Censorship

No, No, No

Censorship makes no sense.

• It is against the ideals of Freedom and Democracy.
• It penalizes smart and creative people.
• It chills innovation.
• It achieves nothing useful.
• It wastes resources.

Note

What Happens if Someone Sues You for Publishing Something They Don't Like?

In principle, nothing. An honest judge should immediately throw out the lawsuit, and hopefully reprimand the plaintiffs.

In practice however, you still run the risk of having to deal with an arch-conservative judge. Especially if you publish nudity or pornography. That is why Non-Trivial does not publish either. We play it safe. That is also why publishing companies like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, have to maintain unusually large legal staffs.

But if happens, and if you have enough resources, you can appeal. In principle, you can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to side with you, because they are the guardians of the US Constitution.

There are some exceptions, in which the freedom of speech is often limited:

• Copyright considerations
• National Security and trade secret
• Libel and slander
• Racism
• Sex

Copyright considerations make sense. Copyright does not restrict the freedom of people to come up with original ideas or original work. It just makes it illegal for someone else to copy them and exploit them commercially without permission. Copyright protection actually strengthens freedom of speech.

National security considerations probably have to do with making it illegal to publish the recipe for home-made nuclear bombs, or publishing the location of US nuclear submarines. Trade secret laws make it a crime for an employee of a high-tech company, to publish the blueprints of sensitive inventions. Those are reasonable restrictions.

Libel is harder to justify, but still makes sense. Libel laws make it possible for someone to sue you, when you say something inaccurate, which results in that person's reputation to suffer. My view is "let the marketplace sort out who is believable and who is not, and let people grow a thicker skin". But that is just a personal opinion. Libel is actually punishable by law.

Racism Racism itself is unconstitutional, and should not be tolerated. However, the distribution of racist ideas falls under free speech and is protected as well. This is a fine distinction, which is usually lost on many people. Personally, I don't care if racist speech is censored, since I do not support or enjoy racist speech. But as a matter of consistency and due process, I have to point out the difference, and I even feel like we should tolerate racist speech.

In countries like Sweden and Holland, who have constitutions similar to the one of the US, freedom of the press is believed to include nudity and pornography. Both countries are quite peaceful; their people are courteous, well behaved and quite productive. There is no indication that either nudity or pornography significantly corrupts national morals.

In the US however, there is a lot of confusion. While nudity (e.g. Playboy and Penthouse magazines) is grudgingly tolerated in most places, pornography is usually not (pornography is not prohibited by the Constitution or by federal law, but by state and local laws). There seems to be an undying effort by some, to criminalize anything that may have anything remotely to do with sex. Two arguments are most often used:

• the protection of minors
• the protection of adults who may not want to be exposed to things of a sexual nature

"Protection" of Minors and Adults

Personally, I am not totally convinced of how or why nudity would corrupt young people, but the perception is deep-rooted. I am willing to accept the argument for the sake of tranquillity. Unfortunately, the issue runs much deeper. The (rational or irrational) urge to protect minors, is routinely abused by some, as an argument to keep nudity and pornography out of the hands of adults.

How about the right of adults NOT to be exposed to things they don't want to see? That is not a Constitutional right. I could not find it anywhere.

Article 29 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually more restrictive in some ways than the Constitution of the United States of America. It provides for limitation of free speech by law, but "solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society".

The US constitution says "Congress shall pass no law...". Therefore, the Constitution only applies to federal legislation. States and communities are free to enforce any standard of censorship they want (which does not necessarily mean that it would make sense to do so).

However, when it comes to matters of interstate commerce, federal law applies. That is clearly the case of the Internet, since it is the interstate (and international) medium by excellence. Federal law (passed by Congress) is subject to the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution does not provide for ANY exceptions to the protection of freedom of speech and the press. It is absolute. It does not mean that no restrictions can be imposed at all. It does mean that restrictions can only be imposed in order to avoid that the Constitution would contradict itself.

In practice, that seems to imply to me, that the only Constitutionally allowed exceptions must have to do with safeguarding the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of others (e.g. freedom of religion).

That is a rigorous standard, and it should be up to the lawmakers to provide rigorous, irrefutable, scientific proof that a particular freedom of speech would violate some other Constitutionally guaranteed freedom, before it can be limited in any way by law.

From the wording of the Constitution, free speech and freedom of religion are treated in very similar ways. Both are actually guaranteed in the same sentence.

I don't want to be cynical, but there are dangers with religion as well. Actually, the Constitution does prohibit the imposition of a certain religion (" no law respecting an establishment of religion ").

Religion can be abused, and religion can be militant (i.e. a threat to public order). Religion can negatively influence the morals of young people, who do not always have the maturity to make their own personal choices. It is my own belief that minors should be introduced to religion in a very careful way. I have seen young people making irrational life choices under the pressure of religion.

Yet, I see no practical evidence that minors are protected in any way from religious propaganda. That concerns me, because I have kids, and I don't want them to become zealots.