Adding to its list of offenses, censorship is downright unnatural. No one likes to be told, “You can’t say that.” Nor are consumers thrilled when corporations edit things for any reason. Being adults, we always prefer uncensored speech.
It’s a Hollywood movie—do you want the edited-for-television version or the one released in theaters?
It’s an international bestseller—do you buy a version censored for certain countries or the regular book?
It’s a political debate—do you watch the cut-down broadcast on TV or search YouTube for the live feed?
Censorship creates an intentional blind spot. It’s insulting, inefficient, and evidence of a nanny state run amok. So why is it flourishing in the USA?
Like a communicable disease eradicated from Western society, censorship was whispered about yet largely absent. We could speak, listen, and explore ideas in the United States. We were encouraged. It was our duty as citizens.
Now, like an outbreak of polio, censorship is back. It’s bigger than ever. Where did it come from?
Oh, from those guys, our political betters. “Limiting speech is regrettable,” our modern leaders explain with sad faces, “but it’s sometimes responsible and necessary. People should not be exposed to certain words or ideas.”
Libertarians and constitutionalists argue back. “Why shouldn’t people be exposed to ideas?”
The answer is apparently selfless. “Because they can harm the most powerless members of society.”
“What is the definition of harm? Who are the powerless?” The conversation ends. You are now a problem.
We remember being taught in grade school that certain countries were authoritarian. Censorship in North Korea? It was repression. The communists in China telling citizens what to think? It was wrong, dangerous, an abuse of power. As schoolchildren of the 1970s and ’80s, we were taught the West was superior.
“We live in a free society, after all.”
Technically accurate. Freedom of speech is enshrined in US law. Except we’ve observed the state of US law as of late. Immigration, criminal, and judicial laws have all been weakened by a lack of oversight and enforcement.
Some argue the US Constitution, our quasi-holy document, has become another historical dead letter: acknowledged in theory, ignored in practice.
Will the bulk of American freedoms remain without a robust First Amendment? Will the US government become just another banana republic? Censorship has become a major point of anxiety for US constitutionalists.
Our leaders tell us it’s an overblown concern, a conspiracy theory. Cultural elites limit speech only when absolutely necessary. Examples might include questioning a) a global pandemic, b) a US election, c) financial support for a foreign war, d) the state of the economy… Hmmm, it’s a lot of examples.
Did someone get sent to prison recently over a Twitter meme? In the United States?
Censorship might be a bigger problem than our elected officials acknowledge. Only, they’re not doing it, they tell us. It’s those social media executives. They’re allowed to curtail free speech. And yet, the explanation is a half-truth. The government has become big and bold enough to get its way when it chooses.
We know from the shocking Twitter Files investigation. The US Government was instrumental in censoring US citizens over political speech during the 2020 election. Now, there are reports the government is threatening to investigate media companies if they don’t adhere to its narrative on issues.
Classic censorship has seemingly come to the United States after 230+ years.
You can sense the government has a problem. “If people won’t comply with our wishes, what choice do we have?” In a constitutional republic, there’s one solution. The government can listen to people and change its policies.
Why don’t our representatives naturally fulfill this role? Why is there a constant struggle against the citizenry? Is it for a different reason than in North Korea or China? Or is it the same old authoritarian reason?
There’s a personality type that lives to control the situation. To do this, you have to control people. It might be a fringe benefit. To achieve your ends, you need to control absolutely everything. It’s not your fault. It’s part of the job.
An authoritarian wields censorship like a rock star wields an electric guitar. Censorship becomes the primary instrument for an effective rule.
Isn’t it inevitable? Weren’t the Founding Fathers of the United States authoritarian? They weren’t. They wrote the US Constitution to empower the individual and limit the government. Today’s authoritarian politicians interpret the Constitution in reverse.
Looking at evidence in the Western world, we are ruled by an obsessive class saddled with an authoritarian gene. Furthering the people’s interests is not possible for someone so afflicted. Authoritarians don’t collaborate.
We seem to have a generation of leaders who always know better and who make unilateral moves to benefit someone else. The taxpayer complains. It’s the taxpayer’s money. Only it doesn’t seem that way anymore.
Our leaders likely feel unappreciated and misunderstood. If only we fell in line with their grand designs. How will they overcome our uncooperation? How do our censorious leaders win? Censorship takes work. Stamping out undesirable speech takes time. People are always talking. They never shut up.
The best censorship would be to prevent speech in the first place. Enter the sensitivity reader.
It’s a true innovation in the censorship game. A sensitivity reader shows up before a message is published. If the sensitivity reader doesn’t like the message, it doesn’t pass. It’s canned. The writer can choose to change the message, to improve it. Then it goes. Either way, the wrong message is avoided.
What if the writer disagrees? It would be insensitive. A sensitivity reader is a cultural expert. Are you an expert? You are? Well, the sensitivity reader’s opinion is objective. Yours is compromised. You aren’t thinking as clearly.
The sensitivity reader may not be a writer, but it doesn’t matter. The sensitivity reader is an expert.
It’s the government minder you never knew you needed. The sensitivity reader’s goal is to keep your discourse on-point and conflict-free. Once all messages are government-approved, censorship will disappear again.
Sensitivity readers have been rolled out in book publishing for now. Authors in certain genres must meet approval before the book will be published. And yet, online writers aren’t being left out. Popular grammar programs will recommend friendly changes to improve your message for the new society.
These suggestions aren’t mandatory, they assure us. Not yet.
