Censorship in American Culture
... that in order to prevent wrong from prevailing, censorship must be practiced with fervor. In his essay “Censorship Can Be Beneficial,” Thomas Stork says, “Now if we can identify certain evils and if advocacy of those evils seems likely to encourage people to commit them, then why should we not take the next and logical step and prohibit such advocacy… Must the authorities be helpless to restrain the source of the evil?” (20) This statement is a logical one, for one of the American government’s greatest concerns is protecting its citizens from violent acts. Citizens of the United States want not only to be protected from violence, but they also want to keep material out of the hands of those in the American public who would not be able to handle the ideas and themes presented in such material. Who could possibly argue that small children have the maturity to view pornographic material or be exposed to extreme violence on television? Indeed, exposing young children to “entertainment” of this sort would be detrimental to their development. And, as one lawyer reports, many believe that pornography is harmful to adults as well. The moral values endorsed by pornographic magazines, photographs, and videos are often considered offensive. Therefore, pornography has been met by an ethical firing squad that continues to fight to censor magazines such as Hustler and Playboy (Smolla 3-4). The ethical issues that are protested in many of the works that the public desires to have censored are at the forefront of the debate regarding First Amendment rights, guaranteeing that the debate over the concept of censorship will not die down any time soon. Ethics, however, is not the issue addressed in the First Amendment. The Constitution is not concerned with Americans’ moral behavior, but rather with ensuring equal rights for all. As the document itself says, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise… or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (ACLU, “Free Speech: American Civil Liberties Union Freedom Network” 1). Therefore, neither the government nor individuals have the constitutional right to censor another person’s work. People value their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Citizens want to be able to practice this right to any extent that they so desire. The view of forbidding censorship supports this right by declaring that any speech, even if hateful or prejudicial, is allowable, regardless of popularity. This view also allows there to be no exceptions to the right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, it allows Americans to be able to express how they feel without having to worry about “political correctness”. Regardless of a person’s ideas on an issue, he or she has the guaranteed right to express these thoughts vocally without fear of retaliation. Even more than having a freedom from this fear, anti-censorship allows citizens free thought. Censorship can greatly cripple beliefs, and furthermore it prohibits many from expressing their views. As Jonathan Rauch says in the article “Censorship is Harmful”, “In universities and on Capitol Hill, in workplaces and newsrooms, authorities are declaring that there is no place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Christian-bashing, and other forms of prejudice in public debate or even in private thought”(27). Although prejudice is agreed to be wrong by an overwhelming majority, the risks that are taken by censoring such beliefs are tremendous. In limiting certain types of speech, the government becomes inconsistent, unreliable, and unpredictable. Furthermore, government officials replace the constitution, and with each progressive act of censorship, more limitations on free speech are placed upon the American public. Obviously, putting more limitations on Americans would no...