When the truth is suppressed, the lies will take hold. Stay in the loop. Truth is a fundamental pillar of democracy, and so too is balanced debate, where the public can hear different points of view, debate them, and then make up their own mind.
Self-censorship is a body blow to these things. By suppressing free media through self-censorship, citizens are deprived of information vital to open, wholesome public debate, like ongoing corruption scandals or the true effect of restrictive laws.
And this makes them unable to cast an informed vote during elections. On a day-to-day level, most of us censor what we say in order to conform to social norms. Ironically, the proliferation of social media platforms actually exacerbates this. This self-censorship can be harmful to democracy. For example, if people stop searching for information on certain topics if they think the government is watching them. People are also becoming more afraid to share their views because of a deliberate effort by far-right movements and connected media to stoke division and polarization.
Their extreme views are being shared loudly and widely. This can encourage voices on the other end of the spectrum to speak up, but it is especially damaging to people with moderate views, who are more likely to self-censor out of fear of being criticized by both sides. There are many examples of self-censorship today. The rise of social media has given a platform to almost anyone to share their opinions or other information. But the most important examples of self-censorship also represent great threats to our democracy.
Journalists in Hungary, for example, are fearful of asking critical questions of the government lest they lose access to interviews or press conferences. Then he was sacked. Journalists must be even more careful in more authoritarian countries. In Turkey, for example, social media and some press outlets have their pages shutdown during terrorist attacks, so they are unable to report the truth. Even their personal social media channels are blocked or taken offline completely.
In the US, multiple independent groups have called out Fox News for self-censoring when it reports on wars or Republican politicians in order to deliver a heavily manipulated narrative to their audience. Not even all government censorship is unlawful. What is the basis for free expression in the United States? The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances protects against government restrictions on or interference with the content of speech.
The First Amendment applies to Government at the national, state, and local level. Why should I care about censorship? Understanding of First Amendment freedoms is fragile and imperiled by increasingly effective and sophisticated attacks. On the issue of press freedoms, the Court has been reluctant to censor publication -- even of previously classified material.
In the landmark case New York Times v. United States, the Court overturned a court order stopping the newspaper from continuing to print excerpts from the "Pentagon Papers", saying such prior restraint was unconstitutional. In this June 30, file picture, workers in the New York Times composing room in New York look at a proof sheet of a page containing the secret Pentagon report on Vietnam.
Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images. Censors seek to limit freedom of thought and expression by restricting spoken words, printed matter, symbolic messages, freedom of association, books, art, music, movies, television programs, and Internet sites.
When the government engages in censorship, First Amendment freedoms are implicated. Private actors — for example, corporations that own radio stations — also can engage in forms of censorship, but this presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved. Various groups have banned or attempted to ban books since the invention of the printing press. Rowling and Judy Blume. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, integral elements of democracy.
Since Gitlow v. New York , the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kuhlmeier that school officials have broad power of censorship over student newspapers. Finley, used with permission from the Associated Press.
Freedom of speech and press are not, however, absolute. Over time, the Supreme Court has established guidelines, or tests, for defining what constitutes protected and unprotected speech. Among them are:. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Categories of unprotected speech also include:. Determining when defamatory words may be censored has proved to be difficult for the Court, which has allowed greater freedom in remarks made about public figures than those concerning private individuals.
In New York Times Co. Sullivan , the Court held that words can be libelous written or slanderous spoken in the case of public officials only if they involve actual malice or publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
Lampooning has generally been protected by the Court. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell , for example, the Court held that the magazine had not slandered Rev. On the issue of press freedoms, the Court has been reluctant to censor publication of even previously classified materials, as in New York Times v. United States — the Pentagon Papers case — unless the government can provide an overwhelming reason for such prior restraint.
The Court has accepted some censorship of the press when it interferes with the right to a fair trial, as exhibited in Estes v. Texas and Sheppard v. Maxwell , but the Court has been reluctant to uphold gag orders , as in the case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart American society has always been deeply ambivalent about these questions.
On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the Comstock Law to the Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces.
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. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous -- or just plain bad. The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest.
The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.
Many examples come to mind. A painting of the classical statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers of the shopping mall found its semi-nudity "too shocking. A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe in an art exhibit.
American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world -- but sexual expression is treated as a second-class citizen. No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so.
Rather, the Supreme Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds -- a remnant of our nation's Puritan heritage.
0コメント