Sensing Censorship

Censorship. The word strikes fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States indeed indicates that to censor is to be unAmerican.The revered First Amendment states, “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.”

The definition of censorship is, essentially, “to censor.” According to dictionary.com, “censor” is defined as:

–noun

1.	an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

2.	any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

3.	an adverse critic; faultfinder.

4.	(in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

5.	(in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.

–verb (used with object)

6.	to examine and act upon as a censor.

7.	to delete (a word or passage of text) in one’s capacity as a censor.

Censorship implies one of the most frightening abridgments of freedom – the removal of free thought. However, the question that must be determined is where the line between free thought and cruelty or disrespect blurs to such a degree that it can no longer be distinguished.

In looking at the definitions of “censor”, only one of the seven definitions discussed text and words. Censorship, in its most insidious incarnation, is the quashing of ideas and thoughts. This type of censorship creates a Borg-like mentality that stifles creativity and individualism. However, the censorship of ideas is not the same as the editing of language.

When ideas are expressed in a hateful or inappropriate manner, then these ideas are about something other than the individuals’ thoughts. These words are no longer about ideas but about emotions that may or may not be appropriate in a given forum.  To use language that maligns individuals or groups undermines the thoughts that the speaker or writer wishes to express.

Political pundits, and even the general public, seem to forget that freedom of expression does not mean freedom to spew cruelty, rudeness, and, in some cases, hatred. Politicians inflame people with this language as well. Neither side is innocent in this war of the words. However, while the thoughts may help the process, the words used to express them often hinder the process.

For example, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, recently said, in respect to AIG executives,”But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they’d follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology.” In addition, Robert Gibbs made the following statement at a White house press conference recently, “Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal,” Gibbs said, sarcastically linking Cheney to the conservative radio talk-show host.” Perhaps these statements were made to entertain or amuse. Perhaps they were made in all seriousness. The thoughts behind them are not necessarily incorrect or deserving of being edited. However, the words chosen detract from these ideas. The language of hatred – be it suggesting ritual suicide or implying a group of individuals were plotting against the government – undermines the legitimacy of both speakers’ points.

Watching the language a person uses is not censorship. Requesting that people argue their causes on merits instead of through the use of hyperbolic language is not censorship. Requiring a certain level of decorum in discussion is not censorship. These things are common sense. Censorship involves undermining thoughts. Civility in the expression of these thoughts and expecting said civility or regulating said civility is not censorship. Requiring that people treat those with differing opinions with respect is not censorship. These are the manners that parents have taught their children for years. These are the general rules of a civilized society.

This overblown use of language does nothing more than anger and incite. It is not productive. It does nothing to promote thought or encourage discussion of the ideas underlying the language. It creates division amongst beliefs. It creates derision between individuals. It harms society more than the freedom to share ideas helps society because it stimulates anger and hatred between differing ideologies. In a truly free society, individuals can express their opinions without fear of derision. In order to be free, people should not be asked to censor themselves but should have the common sense on their own to censor thewords they use in order to bring about productive debate.