Conn 1

Yusif Conn
Vicki Stalbird
ENG 1201 N01
April 6 2015
Freedom of Censored Speech
Many citizens of the United States of America pride themselves with the abundant
freedom provided by their government. One might brag that the first amendment of the Bill of
Rights allows for unlimited, unrestricted, and uncensored speech. What many do not know is the
government of the United States does censor the speech of many, and has been doing so for
years. The United States censor several speeches to protect the peace and safety of its people. Is
this censorship too extreme? Is the government over precautious about the safety of its people?
Many debate on such topics and events unfold in the modern times to prove that there are
dangers and benefits to freedom of speech. The Government of the United States of America
should be moderate in the protection of its people and their speech because the United States has
promised freedom of speech to its citizens, the results of uncontrolled speech can lead to horrific
consequences, and with the advances of technology, it becomes easier for the government to
control what can be said, reducing independence.
Censorship can be a broad term and cover many specific areas of expressions. According
to the Funk and Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, censorship can be defined as, official
supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within
a society. The beginning of the definition is official supervision. (Censorship). This implies
that a party in authority is performing the action on the citizens or followers. This could mean a
government, religious order, or other institution that can control someone below them. In the

Conn 2
next part of the definition, it is said that the act is supervision and control. This means that the
party has a type of control over the actions of the other party, placing it in authority. The next
section says, of information and ideas, meaning that what is subject to supervision and control
by the authoritative party is information. Information could be written books and articles, and
ideas are told through free speech. The final part of the definition states that these ideas are
circulated among the people within a society. The whole definition can be seen to mean that a
group of authority, such as a government, is controlling a form of information or ideas, such as
free speech, and these ideas are from or to the people in a society, like citizens in America.
Censorship is not a new system invented by the United States, and has been seen for
thousands of years but countless societies. In 443 BCE the first formal office of censorship was
established in the Roman Empire (Aliprandini). The Roman Empire, along with many other
ancient governments, would censor speeches and other works seen as obscene, blasphemous, or
treasonous. The Romans believed that they were doing this to protect their youth from corruption
by corrupt ideas. Aside from governments, religious institutions also have had causes to censor
speech. Under the authority of the Catholic Church, many books, as well as their authors, were
burnt for their ideas. The Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt on a stake for speaking
ideas that went against Catholic principles. Over time, some areas of the world saw strict
censorship, others found relief from the oppression they faced. Originally, the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics imprisoned and executed many for their ideas against the government. Near
the end of their authority, however, they began giving those under them free speech. Similarly,
those under influence by the Catholic Church eventually saw relief. Pope Paul VI in 1966 ended
the Churchs ability to censor speech (Censorship).

Conn 3
The members and subjects of these institutions were
often displeased with the oppressive suppression dictated by
their authorities. Many sought freedom in new lands, such as
the United States of America. On December 15, 1791, perhaps
the most famous law known to Americans was enacted to the
Bill of Rights, the First Amendment (Rohde). The texts reads,
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

Fig. 1. The U.S. does not always

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

let the First Amendment be a

for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment). These

right, but instead a privilege

words drew crowds from all around the world to enjoy

(Whitley)

freedom. However, not all know exactly what is protected by

these words.
As stated by the Cornell University Law School, the First Amendment protects the right
to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. (First
Amendment). Many might see this as an unlimited freedom, but there are restrictions that have
been placed legally on the amendment. In 1798, only 7 years after the signing of the First
amendment, Congress signed the Sedition Act into law (Hull, 3). The act was developed by
Federalists to silence ideas of other political parties. While this is a clear and undisputable
violation of the First Amendment, it was allowed into American law. During World War I,
president Woodrow Wilson signed the (second) Sedition and Espionage Acts. The acts made it
legal for the government to censor treasonous speech from the mail, as well as silencing those

Conn 4
who spoke out against American ideas and images, such as the flag, the government, and the
military uniform (Hull, 3). While again in complete violation of the First Amendment, the
government of the United States allowed such acts to be signed into law. In 1971, there was
another question of whether or not the First Amendment was being violated by the government.
The New York Times released private papers obtained from a former employee at the Pentagon
(Censorship). These papers contained sensitive information on the war in Vietnam, and the
government requested an end to the publication of these files. This puts the freedom of the press,
a subsection of free speech, at risk. The Supreme Court agreed that suppression of the papers was
unconstitutional and in a 6-3 vote, the Court agreed to let the press be free.
Cases like these have been occurring since the creation of the Amendment at the birth of
the country. One might wonder why this is allowed, and what the intent of the government is.
History and political author Marry Hull describes the reason for these events by saying, There
has always been a tension between freedom of expression and the desire to protect society or
promote a cause. Despite an emphasis on freedom and individualism within the United States,
censors have continually triedwith some measure of successto prohibit types of behavior
and speech. (Hull, 3). If it is truly the intent of the government to protect the people and society
that it governs over, one might ask why abolitionist literature was banned in the South before the
civil war (Censorship In the United States). Questions that arise may include whether the
government claims to be protecting its society by not allowing for change. Is the government
abusing its power? The current guideline for speech subject to censorship is mainly those
considered a threat to national security. Unprotected speech usually falls into one of nine
categories. These categories are: obscenity, fighting language, defamation, child pornography,
perjury, blackmail, speech encouraging unlawful actions, threats, and criminal speech

Conn 5
(Frequently Asked Questions - Speech). Do these descriptions apply to all speeches censored
by the American government? Do all of these categories pose a threat to American security, or is
censorship a threat to American freedom?
Throughout recent history the issue of censorship for safety has become more relevant
and more dangerous. In a situation that began developing on November 24, 2014, many saw a
consequence of American free speech. Sony Pictures Entertainment was prepared to release a
film that contained insulting, and perhaps harmful, depictions of North Korean Supreme Leader
Kim Jon Un. North Korea responded with threats to enact a war with the United States if the film
were to be published. Would it have been right for the United States government to protect its
people by censoring the studios speech? Similarly, in early 2015, French Satire magazine
published offensive and insulting images of the Islamic religious figure, the Prophet Muhammad.
On January 7, 2015, extremist terrorists attacked the press, killing 12 people (Martinez). In this
instance, free speech hurt those speaking. Should the French government have stopped the
newspaper from publishing these harmful images? Should the United States learn from the
mistakes of other countries and protect its own people?
Despite these dangerous situations, many are firm that free speech should prevail. After
the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, American newspapers decided to prevent such terrible acts being
committed in their country and refused to show the offensive images created by the newspaper.
After this, Caroline Fourest, a former writer for Charlie Hebdo, expressed her feelings about free
speech (Hanchett). She said, we were just all so completely desperate actually, by the fact
that no American newspaper wanted to just show [a] cartoon so innocent. Here, a writer who
valued her free speech immensely describes that she does not think that their use of freedom
poses any danger that should be censored.

Conn 6
American citizens are also not deterred by these unfortunate events. Many of them form
organizations and interest groups in attempts to convince their government that they deserve a
censor-free society. The American Civil Liberties Union is one of these examples. The union
clearly states, Censorship by the government is unconstitutional because freedom of speech is
protected in the First Amendment, and is guaranteed to all Americans. (Censorship). On this
note, the organization says that all Americans must look out to prevent censorship. They say,
Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor you,
or something you like. To make a powerful and fearsome image of how the United States is
threatening its citizens with censorship, the union states, Censorship is like poison gas: a
powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts. The union here is describing how
American citizens are being affected unjustly by censorship. Using their free speech, they speak
out against this wrong, trying to win over citizens to join their cause.
Another issue appearing for free speech involves the advances of technology. Since the
creation of the internet, many have used websites as a safe haven from censorship to speak as
they please. However, the United States government has made efforts to control this venue of
freedom as well. In six months alone, the popular search engine and company Google reported
receiving requests from official American government agencies to remove 6,192 instances of free
speech from their search results, blog postings, and online video service (Sutter). Dorothy Chou,
a senior policy analyst working for Google, commented on these requests by saying, "It's
alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come
from countries you might not suspect -- Western democracies not typically associated with
censorship," Here, an employee for the company states that even though many do not associate
countries such as the United States with censorship, they do attempt to censor speech.

Conn 7
Aside from requests to remove questionable speech from the internet, laws and acts of
similar intents are constantly raised into question by the United States Congress. Many citizens
of America oppose these attempts to prevent their freedom. One of these organization is the
website American Censorship which dedicates itself to combat an act that threatens the First
Amendment (American Censorship Day November 16 Join the Fight to Stop SOPA). The
Stopping Online Piracy Act, a piece of legislature continuously in debate, is an act that threatens
the ability of anyone to say whatever they want whenever they want on the public internet. The
website claims, [Those who support the SOPA] their opponents say that this law is nothing
more but a wholesale total censorship with a
small piece of regulation. In other words it
will be able to regulate foreign users
behavior. This quote explains the ideas of
the website and those who support them.
They see it as a set of unnecessary rules for
the free Internet.
From the examples noted, it cannot
be stated with factual evidence that free speech is not an invaluable tool of the citizens of the
United States of America. At the same time, it cannot be stated with factual evidence that free
speech is not in numerous ways dangerous. When it comes to the decision, would the
government choose safety over freedom? Many argue this is contradictory to the principles of the
Constitution. The government of the United States is required to protect the safety and freedom
of its people. When danger is imminent, the government should provide protection to its citizens,
even from their own speech. However, when speech does not present a life-threatening harm, it

Conn 8
is the duty of the government to protect that speech. Too often in history the United States have
unnecessarily censored speech. From the factual evidence and opinions provided, it can be
concluded that the United States should be moderate in their censorship to the extent that they
protect they citizens, without preventing their freedom.

Fig. 3. Many want America to be their "Free

Speech Zone (Whose Speech and for Whom?)

Works Cited

Conn 9
Aliprandini, Michael, and Geraldine Wagner. "Censorship & Democracy: An Overview." Points
Of View: Censorship & Democracy. (2015): Web.
American Censorship Day November 16 Join the Fight to Stop SOPA." American Censorship.
Web. <http://americancensorship.org/>.
Censorship." Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. (2014): 1. Web.
Censorship In the United States." Infoplease. Infoplease, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/censorship-in-united-states.html>
Censorship." American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. <https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship>.
First Amendment." First Amendment. Cornell University Law School. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment>.
Frequently Aksed Questions - Speech." First Amendment Center. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-speech>.
Hanchett, Ian. "Former Charlie Hebdo Writer Says American Censorship 'Saddest News' as
MSNBC Blurs Cover - Breitbart." Breitbart. 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 11 Mar.
2015. <http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/13/former-charlie-hebdo-writer-saysamerican-censorship-saddest-news-as-msnbc-blurs-cover/>.
Hull, Mary. Censorship In America : A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1999.
Web.
Martinez, Michael. "Who Were Victims in Charlie Hebdo, Other Paris Attacks? - CNN.com."
CNN. Cable News Network, 11 Jan. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/10/world/france-paris-who-were-terror-victims/>.

Conn 10
Rohde, Stephen F. "First Amendment." Salem Press Encyclopedia. (2014): Web. First
Amendment by Stephen Rohde was an article posted in the Salem Press
Sutter, John. "Google Reports 'alarming' Rise in Government Censorship Requests CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 19 June 2012. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/web/google-transparency-report/>.
Whitley, David. Digital image. Eagle Rising. 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 1 April 2015.
Whose Speech and for Whom? Digital image. M-L-M Mayhem! 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 1 April
2015.