This is the world in 2021: “Censorship is bad in a free nation and society.” “On the other hand, certain things said in public are harmful and even dangerous to society.” “On the other other hand, government should have no control over free speech particularly press freedom.” “On the other other other hand, we cannot let the private sector—especially social media—control and influence public discussion.”
The last decade and social media’s rise, led by Facebook and Twitter, had seen a historically unprecedented “capability of expression” by the average citizen. In the United States, the first daily newspaper, the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser, began publication on September 21, 1784.
With newspapers came “Letters to the Editor,” and by the mid-18th century, these were a dominant part of political and social discourse. Any average citizen had the opportunity to express his or her views on any topic of interest. However, the “editor” had the final word—or censorship—on which letters from the public were published.
But from Facebook’s founding in 2004 and Twitter in 2006, there was, theoretically, no longer an “editor” to act as gatekeeper from the individual to the public.
The need for—or fight against—censorship has always been a part of the public discussion. In 399 BC, Socrates was accused of corruption of Athenian youth and sentenced to death. Plato advocated censorship in his essay The Republic. Greek playwright Euripides defended the right to speak freely.
But the reality is that the censorship of certain speech has always been used by those with the power to censor to “protect the public” from “bad” thoughts. Just ask Socrates. And what is “bad” speech?
In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart described his threshold test for obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Nothing has changed. Today there are countless “thought-leaders” that know what you should be allowed to say (and read) in public and what thoughts should be censored. They are much smarter than the average citizen and know absolutely what is best for society.
The problem is that things get a little twisted. Much of the world now runs on the “Do As I Say Not As I Do” model, including “environmentalists” with private jets and politicians who send their children to private schools.
“In 2016, look at how social media was weaponized in the Philippines. Duterte won a landslide victory in 2016 partly due to social media, weaponized tech platforms against critics and the media.” If that is true, then this would seem to be a welcome and praise-worthy event. “Uganda bans social media ahead of election. The social media shutdown in Uganda comes two days before the country’s presidential election. Users in the East African country said that they were unable to access Facebook and Twitter.”
Except the platform that was concerned how social media was “weaponized” failed to carry the story about the Uganda shutdown. Why was that story “censored”?
But we are not being “fair.” The Uganda government shut down social media because the election opposition was effectively using it to rally its supporters.
We must decide. George Orwell: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Ray Bradbury: “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.”