Is some degree of censorship necessary?

Question

Is some degree of censorship necessary? Balancing the protection of individuals and society with the right to free expression can require selective restrictions

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

Q: Is some degree of censorship necessary?
A: Yes, absolutely. And for good reasons many of which are discussed in this 2017 article in The Saturday Evening Post.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/03/6-exceptions-to-freedom-of-speech/

March 21, 2017
Jeff Nilsson

6 Surprising Exceptions to Freedom of Speech
Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.

Although the First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” Americans don’t have the luxury of always saying whatever they want. Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.

Here are six areas where your talk can make you liable in criminal or civil court.

1. Obscenity

Most of the legal cases that concern sex and free speech have involved publications (a form of speech as far as the courts are concerned). Obscenity is not protected by the Constitution, but it has been difficult to define what is obscene. In 1973, the Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, came up with a three-part definition of obscene material. A work is legally considered obscene if

an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to prurient (appealing to sexual desire) interest.
the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law.
taken as a whole, the material lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This limit on obscene speech also applies to broadcasting. The FCC controls what is allowed on air, so you can’t broadcast sounds or images that could be offensive to your audience or use language inappropriate for children.

However, the Supreme Court has, so far, kept the internet free of obscenity restrictions. You can make whatever statements you want on social media sites, but the owners of those sites have the freedom to censor or delete your content if they find it offensive.

2. Lies

Lying is covered by the First Amendment, except when it’s not. You can be prosecuted for lying under oath in court (it’s called perjury). You can also be charged with misleading authorized investigators. Remember Martha Stewart’s conviction in 2004? She went to prison for lying to investigators about her stock trading.

It is also illegal to run dishonest advertisements. And if you deliberately tell lies about people, you can be hit with a lawsuit in civil court for either libel (if published) or slander (if spoken).

Politicians, on the other hand, have broad protections against being prosecuted for lying, and citizens largely have free rein to criticize their governments, even if the comments are false. Luckily for late night talk show hosts, the First Amendment allows citizens to satirically mock a public figure.

3. Violence

You can’t make offensive remarks or personal insults that would immediately lead to a fight. You also can’t threaten violence to a specific person unless you’re making an obvious exaggeration (for instance, “I’m going to kill my opponent at the polls”). Finally, you can’t knowingly say things that cause severe emotional distress or incite others to “immediate lawless action.”

In 1951, the Supreme Court concluded in Dennis v. United States that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government.

4. Students’ Speech

Students have limited rights of free speech while in school. In 1986, Bethel School District v. Fraser upheld the right of a school to suspend a student for making an obscene speech. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988, supported a school’s right to censor student newspapers. However, many states are now passing laws to grant broader First Amendment protections to student speech.

5. Offending Your Friends and Coworkers

You don’t have the right to say whatever you want in someone else’s home or other private setting. And, as an employee, believe it or not, you have no free-speech rights at your workplace. The Constitution’s right to free speech applies only when the government — not a private entity — is trying to restrict it. For example, an employer can legally fire an employee whose car bears a campaign bumper sticker he doesn’t like.

It’s a different matter for government employees. In Elrod v. Burns, the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the Constitution prohibits government employers from discharging or demoting employees for supporting a particular political candidate.

The law also prohibits speech that shows clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass.

It also prevents employees in medical or financial fields from discussing confidential information outside of work.

6. Expressing Your Political Views

The law has never permitted Americans to protest in any way they wanted. While the government can’t control what you say, how you say it must be subject to what the courts consider an appropriate time, place, and manner.

Legal authorities have a responsibility to protect the safety of attendees at political gatherings and to protect protestors themselves. If authorities think you pose a sufficient risk, you can be restricted to a Free Speech Zone. These have been used since the 1980s, principally to contain protestors at political conventions.

House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. They also have this authority at National Special Security Events. These events have included state occasions, of course, but also basketball championships, the Academy Awards, Olympic events, and the Super Bowl. A conviction can result in up to 10 years in a federal prison (another place where your freedom of speech is limited).

blueonblack22 · Accepted Answer

And who exactly gets to decide what should be a censored vs what shouldn’t? In modern timed it would be a coterie of leftist elitists. I don’t see conservatives calling for censorship of their opposition.

Free speech may enable stupid and/or dangerous people to have a voice it also also allows pragmatic & common sense people to counter back with a louder voice. Cooler heads will ultimately prevail.

It’s about allowing the common society as a whole to ultimately determine what’s best for civilization. If we didn’t have freedom of speech there is a very good chance the civil rights of the 60s would of never come about. Gay marriage would of most likely never become legal either.

But when a society is under the boot of authoritarian censorship it’s usually for an ulterior agenda (communism) that is controlled by an elitist ruling class.

Karl Marx understood if you could manipulate (and control) speech you ultimately manipulate the entire society for an agenda. And marxism has been tried before in history with horrifying outcomes. Stalin and Mao obliviously didn’t want free speech and they each killed more people then Adolf Hitler.

Once America loses freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion then we lose the founding principles of what our country was built on. This will result in an all out war. You can take a guess what side I will be on. Also you can take a guess on which side most military veterans will be on.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

FreyaRed · Accepted Answer

No. Censorship in age of internet is anyway pointless. It's a tool of totalitarian regimes from last century when media like Radio, TV and Press was centralized. Now is information exchange often decentralized and even countries like China which built their internet infrastructure from beginning with intention of censorship fail in filtering of content.

Smashingdoozy · Accepted Answer

I think the issue is people think being told off for saying horrible derogatory things is censorship. It's not hard to be a decent human being.

razelove · Answer

No, we exercise our own censorship when we choose not to engage in media we find disgusting or distasteful. Platforms self segregate media that would almost universally be offensive, like porn, and violence not being on most social media, and I've never seen politics on a porn site.

We further separate our ideologies into different social media, and then the type of "darker stuff". Like sites for making drugs, weapons, porn, violence, prostitution, what have you.

I see no reason to remove any of it, just send out copies that are tampered with if you're that worried about it. Like copies of the anarchist cookbook that will lead to duds because the synthesis route is messed up, or use chemicals on the DEA watch list.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

The loss of individual freedoms is always rationalized as action necessary for the protection of the collective whole of society. That is how the erosion of freedom always begins. Once it begins, it is a journey on a slippery slope!

Telekinetic-Potato · Answer

The issue is the way we think about the question.

People shouldn't be punished for what they say, they should be held accountable to the result of what was said. But even then it's very difficult.

I think part of the problem is that we have gotten used to being able to trust a government with our rights for so long, in a strange way it's like we no longer value freedom.

Want to do 90 on the highway? We'll that might be too fast for some old people so it needs to be 60 so that when there's traffic it can be 25

Want to be able to defend yourself? Well, wouldn't it be easier if there were just cops everywhere and no one were allowed to have a weapon?

Want free speech? We'll we can't let anyone say whatever they want because what if they start a political movement on false premises or sway public opinion in an unpredictable way?

For as long as there has been life on this planet, every day is a blessing and not a given. It's only when people can see that when they value their freedom.

You don't realise what you're giving up when you can walk into a Starbucks and spend $8 on a drink with so much sugar, it distracts you from these things.

Drewtate · Answer

Who decides what is censored is the problem. Governments always abuse those powers for political reasons.

strateguy632 · Answer

1, Yes but it is a slippery slope.

If i start banning the "n word, " then all hate speech, but don't limit to real hate...

then even not hate , any criticism is called n included in hate speech. It will just get worse. Unless we allow even the n word.

2, then we have the separation of groups people are NOT censored for smearing Christians n Republicans even inciting hate... that is just pure hypocrisy.

3 like today someone smeared a political rival "republicans are violent they will hurt my baby " incite hate... we can test if they wrote SAME about MUSLIM

ONLY worse treatment to Christians... stuff nobody would say about quran or muslims or would get punished censored for SAME stuff

but hypocrit admins treat Christians worse. Hosting n not censoring. Must be equal.

Bye bye 7 points.

Maybe_Maybe_not · Answer

Ideally, I tend to think that  educated censorship , managed by an  independent from state entity , aka justice, can protect society from proselyte powers undermining its core foundations, example of this is creationism. When such speech is given freedom to spread, then there is a constant need to re-establish what has already been proven. Which doesn't even work because of this

MisterWack · Answer

Asker: “Is some degree of censorship necessary? Balancing the protection of individuals and society with the right to free expression can require selective restrictions”

My Response:
Yes!

*Viewer Discretion Is Advised* Warnings for example keep toddlers, children, young teens, and sensitive / squeamish individuals in general from watching things they shouldn’t because it will be too much for them to handle. That is a certain degree of censorship in my opinion that works. This definitely fits the, “Balancing the protection of individuals and society with the right to free expression can require selective restrictions” piece you mentioned.

RingOfFire · Answer

Other than the "no yelling fire in a crowded theater," rules then no there is NO degree of censorship that is acceptable.

Who gets to decide what you can and cannot say? Once you go down that path then NO SPEECH will be allowed because there is always someone who objects to every idea expressed.

The answer is to just suck it up and let people say whatever they want to say. Stop being a snowflake and demanding the other people can't have their views just because it "offends" you. Tough shit. Your fragile ego isn't a reason to take away everyone else's right to speak as they please.

Being offended is NOT a reason to limit anyone else's speech. It's that simple.

genericname85 · Answer

i think censorship always is a very slippery slope that is constantly being chipped away at by those in power. they always sell censorship as some sort of "protection" or "security", which it's not. i don't believe in censorship. however i do also not think that saying certain things should be illegal. not censored but illegal. like for example sexual child grooming, incitement to violence or scam and betrayal. saying things that involves either of these things should not be censored but the person doing it should be persecuted.

normalice · Answer

Apart from banning scammers I don't think so. Of course the problem with this is that reach is the bread and butter and really the entire lifestyle to a scammer, so if they are banned they will have absolutely nothing to do but find a way around the ban.

DrPepper12 · Answer

As long as you mean GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP and not what morons think it is like social media bans, cancel culture and other ToS violations.

Yes. Some censorship has ALWAYS been necessary! Minors in legal actions, sealed records of settlements, closed court testimony, national security, prior restraint, etc. The real question is how much and why?

Anonymous · Answer

As long as your not required to listen to much-less act on what other people say no censorship is necessary.

Sticks & stones Break your bones not any words.

That said there does exist such a thing a contracted secretes the betrayal of which represents a property crime.

Anonymous · Answer

The devil is ALWAYS in the details, and when it comes to censorship, you inevitably run into the problem of who gets to do the censoring and for what purpose. And JUST as inevitably you find that whatever the agreed upon purpose, whoever gets to do the censoring takes it way, way, WAY further than that. So in the end it's better to just not have censorship and let all the ideas fight it out.

MrOracle · Answer

Yes, unfortunately, a limited amount of censorship is necessary. Children need to be protected from sexual issues and overt displays of violence

Unit1 · Answer

I can't think of a use case for censorship. Remember the  .

CB-Raido-Time · Answer

Any time you think censorship is good ask the relatives of those who were snatched out of their houses during the middle of the night and disappeared for good and never to be heard from again none of them could speak out about it.

slatyb · Answer

The problem with that is who is going to decide? So much literature that was initially censored is considered classic today.

Still-alive · Answer

im in favor of banning anyone spreading anti-democratic propaganda or organizing rallies around it in democratic states. but aside from that not really.

ProbablyClueless · Answer

Probably not... but there should be clear disclaimers and warnings about the nature of the information and ideas being expressed.

Juxtapose · Answer

Restrictions should be absolutely minimal. No incitement to violence and such things. Otherwise go hog wild.

Anonymous · Answer

removing freedom of speech is the first step to removing any if all freedoms to begin with and a step towards totalitarianism

DJB72 · Answer

Freedom of Speech and unlimited reach are not the same thing.

Dargil · Answer

Not a degree. A group of people... children. And not by the federal government.

gatixek710 · Answer

What part of “congress shall make no law” is hard for you to understand?

MrGSpotHer · Answer

Only where kids are involved and if they are on social media things for 18 games and such things it's the parents folt

DextroShade · Answer

The only people who should be censored are the people calling for censorship.

msc545 · Answer

No. Who will censor the censors, and who will censor them?

noohair · Answer

The dilemma becomes who? Who decides what speech should be censored?

Xawyx · Answer

Yes, I think it's necessary in some situations.

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

Yes. You just can't go around saying stuff that can get people seriously hurt or killed.

Amur8711 · Answer

Sexual content and morbid content should be the only things censored.

NathanDavis · Answer

absolutely, yes...

katiesmuff · Answer

Yes I do think it is necessary!

Snakeyes7 · Answer

No. Censorship only breeds tyranny.

grega239 · Answer

Absolutely not

Maybeyoutoo · Answer

Absolutely yes God bless our Christian nation

verified · Answer

Of course, there's a line for everything

buzzword · Answer

Nope.

eagle1951 · Answer

i guess in some things

ChefPapiChulo · Answer

nope.

TheCaller · Answer

Maybe

Is some degree of censorship necessary?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is some degree of censorship necessary?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.