Censorship Revisited

I take any conversation revolving whether to censor any form of communication very seriously. By definition, a free society is one where people are free to communicate without restriction. The fewer the barriers the more open the society and more free are the people living within that society. In the United States, we pride ourselves on being such a society. Regardless of how inappropriate or offensive an act of communication might be, our government allows folks to express themselves. "Freedom of speech!" one is quick to shout should any attempt be made to curtail their expressions. Such a reality defines the U.S.

Of course, another reality is that the U.S. is not a totally open society. While the constitution under which our government functions allows for free speech, the government charged with carrying out our laws has set certain restrictions. Acts of communication that threaten the welfare or safety of others, that restrict access or movement, or that compromise national security are not allowed, for instance. At various times, Presidents have imposed censorship upon the citizenry. Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War, directed the censorship of telegrams and, later, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt even went as far as to establish a U.S. Office of Censorship.

Currently, we live in a time when perhaps the defining tool of communication - social media - is being used more and more as a means to spread falsehoods, hurt people and, ultimately, conduct war. Over the past few years, the terrorist group ISIS has made strong use of social media to recruit members and boast of it actions. Even more recently, we have learned the Russian government used social media to help sway the 2016 presidential election. Is some form of censorship needed now? Should the government once again consider taking steps to censor or curtail such negative acts of communication? While such questions may cause many, myself included, to squirm in their seats, they are at least worthy of discussion.