When Did Censorship Become A Good Thing?

Censorship is defined as the suppression or prohibition of speech, communication, or information deemed objectionable or harmful by a government or other organizational structure, and has long been a contentious issue in societies around the world, at least until the modern era where somehow or another there are people who actually believe that censorship is a viable solution and even a good thing in some cases.

Historically, censorship has been employed mostly by dictators and authoritarian regimes as a tool to control public discourse, eliminate dissent, and maintain power. From the trial of Socrates in ancient Greece to the book burnings of Nazi Germany and the strict information controls of the Soviet Union and China, the use of censorship has consistently been associated with the repression of freedom and the perpetuation of totalitarian control.

Given this historical context, it is perplexing to consider how censorship can be viewed as beneficial, especially in the modern day and age. Would you rather enter into a digital age of enlightenment where ideas and ideologies can be openly and freely discussed, or the digital dark ages where censorship overrules any idea that is not expressly approved by the government or any of the proverbial or literal powers that be?

The persistent use of censorship by oppressive regimes underscores its inherent danger and the ineffective nature of censoring ideas and speech in fostering a free and open society. Thus, the question arises; How can censorship ever be considered a good thing when history repeatedly and irrefutably demonstrates its role in undermining democratic principles and human rights?

The historical use of censorship spans across ancient, medieval, and modern periods, consistently and only serving as a tool for controlling and suppressing dissenting voices. In ancient Greece, the trial and execution of Socrates in 399 BCE exemplified early censorship, as he was accused of corrupting the youth and impiety, primarily for his philosophical inquiries and criticisms of the Athenian state.

Moving forward to the medieval period, the Catholic Church's establishment of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1559 represented an institutional effort to censor and control the spread of ideas deemed heretical or harmful. This list of prohibited books aimed to maintain religious orthodoxy and suppress any intellectual challenges to Church authority. There are those who would also argue that the underlying reasoning was to prevent the commoner from having access to the “sacred” knowledge, as further evidenced by their continued use of the Latin Vulgate or Vulgar Latin bible, and their protest (no pun intended) when the bible was ultimately translated into English.

During the Enlightenment, censorship was increasingly scrutinized by intellectuals advocating for freedom of thought and expression. Voltaire famously criticized censorship and championed the right to free speech, encapsulating the Enlightenment's push against authoritarian control of information. John Milton's "Areopagitica", which was published in 1644, presented a compelling argument against pre-publication censorship, asserting that the free exchange of ideas was essential for truth and knowledge to flourish. These Enlightenment views laid the groundwork for modern democratic principles that value free expression, yet which have started a rapid descent into censorship and control to silence opposing views.

The 20th century witnessed some of the most extreme uses of censorship in totalitarian regimes. Nazi Germany implemented widespread censorship to control public opinion and eliminate opposition, burning books that contradicted their ideology and suppressing any form of dissent. Similarly, the Soviet Union maintained strict censorship to consolidate power, controlling all media and purging intellectuals who posed any threat to the regime's narrative. These regimes demonstrated how censorship could effectively stifle resistance and maintain authoritarian control.

Censorship as a tool of oppression has not fundamentally changed throughout history. It has never been wielded by the "good guys" to foster an open and just society. Instead, it has consistently served to suppress dissent and control populations. In the modern era, the dangers of censorship persist, regardless of who enforces it. Whether enacted by governments, corporations, or other institutions, censorship undermines democratic values and the free exchange of ideas, posing a continuous threat to individual freedoms and societal progress.

Open discourse, the unfettered exchange of ideas both good and bad, serves as the cornerstone of a healthy and free society. The ability to engage in open and honest debate fosters an environment where diverse viewpoints can be expressed, challenged, and refined, ultimately leading to a more informed citizenry and a more just and cooperative societal structure.

Democratic nations, or at least relatively free societies must rely on the active participation of their citizens or the people will inevitably lose their freedom. Open discourse empowers individuals to engage in critical thinking, debate public policy, and hold their representatives accountable. By freely expressing their opinions, citizens can expose flaws in existing systems, advocate for change, and ultimately shape the direction of their nation. This exchange of ideas fosters a more informed electorate, one that can make well-considered decisions at the ballot box.

History provides many compelling examples of how open discourse has led to social progress that has proven necessary for social stability and the inclusion of everyone within their respective societal structures. This becomes an even more pressing matter in the modern, internet-age with a more global civilization and citizenry. Censorship is not now, never has been, and never will be a tool that allows for societal progress and the advancement of the human race.

The Civil Rights Movement in the United States stands as one of the most profound testaments to the power of open discourse. Should Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X have been censored and prevented from speaking their mind because it was not in support of “the current thing” or recognized as truth by the ruling class of the day? Through public protests, marches, and tireless advocacy, civil rights leaders challenged the status quo of racial segregation. Open discourse provided a platform for their voices to be heard, ultimately leading to landmark legislation that outlawed discrimination and ushered in a new era of racial equality.

Similarly, the fight for women's suffrage highlights the potential of free speech and the right to protest and redress grievances in a public forum or even within the realm of the digital town square in modern society, also known more commonly as social media. For decades, women tirelessly argued for their right to vote, challenging traditional notions of gender roles and political participation. It was only through their public protestations and the exercise of their rights to actively engage in open discourse that allowed them to articulate their grievances and garner public support, culminating in the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote.

The concept of a "marketplace of ideas" should never be dismissed or altogether forsaken. In a free and open, even if only tangentially honest exchange of ideas, good ideas, through their inherent strength and logic, are more likely to prevail over bad ones. This process, akin to natural selection, allows for the refinement and dissemination of sound ideas while weeding out flawed or unsubstantiated ones.

The contemporary example of the "flat-earth movement" demonstrates the self-correcting nature of a free marketplace of ideas. While the notion of a flat earth may persist online, it lacks the explanatory power and supporting evidence of a spherical earth. Open discourse allows for the scientific community to debunk such claims effectively, ensuring that truth ultimately prevails. This example further serves to illustrate how not all “misinformation”, “disinformation”, or ideas are censored, but merely those that seem to contradict “the experts” or the accepted propaganda du jour.

Free speech is not just a luxury, but a necessity for any free society. It empowers the citizens, fosters informed participation, and facilitates, even becomes the most viable means of introducing social progress. By allowing for the free and open exchange of ideas, civilizations can continue to exist within an environment where good ideas can flourish and bad ones are ultimately exposed.

Censorship remains an abhorrent practice that fundamentally undermines the principles of any society that proclaims itself to be free. At its core, censorship is the suppression of speech, communication, or information deemed objectionable by an authority. This suppression is antithetical to the foundational tenets of freedom and democracy, which hinge on the free exchange of ideas and open discourse, even in cases where people may be poorly informed, misinformed, or yes, even attempting to blatantly lie. Throughout history, censorship has consistently been employed by authoritarian regimes to maintain control, stifle dissent, and manipulate public perception, as seen in the actions of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Censorship contravenes the inherent human right to seek, receive, and to freely exchange information and ideas through any media including social media. This right is enshrined in international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which underscores the universal recognition of the importance of free expression. A society that engages in censorship violates this fundamental right and, by extension, undermines its legitimacy as a free society.

Censorship is inherently repressive by nature and cannot in any way be reconciled with the principles of a free society. It invariably leads to the erosion of trust in public institutions and the proliferation of underground or alternative sources of information, which may not always be reliable. This dynamic creates a fragmented and polarized public sphere, where the very fabric of democratic discourse is weakened.

Censorship should never be considered a viable practice in any society that values freedom. The pursuit of open discourse, even when it involves the clash of conflicting ideas, is essential for the health and progress of a truly free society. By rejecting censorship in all its forms, societies affirm their commitment to the principles of liberty, human rights, and democratic governance.