When Should Speech be Censored?

[Politesse]

Not openly with words.... But I suspect an armed mob outside your doorstep might have a similar effect.

Well, there are no "armed mobs" involved anyway, but if there were, the problem would be mob violence. Not censorship, which is by definition a question of institutional violence. If the question is whether mob violence should be tolerated, then the title of this thread should be "When should mob violence be tolerated?", rather than "When should speech be censored?"

 

[UpperLimits]

Well, there are no "armed mobs" involved anyway, but if there were, the problem would be mob violence. Not censorship, which is by definition a question of institutional violence. If the question is whether mob violence should be tolerated, then the title of this thread should be "When should mob violence be tolerated?", rather than "When should speech be censored?"

Zoom! The point went right over your head.

I'm not arguing whether mob action is legal or illegal. Of course it's wrong. Irrespective of who's doing it. The point was that people are very often bullied into silence, and thereby censored, by various degrees of threat and coercion.

 

[Politesse]

Zoom! The point went right over your head.

I'm not arguing whether mob action is legal or illegal. Of course it's wrong. Irrespective of who's doing it. The point was that people are very often bullied into silence, and thereby censored, by various degrees of threat and coercion.

Yes. But if it's illegal, that isn't censorship. Censorship is the suppression of speech by the state. This isn't a semantic quibble, it's an incredibly important issue in a world where censorship is a real and incredibly dangerous phenomenon.

 

[UpperLimits]

Yes. But if it's illegal, that isn't censorship. Censorship is the suppression of speech by the state. This isn't a semantic quibble, it's an incredibly important issue in a world where censorship is a real and incredibly dangerous phenomenon.

So if it's the state that bullies you, then that makes it right??? More than just the state is capable of censorship. If I were to physically confront you and threaten to do harm if you said another word about "Whatever." (If you saw me in person you'd probably break out in laughter, but let's just assume for now that I had the capacity....)

Then, "Yes," the intimidation would be illegal. But the effect on your actions would be to silence you on the subject -
through fear - even if only temporarily.

That was an example of censorship by intimidation. Other examples may include universities threatening to expel students if they engage in certain discussions. Or, employers threatening staff that they may be fired if they say certain things about the company.

Censorship is the suppression of speech by anybody that has more power than you (individually, or collectively) - and it's not necessarily just the state. It's based on fear and consequences: speak up, use only certain words, fail to use certain words, etc, and you pay the consequences. Governments can throw you in jail. Religious groups can excommunicate you. Vigilante groups can intimidate you. Groups of like minded individuals can coerce and manipulate you. The list goes on. Censorship is the suppression of the free communication of ideas.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The new Minister of Social Harmony appointed to look after it.

Good old George Orwell would understand, I think.

 

[Stevicus]

When it becomes threats and harassment, or "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater", all of which go well beyond merely expressing an idea/belief/opinion or dispensing information.

Instead of shielding and sheltering people from ignorant ideas, beliefs, opinions, etc. they should be countered with open debate and education. That way people will understand precisely why they're erroneous.

Although I will point out also that stupid acts, such as "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" do tend to have their own consequences.

Regarding the idea of "yelling fire in a crowded theater," I found a couple of articles:

For one thing, the actual quote is in regard to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. If there really is a fire, then informing everyone of that fact would be the right thing to do.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

“Shouting fire in a crowded theater”

But of course shouting fire in a crowded theater is often constitutionally protected. For instance, if there is a fire, shouting fire may be good. (It may sometimes not be good, if more people die in the panic than would have died from the fire if one had spoken more calmly — but even then, I’m pretty sure that it would be constitutionally protected.)

And in fact the line from Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States is “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” That “falsely” is what’s doing the work, both in Justice Holmes’s hypothetical, and in how such a false shout would be treated by First Amendment law today. Knowingly false statements of fact are often constitutionally unprotected — consider, for instance, libel, fraud, perjury, and false light invasion of privacy. That would presumably apply to knowing falsehoods that cause a panic. (Even given bit complicated by the Stolen Valor Act case, such knowing falsehoods that are likely to cause tangible and immediate harm are likely to be punishable, as the concurrence suggests.)

If the statement is not knowingly false, though, the analogy breaks down.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Speech should never be censored. However, it should be punished if it is deemed a criminal act by rational standards. With freedom always comes a commensurate level of responsibility.

 

[Father Heathen]

For one thing, the actual quote is in regard to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. If there really is a fire, then informing everyone of that fact would be the right thing to do.

Well no ****. Using deceit to cause panic was the example I meant.