Running Head: THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

The Ethics of Free Speech & Censorship

By Andy Caldwell
Salt Lake Community College
Philosophy 1120 Ethics & Moral Problems

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

Abstract
This paper looks at the current issues associated with free speech in the U.S. today. It compares
and contrasts various differing moral philosophers moral and ethical writings to current areas of
American life that are censured, and where there is talk of censorship. Well look at censorship
issues in U.S. politics, and the effects they have on everyday Americans. This paper will look at
problems with censorship on the University campus and in the schools. It examines the effects of
censorship in the workplace. Numerous questions are asked, and answered on censorship; hate
speech is also defined. The philosophical question of what a potential true censorship/comfort
society would look like is addressed. I conclude with offering my opinion to the answer and
solution to the problems of censorship and speech in America.

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

It has been understood that when it comes to issues of free speech in the U.S. that
Americans are currently freer to think and speak as we choose than any other society in the
history of human civilization. Free speech is no trivial phenomenon. The benefits of free speech
enable us to transmit and translate ideas from one individual to another. Free expression of ideas
allows the formation of concepts into reality. This linguistic freedom alone has provided man
with un-quantifiable prosperity. Freedom, taking the sound ideas, with the fallacious, has
provided the technological advancements to mankind that only a short time ago would not have
been conceivable. With that being said, there are still many major spheres of American life
where we as Americans have partially forfeited freedom, and other areas, in fact, of incalculable
importance where freedoms have totally been surrendered. We should take profound observation
of these particular areas in which freedoms have been lost, while being extremely concerned that
no more of our rights are seized.
The consequences of censorship on liberty can be devastating. We have surely all
witnessed the influence of censorship in todays society whether we realize it or not. We see
censorship in the media, in public, in the schools and Universities, in the workplace, and to an
extent, maybe, even in our own homes. We see time, and time again, some of the age old
questions resurfacing back up for discussion. What are the inherent dangers of censorship? Can
censorship and a free society simultaneously co-exist with one another? Is truly unrestricted free
speech even at all possible? Should there be equality in speech? And also, what is hate speech?
In researching these issues I was surprised with some of the opinions and conclusions I
had originally held on the subject of free speech. I thought my mind was already made.
Researching the differing moral philosophers helped to solidify my views, and in some cases to
make adjustments to my reasoning on issues of free speech. I was surprised at some of the

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

various philosophers views on speech in relation to their other writings, and their sentiments on
morality, and I think you may be too.
The Two Sides
The major issue currently facing America associated with first amendment rights, is
clearly defined, as whether there should be an equality of speech in politics. This is an ethical as
well as a political issue. We currently see many on the side of the Democratic Party claiming that
each person should have an equal voice. This translates to, those of a lower of financial status
having the same options to voice their opinions as those of a higher financial status. This
disparity between classes, we are told, rears its ugly head in the form of disproportionate
campaign finance, and also political advertising. The issue mainly encompasses all political
speech and fundraising. Its been said that the government alone cant create the wealth
necessary to provide every individual with an equal political voice, as adverting and finance can
be expensive. A central authority cant practically provide the financial means for every citizen
to buy equal political advertisements on the major television networks, on the internet, or in
print. Most rational persons would agree that wouldnt even be a reasonable option. In turn, the
government can legislate, regulate, and limit those individuals that do have the financial
resources to participate in campaign finance.
All of this talk of limiting and regulating financial contributions isnt the only ancillary of
this subject. Dialogue of regulating content is also being thrown around. Just recently 49 U.S.
Senators voted to amend the Bill of Rights the Bill of Rights! Making changes to the First
Amendment has been unprecedented throughout the history of the U.S. This should be an issue
of serious importance that should weigh heavily on all of our minds. These changes made to our
rights would equate to the suppression of anything that the government deemed inappropriate

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

within the domain of politics. Political speech could potentially not be spoken, written, typed,
distributed, posted, etc. If you wanted to visualize what these regulations would actually look
like, it would not be difficult at all.
This censorship could be a limit on any political cartoon that could be seen as offensive
or disruptive. It could suppress talk of anything that could potentially embarrass the U.S. among
other foreign countries. This modification to the Bill of Rights could limit what you could say
and write in your emails. What you could send and receive through the physical mail. It could
restrict what books you could buy, or even confiscate literature currently residing in your own
home. It would be able to censor what you view on television, listen to on the radio, what you
could post or view on the internet, or even the content of the movies you go to see. This new
amendment to the Bill of Rights would lead to a set of regulations that would open the floodgates
for the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Elections Commission to monitor
all of these forms and mediums of communication.
What would our society become after political speech was excessively regulated and
prohibited? What would the new American way of life look like after all of this? If we wanted a
more in depth analysis of what censorship will eventually evolve into, if we stay on our current
course, all we must do is look historically to the disastrous reminders of what total state control
looked like in nations such as Communist Russia, East Germany, Nazi Germany, or Imperialist
Japan. In all of these societies if you spoke or published anything the state did not approve of, the
secret police would be sent to your door in the middle of the night. You then faced the risk of
being thrown into a prison camp or executed. All of these societies are principle examples of the
inherent danger that corresponds with the extreme totality of what censorship can propagate into.
This is a path we here in the U.S. should wish to avoid.

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

In the U.S. we currently do have existing political censorship laws. As mentioned before,
the U.S. has the FEC, or the Federal Election Commission that is tasked with enforcing
censorship laws. One of the major pieces of campaign finance legislation, titled, The McCain
Feingold Act, which was passed in 2002, limits campaign donations while also including specific
requirements and prohibitions on advertising. Though, later in 2010 parts of this law that
included prohibiting corporate donations were ruled unconstitutional, and thus repealed by the
Supreme Court. This law was alleged to be a good idea at the time because certain individuals on
right were concerned about foreign countries like China secretly donating money to candidates
through front organizations, and resulting in the influence American elections. Those on the left
that voted for the set of laws, obviously, wanted a more equal distribution in regard to political
donations and advertising.
The danger of these types of censorship laws, and other laws like them, are that they
actually end up hurting the average everyday American they are designed to protect. If there was,
for example, a candidate that was running for political office that you personally supported, or
you yourself wanted to run for local, state, or federal office, or, you wanted to contribute to a
campaign, or wanted to know how much your could legally accept for your own political
campaign, then it would follow that you would have to read a 700 plus page rulebook on the
McCain Feingold campaign finance laws before you would even want to think about making or
accepting a political contribution. Without consuming the terse legal writing, you wouldnt have
a clue on how much you could legally accept, or give another person. The amount in some cases
you could give is only in the thousands, and donating one penny over, you then could expect to
face possible criminal charges. The average everyday person most likely doesnt even know that

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

these laws are in existence. This could create for them somewhat of a dilemma if they wanted to
participate in politics, and would ultimately end up being problematic.
Another malevolent danger to this approach of censorship would be, if say, I wanted to
do advertising for myself, or for my candidate, within a specific timeframe of an upcoming
election by printing and distributing flyers, or advertising a campaign on social media, or getting
my message out by calling all my friends on the telephone, and I went over the specific limits or
threshold on these mediums of advertisement, I would then also run the risk of heavy fines and
imprisonment. If of course, the government indiscriminately decided to go after me.
What these political censorship laws do is make it extremely difficult for the average
everyday American to run for political office, with these laws you would have to be well versed
in interpreting legal definitions yourself, or you would have to pay for expensive legal counsel.
These censorship laws do exactly the opposite of their proposed original intent. They almost
automatically take candidates of lower financial status out of being able to participate in the
political process altogether. The laws make it only possible for candidates to run who have the
financial means, whether they are Democrat or Republican. It is my hope that you are beginning
to see that these regulations are not clear, and can be extremely dangerous to our liberties and
freedoms.
I know as if it sounds as I am exclusively singling out the left on censorship, but McCain,
Feingold, and the Democrats are not the only ones that want to regulate speech in America. The
religious right also has strong inklings toward censorship. Those individuals on the right
advocating censorship believe they have a moral responsibility to regulate obscenity. In other
words, they wish to ban anything that the Bible deems as immoral. If select conservative groups
had their way we could say farewell to what they would consider depictions of violence in the

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

media, foul language, partial or full nudity, pornography, some music, some science and
philosophy, and anything deemed as Satanic.
Another expanse of life that neoconservatives and also some on the left want to censure,
is in the area of public safety. There have been titles published such as Hitman, Ragnars Urban
Survival, and The Anarchists Cookbook that are essentially how to manuals on creating
improvised explosives to effect revolution, or the best practices on how to murder human life.
Should these books be banned? Correspondingly, there are also how to websites on this subject
matter, video games, apps, television programming, and many other media forms explaining how
to execute and get away with committing atrocities. Should all of these mediums be restricted? If
one person commits an act of violence or terror after viewing such material, would the logical
next step be eradicating everyones right to view identical material?
Not surprisingly, and also philosophically, these above questions seem to originate from a
Kantian deontological set of ethical and moral principles. Everything in Immanuel Kants whole
codified integrated moral philosophical system is based off a sense duty to an organized whole,
or the unimpaired betterment of humankind. If there were materials or media available that could
potentially endanger others, it would then be a collective and governmental moral duty to
suppress or censor said material. As Kant says in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics,
All false art, all vain wisdom, lasts its time but finally destroys itself, and its highest culture is
also the epoch of its decay. (Kant, 1997) Some Kantians may argue that Kant was for freedom
of ideas, speech, or the press. Duty and the moral law, however, come first, as logically derived
from Kants overall moral philosophy. Immanuel Kant believed that mankind is only free
nomenally, and not phenomanlly, which means that man is free to think and reason as he will,

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

but in the physical world he is in slavery. A good example of this view is written in Kants An
Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? Which follows:

For this enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the
most harmless among all the things to which this term can properly be applied. It
is the freedom to make public use of ones reason at every point. But I hear on all
sides, Do not argue! The Officer says: Do not argue but drill! The tax
collector: Do not argue but pay! The cleric: Do not argue but believe! Only
one prince in the world says, Argue as much as you will, and about what you
will, but obey! Everywhere there is restriction on freedom. (Kant, 2009)

This interpreted, means that man can only have a limited expression of his views, and moral
obligation comes before all other action, first and foremost. To reiterate, man is limited in what
he can view, write, read, and publish. The true freedom is in what he can think, not in what he
can transmit - as thoughts can be dangerous. Most contemporary and modern philosophers
wouldnt consider Kants view of freedom to be freedom as such, as there is no true free
exchange of ideas. And if we are only free inside of our own minds, then thats not really
freedom at all. Freedom is freedom of mind, physicality, and action. In all fairness Kant did
believe that humans do have the ability to receive information apriori, or, we can receive
revelation innately from a supernatural dimension. Apriori reasoning could have been what
Kant might have considered to be an adequate substitute, or alternative, to the free press.
The opposing view to a Kantian mindset, or world view, would be that if these materials
were banned it wouldnt stop people from owning and viewing them. Criminals wouldnt legally

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

10

hand illegal material over. We would witness organized crime and black markets sprout up
distributing the outlawed contraband. As we have observed with other substances rendered
illegal. Law observing citizens would be, in effect, the only ones to turn them over. Legal
citizens wouldnt however, be the ones committing the heinous acts anyway. Legitimately,
lawful citizens may want to read or view the controversial materials for educational purposes,
which would be derived from a standpoint of self-defense. If the government eroded into tyranny
any more so than it already has, the populace should have the option to effect forceful revolution.
If that situation ever were to arise, banned materials may provide a sense of direction, or as a
type of guidebook in case of such emergency. As far as the depiction and distribution of
pornography and violent materials are concerned though, others should not be involuntarily
exposed to that type of content outside of their will. This means that those materials could not be
displayed in public, but in private those forms would be, of course, perfectly acceptable.
Kant would most likely respond to this contrary libertarian view on censorship by
reiterating his own view, that it is only our intent that matters, and not the practical results or
consequences of our actions. I would say that we should judge morality on intention, action,
results, and consequences. Evaluating ethics on intention alone has, and would, end up being
disastrous.
The University
The University and college campus in the U.S. is one of the most censored and restricted
places in our present day society. The prevailing doctrine of these institutions is that safety is the
first requirement to provide an atmosphere conducive to higher education. Each student must feel
secure on campus, and in class, as a precondition to attaining knowledge at these institutions.
This would sound perfectly reasonable to most any rational person taking the previous sentence

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

11

at face value. There are however, other prior requirements that must be implemented for
perfectly safe conditions to exist. One of these prior conditions would be that of comfort. To
create a system of comfort, one must eliminate all sources of discomfort, and potential
discomfort. These actions by educators are observable on most major college campuses today.
These actions made on campuses will also lead us to the next point
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was mutilated as a child, and later coerced into a forced a marriage. She
escaped the horrors of her Islamic upbringing in Somalia, and later fled an abusive forced
marriage. She then immigrated to the Netherlands. Ali is an outspoken advocate of womens
rights, and also identifies herself as an atheist. She makes a living writing books about her
experiences growing up within an Islamic totalitarian society, and also by conducting speaking
tours at various college campuses. Recently she was banned by protesters from speaking at
Brandies University, and she has caused a great deal of controversy among multiple student
groups at Yale University for later addressing the Yale student body on the horrors of Islam.
Bill Maher is an outspoken critic of Islam, more specifically, religion in general. He is
scheduled to give the graduation commencement speech during a December 2014 graduation
ceremony at the University of California Berkeley. A group of students have protested him
giving the commencement address on campus for what they consider inflammatory comments
directed towards Islam. The students have tried to bar him from giving the speech by filing a
complaint with the Berkeley administration. He made the comments toward Islam on his HBO
politics program, Real Time with Bill Maher, and also through various other media sources.
Ann Coulter is a right wing political commentator, and also has also made remarks
critical of Islam and Islamic culture. Some have found her to be offensive. Coulter was originally
scheduled to deliver a speech at the University of Ottawa dealing with topics of censorship and

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

12

free speech. The provost cautioned Coulter, before her scheduled appearance, that if she made
any statements that were found offensive she could face possible prosecution in Canada. Ann
Coulter cancelled her speaking engagement at the school after she had experienced heavy protest
by the student body, and the last straw being, threatened by the schools administration.
The common theme in all three of these cases is speech being restricted. All someone
must do is voice an unpopular opinion and make a group on campus uncomfortable. Once said
group is uncomfortable, it then follows, that the students are unsafe. Once students are unsafe,
the exchange of ideas and free-thinking cannot transpire.
All of these rhetoricians and orators were, and are, not forcing their audience to attend
their speeches. One speaker, Bill Maher, was not even speaking on a controversial subject, just
delivering a non-controversial commencement speech. Students were just unhappy with Bill
Mahers previously voiced opinions on the subject of Islam. Thereby, on those previous
statements alone, in the students reasoning, he should then be automatically barred from
speaking on their campus.
This is a dangerous path the Universities and colleges are on. The original intent of the
University system was to provide a location for adults to engage in the free exchange of ideas.
The hope was that if enough conflicting viewpoints were ran against one another that the truth,
or better reasoning, would eventually prevail. Obviously, this cannot happen if one side, or
unpopular opinion is suppressed. You can only safely have one viewpoint thats it.
I would respond by asking, whose responsibility is it to provide comfort anyway? Is it
even a reasonable expectation to think that the schools can make sure every student is
comfortable and safe at all times? Protected from any challenging idea? I would say that the
responsibility of comfort is all on the individual. Unless of course, there is some type of major

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

13

violation of rights occurring that requires the authorities to intervene. This environment of
comfort is a violation of rights in and of itself, if it is suppressing free speech. There is a major
contradiction occurring. It is ok to speak up for womens rights, unless of course, those rights are
being violated by a religion. Then it is insensitive to speak out about injustice. This whole
arrangement reeks of hypocrisy. The texts we read and cite in school are often in conflict with
the free speech codes on campus. John Stuart Mill, in his most famous work, On Liberty, wrote:

I choose, by preference the cases which are least [favourable] to me In which

the argument opposing freedom of opinion, both on truth and that of utility, is
considered the strongest. Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a
future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality But I must
be permitted to observe that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it
may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide
that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the
contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less if it is put
forth on the side of my most solemn convictions. However, positive anyones
persuasion may be, not only of the faculty but of the pernicious consequences, but
(to adopt expressions which I altogether condemn) the immorality and impiety of
opinion. yet if, in pursuance of that private [judgement,] though backed by the
public [judgement] of his country or the assumption being less objectionable or
less dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the case
of all others in which it is most fatal. (Mill, 1985)

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

14

Despite John Stuart Mills views on social utility he is clearly in the affirmative for free speech.
If in fact, speech is not bringing pleasure, but pain, Mill says of free speech, that it is of such
great importance that it transcends the all rules. If the utilitarians can see the value of free
speech, where are our educational administrators in the U.S. going wrong? Clearly, if we have to
provide differing ideologies and religions each there due respect, deserved, or undeserved,
without anyone being able to ask uncomfortable questions, we are going to run into some clear
complications.
The Workplace
The workplace is the one place where we are probably most restricted in our speech.
Most businesses go to great lengths to ensure an environment of comfort and non-controversy.
The workplace can be an exceptionally dangerous place because what you say can lead to your
termination. A loss of livelihood can be devastating, especially just for voicing your opinion or
asking the wrong questions. Sexual harassment lawsuits are one reason for the limitations on
speech. Another could be violating a non-disclosure agreement. The workplace may differ from
that of the Universities and colleges because it is usually a private establishment that is primarily
not established for you to learn. Most businesses are situated on private property. Rational
persons would agree that private citizens on private property have no obligation to listen to you.
Private individuals are also not obligated to provide a forum for speech that they are disinclined
to listen to, which of course, is also their right.
Speech in the workplace is restricted, but that doesnt necessitate censorship being
ethically wrong, due to maintaining an environment of professionalism. The problems start to
appear when speech you make in your own home, in private, or in public can get back to your
employer. Your employer may monitor your social media posts. Employers that may not share

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

15

your same values or political beliefs may not respect your first amendment rights. Your boss
most likely has never heard about the trial and death of Socrates, or read any John Stuart Mill.
Most things deemed hurtful to the bottom line, whether they are or not, most likely will not be
tolerated.
Employers may see free speech and free expression of ideas as a danger by causing
division within a team. They may view any radical ideas being exchanged as a breach of civility,
and also disruptive. A non-controversial environment means one of little distractions, and
questioning widely held beliefs is almost always considered a detractor in the workplace. Like
the University, the workplace also views some forms of speech as a violation of safety and
comfort threatening the communal welfare of all.
The prevailing philosophy of corporate America seems to stem from that of a William
James pragmatism. This translated, equates to the ends justifying the means. Everything is
permitted just so long as you arent caught - but not always, lets just play it by ear. A great
amount of money is spent on consultant fees and seminars that tell people basically, you have an
objective to attain, and by any means necessary. All you have to do is find a way. Whatever you
do leading up to achieving your goal is justified, and any following consequences after your
ambitions are met are irrelevant. This philosophy differs from that of a Kantian or utilitarian
mode of thinking, as with pragmatism you are judged by your results, not your intentions.
William James sums this point up well in his work, Pragmatism and Other Writings:

See the exquisite contrast of the types of the mind! The pragmatist clings to facts
and concreteness, observes truth at its work in particular cases, and [generalises.]
Truth, for him, becomes a class-name for all sorts of definite working-values in

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

16

experience. For the rationalist it remains a pure abstraction, to the bare name of
which we must defer. When the pragmatist undertakes to show in detail just why
we must defer, the rationalist is unable to [recognise] the concretes from which
his own abstraction is taken. He accuses us of denying truth; whereas we have
only sought to trace exactly why people follow it and always ought follow it.
Your typical ultra-abstractions fairly shudders at concreteness: other things equal,
he positively prefers the pale and spectral. If the two universes were offered, he
would always choose the skinny outline rather than the rich thicket of reality. It is
so much purer, clearer, nobler. (James, 2000)

Pragmatisms main concern is that truth is what works. What doesnt work is to be discarded.
This would follow with free speech. Speech that doesnt negatively affect the bottom line is
permissible. Speech that can damage a company, regardless of it being idealistically moral, is not
endorsed. If truth doesnt work towards the bottom line it isnt truth. We can see problems stem
from this type of philosophy everywhere in business today. There are however, differing
businesses with differing ideologies or mission statements. The difference is to what extent and
length that the prevailing philosophies are actually acted upon.
Regardless of the current state of speech in corporate America, disruptive or not, in all
fairness, a lot of corporations do go to great lengths to engage in team building activities that
celebrate diversity and help employees get to identify with each other, and also develop some
type of emergent mutual respect. Despite the heavy restrictions that lead to groupthink and
deindividuation. There are also some businesses that understand that humans work for them, and

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

17

they dont expect their employees to be automated machines. Some companies also encourage
their employees to speak up and convey some type of personality.
The workplace may not be so horrendous after you absorb all the differing personalities,
and can speak and relate somewhat with others, while also knowing and maintaining your
limitations. Once you are familiarized with everyone, and they in turn, are acquainted with you,
youll most likely have a greater threshold for respectful speech. Still, there is way too much
intervention by businesses into the social interactions of their employees. In many ways
corporate American life has become a suffocating hyper-sensitive abyss, while also a
simultaneous nightmare of overly preemptive litigious risk avoidance.
Hate Speech
Hate speech is speech that has the intent to hurt, intimidate, insult, and criticize collective
groups that are of a particular religion, disability, sexual orientation, or race. Basically, hate
speech is any negative speech directed toward any differentiated group. The possibility of hate
speech occurring is taken very seriously among most every institution in the U.S., and the
perspective rules for hate speech are a broad and encompassing. The problems with hate speech
start surfacing when criticisms against a group, or individual in a group, may be legitimate and
justified. Some groups have figured out how to evade warranted criticisms for their own words
and actions by hiding behind accusations against others of committing hate speech. Talk of
implementing hate speech laws have come under heavy reproach for violating 1st Amendment
rights. If hate speech was made illegal, the set of laws wouldnt allow for any legitimate
criticisms of a group to be voiced.
Hate speech laws are unnecessary, and most hateful talk is already covered under
different laws and statutes. For instance, hateful speech directed toward someone could be

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

18

covered under harassment laws. Our society has become overly-sensitive, I personally dont
think it should be criminalized to call someone a name. If the name calling happened everyday
then that would be a different story, and thus would constitute harassment. Harassment should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If someone calls you a name, you also have the right to
respond back, by calling them a name, although most authority figures today would discourage
retaliation. In some cases, retaliation works as a better deterrent than pacifism or passing
unenforceable laws.
Another aspect to hate speech is that we have certain groups that can use specific words
that other groups cannot use. This is unfair. Hate speech laws in a sense would grant one group
privileges over that of another. There are certainly issues and unintended consequences within
the talk of proposed hate speech regulation.
The laws in fact would certainly create more challenges than they would solve, as anyone
with an opposing point of view could be accused of hate speech. Open and fair discussion could
not occur. These laws would actually end up suppressing others from voicing their views, and
would not at all create equality in speech. We must ask ourselves though, what if the laws did
work and they were totally effective, doing exactly that which they were intended to do? We
certainly could rationally entertain the thought of what a world would look like if censorship and
hate speech laws were 100% effective
The Manifestation of a Censorship Society
Can you imagine a world where everyone thought the same? They held the same beliefs,
or held no beliefs at all? How about a world where there was only a one single news station?
Everyone in this world never made mention of anything controversial. There were no conflicting

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

19

sides to any one subject if there was, there would be a risk that someone could potentially be
offended, or hurt. This society couldnt allow anything of the sort.
This is exactly the world Ray Bradbury paints for us in his popular classic
novel Fahrenheit 451. In Bradburys futuristic dystopian society everyone and everything are
censored whether they are initially aware of it or not. In this reality firefighters start fires, they
are not paid to extinguish them. Books and print are not permitted in this futuristic world. If a
member of society is suspected of reading any books, the firemen are then sent to burn their
books and homes down. Their reasoning for this strict censorship is that if there are no opposing
views, there can be no conflict. The only way citizens can obtain information is from interactive
brainwashing telescreens and through fabricated state controlled digital media.
The main character in this novel is named Guy Montag. In the story, he has worked and
burned books as a fireman for the past ten years. His character first starts to develop when he
first meets a young seventeen year old girl named Clarisse McClellen while on his way home
from work. She walks with Montag and starts to question him, his thinking, and the world
theyre both participating in.
Clarisse first says to Montag, You know Im not afraid of you at all he responds
surprised, with Why should you be? Clarisse says So many people are. Afraid of fireman, I
mean. But youre just a man after all (Bradbury, 1995) Clarisse starts to get Montag thinking.
She essentially asks him why there is no depth in anything anymore. Clarisse then asks Montag
if he has ever read any of the books he burns. He laughs and responds by saying thats against
the law! (Bradbury, 1995) Clarisse ultimately makes the point of everyone being too dumbed
down and over-stimulated in the world in which they live, and in which no one ever stops to
think about anything in depth anymore. Clarisse explains this in a scene about the jet cars:

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

20

I sometimes think drivers dont know what grass is, or flowers, because they
never see them slowly, she said. If you showed a driver a green blur, Oh yes!
hed say, thats grass! A pink blur? Thats a rose garden! White blurs are houses.
Brown blurs are cows. My uncle drove forty miles an hour and they jailed him for
two days. Isnt that funny, and sad, too? (Bradbury, 1995)

The Scene with Clarisse ends with her asking Montag if hes happy. After he responds, she
criticizes him, stating that he didnt even stop to think about the question, he just automatically
spouted off the traditional standard answer. He thought it was peculiar that she asked him that
question, but it starts to makes sense later in the story.
Montag later on goes out on other burns with the firemen. There is a later scene where
they are burning a womens books and home, and instead of living in a world without her
literature, she then jumps into the flames to be immolated with her books. This leaves Montag
questioning, what are in those books that are so important that a women would burn herself
alive? He is left after this scene sickened and conflicted.
The society in which Montag lives in is portrayed as an empty shell. Everything looks
good from the outside looking in, seemingly happy people, stability, and no conflict. As the story
goes on a darker image appears. Montags wife attempts suicide, he finds others looking for
meaning in their artificial world just as hopeless and depressed as he is. Fahrenheit 451 is an
excellent and widely used example of what society can become if censorship was taken to the
outermost limit.

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

21

Another sound illustration of what a censorship society would look like, taken to the
extreme, is portrayed in Aldous Huxleys A Brave New World. Huxleys fictional universe
portrays a comfort society controlled artificially through biological and chemical means. The
people of this future are conceived and grown in biological labs. They are heavily modified
through biological engineering into different castes or classes comprised of the titles Alphas,
Betas, Gammas, and Epsilons, which determines their respective value in society. In the story
there is a magic pill called soma that provides a chemical means to escape reality. The characters
in the book can take the pill whenever they encounter any discomfort, whether social, mental, or
physical. One of the main characters in A Brave New World, Bernard, has a scene where he
ponders what life would be like without the pill, Often in the past he had wondered what it
would be like to be subjected (soma-less and with nothing but his own inward resources to rely
on) to some great trial, some pain, some persecution; he had even longed for affliction. (Huxley,
2006)
Its not hard at all to see some of the parallels of these books in todays society. We have
people abusing prescription medications, escaping reality through their television screens, and of
course, talk of censorship everywhere. Hopefully we can use these authors works, and insight to
warn us of what civilization could eventually become - before its too late.
The Answer
The answer to the issue of free speech and censorship in America is fairly simple. There
shouldnt be any censorship whatsoever. Speech that is unlawful is not speech, and should not be
considered speech. To clarify, the legal definition for unlawful speech should be considered as
criminal speech. Criminal speech should not be protected speech. Criminal speech also needs to
be clearly defined, which is unlike that of hate speech. For example if Jones says that he is

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

22

seriously planning to murder Smith, that then becomes conspiracy to commit murder, and that
then would not be protected speech. Another form of speech that shouldnt be protected is fraud.
Repetitive verbal harassment shouldnt be lawful. Libel and slander should also be considered
crime, not speech. On the opposite end, criticisms and name calling based on truth should be
protected, even if they may not be pleasant or agreeable.
The way we can formulate a correct standard for speech is based off of the philosophy of
Ayn Rand. Ayn Rands ethical system is metaphysically and epistemologically derived to mans
individual life being the standard of value. Freedom of speech is necessary to mans life. Mans
rights need to be protected in order for him to prosper. To have a productive and creative life, a
man cannot violate the rights of another man, nor can another man violate his rights. The use of
force against another is strictly prohibited. Censorship would be a violation of his rights, because
the only way to enforce censorship laws would be through the use of force. The only reason to
stop particular forms of speech would be to protect anothers rights, and stopping those particular
transmissions then wouldnt be considered censorship. An example would be involuntary
exposure to pornography, or depictions of violence in public, or clearly defined repetitive
harassment.
One of the other major issues in our nation is how political correctness is destroying the
political process in our democracy. Political correctness paints opponents of one sides political
views as misogynists, racists, fear/war mongers, practitioners of hate speech, or whatever else
can be used to smear. This discourages individuals for standing up, voicing their values and
pursuing their political ideals an aspect that has always been a cherished quality of American
life. Ayn Rand sums it up best in The Virtue of Selfishness:

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

23

It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate ones
views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others,
opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of the right
of free speech is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible
suppression not to guarantee them support, advantages and rewards of a
popularity they have not gained.

The Bill of Rights reads: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press It does not demand that private citizens provide a
microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the
burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their
throats. (Rand, 1964)

Once again this doesnt mean that one must listen or support views that they may disagree with.
Private individuals however cannot suppress speech as Rand clarifies:

Censorship is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action

is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a
publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private
individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance ones
own antagonists. (Rand, 1964)

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

24

Just having the right to voice ones opinion, or speak ones own mind, outweighs any nonsense
or obscenity spouted off by another person or group. Right now our rights and freedoms are
under attack. We must fight for our rights or we will face the possibility of permanently losing
them. The best way to defend our rights is to be armed to the tooth philosophically and backed
up with reason and logic. We must be able to defend where our rights come from, not just that
they somehow exist. We have observed great virtue stemming from free speech, more so, than
any evil that has come from it. Censorship of speech and a true free society cannot coexist, as
also there is no practical way to ultimately and totally censor everyone - on a large enough scale.
Human beings will get around censorship laws if they are passed. Censorship would though, be
devastating to the progress of mankind. It would act as a deterrent to progress. If we fight for our
rights today, hopefully our children will be able to enjoy the same liberties we have had the
chance to experience, and will even have a possible better world to live in tomorrow.

THE ETHICS OF FREE SPEECH & CENSORSHIP

References
Bradbury, R. (1995). Fahrenheit 451. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Huxley, A. (2006). Brave New World. New York: Harper Perennial.
James, W. (2000). Pragmatism and Other Writings. New York: Penguin.
Kant, I. (2009). An answer to the question: 'what is enlightenment?' London: Penguin
Books.
Kant, I. (1997). Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that will be able to come forward
as science with selections from the Critique of pure reason. Cambridge [England:
Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J. (1985). On liberty. UK: Penguin.
Rand, A. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet.

25