One of the hallmarks of American values is the right to free speech. The right of the people to speak freely is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws that restrict speech. In many countries around the world, citizens can be persecuted for speaking out against the government. In order to maintain a democratic society that necessarily involves self-government by the people, it is essential to protect the right to free speech. Citizens must have the right to speak their minds and express differing ideas and viewpoints without fear of negative repercussions or adverse action taken against them for expressing these thoughts. But despite the importance of the right to free speech, there are exceptions when government censorship of speech is warranted.
One compelling argument why certain speech should be censored is to prevent imminent lawlessness or violence. Although speech that expresses ideas or viewpoints is protected speech and cannot be restricted, the government should be able to prohibit speech that is likely to result in violence. While censorship of fighting words should be interpreted narrowly so not as to curtail the expression of ideas and beliefs, censorship of fighting words is justified under certain circumstances. Gard (1980) advances three principle arguments for censoring fighting words. First, fighting words are not protected speech under the First Amendment because they are not essential to expressing ideas and viewpoints (Gard, 1980, p. 534). Second, fighting words are equivalent to verbal assaults and have the purpose of inflicting emotional distress on their intended target (Gard, 1980, p. 534). And third, any social utility that is derived from fighting words is outweighed by the mental injury or violence they cause (Gard, 1980, p. 534). Some speech may be so inflammatory that it will incite widespread lawlessness. Since the government have an obvious interest in maintaining public order and protecting public safety, censoring certain speech may be required to preserve the safety of the general public.
Another argument in favor of permitting the government to censor certain speech is to ensure the protection of children. Some kinds of speech, such as obscenity and child pornography, are inimical to children. The government interest in protecting children from such harmful forms of speech is compelling. Society has made a value-judgment that obscenity and child pornography, just to take a few examples, are harmful to children and are not protected speech.
With the advent of the Internet, obscene and explicit material is more readily available and easily accessible by all, including children. The proliferation of the Internet led to a resurrection of child pornography beginning in the 1990s (Lee, 1999, p. 644). Lee (1999) advances two compelling reasons why the government should have the power to completely censor and prohibit child pornography. First, there is a strong interest in preventing pedophiles from using child pornography to attract and entice other children to engage in sexual conduct (p. 653). Second, since child pornography obviously exploits underage children, there is the need to reduce the demand for child pornography and this can be accomplished by criminalizing those who are in private possession of it (Lee, 1999, p. 653). Thus, given the strong interest in protecting children from harmful materials, the government should be allowed to censor speech.
A final argument for censorship of speech is to prevent mass hysteria or public disturbance. While persons have the right to express ideas and viewpoints, this right is not absolute. For example, a person does not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. There are also legitimate concerns for public and personnel safety in censoring certain speech that incites mass hysteria. Lerman and Weaver (2014) point out that at least one court permitted prison officials to censor an article appearing in a publication because the contents of the article had the potential to “incite disobedience to prison personnel and possibly hysteria and violence” (p. 88). While the censorship took place in the prison setting, where there is a heightened concern for safety, the same rationale could also be applied to general publications that are read by the masses. Speech that is extremely inflammatory has the very real possibility of leading to riots and public hysteria. To prevent such chaos and disorder in society, the government should be allowed to censor speech that could incite frenzy or disturb the public order.
While the government cannot censor speech simply because the government disagrees with the particular message or viewpoint of the speech, under certain circumstances and conditions, censorship should be permitted. The purpose of free speech is to enable citizens to speak freely and openly about their thoughts and ideas. The purpose is not to enable citizens to incite lawlessness, to distribute obscene material, or to give rise to mass hysteria and public disturbances. If speech is reasonable likely to create crime or hinder public order, the government should be empowered to censor the speech. In the same vein, censorship is sometimes necessary to ensure that all persons have the opportunity to express their viewpoints. If certain speech is directed at making threats towards a particular speaker, this threatening speech should be censored.
References
Gard, S.W. (1980). Fighting words as free speech. Washington University Law Review
58(2): 531-581.
Lee, L.W. (1999). Child pornography prevention act of 1996: Confronting the challenges
of virtual reality. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 639-681.
Lerman, A.E. and Weaver, V.M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic
consequences of American crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
