treated uniquely, “free speech’ becomes compromised.
If you believe everyone has the right to say whatever they want in any context they want, you are a very strange individual indeed.
Craig,
Didn’t you bother what I wrote ?
How does “That’s what free speech means. Free expression within certain rules and conventions” equate with your assertion I believe “everyone has the right to say whatever they want in any context they want” ??
Or again my observation, “You are correct when you state there are limits on free speech” ?”
But I’m not a “strange individual “, or if I am, I’m in good company since my assertion that free speech includes protecting even “offensive expression” is a quote from the US Supreme Court.
But yes, given a choice, I always favour on the side of freedom rather than censorship and restriction.
You began:
“You seem to be slowly moving toward sharing a very similar definition of “Free Speech” to that of every covert totalitarian. What you seem to want is “Free Speech” for those you agree with, but not those who dissent.” Since isn’t even remotely true, I tuned out at that point.
Craig,
With all due respect, perhaps that may indicate part of your problem. You notice I employed the term ‘seem’, but by your own admission, you lacked sufficient interest to discover the reasoning behind my questioning and as you say ‘tuned out’.
No doubt you would be offended at the suggestion, you are growing very resistant to alternate idea’s and dissent ?
Would you not agree, “Tuning out” and “I’m not wasting my time “, are phrases often employed by those with very rigid opinions and inflexible beliefs ?
I’m sure that’s not true, and I might be wrong, but I’ve noticed a tendency in recent years for you to become less and less engaged in debate and more partisan and concentrated on a more ridged agenda.
The ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others, even sometimes those we consider our enemies, without prejudging, is essential if you want gain greater understanding.
Reading only the ‘Headlines’ to form an opinion, will always produce distorted and inaccurate interpretations 🙂
I think you’re noticing a blend of different issues. It’s a combination of a growing unwillingness to waste my time and an intolerance of bad ideas, be they moral or scientific. The blessing of this blog for me is that I get to do it exactly my way, and that means I choose what I engage in. If someone wants to argue that Trump’s policies are good for the environment, that climate change is a hoax, that renewable energy needs to be stamped out because only nuclear can save the world, that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer, that raising beef is environmentally benign….that’s regrettable, but it’s OK with me, as long as no one expects me to chime in. I don’t argue with crazy people or idiots. I learned this as a little kid, actually.
Craig,
Thank you for your reply.
I understand your point of view and respect your right to involve yourself or not.
On the other hand, I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed that with advancing years you’re are becoming more ridgedly black and white, no longer noticing or even interested in the shades between.
Losing that tolerance, that flexibility of thinking, is a trait often noticed among those of advancing years.
Part of the reason I undertake my “Odysseys” is so I remember to never label those with opposing opinions, “crazy people or idiots”. (Perhaps, if Hilary Clinton had been more respectful, she might not be so bitter).
Let’s be honest. Like me, in the privacy of your own mind, I’m sure you dub certain folks “crazy people or idiots.” Unlike Hillary Clinton, however, you and I are wise and mannered enough not to tell them this to their faces.
This is a long established principle, without which representative democratic government couldn’t survive. It’s not an issue of Free speech for any government to insist government employees adhere to government policy in public. That’s a long established principle.
Jessica,
Thank you for your contribution, but what point are you trying to make ?