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

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

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
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).
I think #6 is being summarized in a misleading way
@morganherrel How so?
@slatyb Well, that's a good question. And that sort of question applies to pretty much everything in society.
For instance, who's to decide what's safe and what's not - think like the FDA or FAA certifying drugs or planes...
We live in a federal democratic republic and _through_ the law enacted by lawmakers that we have chosen decide these things. And, if there's an issue with what they decide, we have an independent judiciary to determine if what was decided was acceptable or not. In fact, de facto new law is often created this way; it's called common law.
There have been many cases involved in things like obscenity and pornography. This is what the article mentioned.
By the way, here's a famous example that yielded a famous quote that comes from late Associate Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart. It was in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio about pornography. (Ohio had determined a movie was obscene but that was challenged.)
Stewart wrote in his opinion on the case:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of hard-core pornography], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
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
Imagine liberals calling republican opinions non sense then they have an excuse to delete any nonsense.
It probably already happened in facebook online etc.
@strateguy632 it’s horrifying how many of them are taking this idea seriously. It’s almost always asinine young liberal white women saying this communist shit.
Wow. An all out war. With bombs and stuff? And most military veterans on (Am I guessing correctly?) on your side? It sounds kind of like a threat. And the word 'communism' included in your little diatribe? An overworked, fearmongering cliché like... communism? Really? Except for name-calling, that word carries as little useful political meaning in bonafide political discourse as it did in the McCarthy era or in the John Birch society.
But I'll bravely defend to the death your right to say it and it looks like we will be on the same side in the all-out-war anyways as we both condemn Stalin and Mao for purging millions of their own people in an (all-out) war against them and using the phrase "enemy of the people" to legitimize their war against free speakers.
It is not ironic that the convicted felon/GOP nominee has also called the press "truly the enemy of the people" using the same words as his authoritarian predecessors. He regularly still calls the press 'fake news" 'disgusting' 'dishonest' and 'corrupt' if they don't give the felon a favourable report. What a champion of free speech he is!
Unless you are Fox news, (who lost a fortune for election era defamation but that's a whole other story) it seems that the felon would just as soon do away with any free speech from any source except his own. Just like Stalin. Just like Mao.
So, dear blue on black, when your little all out war starts' do yourself and your military two favors: 1 Stop calling your American compatriots communists. That's just stupid. And 2. Make sure that you are really fighting on the side of speech freedom and against the likes of Stalin, Mao and the convicted felon.
@juliaanita I am seeing a growing number of young Americans openly identifying as “communists” now.
But let’s get back to topic on hand. The question asker explicitly asked “do we need more censorship?”
Why is she asking that? Why? If liberals are speaking the truth then the wouldn’t a common sense and practical minded American citizen be able to resonate with that and be able to disregard all the “lies” coming from conservatives?
Social platforms have censored information and banned accounts that were posting TRUE information. The most famous example was the Hunter Biden laptop story.
So again who gets to decide what should be censored vs what shouldn’t? The government? A coterie of elitists?
Funny thing is liberals were very anti censorship years ago. Now it’s the opposite. Why?
@juliaanita I am sure you are no Joe Rogan fan. But is he a conservative politician? Did he build his career on being conservatives? He made an observation a few years ago that “once veterans see that the government is trying to take away the freedoms that they signed up to protect and die for things could get very ugly” and he’s 100% right.
Here is a more recent video of what he is talking about. Now I highly doubt you will watch it but for everyone else’s sake I am going to post it anyway.
https://youtu.be/AR-k0WfAbl8?si=XU2p8cl5JoBzLRRJ
@slatyb 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You got to be kidding me. Seriously. I guess you must of fell asleep in 2005 and just woke up yesterday and literally forgot social media exists.
Did republicans start this insanity? en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Disinformation_Governance_Board
Did republicans threaten social media with the FBI to take down a TRUE story about Hunter Biden laptop to protect Biden in the 2020 election?
@slatyb and your comment about “republicans” removing books from school libraries. That’s about removing books depicting graphic gay porn to 5th graders.
It’s an exercise in futility tbh considering the internet. But you trying to label republicans as the “censorious” ones in 2024 is beyond ludicrous.
Freedoms like the right of a free press to ask questions and report? The right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body? The right to read a book without it being banned? Freedom from being shot in a classroom? Then we agree, don't we.
And yes, Joe Rogen is such an authority on, well on everything, right? A legend in his own mind for sure. His brand of disinformation is compelling.
Not really.
You are correct about one thing, I won't watch the vid-his credibility with me is non-existent after his Covid-vaccine rant.
But is sounds to me like you just want someone to punch. You just want an all out war -facts don't really matter, who gets caught in the middle doesn't matter, you just want to get a little aggressive. After all the authority Joe Rogan told you it may be time to burn it all down.
Sorry, I just don't understand your way of thinking. If you want to continue this conversation in a civil way, you are welcome to message me privately. I would enjoy the conversation and maybe we could find some common ground too. let me know.
I didn't use the Republican, did I?
@juliaanita you are ducking the primary question I asked earlier. Again I have just one simple yet extremely important question to ask: WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE CENSORED VS. WHAT SHOULDN’T? Who?
Can you answer that? I don’t think you can. You are trying to “poison the well” by discrediting me personally as quickly as possible because you don’t want to answer the question that matters most.
So one last time: WHO gets to determine what should be censored?
@juliaanita of by the way social media platforms like FB and Twitter actually HELPED Trump by removing his accounts. Now he just puts up stupid on truth social which almost nobody visits. I know you want to believe I am some sort of Qanon MAGA Trump supporter but in reality I hated a lot of Trump’s stupid tweets. I think it contributed to him losing the 2020 election.
But ironically liberals HELPED Trump by de-platforming him. Now his stupid posts get a lot less attention.
But I figure you will respond with another rant about Trump and just ignore my earlier question.
Im not ducking questions bonb. I was just responding to your comments about an "all out war" and your honest query about trying to guess which side you are on. All out wars are not an answer to anything, and, even when such an event is mentioned, it is frightening to me and it should be to you too.
Obviously in situations where Governmental entities are involved with private citizens, The Supreme court determines the rules. There have been many cases already adjudicated RE free speech and censorship. I would cite them, but you should look at them yourself, so you can read for yourself their decisions. In the private domain, like on FB or the local grocery store, the issue becomes much more complicated, and in fact the SCOTUS has also ruled on at least some issues already. most recently, I think, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
@juliaanita alright that’s a little better with last comment.
My “all out war” comment wasn’t made because I actually want that to happen. HELL NO. F*ck no. But when you threaten the core freedoms about what this country was built on (freedom of speech) THAT is a REAL threat to democracy.
Freedom of speech is also NOT about protecting EXPLICIT threats to violence. No and hell no. If someone posts on social media “we should all go kill so and so” of course that should be censored and depending on several factors law enforcement should get involved.
But do you know what ultimately drove Elon Musk to buy twitter (and I imagine you hate Elon too)? Twitter canceled the Babylon Bee twitter account which Elon liked. The Babylon Bee is a political SATIRE website and openly identified as so. What kind of f*cking justification did Twitter have to censor that? Huh?
I take people posting about wanting censorship and abolishing 1st amendment VERY seriously. If that were to ever seriously happen in the USA there could be dire consequences in response to it. That does NOT mean I want a violent revolution to happen. Again hell no. But I noticed one side of the political aisle is all censorship now. And yes it’s very threatening.
yay! I got an upvote from you! :) :) that makes me happy. I live in Europe, and it is 2am right now. i have to get some sleep. We can talk later. I will leave you with one question: Do you believe that a woman has the freedom to make her own decisions about her body? Will talk later!
@juliaanita let’s just keep this discussion about freedom of speech. I know many European countries are losing that (UK) but in the United States freedom of speech is core principle that our country was built on. A threat to that is a threat to our existence.
@msc545 book burning? Do we live in 1935 Germany or something? Can you give me an example of recent “book burning”?
And that “book ban” in Florida was about keeping explicit gay porn out of elementary school libraries.
As disgusting as I think it is to have those kinds of books around kids I also think it was an exercise in futility. The internet is filled with all kinds of gross crap kids can unfortunately get exposed to.
But the left took that and ran with it. Also that “don’t say gay” bill NEVER SAID ANYTHING about “don’t say gay”. Mark Hamil tweeted that and líberals ran wild with it.
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.
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.
Nope censor means "erase delete opinion" in internet or when people talk they yell at me "stop talking
Racist homophobe misogyny" that "stop talking" is censoring. Need protected speech, safe to say opinions.
@strateguy632 protected speech shouldn't protect hate speech.
Opinion
40Opinion
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.
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!
@OlderAndWiser
What individual freedom is protected by censorship?
@monorprise You misunderstood what I said. I never suggested that individual freedom is protected by censorship. What I said is that the "it's for the good of the public welfare" is the usual argument used to justify curtailing individual freedoms, like freedom of speech.
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.
Who decides what is censored is the problem. Governments always abuse those powers for political reasons.



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.
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 adverse effect
Actually connected to this recent question: Would you prefer free speech on gag or regulated posts/a safe space? ↗
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.
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.
Your correct descriptions of that real problem remind me of a substitute teacher who wanted to indoctrinate my class about free speech.
1, a kid always heard "don't lie" so i asked "whay about lied?"
Teacher: yes free speech.
Me: if i accuse you of stealing?
She: that is slander.
Me: then CAN'T say anything, as you said, not free speech!
She: yes you are free to say it , but punished.
Me: but YOU said brit king punished speech! That was the CHANGE of free speech!
She: criticism government is protected speech.
Me: if so protect when i accused you stealing.
She: go to proncipal.
Idiot can't bear her hypocrisy misused authority to send me to principal office.
With me out of the way she indoctrinated the 3rd graders.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, unfortunately, a limited amount of censorship is necessary. Children need to be protected from sexual issues and overt displays of violence
That should read YOUNG children - not teens. Also, incitements to violence or other crimes should be censored - people should not be able to threaten people in a public forum, whether that's a newspaper, magazine, TV interview, or on the Internet.
Finally, posting fraud and scams should be banned and accounts deleted, whether it's fishing for login data or a scam to get you to buy something or steal your credit card info.
But that's about the limit.
I'm perfectly fine with other falsehoods being addressed by Community Notes or something similar, without deleting the posts or banning the poster. That's a better way to deal with most issues.
I can't think of a use case for censorship. Remember the Streisand effect.
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.
The problem with that is who is going to decide? So much literature that was initially censored is considered classic today.
im in favor of banning anyone spreading anti-democratic propaganda or organizing rallies around it in democratic states. but aside from that not really.
Probably not... but there should be clear disclaimers and warnings about the nature of the information and ideas being expressed.
I agree for examples accusation is a clearer category than a "list of offensive words". Meanwhile they don't censor accusations despite American slander laws!
Restrictions should be absolutely minimal. No incitement to violence and such things. Otherwise go hog wild.
removing freedom of speech is the first step to removing any if all freedoms to begin with and a step towards totalitarianism
Freedom of Speech and unlimited reach are not the same thing.
Not a degree. A group of people... children. And not by the federal government.
What part of “congress shall make no law” is hard for you to understand?
Only where kids are involved and if they are on social media things for 18 games and such things it's the parents folt
The only people who should be censored are the people calling for censorship.
No. Who will censor the censors, and who will censor them?
The dilemma becomes who? Who decides what speech should be censored?
The bullies like liberals who shouted n threatened.
they decided and facebook censoring authority and it spread to conversation.
except "personal attacks" only forbidden in brit websites but not censored here or used selectively for opponents!
this shows the hypocrisy to censor the wrong stuff but hosting personal attacks!
Yes, I think it's necessary in some situations.
Yes. You just can't go around saying stuff that can get people seriously hurt or killed.
Sexual content and morbid content should be the only things censored.
absolutely, yes...
Yes I do think it is necessary!
No. Censorship only breeds tyranny.
Absolutely not
Absolutely yes God bless our Christian nation
Of course, there's a line for everything
Nope.
i guess in some things
nope.
Maybe
You can also add your opinion below!