Censorship And Civil Rights In America

Censorship has existed in America since its creation, and has been an issue
intertwined with the Government since then. Today, censorship still proves itself to
be a major issue being considered by federal and state governments alike in their
attempts to: pass laws, define terms such as obscenity, and protect the nation's
security in this highly technological and media frenzied world. Censorship is defined
as '' the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive,"'' (ACLU 'What Is
Censorship'?) Censorship covers a very large range of mediums: literary works, art
works, music, films, and many more, including the most by far debated of our current
time, the internet. Many people have been lead to believe that censorship occurs
only by government, but in reality private pressure groups also can cause
censorship. For instance, the American Library Association collects a list of books
that have been challenged for their content and informs schools and libraries on
them, so that the libraries and schools know about censorship efforts towards these
literary works. Then the decision is up to the school or library as to whether or not to
ban them. Even though it is the decision of the school or library to ban books, often
times the influence of the ALA will determine whether books are banned, this is
because the ALA is a highly respected association. With powerful influences on their
side.
In America, our Bill of Rights protects us from censorship by the government to some
extent. The First Amendment guarantees the protection of freedom of expression,
more specifically, the protection against prior restraint'better known as censorship.
The protection against prior restraint was created and outlined in the Near V.
Minnesota case in which Jay Near's newspaper: The Saturday Press, had been
silenced by the Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, on the accusation that in publishing
political scandals, and calling politicians derogatory names, the newspaper had been
out of line, and aimed at causing defamation to targeted politicians. The Supreme
Court had ruled, deciding that prior restraint was unconstitutional, because it defied
the rights of freedom of speech and expression, but then added that anyone could be
punished after publication for violating someone's rights or a law. Prior restraint is
fully allowed in the newspaper of schools, in the best interest of the impressionable
young readers. The only time the government is allowed to use prior restraint is in
the interest of national security, this could be protecting classified war information
from being leaked, to stopping classified security-compromising documents from
being published.
When the government has to consider censoring a published work, two principles
come into play. The first is content neutrality, which states that expression cannot
be limited for the reason that it offends anyone, be them minority or majority. The
second is that ''expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and
imminent harm to an important social interest.' (ACLU 'What Is Censorship?) An
example of speech that would be censorable would be yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded
place and causing a panic, as this will clearly cause direct harm to the wellbeing and
interest of the people.These two principles, and the ruling against prior restraint,
protect our right to freely express and publish our opinions without fear of
censorship.
In all mediums, one of the most frequently petitioned things to be censored in the
past as well as now is: sexual content. Often times, the decision to ban, or not ban
specific sexual content is a shade of murky gray in a world of black and white. This
is because sexual content can only be repressed if it is 'obscene', and the definition
of what is considered obscenity is very vague at best. The vague definition was
quick to become a problem as more things displaying sexual content were petitioned
for censorship based on moralities that supposedly lingered from our puritan
heritage. This brought the Supreme Court to define what constitutionally
unprotected obscenity was in the case of Miller Vs. California. To be considered
constitutionally unprotected, obscenity had three requirements: to appeal to a
person's shameful interest in sex, to show sexual conduct in a patently offensive
way, and it had to be lacking in literary, political, artistic or scientific importance.
(ACLU 'What Is Censorship'?) This definition helped to clear the sea of confusion
surrounding censorship of sexual content, as well as showing that indecent
expression did in fact have some protection under the constitution.
The major censorship topic of today is internet and electronic censorship, in which
freedom of speech and expression online is debated. In Reno V. ACLU the Supreme
Court declared the internet to be a zone of free expression and speech, which was
deserving of first amendment protection. The question is: how far is too far with
what can be seen on the internet? Much of the debate surrounding what can or
cannot be censored on the internet has to do with topics such as: what will protect
children from things inappropriate to them, what will protect national security and
files, and what will protect corporations from having their creations pirated. A few
bills have been drafted up in an attempt to create resolutions to these topics, but
each one was found to be causing illegal censorship in some form or another. These
bills did not pass, and the issues have gone unresolved, causing a drive to draft a bill
that would adress these issues without restricting the rights of others.

The first of these proposed bills that caused mass controversy due to censorship of
the internet was the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which was the only bill of
its kind to be actually brought into effect. It was brought into effect in 1998 as a
compromise to the Communications Decency Act which did not pass, because it had
covered such a broad spectrum. The COPA had been narrowed down, but still
contained the effort to regulate internet pornography. The idea was that COPA would
simply limit commercial speech by requiring distributors of material harmful to
minors to restrict access to their site by minors. (ACLU 'Internet Censorship') The
problem was in the definition of what was harmful to minors: material harmful to
minors was defined as judged by community standards and the prurient interest, and
showing nudity or sexual conduct. This definition was so broad that it covered many
things, making it nearly impossible to narrow down anything that wasn't harmful to
minors. The COPA was stopped in 2009 when it was ruled that it was
unconstitutional to censor the internet in such a way as to reduce adults to seeing
only that which is fit for a child.
Another case that caused mass controversy more recently over censorship is the
Wikileaks contraversie. In 2008, Wikileaks, a website that allowed people to post
secret files and documents anonymously, was shut down for disseminating records,
and this site was completely prevented from continuing to publish its documents.
This immediate shut down of the website, violated the prior restraint protection, as
the website had been completely prevented from publishing its works and
documents, and the basis on which it had been shut down was without due process.
This case caused massive controversy in the media and government, and eventually
Wikileaks sued and won the case, and it still operates and posts today. This is a
great case example of the beginning of the battle against unlawful censorship on the
internet, because as it was pointed out, had it been print that had been shut down as
wikileaks had, an injunction would've immediately followed, unlike the delayed
reaction to the illegal censorship that Wikileaks received.
Current challenges involving internet censorship and protecting freedom of
expression and speech on the internet now have been the Stop Online Piracy Act
(SOPA), and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). SOPA was created with the intention to
prevent online piracy, protecting against copyright infringement by giving the
government and certain corporations the power to shut down any website that could
possibly be accused of copyright infringement, without a trial. The problem with
SOPA was that it would shut down hundreds of public sharing websites, like Tumblr
and Facebook, in which user sharing of material infringing copyright is managed to
the best of the site's ability. People worried that this power would lead to huge
quantities of miss-use as a censorship bill, because copyright infringement is able to
be staged, as well as found, everywhere we look. SOPA would cause the revoking of
first amendment rights. PIPA was created in an effort to make a system to remove
websites the Justice Department rules to be 'dedicated to infringing activities,' eg.
The Website PiratesBay. The act was created to aid producers and owners of
material who were losing profit to piracy. The big problem with the bill was that it
would require your internet provider to block any and all websites that are involved
in digital file sharing, as well as preventing search engines from displaying them.
This is blatant censorship that defies the terms set for what should be censored,
because it completely takes away your right to access it censoring these sites, and
stops their functions all together without legitimate grounds for censorship. These
possible bills caused the internet and media to go wild, causing much anger and
disappointment. Both bills lead to actual protest movements online called The Great
Blackout, in which sites went completely black for a week to show what the effect
of the two bills would be. I believe Markus 'Notch' Persson the creator of Minecraft
had put it best in saying: 'No sane person can be for SOPA, I don't know if we're
sane, but we are strongly, uncompromisingly against SOPA, and any similar laws.
Sacrificing freedom of speech for the benefit of corporate profit is abominable and
disgusting.' Neither bill passed, but, today we still struggle with other forms of these
two big bills that contain the common goal to protect and profit corporations, while
containing the common flaw of sacrificing freedom of speech and exspression.
Censorship has been an issue in our country since it was originally created. This
issue has adapted to fit many forms, from print, to art, then broadcast and television
to finally the internet, all while maintain the effect of limiting a person or companies
civil liberties, specifically freedom of speech and expression, in exchange for
another gain. The farther we advance forward, the more contradiction to any form of
censorship we see, and the less civil liberties are sacrificed or taken. The older this
issue gets however, the trickier it becomes, as we begin to spot it in bills and laws
that aren't specifically related to it, and the more we realize that censorship is
around us, threatening to take our civil rights. Censorship will always be a major civil
liberties issue, no matter what form it takes or where it's found, it will continue to
pose a threat to our rights, and it will continue to be the government and the
people's job to ensure that it never does over step its boundaries. In my opinion, the
protection and existence of our civil rights is vastly more important than anything
else, and that is why censorship should be fought tooth-and-nail, to ensure that our
ever-important civil rights are never infringed upon, or taken away.