When Americans think about censorship, the first things they think about are likely to be the American Library Association’s list of most banned books, pornography in print or on the Internet, and the First Amendment that gives citizens the right to free speech. Americans who are for censorship rarely see themselves as advocates of censorship, but as protectors of children who could be harmed by things they see or read. Americans who are against censorship often cite the First Amendment of the Constitution as the top reason why censorship is legally unenforceable. Many people agree that censorship is harmful, but the scope of its harm goes far beyond banned books and America’s borders. In this era of globalization and the Internet, censorship poses a threat not only to the First Amendment and the ability of people to educate themselves in America, but also the development and growth of other nations that currently censor Internet content to its citizens.
In America, the first threat that censorship poses is to the rights of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. While states, counties, municipalities, and local governments hold many rights to make specific laws that they believe serve the best interest of their communities, free speech is a federally guaranteed national right. For example, when publically funded local libraries and schools try to ban a book or block web sites based on the idea that a subject is not supported by a community, this decision is likely to be challenged by local people in concert with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) because it violates the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to this, because certain types of media like pornographic magazines and websites are restricted to people aged 18 or 21 and above, or falsely shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre is considered to be a clear and present danger to people. However, despite these limits and states’ or local communities’ rights to make laws based on the best interest of their citizens, this does not mean the majority has the right to suppress the speech of minorities. A good example of this is religion. For example, in Salem, Missouri, a library tried to classify “information pertaining to the Wicca Church, Native American spirituality and astrology as ‘occult’ or ‘criminal’” (Brinkerhoff and Wallechinsky). If people wanted to look at those websites, they were reported to the local authorities. Although private citizens are allowed to restrict access and censor things, such as parents deciding that an R-rated movie is inappropriate for their preteen children to view, it is unlawful and harmful for public institutions to do so. A community that blocks access in its libraries to Native American or pagan religions could soon decide to limit access to information that agrees with only the majority religion of the town, and to fine, prosecute, and jail those who attempt to access or disseminate other information. This is why the federal First Amendment exists, to protect all American citizens from this kind of injustice.
This example of a library in Salem, Missouri trying to prohibit information about certain religions from being accessed connects directly with the issue of people being able to educate themselves in America. While people may learn the basics of math, language, geography, art, and a multitude of other subjects in schools, libraries, the Internet, and other sources provide additional information that provides further education for American citizens. While most public schools provide a good education for students, students may have interests and passions that drive them to seek more information on a particular subject. The students’ passions and interests could be anything from marine biology to evolutionary theories. Additionally, people who are no longer in school may have a need for information that they cannot find at home. Various newspapers, Internet access, books, and journals with information about almost any imaginable subject can be found in almost any library. Keeping information access open to all individuals in a nation is an important part of keeping all citizens educated and informed about the world around them. If a nation allows censorship, it runs the risk of becoming peopled with ignorant citizens unable to make sound voting decisions or to represent fellow citizens in national votes if elected to that position.
The example of allowing citizens access to uncensored information leads directly to the issue of global development and growth for nations that currently censor what information their citizens can view. According to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Countries that continue to censor the Internet face long-term economic and social costs, with oppression leading to civil unrest and not security” (Gross). In the past, it was easier for countries such as China or those in the Middle East to censor information when that information was primarily broadcast via local television, radio, and newspapers. However, as the Internet has developed within the past two decades, it is much more difficult for these nations to censor content in spite of their best attempts to do so. Increasingly technically savvy citizens share methods of how to get around government censorship by using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), proxy websites, or changing DNS services. Basically, the downside of censorship for nations that do so is that today’s citizens have a multitude of ways to get around that censorship and are going to find out through global news about information and injustices occurring in their nation and around the world. Attempts at censorship in areas such as Egypt and Tunisia that failed resulted in the beginnings of the revolutions of the Arab Spring (Gross). In other words, the attempt to censor led not to growth and development for these nations as a whole, but stalled it and led to revolution and unrest.
Censorship is not the problem of one nation alone, such as America. It is a global issue, and one that has been brought to the forefront by the international use of the Internet. However, the battle against the harmful effects is one that will continue, even in America where free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the constitution. It can be imagined how much more difficult it is for citizens in nations where free speech and access to information is not lawful. People may not always agree with available information, but fighting against censorship and allowing the free flow of information promotes national and global human rights and peace.
Works Cited
Brinkerhoff, Noel and Wallechinsky, David. Missouri Library Blocks Access to Websites about Wicca, Native American Religion. AllGov, 5 Jan. 2012. Web.
Gross, Grant. Clinton Says Internet Censorship Harmful to Governments. PCWorld (15 Feb. 2011). Web.
