From a theoretical perspective, I am opposed to Free Speech. The very idea is absurd. Nothing in the world is free. Everything has a price that you pay. Furthermore, the idea of upholding the right of anyone to say anything at anytime is absurd. It is bizarre beyond fathoming. Where does this ridiculous idea come from? Some idealist version of Democracy or some unrealistic idea that everything works out in the long run if we only allow “truth” to finally poke its way though the deluge of lies and misinformation that permeates modern society.
From a pragmatic perspective, I am 100 percent in favor of Free Speech. It is one of those rare examples where the alternatives are even worse than the present bias towards Free Speech. If we started to arrest people for lying or because we did not like what they had to say, we would have to build more prisons than we have space for in the entire world. We already have rates of incarceration which are abominable. If we start locking up liberals who we disagree with or racists who we disagree with solely based on what they say, we might as well give up any discussion in the public space.
From an idealistic viewpoint, I am all in on Free Speech. We cannot start muzzling people and expect to find the information or thoughts that we need to make progress in the world. The best discussions come about from a wide range of viewpoints that are uncensored. Better to know the enemy than for the enemy to remain hidden. Only from a weltanschauung of perspectives can we tread our way to a reality that transcends mediocrity and complacency.
From a realistic perspective, I see many dangers in Free Speech. From inciting riots to allowing people to die because of distorted information and intentional malignancy, there is a great danger in allowing people to say what they want and when they want to. The “Big Lie” and many other marketing ploys from selling cigarettes to downplaying the health hazards of alcohol, have resulted in millions of deaths. Is Free Speech more important than human life?
There are several pathways to Free Speech that are important when we debate the pros and cons of Free Speech in American society. I would like to list each of these pathways and then make some comments about each.
- Free Speech in media, books, curriculums
- Free Speech on both the political right and the political left
- Free Speech in academia
- Free Speech in the public arena
- Free Speed on the Internet
Free Speech in media, books, curriculums
There could be no more blatant example of the hypocrisy concerning the 1st Amendment than regards books, media, and curriculums. Let’s diverge for just a second to review the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This “right” to Free Speech has not stopped Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott from restricting books in public schools, canceling curriculums and limiting the right of teachers to speak out on racism or sexism in history. Nor has it stopped the “rights” of others all over America from trying to censor the thoughts, facts and data that characterize much of US History.
- From July 2021 to June 2022, PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans lists 2,532 instances of individual books being banned, affecting 1,648 unique book titles.
- The 1,648 titles are by 1,261 different authors, 290 illustrators, and 18 translators, impacting the literary, scholarly, and creative work of 1,553 people altogether.
- Bans occurred in 138 school districts in 32 states. These districts represent 5,049 schools with a combined enrollment of nearly 4 million students. — Banned in the USA
But censorship did not start with DeSantis or Abbott. It has a very long history in America. This despite the First Amendment. About as many people seem to pay attention to the First Amendment today as they do to the Ten Commandments. Imagine for a second if everyone obeyed the Ten Commandments. No murders. No robberies. No adulteries. No rapes.
I remember growing up and wondering why so many scenes from movies seemed to me rather unrealistic. It took me a while to realize that many movies scenes were banned or censored in the USA. As far back as 1897, a statute of the State of Maine prohibited the exhibition of prizefight films. As the film industry developed, so did censorship as the government tried to control the content of what the public could see or hear.
“In the 1950s many books and genres were banned from the public. Educational literature was targeted specifically because many people wanted to stop the teaching of evolutionary theories due to religious reasons. Books, such as the Wizard of Oz and other fantasy books, were banned due to the fear that they would corrupt the minds of children and teens. For this reason comic books were also banned.” — Censorship in the 1950s
I still remember hiding my comic books under my textbooks when I was ten years old in the fifth grade at Mount St. Francis School. I loved comic books and every time I was caught reading one, I would get my knuckles whacked with a ruler. My assailant (teacher/Nun) would castigate me with the rejoinder that comic books would warp my brain and make me stupid. Sixty years later and I am still waiting for my brain to decay. It may already be happening, but I fear it is the result of old age rather than reading comic books. I finally stopped buying comics when they became too expensive. Easier to get them from the library today.
If we are talking about censorship of media, we should not leave out “pornographic” films and songs.
“Chicago enacted the first censorship ordinance in the United States in 1907, authorizing its police chief to screen all films to determine whether they should be permitted on screens. Detroit followed with its own ordinance the same year. When upheld in a court challenge in 1909, other cities followed and Pennsylvania became the first to enact statewide censorship of movies in 1911 (though it did not fund the effort until 1914). It was soon followed by Ohio (1914), Kansas (1915), Maryland (1916), New York (1921) and, finally, Virginia (1922). Eventually, at least one hundred cities across the nation empowered local censorship boards.” –— Wikipedia
Here are two more recent examples of “titillating sex” that would never have passed the censors in the fifties. The first is from a song called “Love to Love You Baby” by Donna Summers from the middle seventies. Time magazine called it “a marathon of 22 orgasms.” Many singers like Beyonce and Madonna have mimicked Donna Summers in more recent songs and videos. Can you imagine if Donna Summers had a video made today to go along with this song? You can see her perform it on stage in 1976 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upIstttL9ew
My movie example is from a PG movie, that means Parental Guidance. This is far from the R or X rating that movies could be given but the scenes or suggestions that can be slipped in demonstrate the imagination and creativity of movie producers. The film Twilight opened in 2008 as PG-13. It slipped in a suggested sex scene between the vampire Edward and his lover Bella. The scene is not overtly sexual as some more recent scenes might be, but it leaves little to the imagination.
Growing up with the censorship that has been imposed on films, books, songs, and other media in the USA, I am continually astounded by the hypocrisy that surrounds the First Amendment. It is one thing to label something to inform people that something might be offensive. It is quite another to outright ban things. Where does the First Amendment concerning these media begin and end? For that we need to look at the politics of censorship.
Since this blog is getting “too” long, I am going to self-censor and divide it into four more sections. In my next blog or section, I am going to cover the politics of censorship.
There is a war on sex by politicians. There has always been a war on sex by politicians. It is the longest running war in the history of the world. It is not a gender war but a political war. The goal of political warfare is to alter an opponent’s opinions and actions in favor of the state’s interests without utilizing military power. Such warfare has been waged by the state against sex since the dawn of humanity.
Tom Sandoval addressed the jaw-dropping drama that he and longtime girlfriend Ariana Madix called it quits over infidelity.
I am having one of those days; when the questions of life that I have never been able to answer just seem overwhelming. I once looked forward to the day that I would know almost everything or at least know a great deal more than I did. Sadly, that day has retreated further and further from my grasp. Each day that I live, I find more questions that I cannot answer. So today, I am listing some of these in the hopes that you (my reader) may have found some of the answers that have eluded me. Please feel free to answer any of these questions in the comments section or send me an email with your answer. Any solutions will be greatly appreciated. For those of you who have never read my blog before, I am a 76 year old White guy who lives in the USA. I love lobster, liquor, reading, music, travel and making it difficult for racists, xenophobes, Trumpers, and other bigots to dominate current narratives.
I started running in 1975 after being a very good bicyclist for many years. I ran in freezing rain, below zero wind-chills and blistering heat. I even went out one time and ran with a tornado coming through the neighborhood. Like the U.S. Mail, nothing could stop me. Over the years, I met many people who would tell me “I used to run but my knees went out and I had to give it up.” I had enough sense not to tell them what I was really thinking so I usually said nothing or just a “too bad.” What I was really thinking was “If you really wanted to you could still be running.” The latter comment would be an example of neg-empathy. My silence was an example of neutral empathy. I did not make any connection to the feelings that the other person had, nor did I much want to. I could not identify with them since I ran “no matter what.” I was better than they were.
Aging Capriciously 