Are you being censored?

Right now there is a lot of talk about censorship. And as usual when people talk about censorship, a lot of it is wrong.

Like socialism, “censorship” has a particular meaning in political science. It doesn’t mean that someone feels they can’t say something unpopular for fear of negative consequences (consider that in many contexts, holding your tongue to avoid trouble is simply called “being polite.”) Censorship refers specifically to government action to prevent the dissemination of certain information or ideas, typically information that threatens the government. Censorship can take many forms, including redacting documents, regulating media content, or jailing publishers. But for something to be censorship – and especially censorship that represents an unconstitutional violation of free speech — it has to be enforced, directly or indirectly, by the government.

Most people are against government censorship, and for good reason. You don’t want your government in the habit of restricting the flow of information, because information is what allows people to control their governments.

Government is more likely to act in the public interest when politicians know they can lose their job if they don’t. But citizens will have a hard time knowing who to act against if they don’t know what their politicians are doing in office; free information helps to solve that problem. In Brazil, for example, municipal leaders’ vote share went down when audits were released showing multiple irregularities in their use of funds; the effect was strongest in areas with local radio stations. In the US, scandals reduce legislators’ vote share and increase campaign scrambling, but only for scandals that attract national media coverage. Where media is censored, the government can avoid accountability and maximize their chance of holding onto power by banning the dissemination of damaging information.

Information is also one of the best ways to solve the collection action problem. Once citizens know that their politician isn’t performing to standard, they have to work together to remove him: one person voting or protesting isn’t going to do much. But getting enough people to show up at the same time requires communication. Governments know this, which is why the Chinese government uses its thousands of censors to remove, not criticism of the government, but information about events or meetings that might allow people to coordinate action against the government. Many repressive regimes entirely black out the media during elections, protests and other events during which the citizenry might organize; one explanation for the success of Arab Spring was that protestors were able to get information from satellite internet and television stations that were not under the control of repressive governments.

All this said, we don’t have meaningful censorship in the US. Our government does not (currently) throw people in jail or close down media outlets for their speech. In fact, our judicial system actively protects the right of citizens to speak against the government. Cease and desist orders from politicians are legally toothless. Standards for finding libel or defamation against elected officials are very hard to meet. Government employees, in most cases, can’t be fired for what they say off the clock. The government can impose what are called “time manner place restrictions”, which means that, as long you have other outlets for your speech and you aren’t being punished for what you are saying, the government can ban you from engaging in speech in certain ways…such as by texting while driving down the highway at 80 mph. This is also not censorship: you are free to criticize the government without punishment, as long you take the simple step of pulling off the road first.  

In short, if the consequences of your speech don’t come from government – no matter how unpleasant those consequences may be – they are not censorship. Afraid you’ll be fired from your retail job if you speak out against the company online? Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s also not censorship. People refusing to shop at your business because they don’t like the things you say on social media? That’s not censorship either. Newspaper didn’t publish your letter to the editor? Classmates ask you to stop using terms they find offensive? An author’s estate decides not to publish some of his books anymore? Nope, nope and DEFINITELY nope. None of those are censorship. And because the right to free speech protects you from government censorship, none of these consequences are violations of your right to free speech either.

Of course, if you want to persist in calling these things censorship, you can. The government certainly won’t stop you.