Recently there have been some scuffles with "censorship" and arguments about our first amendment. Even one of my favorite webcomics, xkcd, seems to have weighed in (no correctly, I might add).

First, let's get to brass tacks and define what censorship is: Wikipedia, that base for all things info, says:"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship."

Now that we know what censorship means (and that there are legal and illegal aspects to carrying it out), we move on to the right to free speech. For us Americans it's an important part of the Bill of Rights and how we define ourselves as citizens:

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.

This is the basis of free speech in the US, though there are limits such as crying fire in a crowded theater and so forth. This ideal has spread to even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One thing that should be noted is that this right to free speech is mainly focused on the government imposing rules, and not about other citizens inhibiting that right. Indeed, the xkcd cartoon and many peoples' reactions are based on this fact.

So let's go back to the events of the past few months or so. What to make of them? As a citizen of a nation which prides (or should, in any event) itself as a beacon of freedom of speech, this need to silence or make people 'go away' seems to be against the spirit of the law (again, I'm not saying anything about the legality of these reactions, merely that it takes away from the idea of what freedom of speech means or implies).

Take the xkcd cartoon, for example. On the surface it's correct. There is nothing legally wrong with people outside the government trying to silence others (in certain ways), or not wanting to listen to them. Indeed, many of the opinions that I heard were offensive to me, and I wouldn't care to listen too much to such opinions. But to go so far as to silence them? No. Even though I understand that a lot of the views being shouted down recently tend to be seen as coming from groups that have tried, through other means, to silence others. That shouldn't inform one's decisions.

The lens with which one needs to look at freedom of speech are the reasons that it works so well. It is about having a free and open discourse, an airing of ideas. This allows for a society to be able to not only vent, but to best decide how to move forward. What happens when someone spits out a view on life which you see to be horrendous? You point out why that view is either negative or no longer, given what society has decided, viable or fair etc. You don't close your ears or try to shout them out, or try to silence them. Even if that silencing is legal. And to maintain this atmosphere, we should all fight to maintain such an ability.

Now this needs some borders. Of course you don't engage the man on the corner yelling about the end of the world (I don't, and it would be hypocritical to say otherwise). If the person you try to engage is obviously not interested in a practical discussion, then you have a right to move on and not listen. What happens when a lot of people are that man on the corner, everywhere, causing you great distress? The first thing to examine would be why so many are spouting such odd things? I dare say the ability to vent is important and can help one point out the underlying reasons to mass-men-on-the-corner-saying-that-the-world-is-coming-to-an-end. I would not silence them.

When it comes to some of these recent stories, I find myself taking sides with people I don't agree with, or people who have done things I don't agree with (and most of these people will, economically speaking, be fine since they are very well off, almost making my stance seem pointless), because on principle, it is wrong to silence them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that silencing them does nothing to prove a point. Again, engage those ideas and show the world why they are wrong or use it as an opportunity to get to the underlying issues, which are usually more important. Don't silence them.

The best example that I've seen is the Sterling situation. But Coates has an excellent article on the matter. And as usual with race issues (or really any issue Coates writes about) Coates is correct. In many ways silencing people like Sterling and Bundy doesn't help the over all racial situation in our country, even though they may appear to be the perfect personifications for what's wrong in our nation/world. Indeed, these people who have been silenced recently—such as Rice who was prevented from speaking at a commencement—seem to be the epitome of power, and representations thereof. But what do we gain from silencing them on forums? Nothing. Perhaps their ignorance is allowed to go underground (as a meme) and live on. Better to shed light on it and engage it in a forum.

I also want to discuss the reason these outcries have been happening. I can't say I'm entirely against it: the democratic power of social media. It allows for people to get their thoughts out, and to help join forces. Indeed in many ways these latest outcries appear to be the powerless reaching out against the powerful, or entrenched powers. In these times it's not a wholly incorrect reaction. But to focus it on silencing ideas seems to be a wrong use. I would dare say that it ends up being an impotent use that doesn't get to the core frustrations that give rise to these actions.

And I think I should say that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for taking away people's rights (even when done legally). As citizens we are perfectly within our rights to boycott. But take note of the great MLK. Boycotts and other methods (to which social media would be perfectly suited) were used, but they were used to bring light to injustice and to then engage in a discussion of ideas. Silencing (even when it was used against them) was not the point.

Thoughts?

Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here. # How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history) # An article about Drone Warfare today. # An article about the fatwa on Rushdie