Is Censorship Ever Necessary or Justified?

The session welcomes participants from around the UK, US, and other parts of the world to discuss the 'always current question' of censorship. The host introduces distinguished panelists: Catherine Pepinster (British journalist), Kate Ruane (Director of Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy and Technology), John Watson (Associate Professor, American University), and John Drakakis (Emeritus Professor, University of Sterling).

John Watson initiates the discussion by exploring how the definition of censorship has changed over time. He argues that historically, those imposing restrictions never considered it censorship, but rather 'editing.' Censorship, he explains, is a 'term of condemnation' whose meaning shifts depending on who uses it. In the US, there's a 'theological attachment' to freedom of speech, with censorship being its antithesis. He also notes that censorship becomes a contentious issue as societal values change, with different groups claiming to fight it.

Catherine Pepinster discusses recent controversies over censorship in the UK, particularly concerning new laws that appear to constrain protest. She highlights a significant shift: in the 1960s, those pushing boundaries (e.g., in portraying sex) were seen as progressive, while those restricting were conservative. Now, with issues like trans rights, people pushing boundaries are sometimes the ones trying to shut down opposing voices, a reversal of historical trends. She also notes that current activists are dealing with censorship differently.

Kate Ruane emphasizes the critical question in censorship debates: 'Who is doing the censoring?' She argues that government censorship (e.g., police at protests or public universities stopping speech) raises bigger concerns. She also addresses the role of social media platforms and their content moderation policies. While these policies can disproportionately affect marginalized communities, other groups also claim censorship. Ruane stresses the fundamental difference between government-imposed censorship and private actors making decisions about content, as the latter allows for a space where individuals figure out what is appropriate.

John Drakakis compares university protests in the UK to the US, noting that while protests exist in select UK universities, they are not on the same scale as in the US. He then shifts to the responsibility of media platforms in controlling content, questioning the lack of regulation compared to traditional publishing. He asks whether social media platforms should be treated the same way as publishers, prompting a comparison between 'classic' and current censorship.

John Watson explains classic censorship, originating from intellectual writers like Milton and Mill, focused on the content of ideas among a literate few. Modern censorship, enabled by technology, involves many more voices and focuses on the 'manner' of expression rather than just ideas. He also highlights the economic motive of platform owners who prioritize reach over message, and the distinction between government and private censorship. Kate Ruane elaborates on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, which protects interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content. She argues that removing these protections would lead to platforms implementing broad censorship to avoid liability, disproportionately affecting controversial and boundary-pushing speech. Drakakis counters that the current legal framework struggles to keep up with these new platforms, whose primary motivation is advertising revenue.

Catherine Pepinster addresses the historical role of religion, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, as a source of non-governmental censorship. She explains that attempts to suppress theological challenge within the Church led to a 'culture of secrecy' to prevent the laity from being 'scandalized.' While such attempts have lessened, the Church still uses discipline to limit debate despite understanding the power of communication for its own benefit.

John Watson asserts that in the US, there's a dichotomy between freedom and responsibility, with Section 230 reflecting a choice to prioritize freedom over responsibility. He advocates for 'responsible speech' as having 'enormous social value' compared to unfettered expression. He argues that prioritizing financial gain has led to tolerating 'irresponsible expression.' Kate Ruane challenges his stance on who decides what is 'responsible,' expressing fear of government-imposed definitions that could restrict opposing viewpoints. Catherine Pepinster adds that defining responsibility is increasingly muddled due to partnerships between NGOs and businesses, which subtly influence what people can say through advertising decisions, leading to a new form of censorship.

The discussion turns to self-censorship. John Drakakis views it as subconscious control influenced by social groups, while John Watson prefers to reframe it as 'respecting others' and 'ethical behavior,' arguing that true freedom is anarchy when sharing a planet with others. The panel then considers a recent case of a Berkeley Law School dean who, at a private dinner, asserted his right to control speech in his home when confronted by protestors. This event sparked a debate about the lines between public and private spaces and freedom of speech, with panelists acknowledging the complexity when institutions might own the property.

Kenneth Williams asks how to address public manipulation and convince people that unlimited freedom of speech is destructive. John Watson responds by discussing the historical value of truthful reporting in American journalism for an informed public. He laments that journalism now faces challenges from false information and that viewership sometimes prefers sensationalism over truth, citing Fox News as an example. John Drakakis points out that 'truth is not a uniform phenomenon' and is often multiple, with bias being a norm in media, particularly in the UK. Catherine Pepinster, an experienced journalist, states that journalism is often about 'stories' that interest readers, which can lead to a form of self-censorship, where stories are chosen or omitted based on audience interest rather than absolute truth.

The conversation shifts to the upcoming elections in the UK and US. John Drakakis notes the 'pack of lies' told during the Brexit campaign and similar accusations in US politics, questioning how journalism addresses this. John Watson explains that the US political system has changed journalism, with news organizations now explicitly calling out lies and racism due to changed political landscape. Catherine Pepinster highlights the focus on personality over policy in political reporting, influenced by the 'cult of celebrity,' leading to a lack of scrutiny. She also points out the devastating impact of economic challenges and social media on local media in the UK, which will limit local election coverage and public access to information.

Natasha Kenmont raises a question about censorship for pre-college-age youth in school systems. Kate Ruane explains that while schools have stronger authority to restrict speech to serve their educational mission, students do not lose their First Amendment rights. She cites cases where schools cannot punish students for off-campus speech that doesn't disrupt school operations. She then addresses the critical issue of book bans in US schools, where states are attempting to remove books addressing topics deemed inappropriate by government officials, disproportionately affecting authors of color and LGBTQ authors. These bans, often government regulating itself, are difficult to challenge legally but are tracked and fought by organizations like Penn America, as they prevent children from seeing themselves in literature.