Censorship derives from the Latin title Censor, which refers to a type of ancient Roman magistrate who was simultaneously in charge of taking censuses and improving public morals. This was in turn derived from the word censere meaning “to appraise.”

Censorship has taken on many separate meanings over the years. Because it is such a politically charged word, political groups often use it as a pejorative towards their opponents, regardless of the label’s accuracy.

The most common definition of censorship is: “The use of force to prevent the creation, expression, and dissemination of information which the force user deems undesirable.” Since the government attempts to hold a monopoly on the use of offensive force in its jurisdiction, the government is usually the agent doing the censoring.

To put this in concrete terms, this means that if you create, express, or disseminate information the government deems undesirable, it will send police officers with guns to your door to arrest you and put you in jail. If you try to defend yourself, you will be injured or killed by the police.

The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically forbids this type of censorship by the government. In the 1973 case Miller v. California the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not prohibit the use of coercion against types of expression called “obscenity.”

The word “censorship” is also used in other contexts. One example of this is “self-censorship.” This term is sometimes used in a manner cogent with the common definition of censorship, such as when a movie studio polices its output out of fear of the government. However, it can also be used to refer to when someone suppresses their own expression for a milder reason, such as fear of embarrassment and ridicule.

One common controversy is whether the threatening to withhold money from a person who creates or disseminates offensive content is censorship. If the government threatens to withhold funds from an artist who creates offensive paintings, or a library that refuses to filter their computers, is it censorship? People who believe it is not point out that the government will not send police with guns to arrest the artist or librarians, it will simply stop giving them money. People who believe this is censorship argue that many organizations are dependent on government money and that refusing to fund them will have the same ultimate results as coercive censorship. Regardless of whether it is censorship or not, current legal precedent holds that the First Amendment does not prohibit it.

The word censorship is also used by some economists as a term for government price controls and regulations. Their justification is that since prices have been shown to be a decentralized manner of communicating information about supply and demand, controlling them has similar effects to censorship, especially since it is accomplished by threat of force. There have been times in Americans history, such as the Lochner era, when(1890-1937) when price controls were prohibited, but generally other justifications than the first Amendment were used. Current legal precedent does not prohibit them.

The philosophy behind censorship is called “memetic frailty” (this is derived from the Latin word meme, meaning idea). This is the belief that people are not competent to assimilate certain types of information without being corrupted into anti-social behavior by it. Because of this, it is necessary for the elite to control information. Under this philosophy, the best way to stop evil ideas from spreading is the use of force against those who create and disseminate them. This has been the dominant philosophy around the world for most of human history.

The philosophy opposing censorship is often called “memetic maturity.” This belief argues that people are competent to absorb and evaluate information without necessarily being corrupted. Even if they aren’t, the elite are just as frail and corruptible as everyone else. Under this philosophy, the best way to stop evil ideas from spreading is to counter them with good ideas. Proponents of memetic maturity also often make the utilitarian argument that free spread of ideas helps societies advance.

In most of the Western world, memetic maturity has recently become the dominant philosophy. Memetic frailty is so unpopular that it is usually political suicide to advocate it.

However, there is one area where memetic frailty still has political credibility. This is the exposure of children to information. While it is usually considered unpopular and elitist to censor information from adults, censorship that is intended towards children is often politically credible, or even popular. Most of the censorship libraries face today comes with the goal of “protecting” children. Proponents of this censorship argue that children are more easily corrupted by bad information than adults. Opponents argue that there is little scientific evidence for this, or that observing censorship in action causes children to develop authoritarian personalities that will do far more harm than whatever corruption the censored material would cause.

Another major censorship controversy is the definition of “bad” information. For example, some would argue that media promoting homosexual lifestyles are a negative influence on society and should be censored, while others would argue that they are a positive influence that should be promoted.

The philosophy behind librarianship has evolved considerably over the years, and interestingly parallels society’s transition from the memetic frailty to memetic maturity. Libraries in the modern West began as storehouses of books with librarians as gatekeepers who protected their collections from the public. This can be viewed as a variant of memetic frailty, the public need the elite (librarians) to control their access to information.

In the nineteenth century the movement began to convert librarianship into a public service profession. Librarians were now seen as having the goal of helping the public gain access to information, rather than restricting it. This can be viewed as a belief in memetic maturity, it was no longer the librarian’s job to protect and guide the public, it was merely their job to help them obtain information in a nonjudgmental fashion. It is not unworthy of note that as these changes were taking place Western society was undergoing a quantum leap in the expansion of civil liberties.

Hence the modern philosophy of librarianship is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of censorship, as one the first is an embodiment of belief in memetic maturity, while the second is an embodiment of belief in memetic frailty. This is why modern libraries and the Library Bill of Rights have such a strong anti-censorship streak in them.

Discussion Questions:

  • 1. Do you believe withholding funds someone needs to create or spread information is censorship in the same way that using force to suppress information is?

a. If you answered “yes” consider this question: If a man stops you on the street and asks for you to donate one dollar to help him complete a sculpture glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, are you censoring him if you say no?

b. If you answered “no” consider this question: If a religious fundamentalist group in a town runs a successful campaign to defund a public library that carries books on safe-sex, are they censoring it?

  • 2. The Supreme Court has ruled in Miller v. California that the First Amendment does not protect obscene material. Do you agree with them? If you do, what specific passage of the First Amendment is the one you believe can be interpreted to justify censoring obscenity?
  • 3. If there is conclusive, scientific or historical evidence that exposure to violent or pornographic entertainment material causes people to behave in a violent, misogynistic, or otherwise negative manner, do you believe censoring them is justified?

a. If you answered “yes,” consider this question: There is indisputable historical evidence that people motivated by religious fundamentalism have committed numerous acts of murder, tyranny, and genocide. Since these are obviously negative acts, do you support censorship of the Bible, Quran, and other religious texts?

b. If you answered “no,” consider this question: Would you consider the speech of someone actively trying to talk someone into committing a crime to be protected?

  • 4.  As other posts on this blog have indicated, privacy is considered an important value by many people. Privacy issues are very controversial in modern society. Since the concept of privacy hinges on being able to restrict people’s access to information about yourself, could privacy be considered a form of censorship?

Bibliography:

Censorship. (2002).

Brin, D. (1998). The Transparent Society: Perseus Books.

Greer, Roger, Robert Grover, and Susan Fowler. (2007). Introduction to the Library and Information Science Professions: Libraries Unlimited.

Heins, M. (2001). Not In Front of the Children: Hill and Wang.

Sowell, T. (1980). Knowledge and Decisions: Basic Books.