Censorship -- A Good Old Historical Ideal

“In time we hate that which we often fear.”

– William Shakespeare

The ACLU tells us

“Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are 'offensive,' happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.”

There exists a special kind of censorship that stems from self-motivated suppression. Individuals who refuse to allow the expression of ideas to which they object deem themselves “keepers of the gate” of morality. These censors sit at the head of many groups who believe they guard the sacred values of their assemblies.

Their moral compass is set to their own agreed upon interpretation of offensive behaviors. This steadfast insistence on filtering every opposing view through a narrow sieve of approval eliminates the understanding of any valid concession. A view that somehow upsets the group is simply prohibited.

By allowing no opposition or thoughtful debate, these censors attempt to extinguish free thought in favor of their version of the allowable point of view. They may rule over points of order while imposing personal standards of germane discourse. In essence, any policy threat is extinguished because history or tradition prevents its incubation. What results is predictable – the censors simple eliminate the need for dialogue.

Why would people put upon themselves the mantle of sacred gatekeeper? Could it be they fear that diversity of thought may induce change. After all, for diversity to be successful, people must be open to different points of view. Whereas diversity is an action, inclusivity is cultural – a sense of belonging is a feeling. Kristin Hayden, Chief Partnership Officer at IGNITE (Center for Biological Diversity) says of diversity …

“It’s not autopilot. The autopilot is to hang out with people who think like you and look like you. It’s actually about being present…it takes intentionality to do things differently.”

Of course, some people feel the need to gain power through censorship. For example, governments use propaganda to spin ideas and develop patriotism, devotion, and support. Other social groups do the same. These bodies can also attempt to suppress the freedoms of thought and conscience to mold their singular and preferred identity. For example, some schools hold that students must recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning.

Yet, the Supreme Court has held that it is just as much a violation of a person's First Amendment rights for the government to make a student say something he or she doesn't want to say as it is for the government to prevent that student from saying what he or she does not want to say. That dissenting student has a right to remain silently seated during the pledge.

Lastly, some people find themselves as censors in a dubious position – they find no logical reason for the suppression of thoughta they oppose. They cannot answer with a sensible counter argument. However, in their position of authority, they restrict the troubling view simply because they “don't like it.”

Bias has made these people take a shortcut through the brain. Unable to successfully confront opposition – opposition in their own social, racial, and gender groups – they resort to their bias, the very prejudice that made them blind to error in the first place.

Shouldn't it be imperative that people really hear everybody’s thoughts (including the negativity), and then weigh and balance these beliefs?

Have you had surprising moments of clarity when you realized you were more biased than you’d thought? No one is immune from bias. Implicit biases are hidden preferences – so hidden that we are unaware we even have them. Implicit biases stem from the assumptions, stereotypes, and unintentional actions we make towards others based on identity labels like race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or ability.

No matter the reason for undue censorship, that practice denies free expression and, eventually, thwarts needed change. Harvey C. Mansfield American political philosopher. And professor of government at Harvard University, explains …

“We argue over the boundaries or limits of what can be said but pass over the importance of what is said within those bounds. This leaves us with a peculiar sense of why speech matters: We imply that it's valuable because its restraint would undermine our freedom, which is a way of avoiding the question more than of answering it.

“This disinterest in the value of free speech, sometimes amounting to a refusal to define it, appears to be rooted in the principles of our liberalism, which enshrines free speech as one right, perhaps the principal right, among the rights that deserve protection in a liberal society. To guard such a right, it seems, one must not specify the value of how it will normally be used lest by such definition society destroy what it wants to protect. For by discussing the value of free speech one would expose less-valued or valueless speech to disdain, or worse, prohibition.

( Harvey C. Mansfield. “The Value of Free Speech.” National Affairs. Spring 2020.)