Censorship versus Free Speech
Okay, it has been way too long.
Having not exercised my right to free speech on this blog in a while, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share my thoughts on free speech and censorship.
In a nutshell, I like the First Amendment. I've said it before, a framed copy hangs on my wall (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights). The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall pass no law . . . Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's very simple. The United States Congress has no power to pass any law telling me what to say or what not to say.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution reserves to the states or the people those rights not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited to the states. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't give the power to the federal government, and doesn't specifically say the states can't regulate it, it is fair game for the states to regulate. So according to the original bill of rights, the states - our state legislatures - had the power to abridge our free speech. If we didn't want our states to abridge our right to free speech, we had to pass state constitutions reserving that right to ourselves.
The 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court changed that by including in the rights preserved to the people the first amendment rights. In other words, the 14th Amendment effectively prohibited state governments from abridging our freedom of speech.
So now, no government in the U.S. can abridge our right to free speech. Within limits. Government retains to power to regulate non-speech and to preserve the peace (hence, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Unless there's a fire.)
All this boils down to a simple rule: the GOVERNMENT cannot tell me what I can or can't say. But OTHER PEOPLE can.
So when I say I like the First Amendment, that's what I mean. We should be free from government censorship. We should also be subjected to private censorship. That's what keeps our society civil and sane. You can say what you want, but the rest of us have the right to put pressure on you to shut up if we don't like it. Your boss can fire you for what you say. The newspaper has the right to refuse to run your letter. We can exert peer pressure to make you straighten up and act right. That's what our Constitution protects. It protects us from an overly powerful government, and it relies on a powerful civil society to police itself to preserve order and tranquility.
The web and TV and the papers are awash in cries of attacks on our right to free speech. Papers refuse to run the Danish cartoons of Muhammed and people complain that this is censorship. Comedy Central refuses to air an image of Muhammed on South Park, and people cry foul and say our rights are being eroded. But these are not instances of first amendment rights being attacked. These are instances of private censorship that are now and have always been protected by the First Amendment, not prohibited by it.
Private censorship is fine. True, it raises another concern, which is corporate censorship. That's the concern that access to the media is held by the few and withheld from the rest. But it does not help to confuse that concern with First Amendment rights.
So here's my take. I like non-governmental censorship because it is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. Non-governmental censorship is free speech to the person doing the censoring. If it is my paper, or my network, and I censor the content, I am exercising my right to say what I want and to refuse to say what I don't want. That's free speech.
Having not exercised my right to free speech on this blog in a while, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share my thoughts on free speech and censorship.
In a nutshell, I like the First Amendment. I've said it before, a framed copy hangs on my wall (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights). The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall pass no law . . . Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's very simple. The United States Congress has no power to pass any law telling me what to say or what not to say.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution reserves to the states or the people those rights not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited to the states. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't give the power to the federal government, and doesn't specifically say the states can't regulate it, it is fair game for the states to regulate. So according to the original bill of rights, the states - our state legislatures - had the power to abridge our free speech. If we didn't want our states to abridge our right to free speech, we had to pass state constitutions reserving that right to ourselves.
The 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court changed that by including in the rights preserved to the people the first amendment rights. In other words, the 14th Amendment effectively prohibited state governments from abridging our freedom of speech.
So now, no government in the U.S. can abridge our right to free speech. Within limits. Government retains to power to regulate non-speech and to preserve the peace (hence, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Unless there's a fire.)
All this boils down to a simple rule: the GOVERNMENT cannot tell me what I can or can't say. But OTHER PEOPLE can.
So when I say I like the First Amendment, that's what I mean. We should be free from government censorship. We should also be subjected to private censorship. That's what keeps our society civil and sane. You can say what you want, but the rest of us have the right to put pressure on you to shut up if we don't like it. Your boss can fire you for what you say. The newspaper has the right to refuse to run your letter. We can exert peer pressure to make you straighten up and act right. That's what our Constitution protects. It protects us from an overly powerful government, and it relies on a powerful civil society to police itself to preserve order and tranquility.
The web and TV and the papers are awash in cries of attacks on our right to free speech. Papers refuse to run the Danish cartoons of Muhammed and people complain that this is censorship. Comedy Central refuses to air an image of Muhammed on South Park, and people cry foul and say our rights are being eroded. But these are not instances of first amendment rights being attacked. These are instances of private censorship that are now and have always been protected by the First Amendment, not prohibited by it.
Private censorship is fine. True, it raises another concern, which is corporate censorship. That's the concern that access to the media is held by the few and withheld from the rest. But it does not help to confuse that concern with First Amendment rights.
So here's my take. I like non-governmental censorship because it is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. Non-governmental censorship is free speech to the person doing the censoring. If it is my paper, or my network, and I censor the content, I am exercising my right to say what I want and to refuse to say what I don't want. That's free speech.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 2:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home