Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Censorship by the state
Section A. Philosophy/political theory

This topic will rarely be set as bluntly as a straightforward question of whether there should be any censorship or not, but rather reflects an underlying theme in numerous debates, about when and where the state should intervene in speech acts. It is important to adapt the arguments below to context; censorship of pornography, for instance, is quite a different question from whether racist political parties should be censored. However, the overarching theme is an age-old one, dating back at least to Plato, and remains very important.

Pros

[1] Freedom of speech is never an absolute right but an aspiration. It ceases to be a right when it causes harm to something we all recognise the value of; for example, legislating against incitement to racial hatred. Therefore, it is not the case that censorship is wrong in principle.

[2] Certain types of literature or visual image have been conclusively linked to crime. Excessive sex and violence in film and television have been shown (especially in studies in the USA) to contribute to a tendency towards similar behaviour in spectators. There is a direct causal link between such images and physical harm.

[3] Censorship acts to preserve free speech, but puts it on a level playing field. Those who argue for unregulated speech miss the point that it is not only state imposition that can silence minorities, but also their social denigration by racists, sexists, homophobes or other bigots. So it may be necessary, for instance, to outlaw racial epithets in order to ensure that black people are treated fairly in the public space and so have a chance to express their views.

[4] By censoring speech, we are able to stop new recruits being drawn over to the ’dark side’ of racist or discriminatory groups. While it may ’drive them underground’, that is where we want them; in that way, they are unable to get new followers, so their pernicious views cannot spread. This may entrench the views of some, but they were unlikely to be convinced anyway, so outright bans are a better approach.

Cons

[1] Censorship is wrong in principle. However violently we may disagree with a person’s point of view or mode of expression, they must be free to express themselves in a free and civilised society. Antiincitement laws can be distinguished on the grounds that the causal connection between speech and physical harm is so close, whereas in most censorship it is far more distant.

[2] In fact, the link between sex and violence on screen and in real life is far from conclusive. To say that those who watch violent films are more likely to commit crime does not establish the causal role of the films; it is equally likely that those who opt to watch such material already have such tendencies, which are manifested both in their choice of viewing and their behaviour. Moreover, such censorship might actually worsen their real-world behaviour, as they no longer have any release in the form of fantasy.

[3] The state simply cannot be trusted with the power to control what people can say, because it is itself often discriminatory towards minorities. If we give the state the power to, for instance, regulate the press, it might well misuse this to prohibit minorities from speaking out against the ways they have been abused by the government.

[4] Censorship such as legislation against incitement to racial hatred drives racists and others underground and thus entrenches and ghettoises that section of the community, rather than drawing its members into open and rational debate. This makes it harder to challenge their views, and thus to convince wavering members of such groups that their leaders are wrong.

Possible motions

This House believes that censorship has no place in a free society.

This House would allow anyone to say anything at any time.

This House believes that free speech is an absolute right.

Related topics

Protective legislation v. individual freedom

Pornography

Extremist political parties, banning of

Press, state regulation of the

Privacy of public figures