Freedom of Speech vs government censorship?

Question

I'd like some opinions of the right of a government to censor information, and the freedom of speech for citizens. Plus, what do you think of Google and Yahoo agreeing to censor?

Answer 1

As a threshold matter, 1st Amendment only applies to government action.

So, Google and Yahoo, or any private company, are only generally limited by their terms of service. In other words, because they are private forums, and because you have agreed to their terms through the use of their forums, they can do pretty much anything they want. Especially for free services. It's entirely up to their customer base to get them to change their policies, which are usually based on business (rather than liberty) concerns.

As far as as government action, the laws are pretty straight forward. The government may not censor speech in advance, called a "prior restraint' unless four conditions are met. First, the government must be asserting a compelling national interest/goal. Second, the government may only block the least amount of speech necessary to achieve their goal, and the restriction must be narrowly tailored so that it is not over or under-inclusive.Third, the speech must be such that it would cause an immediate and certain threat of imminent harm to human life. Fourth, the government cannot pick and choose within the category, allowing some viewpoints but banning others.

These are the rules for Strict Scrutiny, familiar to any 2L ConLaw student, plus the added requirement for prior restraints on publication from the Pentagon Papers case. As a legal matter, very few prior restraints ever get upheld, and they are usually limited to things like publishing troop deployments, or showing pictures that identify undercover law enforcement officers. Situations where the information is going to get someone killed as soon as it becomes known.

From a moral and ethical standpoint, I'd expect journalist to follow rules that are slightly broader. They should try to avoid actions that would cause, not just death or serious bodily injury, but also significant financial loss or that are just plain mean-spirited. But those are self-imposed ethical constraints, and we're talking censorship -- externally imposed constraints.

From a policy perspective, the government should be doing everything in its power to avoid the need to censor people. They should encourage free expression, as one of the cornerstones of our constitutional society. Sadly, that doesn't always happen.

The recent cases, where the NYT has published harmful or unwanted information about the government, shows the legal versus social dichotomy well. Everything they published is protected by the 1st Amendment, because it does not meet the test established by the Supreme Court as being necessary for censorship. The administration knows this, which is why they haven't pressed charges. Just complained loudly.

And that's all to the good. The government has every right to say that it prefers its shameful acts not to be made public. And the press has every right to inform the public of the government's shameful acts. That's why the media is sometimes called the fourth branch of government. It acts as an additional check-and-balance on government action, showing the public what's going on with our leaders.

And that's exactly the type of information we should have, in a democratic republic where the elected officials are answerable to their constitutions. For without that information, the government runs unchecked, and that is not what the Founders intended.

Answer 2

Government censorship serves the public good when it's used to prevent panic or riot. Also, in times of conflict censorships plays a strategic role in achieving various goals. However, our government should not abuse these powers and stretch them further than is required. Ultimately, I believe people should have the freedom to say anything on their mind (to a degree).

Google and Yahoo's agreement to censor was probably forced upon them do to growing government pressure. I don't know how that will turn out, but i'm sure time will tell. Hopefully people speak up if they are truly discontent with the new censorship.

Answer 3

Freedom of speech is the best. I have seen stuff I wish was never published but that doesn't give me or the government the right to censor. Google or Yahoo own the service so yes they have the right to censor. I think we have to see the bad to appreciate the good. I cannot tell you what you should think is beautiful or what is ugly all I can tell you is my opinion.

Answer 4

The government has a right and a duty to censor some speech, especially threatening, provocative speech that results in criminal acts. But it should always err on the side of not restricting speech.

As for information, the release of the CIA leaked information on our secret national security programs to detect and find terrorists through signal intelligence, finance information, etc, must be considered criminal, if not treasonous. Especially if its only intent was to undermine the war effort, which these were.

The government also can limit the freedom of speech of those people who have access to classified information - they are prohibited from revealing it. That, too, is its duty and right.

However, campaign finance laws, especially the McCain-Feingold one, have effectively stolen some of our rights to free speech. And it has been effective in increasing the victory rates for incumbents - what I suspect was its primary goal.

As for Google & Yahoo!, they are private companies that can restrict whatever speech they care to on communications using its resources. They are under no limitations or restrictions.

Answer 5

I think that there is no such thing as totally free speech. So they will always be able to censor some info. That said, this administrations is censoring FAR more than I am comfortable with.

Yahoo and Google have shown that money is more important to them than anything else, no 2 ways about it. The Yahoo guys apparently were quoted as saying something like "We will not be evil". I guess they don't care any more.

Answer 6

I believe that there should be SOME restrictions to our freedoms. There are too many people who consider soliciting pornographic material to children- a freedom, peeing in a jar- art, profanity and evil suggestions in song- expression and at the same time belittles the government that gives them such freedoms.

On a visit to England I came upon a park with a platformed area were people could come and voice their opinions about anything that they wanted other people to hear. Anything. Of course, open forums as such, are not something that I've never heard of. What was impressive to me was that anyone who had issues with the government and it's policies could voice their opinions, objections and resolutions as long as it was done respectfully. If at any time they showed disrespect for their government, policies or the Queen - they could be jailed. Good policy, I thought.

Again, I would like to see our freedoms with some restrictions. Allowing some people (not all) the right to do and say anything they choose in the name of freedoms, is like raising a young child without discipline, direction or values - it just doesn't make good sense.

Just a view - respectfully.

Answer 7

I think that any information that will give tips and or help to people trying to kill American citizens or soldiers should be censored. I would hope that the press would have the decency to do it, so that laws would not have to be overly strict, but they apparently do not in their search for the Pulitzer. I believe in free speech unless you have given an oath not to say something and I believe that anonymous sources should be regarded as suspect and printed as such.

Coragryph: Great response. How do you feel about the governments ability to prosecute after publication? A question being thrown around now regarding the banking/nsa articles in the NYT. After all, they cannot stop them from printing, but they can prosecute for leaking classified information once its done.

Answer 8

It depends upon the laws of the individual country.

In the US we have the 1st Amendment which prohibits the government from preventing free speech. Any government act to limit the expression of US citizens is Unconstitutional and would be overturned by an honest Supreme Court.

Answer 9

The government should only be allowed to censor a form of speech if that form of speech is blatantly promoting or directing an illegal activity, or if it is attempting to directly forment treason against the republic. If we forsake the blessings of liberty, the very purpose for which the Founders built this nation, then the terrorists might as well blow us all to hell and put us out of our misery.

Answer 10

People use their right of freedom to speech out of context. First, people must understand it in it's correct context, and then I feel it's the only way to run a government.