By Emi Gruender
IN FAVOR:
The government reserves the right to censor any material and may add conditions to the First Amendment altering the extent to which American citizens are allowed to express their opinions. The concept that words are nothing of real consequence and should be left alone by the government is untrue, evident in Supreme Court cases such as Schenk vs. US and in normalized spreading of misinformation. In the Supreme Court case of Schenk vs. US, Charles Schenk’s actions in discouraging the American draft and encouraging military insubordination were ruled as illegal, despite Schenk’s protection of free speech under the First Amendment.
According to the Supreme Court, Congress exercised advanced rights during wartime, including the right to censor dissenting voices from within the country itself. In wartime, the US argued, Congress’ censorship of any speech that might dispel morale among the armed forces was illegal. The government must take precedence in times of crisis, even if it came at the expense of an individual’s right of speech. This right, the Supreme Court ruled, extended into controlling speech if need be, since the country as a whole must be as whole and unified as possible to fight the war efficiently. This ruling translated into the “present and clear danger” exception to the First Amendment: operating under the metaphor that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre when no fire was present would cause chaos and would harm people by way of stampede or property damage. This same concept extends to libel, in which the possibly baseless accusations of one party could permanently damage the reputation and maybe business ventures of the accused.
AGAINST:
On the other hand, the government should not have the right to censor what they deem worthy because for one, it is a violation of the First Amendment, and second, the right to control the media creates a centralization of power that very few can keep in check. Whoever controls the media controls the population, because the decisions that people make and the opinions they harbor are influenced by the history they learn from, and the news that they’re allowed to see. If the government is able to curate a specific worldview as opposed to allowing several contradicting ones to overlap, people aren’t allowed to form their own opinion. Rather, the government controls how the population thinks. I know that I sound like an anti-government conspiracy theorist, but at this moment in time, I have very little faith in the government to keep itself in check. Especially given some cautionary tales, like 1984 by George Orwell, we know that the power to censor whatever seems necessary becomes a slippery slope to the easy accumulation of more power.
CONCLUSION:
The debate concerning censorship—and whether or not governments should righteously employ this practice—has raged on since the dawn of civilization. No matter what human beings say, no matter what opinions they may harbour, their words are bound to upset someone. Whether or not the right to free speech should be abridged in certain circumstances has yet to garner an answer.
What do you think?