The History of Censorship
Recent political debates about issues such as health care have highlighted the importance of freedom of expression. The vast majority of people in the United States agree that you should not be punished for expressing different views on such issues, and our Constitution reflects that belief. However, this was not always the case.
Other People Are Reading
-
Pre-Enlightenment Censorship
-
Before the Enlightenment, censorship was common. In ancient Greece and Rome, laws were crafted prohibiting the publication or utterance of certain forms of expression. The idea was to promote acceptable forms of morality and discourage vice. In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church made lists of prohibited books, and governments allied to the church enforced this prohibition through their laws.
Liberalism
-
The advent of liberalism in the late 18th century led to a change in the laws of Western nations. In the early and mid-18th century, the enlightenment gave birth to the philosophy of liberalism, which advocated the emancipation of each individual from almost all laws that were imposed on him without his consent. Inspired by these principles, France liberalized its speech laws after the French Revolution, and many other nations followed suit.
-
Obscenity
-
The United States Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that in spite of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, the government could restrict speech that is considered "obscene." In 1973, the court ruled in the case Miller v. California that government could restrict speech that was patently offensive to the local community, appealed to the "prurient interest" and lacked any redeeming social, literary, artistic or scientific value. If speech fell within this category, it would be deemed "obscene" and thus outside of the protection of the First Amendment.
Freedom of the Press
-
In the United States, freedom of the press is strongly guarded. Passed in 1789, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press." The government might impose penalties for defamatory content, but if the alleged defamation is about a public official or public figure, the press cannot be subject to a defamation penalty unless the plaintiff proves that the content was false and that the press knew it was false or was reckless in determining its truth.
Hate Speech
-
In recent years, an attempt has been made to censor so-called "hate speech." In RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether an ordinance banning symbols that were "likely to arouse anger, alarm or resentment on the basis of race, religion or gender" was constitutional. The Supreme Court struck down this ordinance on the grounds that it was an impermissible content and viewpoint regulation. However, the Supreme Court stated that so-called "fighting words" could be prohibited if they could provoke a reasonable person into imminent unlawful physical conduct as well as speech that carried a real threat with it. Furthermore, the court stated in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) that the government could impose harsher penalties for crimes motivated by race.
-
