Freedom of speech can be defined as the fundamental human right, that unequivocally declares an individual has the liberty to freely express ideas, and opinions without fear of government reprisal, or social sanctioning. Among the endless onslaught of protests, assemblies, and politically fueled arguments, that allegedly exercise the right to freely express there persists a central problem. This problem not only threatens the nature of the Constitution, but also eerily resembles tenets frequently associated with fascism. The central problem identified is that of censorship, or the suppression of intellectual material in order to prevent freethought. Through censoring the opinions, and beliefs of an individual, an imminent threat to democracy and freedom is established. Censorship works by discouraging logical; rational thinking, and by undermining a sense of healthy skepticism, thus silencing the voices of an agenda that does not follow mainstream opinion. Universally censorship not only exists in the media, where bias often exists to push agendas; and culturally, where social sanctions are enforced to control what is acceptable speech, but is also now present in government, and even state law. More than ever it is clear that Americans are slowly losing the right to speak freely, and express ideas. To find a solution on how to prevent further infringement on this issue, it is first mandatory to analyze the root of the problem, and explain how censorship is detrimental to society, why censorship is an unconstitutional violation of human rights, and where censorship is impacting the lives of American citizens.
In order to understand why censorship is an unconstitutional violation of human rights, it is first essential to determine what constitutes a human right. When defined legally, a human right is identified as an inalienable liberty belonging to every person. The Bill of Rights is the protective document that consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, and guarantees specific personal freedoms by limiting government intervention. Among these personal freedoms is the right to freely express ideas, as stated in the Constitution “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 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution. Amend. I.). This amendment to the constitution protects all non-violent speech, no matter how heinous or despicable, as long as it does not involve a call to action. By infringing on this right, it is a violation of the constitution and the human rights afforded all Americans. Censorship infringes on this right by unjustifiably silencing ideas that are not agreed upon, and seeks to delegitimize arguments that go against a certain agenda. Controlling rhetoric in such a way is not only unjust, but is a completely illegitimate abuse of power, and should be opposed. Those that support censorship often times present the argument that hate speech should be legally regulated, being stated in an article from the LA Times that “hate speech is not ‘just speech.’ Hate speech is doing something. It results in tangible harms that are serious in and of themselves and that collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality” (Nielsen). While for the sake of argument it may be true that hate speech possibly perpetuates discrimination, there still persists a glaring oversight the author of this article does not consider: the subjectivity of what hate speech is regarded as. Offense is taken, not given, and what one person might consider hateful, another person might see as completely acceptable speech. The problem this creates is already present in society, where an opposing argument can be dismissed as “perpetuating hate speech” simply because there exists a disagreement. Already social sanctions exist to regulate accusations of hateful speech, where a person is labeled as a “racist” or “bigot”, thus delegitimizing that person. Moreover the argument against free speech illogically claims that hate speech in itself is a form of violence with “tangible harms”. This goes against all rational, as speech that does not incite hostile intent towards safety or property, is protected under the first amendment, regardless of how offensive that speech is. Laws exist to safeguard the rights of Americans, not to prevent a person from getting offended. Through recognizing what constitutes a human right, the relationship to which it shares with freedom of speech, and why it would be unconstitutional to infringe upon, it is now possible to evaluate how censorship is detrimental to society.
George Washington once wisely stated “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”. The words of warning brought forth by Washington serve as a constant reminder of how the suppression of speech can have disastrous effects. Nowhere is this more discernible than throughout history, where the impact past events had upon society produces prodigious insight into just how detrimental censorship is. Historical evidence serves as a prime example of the many dangers that are accompanied by infringing on the right to freely express ideas. This is due to the clear correlation with authoritarian regime, and the suppression of opposing viewpoints. According to an article published by the Washington Post “there is a huge amount of empirical data from different countries throughout history that make it clear that even democratic governments tend to use this kind of power to silence opponents and shut down speech they don't like. During the French Revolution, for example, policing the truth resulted in the execution of those who were accused of disseminating false news, which included anyone critical of those behind the Reign of Terror” (Rose). The proposition that governments often abuse power to silence those that disagree has overwhelming amounts of evidence, as suggested by this article with the given example of the French Revolution. In totalitarian regimes often the first right to be taken away is the ability to speak freely, consequently preventing all resistance of the people once other rights are taken away, powerlessly “led, like sheep to the slaughter” as Washington would retort. Not only does the suppression of free speech correlate with tenets of fascism, where government holds all the power over the people, but without the exposure to opposing beliefs people are unable to think for themselves. This is largely why oppressive governments exist in the first place, as censorship discourages free thought, and logical reasoning in favor of authoritative control over what a person is allowed to believe.
Now that historical evidence has been presented as to why censorship dangerous, it is necessary to now apply that knowledge in regards to the modern world. The only way issues can be solved is through open and civil discourse, and censoring the beliefs of others does a disservice to the nature of democracy, where all opinions are able to be voiced, and heard. There is an increasingly large rise in the practicing of censorship on the American college campus where according to Newsday “Many liberal students demand protection from speech with which they disagree, calling for “safe spaces” and chanting “shut it down.”(Left Must Stop Violent Tactics). Universities, and colleges are supposed to be a place where students are exposed to new ideas, and to develop an understanding of the world, but are instead given “safe spaces” to prevent exposure to the opinions of others. This reinforces the idea that speech can be considered violent if it is an idea that is not agreed upon. Furthermore this apparently gives justification to violent reactions towards different ideas, again concentrated on the American college campus as is expressed in the Orange County Register "Our nation's institutions of higher learning are supposed to be repositories of knowledge, enriched by the free flow of information and competition of ideas, but they are increasingly failing in this mission. Sadly, college campuses, which tend to embrace liberal ideologies, including tolerance, oftentimes are among the most intolerant of opposing views, as evidenced by the imposition of speech codes and enforcement of 'free speech zones,' which limit what can be said and where it can be expressed." (Troubling Time for Free Speech on Campus). If the universities that the American people attend for educational purposes, can not even teach that freedom of speech is the most important right present in America, how can the first amendment be protected when critics of free speech attack the right express ideas.
All humans are afforded the ability freely speak and express ideals as a fundamental right. Censorship not only undermines this right, but discourages free thought and reasoning. The problem of censorship in free speech will continue to exist, even under the protection of the first amendment, and perhaps the problem will never dissipate. In spite of that, it is important remember all humans are afforded the individual liberty to express thoughts freely, and that the best way to combat censorship is through education, skepticism, and exposure to as many different ideas as possible.