On December 15, 1791, the Constitution of the United States of America was amended for the first time. This first amendment contained multiple revisions to the Constitution, “guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and the rights peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances” (Rohde, 2022). In this discussion piece, the notion of free speech will be elaborated on in finer detail than the other issues detailed in the First Amendment, but all of the promises made in the amendment were another step made to distance America from her fellow countries. In the mid- to late-eighteenth century, there were several countries that embodied select freedoms, but none that matched the freedoms of the United States of America. Sweden, for example, passed a freedom of press act in 1766, prohibiting censorship of written works, but one of the caveats of the act was that it selectively allowed the censorship of any writings against the Evangelical Lutheran faith; the author of any writings that fit this criteria was to be subject to a fine equivalent to $2,200 in today’s USD. France, while an advocate for “freedom of speech,” defines “freedom” as “being able to do anything that does not harm others” (de Gaulle, as cited in Library of Congress Law, n.d.). The Oxford English Dictionary, in contrast with the French Constitution’s restrained definition of “freedom,” cites the meaning of “freedom” as “The state or fact of being free from servitude, constraint, inhibition, etc.; liberty.” So while other countries have attempted to instate freedoms of speech and press, there have always been restrictions. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution simply states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is a clear contrast between the regulation of Sweden and France and the complete freedom of speech and press illustrated in the First Amendment of America’s Constitution. However, is total freedom of speech and press appropriate in the twenty-first century? Does the development of social media allow for censorship, as social media wasn’t even a dream in the 1700s, and therefore wasn’t a factor of the authorship of the First Amendment?

To “censor,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” Therefore, when “censorship” is discussed, alternate terms for this action include suppression, deletion, and restriction. The censorship of media has been discussed for hundreds of years; censorship is not only relevant to the suppression, deletion, or restriction of digital media, but is also applicable to written documents and even public speeches. In 213 B.C., Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang ordered the burning of many books as a way of demonstrating his power to the Chinese Empire. According to one Chinese historian, “[The emperor’s] basic objective was not so much to wipe out these schools of thought completely as to place them under governmental control” (Chan, 1972). This burning, sadly, would not be the last of its kind. There were many other instances of book burning throughout history; sometimes intentionally, sometimes as a side effect of war (the burning of entire libraries, for instance). However, with Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1440, the manufacturing of books immediately became more efficient, and scribal copying (that is, hand-copying documents) became a thing of the past. This innovation, however, did not stop the physical censorship of books; book burnings still occasionally accompanied war, with the United States Library of Congress being destroyed during the War of 1812 and numerous libraries being destroyed across Europe as a side effect of World War II. Boissoneault (2017) points out that knowledge became a dangerous commodity to world leaders, as it had the potential to change people and, by extension, the world, threatening powerful rule. Multiple authors have written on the topic of the tragedy of book burning, including English poet John Milton, the author of Paradise Lost (1667); and American writer Ray Bradbury, in his dystopian cautionary tale Fahrenheit 451 (1953).

All instances of book burning in history resulted from a leader’s tyranny; Qin Shi Huang’s burning of historical documents was not done with the intent of protecting China’s population from flawed information or harmful content, but rather done because of Huang’s wish to be the one to write history his way, and to silence anyone daring enough to question his authority. The same form of censorship exists in the twenty-first century, though in a different form: social media. The moderation of social media platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube has instigated numerous heated debates and lawsuits concerning the limitations of digital censorship and content moderation. Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, many social media platforms were flooded with “information” and “explanations,” ranging from varying recommendations for the wearing of facial coverings to conspiracy theories claiming that the virus had originated in Wuhan, China (which was later confirmed upon further investigation). Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, the company that owns Facebook, said in August 2024 that the Biden administration had pressured Facebook to censor information relating to COVID-19 during the pandemic (Associated Press, 2024). The White House also worked with YouTube to “target alleged ‘misinformation’ relating to the COVID-19 virus and its vaccinations” (Williams, 2023). While this could be titled “moderation,” it also aligns with the definition of “censorship” given earlier: the suppression, deletion, or restriction of anything considered objectionable. After Elon Musk’s purchase of the social media platform Twitter in 2023, Musk rebranded the site, naming it X, and dedicated it to be a free speech platform, with limited censorship.

With this extensive background of censorship in mind, I can, to a certain extent, attempt to answer the question everyone wonders: “Can censorship be good?” The question of whether censorship is appropriate or necessary is a difficult question to answer, and requires careful thought from multiple aspects and points of view. There are several scenarios that are commonly cited as instances in which censorship would be appropriate; one of these scenarios is when national security is at stake. For example, if a foreign spy infiltrated the U.S. Army’s databases and posted the Army’s plans for all to see online, that may be an instance in which censorship would be the best course of action in order to protect the privacy of the Army’s plans. Another frequently brought up example of an appropriate instance of censorship is the protection of children from obscene and harmful content. However, I believe that in this case, if the content is not appropriate for children but is otherwise not illegal, it should not be deleted, but should instead be placed behind restrictive walls so that only responsible adults can access the content. Still another reason that is given for the censorship of media is that messaging should be censored if it incites or glorifies violence. Definitions for messages that “inciting or glorifying violence” vary and are usually very vague, and there have been censored social media posts that have been shut down simply for holding a controversial view of a certain political belief. While I believe threats to personal wellbeing should be discouraged on social media platforms, it would be tricky to establish guidelines for what constitutes as “violent.” I view censorship as unnecessary in most cases, but I do think it is appropriate for content to be filtered according to its audience and purpose. Obscene material that is not suitable for children should not be deleted, but instead moved to a place unaccessible by children, perhaps locked behind secure age verification measures. Social media posts that could be considered by some to be “instigating violence” may seem like harmless comments to others, so I would not see these sorts of posts to be harmful unless they specifically wished ill upon a certain person or nation with clear malice.

In the twenty-first century, terms such as “censorship” and “free speech” dominate the world’s leading news outlets. There are many different perspectives and opinions on these issues, and it can be hard to cut through the noise to get to the base problems. The debate over censorship and free speech is as complex as it is crucial, and it goes back to hundreds of years before Christ when a Chinese emperor burned books in order to demonstrate his “power over knowledge.” While the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees our freedom of expression, the digital age has introduced new challenges that even the Founding Fathers could not have imagined. Social media platforms in particular have become battlegrounds for ideas such as censorship and free speech, as seen in recent controversies concerning the sharing of information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. As we navigate these uncertain times, it is essential to realize the great responsibility that accompanies free speech. Ultimately, while while some level of content moderation may be appropriate in some scenarios, these situations must be approached with caution; we must be vigilant against repressive overreach that could stifle legitimate human conversation. The ideal solution lies not in heavy-handed censorship, but in fostering a culture of responsible speech, critical thinking, and mutual respect. As citizens in a free country, we Americans should use our voices and influences wisely, spreading knowledge and truth instead of discord.

The tension between free speech and censorship is likely to remain one of the most hotly debated issues of our time. By grounding our approach in constitutional principles and commonsensical thinking, we can strive to discover a balance that protects individual liberties while promoting honesty and truth in the public square. Let us use our freedom of speech not as a license for online recklessness, but as a tool for positive change and understanding in an increasingly complex world.

References

Associated Press. (2024, August 27). Zuckerberg says the White House pressured Facebook to ‘censor’ some COVID-19 content during the pandemic. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic

Boissoneault, L. (2017, August 31). A Brief History of Book Burning, From the Printing Press to Internet Archives. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/brief-history-book-burning-printing-press-internet-archives-180964697/

Bradbury, R. (1953). Fahrenheit 451. Ballantine Books.

Chan, L. M. (1972). The Burning of the Books in China, 213 B.C. The Journal of Library History (1966-1972), 7(2), 101–108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25540352

Library of Congress Law. (n.d.). Limits on Freedom of Expression: France. Library of Congress Law. Retrieved January 12, 2025, from https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/france.php

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Censors. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved January 12, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

Milton, J. (1667). Paradise Lost. (no publisher)

Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Freedom. In OED.com dictionary. Retrieved January 12, 2025, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/freedom_n?tab=meaning_and_use#3673716

Rohde, S. F. (2022). First Amendment. Salem Press Encyclopedia.

Williams, C. (2023, November 30). White House worked with YouTube to censor COVID-19 & vaccine ‘misinformation’: House Judiciary Committee. Fox Business. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/white-house-worked-youtube-censor-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-house-judiciary-committee