I mean… freedom of speech never originally applied at a lower level- that is to say the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doesn’t have the right to to censor things. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment splashed after the civil war that all states of the union were required to honor the rights of the constitution. States could actually still legally censor things into the 1930’s because there were various loopholes and challenges to the amendment and how it infringed in states rights. Of course you can thank those whiny libs for your constitutional rights at a state level since the 14th amendment was an obvious and direct shot at confederate slaves states forcing them to align to federal policies on issues of citizenship, rights and slavery. Of course those crafty folks wanting to keep tradition and “good values” found ways to skirt the order they must honor the constitution- segregation being one example. Of course we know in modern times that no one would write crafty laws to subvert federal…
.. protections of rights. That would be an abortion of the sanctity of the constitution one might say. Well, anyway, indeed- the “bill of rights” only applied to the federal government. Later on right leaning sorts would expand the ability to censor information in the interests of war and defense secrecy, passing laws like ones allowing the government to prosecute you without evidence so long as they submit a written pinky swear that they can’t show the evidence without giving up secret info. It wasn’t until after WW2 that there was any solid legal framework to even protect “secret” documents beyond the honor system or a gutted 1917 provision to espionage which had the mechanical bits removed but could still be creatively applied since legal or not- keeping secrets is important to a government.
We of course got laws on libel and slander- which aren’t exactly censorship but they do make it unlawful and punishable to say certain things, with the liability that if someone gets upset they can force you into a legal bind regardless of the details and you may or may not be punished depending on your ability to convince a court that you weren’t lying or such.
As for schools- well… that’s tricky isn’t it? A school is a public aka government entity- so it certainly can’t censor things- but… parents and voters have a say on curriculum and such don’t they? So… a school can’t censor books for example right? But then… don’t parents have a right to decide what their kids see, and thusly isn’t it the parents or voters censoring the materials? But… the school ultimately has to do it right? Enforce it? Kids are given to the school with a transfer of authority by parents to act as guardians while their kids are in school. Parents can’t go to school and monitor their child and discipline them
They must rely on the school, and the school must act on behalf of the parents and their wishes to some degree… so.. public schools are state entities that can’t censor BUT parents can control what their kids are allowed to see, parents can dictate their wishes to schools and schools operate on the consent and wishes of parents transfer of authority so… confused? Certainly. Because it is confusing. What is censorship? When a parent says a child can’t watch a film or they forbid foul language or such- isn’t that censorship? But- the parent is empowered to act in the child’s best interests no? But a child or an adult can’t waive a constitutional right like freedom of speech. They can choose not to exercise it, but they can’t waive it- otherwise you could be coerced to give up your rights couldn't you?
So…. Is it censorship to not allow your kids to watch porn or listen to radical Isis messages? Of course network television is censored and that is generally mandated by the state.. who are the ones who most of all aren’t supposed to censor… but networks can self censor too. You have the right to say “F?$!?” On Tv but the network has a freedom of speech to choose not to spread that message because corporations also oddly end up with rights and such that were meant for humans. Sometimes their rights trump those of individual humans. So like…. Why can Facebook censor you? Why can’t you yell “I have a bomb!” On an airplane? Why can’t you post recipes online for making meth or creating nuclear bombs or pipe bombs or whatever? Why can the ATF take down instructions for home made guns?
We run into an inevitable practicality that freedom of speech is not absolute, has never been absolute, and wasn’t intended as absolute. Now- the “founding fathers” do have many writings that suggest quite a few of them at least were aware of ways people used freedom of speech dangerously- as they inked these freedoms the concern was discussed that people or media could spread misinformation or dangerous information. The general response was a faith that reason would win out if people spread cons and false information, so such speech was to be protected too. Except… it isn’t is it? We lined up some examples already. Because the constitution can be amended or legislated. By design. Because the “founders” knew the world would change and so would society. The ability to send information quickly and to mass audiences wasn't a thing. They couldn’t imagine Tv or internet or radio. They were like literally 100 years away from the telegraph and the biggest advancement in fast travel would…
.. be railroads- also quite a ways off from their time in realization. These guys had no idea that a day was coming where you could make video and audio recordings at all let alone that basically every person would have 6+ ways to do it let alone that you could share instantly with billions let alone that that you could record video and audio if people saying and doing things that never happened and have it look real. They probably would have thought a bit more about things if they lived in a world with these things or where they could even imagine them. A hologram? Closest idea they had was maybe a ghost or demon? The most fundamental thing in the constitution is the fact that we can change it. There aren’t parts they made that said: “and this part though can never be modified or changed…” so above ALL other concepts the most important one was that we could add or remove things as we saw fit. And we have.
Now- to be clear I am not saying I support censorship or think it is good. I am saying that there are lots of examples most people and even the founding fathers would agree are either good ideas or prudent/necessary to allow to be “censored” in some way. If you believe in total lack of censorship and total free speech you believe it should be legal and unrestricted or punished for adults to sex chat kids since that’s just speech- no laws against fee speech right? Oh? You think maybe we need at least one exception because that’s “different”? Well-
Ok then. Free speech isn’t absolute in your book is it?
So what is censorship? How do we define it and how do we decide where and how to apply that definition? Who decides? Who has the right to censor or decide who gets the right? If people can decide to allow censorship then we have censorship right? That’s more of an argument over HOW censorship is applied than against censorship isn’t it? If there are consequences for speech- isn’t that a suppression of speech? A person can’t speak freely if they are afraid. That’s like saying it isn’t censorship if the government starts chopping off the heads of people who speak badly of the president. They are free to do it, they just have to deal with the consequences right? But like… isn’t that what “cancel culture” opponents are against? Using consequences to dissuade people from saying certain things? How does one apply that though?
Because you can say what you want, your company can’t fire you for saying whatever you feel like? Your boss can’t be influenced by things you say if you’re verbally
abusive? How do you even prove that someone did or didn’t give you a new project or whatever opportunities because you insulted their spouse? And then… what happens if someone has freedom of religion and someone else used their freedom of speech to interrupt religious proceedings? Isn’t that a form of censorship either way? So obviously you could probably apply some censorship to private property- you can’t masturbate on your porch where people can see even if it is your porch right? So I dunnoh…. It’s sort of more about what we call censorship and what we consider good or bad.
As for schools- well… that’s tricky isn’t it? A school is a public aka government entity- so it certainly can’t censor things- but… parents and voters have a say on curriculum and such don’t they? So… a school can’t censor books for example right? But then… don’t parents have a right to decide what their kids see, and thusly isn’t it the parents or voters censoring the materials? But… the school ultimately has to do it right? Enforce it? Kids are given to the school with a transfer of authority by parents to act as guardians while their kids are in school. Parents can’t go to school and monitor their child and discipline them
Ok then. Free speech isn’t absolute in your book is it?
Because you can say what you want, your company can’t fire you for saying whatever you feel like? Your boss can’t be influenced by things you say if you’re verbally