censorship in essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Learning objectives.

• Explain the FCC’s process of classifying material as indecent, obscene, or profane.
• Describe how the Hay’s Code affected 20th-century American mass media.

Figure 15.3

Attempts to censor material, such as banning books, typically attract a great deal of controversy and debate.

Timberland Regional Library – Banned Books Display At The Lacey Library – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Case Summaries).” Under this definition, the term “speech” extends to a broader sense of “expression,” meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

Classifying Material as Indecent, Obscene, or Profane

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material:

• causes the average person to have lustful or sexual thoughts;
• depicts lawfully offensive sexual conduct; and
• lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography (Federal Communications Commission). “Indecent” material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material:

• contains graphic sexual or excretory depictions;
• dwells at length on depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and
• is used simply to shock or arouse an audience.

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it (Federal Communications Commission).

These classifications symbolize the media’s long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, e-mail, fax, telephone, or the agency’s website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should “contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used (Federal Communications Commission).” Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station (Federal Communications Commission). If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment (Federal Communications Commission).

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 2000–2005

Violence and Sex: Taboos in Entertainment

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery , for example, is known for expressing “the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process,” and showcases “the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema (Film Reference).” The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinema’s fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he “believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity (Film Reference).”

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8 “Movies” , this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industry’s self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to “police all in-house productions (Film Reference).” Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industry’s commitment to the public, stating:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment…. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (Arts Reformation).

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and “dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc.” could not be presented in detail (Arts Reformation). The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing (Arts Reformation).”

Figure 15.4

As the chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, Will Hays oversaw the creation of the industry’s self-censoring Hays Code.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

Ratings Systems

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPPDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Film Ratings

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to ages 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to ages 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both films—and subsequently the MPAA—received criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Despite the arguably milder format of the rating’s name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Television and Video Game Ratings

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all TV shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children ages 7 and up), TV-Y7-FV (older children—fantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Source: http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm

At about the same time that television ratings appeared, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was established to provide ratings on video games. Video game ratings include EC (early childhood), E (everyone), E 10+ (ages 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only).

Table 15.3 Video Game Ratings System

Source: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Even with these ratings, the video game industry has long endured criticism over violence and sex in video games. One of the top-selling video game series in the world, Grand Theft Auto , is highly controversial because players have the option to solicit prostitution or murder civilians (Media Awareness). In 2010, a report claimed that “38 percent of the female characters in video games are scantily clad, 23 percent baring breasts or cleavage, 31 percent exposing thighs, another 31 percent exposing stomachs or midriffs, and 15 percent baring their behinds (Media Awareness).” Despite multiple lawsuits, some video game creators stand by their decisions to place graphic displays of violence and sex in their games on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Government devised the three-prong test to determine if material can be considered “obscene.” The FCC applies these guidelines to determine whether broadcast content can be classified as profane, indecent, or obscene.
• Established during the 1930s, the Hays Code placed strict regulations on film, requiring that filmmakers avoid portraying violence and sex in films.
• After the decline of the Hays Code during the 1960s, the MPAA introduced a self-policed film ratings system. This system later inspired similar ratings for television and video game content.

Look over the MPAA’s explanation of each film rating online at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means . View a film with these requirements in mind and think about how the rating was selected. Then answer the following short-answer questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Would this material be considered “obscene” under the Hays Code criteria? Would it be considered obscene under the FCC’s three-prong test? Explain why or why not. How would the film be different if it were released in accordance to the guidelines of the Hays Code?
• Do you agree with the rating your chosen film was given? Why or why not?

Arts Reformation, “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html .

Case Summaries, “First Amendment—Religion and Expression,” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ .

Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html .

Film Reference, “Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Sex and Relationships in the Media,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_sex.cfm .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Violence in Media Entertainment,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm .

Understanding Media and Culture Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples

Looking for censorship topics for research papers or essays? The issue is controversial, hot, and definitely worth exploring.

🏆 Best Censorship Topic Ideas & Essay Examples

🚫 internet censorship essay topics, 📍 censorship research questions, 💡 easy censorship essay topics, 😡 controversial censorship topics to write about, ❓ research questions about censorship, 🙅 censorship topics for research paper.

Censorship implies suppression of public communication and speech due to its harmfulness or other reasons. It can be done by governments or other controlling bodies.

In your censorship essay, you might want to focus on its types: political, religion, educational, etc. Another idea is to discuss the reasons for and against censorship. One more option is to concentrate on censorship in a certain area: art, academy, or media. Finally, you can discuss why freedom of expression is important.

Whether you need to write an argumentative or informative essay on censorship, you’re in the right place. In this article, we’ve collected best internet censorship essay topics, title ideas, research questions, together with paper examples.

• Pros and Cons of Censorship of Pornography This is due to the fact that pornography is all about exploitation of an individual in maters pertaining to sex as well as violence exercised on females by their male counterparts.
• Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society The negative impacts of internet have raised many concerns over freedom of access and publishing of information, leading to the need to censor internet.
• Censorship in Advertising One of the most notorious examples is the marketing of drugs; pharmaceutical companies have successfully convinced a significant number of people that drugs are the only violable solution to their health problems.
• Literature Censorship in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury The issues raised in the novel, Fahrenheit 451, are relevant in contemporary American society and Bradbury’s thoughts were a warning for what he highlighted is happening in the contemporary United States.
• Censorship and “13 Reasons Why” by Jay Asher Though the novel “13 Reasons Why” by Jay Asher could be seen as inappropriate for young adults, attempting to censor it would mean infringing upon the author’s right to self-expression and the readers’ right to […]
• Censorship and the Arts in the United States The article titled “Censorship versus Freedom of Expression in the Arts” by Chiang and Posner expresses concerns that the government may illegitimately censor art to avoid corruption of morals and avoid subversion of politics.
• ”Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury: Censorship and Independent Thinking By exploring the notion and censorship and how it affects people, the author draws parallels with the modern world of his time and the increasing impact of government-led propaganda. Censorship is a recurring theme that […]
• Censorship on Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury The main protagonist of the novel is Guy Montag, a fireman whose job like others, is to burn books without questioning the impact of his decision.
• Censorship of Films in the UAE Censorship of films in the United Arab Emirates is a major ethical dilemma as reflected in the case study analysis because the practice contravenes the freedom of media.
• Societal Control: Sanctions, Censorship, Surveillance The submission or agreeing to do according to the societal expectations and values are strong under the influence of both official and informal methods of control.
• Self-Censorship of American Film Studios In this sense, the lack of freedom of expression and constant control of the film creations is what differs the 20th-century film studios from contemporary movie creators.
• Twitter and Violations of Freedom of Speech and Censorship The sort of organization that examines restrictions and the opportunities and challenges it encounters in doing so is the center of a widely acknowledged way of thinking about whether it is acceptable to restrict speech.
• Censorship by Big Tech (Social Media) Companies Despite such benefits, these platforms are connected to such evils as an addictive business model and a lack of control over the type of content that is accessible to children users.
• Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary? One of the greatest achievements of the contemporary democratic society is the freedom of speech. However, it is necessary to realize in what cases the government has the right to abridge the freedom of self-expression.
• Art and the Politics of Censorship in Literature The inclusion of the novel in classroom studies in the early 1960s especially 1963, spurred criticisms due to the issues of contention addressed by the novel.
• The Issue of Parents’ Censorship Filtering the sources of information by the adults is like growing the plants in the greenhouse, hiding them from all the dangers of the surrounding world.
• Art and the Politics of Censorship The final act of the film is the most vital of all the scenes because the subject of the dispute elucidates the disparities between the director, producer, and censors.
• Censorship of Pornographic Material Effects of pornography are broad and the consequences are hazardous as it affects the moral fiber of the society. Censorship of explicit and pornographic material should be encouraged as we cannot imagine the catastrophe that […]
• China Intellectual Property Research on Censorship To prove the importance of the China’s intention to set the internet censorship, it is necessary to mention about rapid expansion of online technologies has made the internet one of the effective means of communication […]
• Censorship, Holocaust and Political Correctness In this paper, we will focus on exploring different aspects of formal and informal censorship, in regards to a so-called “Holocaust denial”, as we strongly believe that people’s ability to express their thoughts freely is […]
• Censorship: For the People, or for Controlling The main aim for this art in our societies is to restrain and conceal beneath the disguise of defending the key fundamental public amenities that are; the State, families and churches.
• Censorship in the United States Thus, the rationale of censorship is that it is necessary for the protection of the three basic social institutions; the family; the religion; the state.
• Balance of Media Censorship and Press Freedom Government censorship means the prevention of the circulation of information already produced by the official government There are justifications for the suppression of communication such as fear that it will harm individuals in the society […]
• Music Censorship in the United States Censorship is an act of the government and the government had no hand in the ban of Dixie Chicks songs, rather it was the fans boycotts that led to a ban on airplay.
• Art and Media Censorship: Plato, Aristotle, and David Hume The philosopher defines God and the creator’s responsibilities in the text of the Republic: The creator is real and the opposite of evil.
• Censorship, Its Forms and Purpose The argument here is that censorship is a means being used by conservative persons and groups with distinct interests to make life standards so difficult and unbearable for the minors in the society, in the […]
• Censorship in China: History and Controlling This is especially so when the government or a dominant religious denomination in a country is of the view that the proliferation of a certain religious dogma threatens the stability of the country or the […]
• Creativity and Censorship in Egyptian Filmmaking The intention of the media laws and other statutes censoring the film industry is to protect the sanctity of religion, sex, and the overly conservative culture of the Egyptian people.
• Internet Censorship and Cultural Values in the UAE Over the past few years, the government of the UAE introduced several measures, the main aim of which is to protect the mentality of people of the state and its culture from the pernicious influence […]
• Censorship Impacts on Civil Liberties In the US, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression; it is one of the main democratic rights and freedoms.
• Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering It is the obligation of the government to protect the innocence of the children through internet censorship. In some nations, the government uses internet blocking and filtering as a method to hide information from the […]
• Media Censorship: Wikileaks Wikileaks just offers the information which is to be available for people. Information is not just a source of knowledge it is the way to control the world.
• Censorship on the Internet Censorship in the internet can also occur in the traditional sense of the word where material is removed from the internet to prevent public access.
• Censorship of Social Networking Sites in Developing Countries Censorship of social media sites is the control of information that is available to users. The aim of this paper was to discuss censorship of social media sites in third world countries.
• Government Censorship of WikiLeaks In my opinion, the government should censor WikiLeaks in order to control information content that it releases to the public. In attempting to censor WikiLeaks, the US and Australian government will be limiting the freedom […]
• Censorship defeats its own purpose Is that not a disguised method of promoting an authoritarian regime by allowing an individual or a group of individuals to make that decision for the entire society The proponents of SOPA bill may argue […]
• Censorship and Banned Books Based on what has been presented in this paper so far it can be seen that literary freedom is an important facilitator in helping children develop a certain degree of intellectual maturity by broadening their […]
• Ethics and Media: Censorship in the UAE In this case, it is possible to apply the harm principle, according to which the task of the state is to minimize potential threats to the entire community.
• Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government When one try to access a website the uniform resource locator is checked if it consists of the restricting keyword, if the keyword is found in the URL the site become unavailable.
• Censorship vs. Self-censorship in the News Media Assessment of the appropriateness of the mass media in discharging the above-named duties forms the basis of the ideological analysis of the news media.
• Should Censorship Laws Be Applied to the Internet? On the other hand, the need to control cyber crime, cyber stalking, and violation of copyrights, examination leakage and other negative uses of the internet has become a necessity.
• Internet Censorship in Saudi Arabia The censorship is charged to the ISU, which, manage the high-speed data links connecting the country to the rest of the world.
• Media Control and Censorship of TV The second type of control imposed on the media is the control of information that may put the security of a country at risk.
• Chinese Censorship Block Chinese People from Creativity With the development of the country’s first browser in the year 1994 and subsequent move by the government to “provide internet accessing services” in the year 1996, the use of the technology began to develop […]
• Censorship for Television and Radio Media This paper seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of censorship with the aim of determining the extent to which content on broadcast media can be censored. A good example of a situation in which moral […]
• Empirical Likelihood Semiparametric Regression Analysis Under Random Censorship
• An Argument Against Internet Censorship in United States of America
• The Lack of Freedom and the Radio Censorship in the United States of America
• Censorship as the Control of What People May Say or Hear, Write or Read, or See or Do
• An Analysis and Overview of the Censorship and Explicit Lyrics in the United States of America
• The First Amendment and Censorship in the United States
• Advertiser Influence on The Media: Censorship and the Media
• The Freedom of Speech and Censorship on the Internet
• Censorship Necessary for Proper Education of Guardian
• An Argument in Favor of Censorship on Television Based on Content, the Time Slot and the Audience
• Music Censorship and the Effects of Listening to Music with Violent and Objectionable Lyrics
• An Analysis of Controversial Issue in Censorship on the Internet
• Consistent Estimation Under Random Censorship When Covariables Are Present
• Music Censorship Is a Violation of Constitutional and Human
• Censorship Should Not Be Imposed by the Government
• Internet Censorship and Its Role in Protecting Our Societys Addolecent Community
• Against Internet Censorship Even Pornography
• The Concept of Censorship on College Campuses on the Topic of Racism and Sexism
• Cyber-Frontier and Internet Censorship from the Government
• Creative Alternatives in the Issues of Censorship in the United States
• Asymptotically Efficient Estimation Under Semi-Parametric Random Censorship Models
• Chinese and Russian Regimes and Tactics of Censorship
• An Overview of the Right or Wrong and the Principles of Censorship
• An Argument Against the Censorship of Literature in Schools Due to Racism in the Literary Works
• The History, Positive and Negative Effects of Censorship in the United States
• Burlesque Shows and Censorship Analysis
• Importance of Free Speech on the Internet and Its Censorship
• Historical Background of the Libertarian Party and Their Views on the Role of the Government, Censorship, and Gun Control
• Internet Censorship and the Communications Decency Act
• Monitoring Children’s Surfing Habits Is a Better Way Than Putting Censorship Over the Internet
• A History of Censorship in Ancient and Modern Civilizations
• Censorship, Supervision and Control of the Information and Ideas
• Importance of Television Censorship to the Three Basic Social Institutions
• An Argument That Censorship Must Be Employed if Morals and Decency Are to Be Preserved
• Is Internet Censorship and De-Anonymization an Attack on Our Freedom
• Censorship or Parental Monitoring
• What Does Raleigh’s Letter Home and the Censorship Issue Tell You About Raleigh?
• Does Censorship Limit One’s Freedom?
• How Darwin Shaped Our Understanding of Why Language Exists?
• How Does Censorship Affect the Relationship with His Wife?
• Why and How Censorship Lead to Ignorance in Young People?
• What Is the Impact of Censorship on Children?
• How Does Media Censorship Violate Freedom of Expression and Impact Businesses?
• Censorship or Responsibility: Which Is the Lesser of Two?
• How Can Censorship Hinder Progress?
• How Musical Censorship Related to the Individual?
• How The Media Pretends to Protect Us with Censorship?
• What Is the Impact of Censorship on Our Everyday Lives?
• Is There China Internet Censorship Against Human Rights?
• Can Ratings for Movies Censorship Be Socially Justified?
• Censorship: Should Public Libraries Filter Internet Sites?
• Does Parental Censorship Make Children More Curious?
• What Are the Arguments for and Against the Censorship of Pornography?
• How Propaganda and Censorship Were Used In Britain and Germany During WWI?
• Should the Chinese Government Ban the Internet Censorship?
• How Virginia Woolf’s Orlando Subverted Censorship and Revolutionized the Politics of LGBT Love in 1928?
• How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression?
• What arguments Were Used to Support or Oppose Censorship in Video Nasties?
• Why News Ownership Affects Free Press and Press Censorship?
• Should Music Suffer the Bonds of Censorship Interviews?
• Why Should Graffiti Be Considered an Accepted from of Art?
• What Is the Connection Between Censorship and the Banning of Books?
• How Does Congress Define Censor and Censorship?
• How Does Censorship Affect the Development of Animations?
• Why Should Internet Censorship Be Allowed?
• Fake News Research Ideas
• Government Regulation Titles
• Internet Research Ideas
• Music Topics
• Public Relations Titles
• Video Game Topics
• Media Analysis Topics
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 26). 113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/

"113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples'. 26 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans and ‘Cancel Culture’: Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

People have challenged each other’s views for much of human history . But the internet – particularly social media – has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it’s never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray .

The phrase  “cancel culture” is said to have originated  from a relatively obscure slang term – “cancel,” referring to  breaking up with someone  – used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse . There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it’s a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn’t even exist .

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share – in their own words – what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Pew Research Center has a long history of studying the tone and nature of online discourse as well as emerging internet phenomena. This report focuses on American adults’ perceptions of cancel culture and, more generally, calling out others on social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,093 U.S. adults from Sept. 8 to 13, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

This essay primarily focuses on responses to three different open-ended questions and includes a number of quotations to help illustrate themes and add nuance to the survey findings. Quotations may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. Here are the  questions used for this essay , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Who’s heard of ‘cancel culture’?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase “cancel culture” varies – sometimes widely – across demographic groups.

Overall, 44% of Americans say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase, including 22% who have heard a great deal, according to the Center’s survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they’ve heard nothing or not too much about it, including 38% who have heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages 30 to 49 and 34% among those 50 and older.

There are gender and educational differences as well. Men are more likely than women to be familiar with the term, as are those who have a bachelor’s or advanced degree when compared with those who have lower levels of formal education. 1

While discussions around cancel culture can be highly partisan, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are no more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define ‘cancel culture’?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard about “cancel culture” were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

The most common responses by far centered around accountability. Some 49% of those familiar with the term said it describes actions people take to hold others accountable: 2

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions also discussed how these actions can be misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history being erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans’ responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an attack on traditional American values, a way to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people’s actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it as actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), conservative or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly one-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture .

Does calling people out on social media represent accountability or unjust punishment?

Given that cancel culture can mean different things to different people, the survey also asked about the more general act of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive – and whether this kind of behavior is more likely to hold people accountable or punish those who don’t deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don’t deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans – but just 22% of Democrats – believe this type of action generally punishes people who don’t deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor’s degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is true among Democrats: Those with a bachelor’s degree or more education are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those under 50 (73%) as well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely to punish people who didn’t deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open-ended responses and identifying common themes. Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. (If a response mentioned more than three themes, the first three mentioned were coded.)

After all the responses were coded, similarities and groupings among codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and punishment became apparent. As such, answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement between these two groups.

We identified five key areas of disagreement in respondents’ arguments for why they held their views of calling out others, broken down as follows:

• 25% of all adults address topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful
• 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior
• 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important
• 8% address the differing agendas of those who call out others
• 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

For the codes that make up each of these areas, see the Appendix .

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it’s because people are not taking the context of a person’s post or the intentions behind it into account before confronting that person.

In all, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people’s answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to be helpful?

The most common area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people’s differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior as a form of accountability point to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can be. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they associate this behavior with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

Is calling out others on social media productive behavior?

The second most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others can solve anything: 13% of those who see calling out others as a form of punishment touch on this issue in explaining their opinion, as do 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can actually make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a viable place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, free speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between free speech and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out as punishment explain – in their own words – that they are in favor of free speech on social media. By comparison, 10% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should be more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What’s the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another small share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who see calling out others as a form of accountability say it’s a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions voice these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a form of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others as punishment. 

Should people speak up if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or punishment also involve a small but notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who find a post offensive should not engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of action, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don’t like what that person has to say. However, 4% of those who see calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans see shades of gray when it comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can be difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that there can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Acknowledgments – Appendix – Methodology – Topline

What Americans say about cancel culture and calling out others on social media

Below, we have gathered a selection of quotes from three open-ended survey questions that address two key topics. Americans who’ve heard of the term cancel culture were asked to define what it means to them. After answering a closed-ended question about whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn’t deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view – that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Paired Texts
• Related Media
• Teacher Guide
• Parent Guide

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

• CommonLit is a nonprofit that has everything teachers and schools need for top-notch literacy instruction: a full-year ELA curriculum, benchmark assessments, and formative data. Browse Content Who We Are About

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• African Literatures
• Asian Literatures
• British and Irish Literatures
• Latin American and Caribbean Literatures
• North American Literatures
• Oceanic Literatures
• Slavic and Eastern European Literatures
• West Asian Literatures, including Middle East
• Western European Literatures
• Ancient Literatures (before 500)
• Middle Ages and Renaissance (500-1600)
• Enlightenment and Early Modern (1600-1800)
• 19th Century (1800-1900)
• 20th and 21st Century (1900-present)
• Children’s Literature
• Cultural Studies
• Film, TV, and Media
• Literary Theory
• Non-Fiction and Life Writing
• Print Culture and Digital Humanities
• Theater and Drama
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

• Nicole Moore Nicole Moore University of New South Wales
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.71
• Published online: 22 December 2016

Insofar as literature is defined negatively, by what it is not, censorship has had a determining role in its historical constitution. Contemporary scholarship emphasizes the dynamic interplay between literary expression and forms of cultural regulation, recognizing its paradoxically productive capacity to generate as well as suppress meaning. At the same time, accounting for censorship’s role in the history of the world’s literature means coming to grips with the often brutal repression, prohibition, and persecution of writing, writers, performance, and cultural producers by sovereign power underwritten by violence. Tracing the genealogies of literary censorship, from its formulations in ancient Rome, through medieval religious persecution, sedition and heresy charges, theatre controls, early modern print and copyright licensing, to the seeming breakthroughs of the Enlightenment, details the interdependence of modernity and cultural regulation. At stake in this history are defining relations between culture and society, knowledge and power, not least in the manner in which literature traverses the boundary between public and private, and censorship polices that divide. The art-for-art’s-sake defense, which separates the literary from what is offensive—nominally from obscenity, pornography, libel, blasphemy, and sedition and effectively from politics, intimacy, and the real—stumbles and fails in the face of culture’s variant aims and readers’ differing pleasures. And the state’s use of the law to enforce its role as a custosmorum has placed not only art in opposition to the law, as Gustave Flaubert saw, but also culture in opposition to morality, when the state becomes the modern arbiter of culture’s social and political roles. The available frames for understanding censorship, from liberal, materialist, psychoanalytic, linguistic, and poststructuralist positions, face challenges from diversifying and yet synthesizing situations for literature in a global world.

• prohibition
• pornography
• self-censorship

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Literature. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 26 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

Submissions

• Other Journals

A History of Censorship in the United States

Author _ Jennifer Elaine Steele ( [email protected] ), Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Science, The University of Southern Mississippi

Censorship is a centuries-old issue for the United States. The importance of intellectual freedom and the freedom of speech is particularly evident in libraries, organizations dedicated to the access and spread of information. Issues regarding censorship and intellectual freedom have even reached the US Supreme Court. The following essay serves as a history of censorship in the United States, particularly in its libraries, and how the same issues of censorship have now transitioned into the digital age.

T hroughout the history of the United States, there are many examples of censorship and censorship attempts. Censorship is often viewed as a violation of the First Amendment and the right to free speech. Freedom of speech is particularly pertinent to libraries, as it “encompasses not only a right to express oneself, but also a right to access information” (Oltmann 2016a, 153). The First Amendment is a common argument made by advocates against the act of censorship (Lambe 2002). As Pinnell-Stephens (2012) writes, “The basis of intellectual freedom in libraries lies in the First Amendment” (xi). However, interpretation of the First Amendment is not concrete, and throughout US history, courts have attempted to decide what freedoms are actually protected under the First Amendment. At the highest level, the US Supreme Court has heard many cases dealing with the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, which can also be relevant to libraries since they attempt to provide an environment of free expression and accessibility.

Many definitions of censorship have been proposed over the years. The American Library Association (ALA) defines censorship as a “change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes” (ALA 2016). According to Prebor and Gordon (2015), censorship is “an action utilized in order to prohibit access to books or information items because their content is considered dangerous or harmful to their readers” (28). Knox (2014) describes censorship as “an amalgamation of practices, including the redaction of text in a document, cutting pages out of a book, or denying access to materials” (741). While many definitions of censorship have been used, according to Oppenheim and Smith (2004), “the general sentiment behind most definitions is that something is withheld from access by another” (160).

Nineteenth-Century Beginnings: Obscenity and the Censorship of the US Postal Service

One of the oldest, and most commonly cited, reasons behind many book challenges and censorship attempts in the United States is that the book or other material contains obscenity. As Wachsberger (2006) writes, “The history of books censored for depicting sexual acts—whether the chosen word was ‘pornography,’ ‘erotica,’ or ‘obscenity’—is a fascinating ride through our country’s court system” (vii). An early case dealing with the issue of obscenity is Rosen v. United States (1896), in which the defendant allegedly used the US Postal Service to send material that was deemed “obscene, lewd, and lascivious” ( Rosen v. United States 1896, at 43). In their ruling, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in the notable British case Regina v. Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin test defined material as obscene if it tended “‘to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall’” ( Rosen v. United States 1896, at 43). The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

In 1873, the US Congress passed the Comstock Act (1873), which made it a crime to knowingly mail obscene materials or advertisements and information about obscene materials, abortion, or contraception (de Grazia 1992). It is notable that while it has roots dating back to 1775 and an original intention of supporting the concept of intellectual freedom, the Comstock Act (1873) is just one of many examples of the Postal Service enacting laws and acting as a censor throughout its history (Darling 1979; Paul and Schwartz 1961). 1

One seminal example of censorship on the grounds of obscenity involves James Joyce’s most famous work, Ulysses (1922). Prior to the novel’s US publication, the work was serialized in the literary magazine The Little Review . Following this first publication of Ulysses , three issues of The Little Review were seized and burned by the US Postal Service on the grounds that its content was deemed “obscene.” A complaint was made regarding a particular chapter that was published in the magazine, and after a trial the publishers were convicted and fined (Baggett 1995). Publication of Ulysses in the United States stopped for more than a decade (Gillers 2007). It was not until the federal district court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933 that the novel could legally be published in the United States (Gillers 2007). In the ruling for the case, Judge John M. Woolsey established the important notion that an entire work, rather than just a portion of it, should be considered for the work to be declared obscene ( United States v. One Book Called Ulysses 1933).

The Supreme Court ruled in the case Roth v. United States (1957) that obscenity was not protected under the First Amendment. It also developed what came to be known as the Roth test for obscenity, which was “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest” ( Roth v. United States 1957, at 489). However, the Roth test definition of obscenity proved difficult to apply. In the Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), which addressed whether states had the right to ban films they deemed obscene, Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that while he could not precisely define pornography, “I know it when I see it” ( Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964, at 197).

The Roth test was eventually expanded with the case Miller v. California (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if

“(a) . . . ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . . (b) . . . the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) . . . the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” ( Miller v. California 1973, at 39)

Many people confuse obscenity, which is not protected under the First Amendment, with pornography, which is protected under the First Amendment (Pinnell-Stephens 1999). The exception to this would be child pornography. The First Amendment is a common argument for those against censorship, and many challenges and censorship attempts involve materials targeted toward children and young adults. However, the First Amendment argument is not as strong when the censorship pertains to young children (Magnuson 2011), as many laws are in place for the purpose of protecting children. The Supreme Court ruled in the cases New York v. Ferber (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990) that child pornography is not subject to the Miller test and that the government’s interest in protecting children from abuse was crucial.

Censorship in the United States began with both the Postal Service and public libraries, gaining traction throughout the nineteenth century.

Censorship in Public Libraries

In the history of public libraries, censorship is “as old as the public library movement itself” (Thompson 1975, 1). As Wiegand (2015) put it, “Censorship was never far from public library practices” (36). In his 1973 article “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist Interpretation of History,” Michael Harris gives a history of the American public library, with the Boston Public Library beginning the public library movement in the 1850s. Since their inception, American public libraries have faced censorship issues (Wiegand 2015).

Censorship and Race

Race and ethnic background have been factors in censorship since the beginning of the public library movement. For the earliest public libraries in the 1850s, librarians and library trustees were often white, upper class, educated males, who were often the public library’s target demographic (Harris 1973). However, the 1890s saw a huge influx of immigrants into the United States (Harris 1973). Between 1893 and 1917, 7 million immigrants arrived from southern and eastern Europe (Wiegand 2015). This caused people to fear for the “American way of life.” In response, public libraries began to offer programs and classes for immigrants with the purpose of “Americanizing” them (Harris 1973).

During the Carnegie era (1889–1917), Scottish-American businessman Andrew Carnegie gave $41 million to construct 1,679 public library buildings in 1,412 US communities (Bobinski 1968; Wiegand 2015). However, some communities rejected Carnegie grants, with varying justifications. Sometimes it was pride, sometimes it was class, and sometimes it was race (Wiegand 2015). This was particularly at issue in the segregated, Jim Crow-era South, where many Carnegie grants were rejected because community leaders believed a Carnegie Free Library would have to admit Black people (Wiegand 2015). 2

One southern public library that did accept a Carnegie grant was the Colored Branches of the Louisville Public Library in Louisville, Kentucky, which opened its first branch for Black patrons in 1905 (Wiegand 2015). The branch then moved into a new Carnegie building in 1908, followed by a second Black neighborhood receiving a Carnegie library in 1914 (Wiegand 2015). Largely because they were among the few places in segregated Louisville that welcomed and allowed Black people to gather, the public library at this time took on the role of the neighborhood social center (Wiegand 2015).

Another example of censorship in public libraries with racial influences came in 1901, when the H. W. Wilson Company began publishing its Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature . The Readers’ Guide was an index of periodicals public libraries would often use as suggestions for their collections. However, periodicals issued by marginalized groups such as African or Hispanic Americans could not be indexed in the Readers’ Guide . This put them at a distinct disadvantage, as then public libraries tended to not subscribe to them (Wiegand 2015).

An important point in the history of public libraries is their integration. After World War II, efforts began to integrate public libraries in the American South (Wiegand 2015). In response to these efforts to integrate, “librarians across the country were mostly silent, and largely absent” (Wiegand 2015, 172). In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” was no longer legal. During this time, public libraries in the South were frequent sites of racial protests. Examples include a 1960 sit-in at the Greenville Public Library in South Carolina led by a teenage Jesse Jackson, and, in 1961, a peaceful protest led by members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at the public library in Jackson, Mississippi (Wiegand 2015). While these protests were predominant in the South, they occurred at public libraries all across the country, including the North (Wiegand 2015), making desegregation a pivotal point in the history of American public libraries.

Racial and ethnic background continues to be an influencer on censorship in libraries, with multiple researchers exploring public views regarding the inclusion of racially charged materials in a library’s collection. From 1976 to 2006, the General Social Survey asked randomly selected national samples of US adults age eighteen and older whether they would support removing a book spouting racist beliefs targeted at African Americans from the public library, with multiple researchers using statistical tests to analyze the data collected from the survey (Burke 2011; Bussert 2012).

In their analysis of the survey results, researchers found an overwhelming majority of the survey’s participants did not support removing the racist book from the library (Burke 2011), and the most influential predictors of support for book removal from the public library were found to be education level, religious affiliation, and race (Bussert 2012). Regarding education level, Bussert (2012) found that “the lower one’s education level, the higher their support for removal of the racist book from the public library” (117). Regarding religious affiliation, Protestants showed the highest level of support for removal, followed by Catholics, Jews, and respondents unaffiliated with religion (Bussert 2012). Regarding race, Bussert (2012) found that “while half of African American respondents supported removing a racist book, only one-third of white respondents did” (117).

Throughout the history of public libraries, censorship stemming from racial or ethnic background has been present. This censorship has come in various forms, including segregated library branches in the first part of the twentieth century, or the suppression of books or other materials spouting racist beliefs that occurs even to this day. When faced with a censorship challenge of this nature, it is important for librarians to remember the Library Bill of Rights and other ethical codes that guide them as a profession and encourage them to refrain from censoring such materials and ideas from their library.

Censorship and Religion

Censorship can also stem from religious beliefs (Wiegand 2015). According to Prebor and Gordon (2015), “Religiously motivated censorship is one of the most prevalent forms of censorship and has existed since antiquity” (28). Religious texts such as the Bible, the Talmud, and the Quran have all been censored at some time (Prebor and Gordon 2015). Even popular releases such as J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series have been censored on religious grounds due to the books’ portrayal of witchcraft (Bald 2011).

In the history of public libraries, censorship due to religious reasons can be predominantly seen at the turn of the twentieth century with the tension between public libraries and the Roman Catholic Church. In 1895, Catholics in Portland, Oregon, complained that their public library subscribed to no Catholic magazines (Wiegand 2015). In addition, of the 1,400 books at that time that the Dewey Decimal System classified as religion, none were by a Catholic author. This eventually led to a priest in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to say that because Catholics paid taxes to support the library, they should be represented on the library board and that any books attacking the church should be removed (Wiegand 2015).

In 1938, a Catholic organization known as the National Organization for Decent Literature (NODL) was established to combat the publication and sale of lewd magazines and brochure literature (Wiegand 2015). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has a long history with censorship. In 1559 the first index of forbidden books was published by Pope Paul IV. The index was used for hundreds of years, with the final edition being published in 1948 and officially being abolished in 1966 (Prebor and Gordon 2015).

Another example of censorship challenges grounded in religious beliefs involves the book The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, a novel many people consider to be sacrilegious. The book was first published in English in 1960 and regularly appears on banned book lists (Bald 2006). In Santa Ana, California, a patron checked out the book and then renewed it. As soon as the book was returned, it was promptly checked out and then renewed by a friend of the original patron. The librarian soon discovered they were members of a group determined to keep the book out of circulation (Wiegand 2015). Protests of the book also occurred in Long Beach, Pasadena, Fullerton, and Newport Beach. In San Diego, several citizens claimed that the book was pornographic, defamed Christ, and was part of a Communist conspiracy (Wiegand 2015).

Libraries will often serve a patron base with differing religious views. This is something for librarians to be mindful of when making selection decisions. While the ALA’s values would support having materials in the collection from a variety of differing religious viewpoints, it is important to note that there are Christian libraries and other faith-based library institutions with unique user needs that the collection development policy should address (Gehring 2016; Hippenhammer 1993; Hippenhammer 1994). It is important for the collection development policy of any library to support the representation of differing religious viewpoints as well as the needs of the community it serves.

Censorship of Fiction

Public libraries began with the purpose of serving an aristocratic class as elitist centers for scholarly research (Harris 1973). However, this changed toward the end of the nineteenth century, when public libraries began to cater to the “common man.” Libraries began to strive to assist the poor with educating themselves and pulling themselves up to a higher socioeconomic class (Harries 1973). While public libraries have historically encouraged “self-improvement reading” (Wiegand 2015, 38), this did not always align with the desires of the public. Since the beginning of the public library movement, trends have shown the public’s taste for the current, popular fiction of the time (Wiegand 2015).

One example of fiction dominating a library’s circulation happened at the Boston Public Library. In 1859, the Boston Public Library found out firsthand that if the library did not provide the popular stories the public valued, whether or not they were deemed valuable by librarians or other cultural authorities, then circulation would decrease (Wiegand 2015). In 1875, The Literary World reported on the circulation of the different Boston Public Library branches. According to The World , fiction accounted for 79% of the East Boston branch circulation, 78% for South Boston, and 81% for Roxbury (Wiegand 2015).

While late-nineteenth-century American public libraries carried popular fiction in their collections to keep people coming back, this did not stop censorship attacks against it (Wiegand 2015). One tactic used by librarians around the turn of the century to limit access to fiction was through the use of closed versus open stacks. In the beginning of the public library movement, library stacks were closed and a patron would have to go to the desk to ask the librarian or other staff member to retrieve the book for which they were looking. After 1893, libraries began to open their stacks to the public. However, librarians would regularly put nonfiction out in the open stacks but keep fiction in the closed stacks as a way to get the public to read more nonfiction and less fiction (Wiegand 2015).

Another tactic libraries used to encourage the reading of nonfiction as opposed to fiction was moving from a one-book-per-visit rule to a two-book-per-visit rule that allowed patrons to check out only one fiction book as one of their two books (Wiegand 2015). This tactic continued even after World War I. Prior to the war, the Los Angeles Public Library permitted patrons to check out three books at a time, and all could be fiction. After the war, the library extended the limit to five books, but only two of the books could be fiction (Wiegand 2015). However, this rule had little effect. While nonfiction circulation did increase by 7%, fiction still accounted for 74% of the library’s total circulation (Wiegand 2015).

While some libraries used tactics such as placing fiction in closed stacks or enforcing limits on the number of fiction books a patron could borrow at a time, other public libraries would outright ban fiction from their collections (Wiegand 2015). The public library in Germantown, Pennsylvania, refused to stock any fiction (Wiegand 2015). The Groton (Connecticut) Public Library moved into new quarters in 1867, and the librarian declared “there would be no fiction at all in the Library” (Wiegand 2015, 41). Whether libraries utilized closed versus open stacks to limit the public’s access to fiction, placed limits on how many fiction books a patron could borrow from the library at one time, or outright banned fiction from their collections altogether, the war against fiction is a pivotal example of censorship in the history of public libraries.

Censorship of Paperbacks

After World War II, to maximize sales, book publishers began to issue more paperbacks with alluring covers (Wiegand 2015). Merchants would then place these paperbacks on newsstands with their often suggestive covers out to attract customers (Wiegand 2015). Some people at this time claimed that the suggestive covers affected the moral standards of the country and led to increased juvenile delinquency. Some even argued it was a Communist conspiracy to take over the country (Wiegand 2015).

Several groups got involved in the issue, including the NODL. In the early 1950s, the NODL targeted paperbacks and comic books, even publishing lists it disapproved of in its monthly publication, The Priest (Wiegand 2015). NODL committees would even monitor newsstands and pressure the owners to stop selling these popular paperbacks (Wiegand 2015). Many librarians at the time either agreed with or were intimidated by the NODL and often refused to carry paperbacks in their collections (Wiegand 2015).

Wiegand (2015) says of this refusal by libraries in the 1950s to carry paperback books, which were significantly cheaper than hardbacks, “The library profession identified with that part of the publishing industry that favored hardbounds over the softcovers that newsstands and drugstores sold largely to working-class readers” (169). This period marks an important point in the history of public libraries and the profession of librarianship in regards to censorship, particularly as it is an example of a large portion of the librarianship profession acting as censors themselves.

Censorship of Communist Materials

Public libraries in the 1950s faced pressure to censor materials believed to be spreading Communist ideas and beliefs (Wiegand 2015). Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy capitalized on America’s Cold War fears about the Soviet Union and the Communist movement. He accused multiple civic agencies and institutions, including libraries, of spreading Communist ideas. He specifically targeted libraries that the recently established US Information Agency had opened at US embassies abroad. He claimed that these libraries had 30,000 Communist books, and the effects of his claims were felt throughout the American library community (Wiegand 2015).

Many librarians at this time proceeded to withdraw controversial materials from their libraries whether it was because they believed in McCarthy’s message, or they simply wanted to save their jobs. However, some librarians did resist McCarthy and his message (Wiegand 2015). When the Boston Herald attacked the Boston Public Library for stocking books it claimed promoted Communism, a local Catholic newspaper in Boston as well as numerous citizens joined the librarians in a successful protest (Wiegand 2015). While some librarians adhered to the principles set forth in the Library Bill of Rights and some succumbed to pressure, the fear of Communism in America in the 1950s greatly impacted the entire American library community.

While censorship has always been a part of the history of American public libraries, it also has a long history of being present within the schools educating the nation’s children.

Censorship in Schools

The Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding the First Amendment rights of students. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), two students whose religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses, forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, were expelled from school for refusing to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of the students ( West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 1943).

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), three students, including siblings John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, as well as their friend Christopher Eckhardt, were expelled after they wore black armbands to school as a symbolic protest of the Vietnam War (ALA 2006). The Supreme Court held that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate” ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969, at 506) and that “the First Amendment protects public school students’ rights to express political and social views” (ALA 2006, para. 25).

A pivotal Supreme Court ruling regarding First Amendment rights and censorship in school libraries was Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School Dsitrict No. 26 v. Pico (1982). In 1975, members of the school board from the Island Trees School District ordered that certain books be removed from high school and junior high school libraries on the grounds that the books were “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” ( Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico 1982, at 857). Some of the books to be removed were Slaughterhouse Five , Best Short Stories of Negro Writers , Go Ask Alice , and Down These Mean Streets (Molz 1990). A high school student named Steven Pico led a group of students who sued the board, claiming a denial of their First Amendment rights. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where a closely divided Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the students (ALA 2006).

In the ruling for the case, Justice William Brennan cited both Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) as well as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) and stated that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion’” ( Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico 1982, at 872).

In the case Counts v. Cedarville School District (2003), the school board of the Cedarville, Arkansas, school district voted to restrict students’ access to the popular Harry Potter book series on the grounds that the books promoted “disobedience and disrespect for authority” ( Counts v. Cedarville School District 2003, at 1002) and dealt with “witchcraft” (at 1002) and “the occult” (at 1002). After the vote, students in the Cedarville school district were required to obtain a signed permission slip from a parent or guardian before they would be allowed to borrow any of the Harry Potter books from school libraries (ALA 2006). The district court overturned the board’s decision and ordered the books returned to unrestricted circulation on the grounds that “the restrictions violated students’ First Amendment right to read and receive information” (ALA 2006, para. 23).

Twentieth-Century Changes: Movies, Music, and More

Throughout the twentieth century, technological advances changed the way Americans enjoyed their entertainment, whether through films, music recordings, or even the rise of new literary genres such as comic books. As each new form of entertainment rose in popularity, the censorship attempts became more prevalent.

Censorship of the Motion Picture Industry

Censorship of the motion picture industry became prevalent with the Motion Picture Production Code in the 1930s. The Motion Picture Production Code was the set of moral guidelines for the industry that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1930 to 1968. It was also known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945 (Miller, 1994). Hays was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1918 to 1921, and served as the US Postmaster General from 1921 to 1922, under President Warren G. Harding (Allen 1959). Several studios in Hollywood recruited Hays in 1922 to help rehabilitate Hollywood’s image after several risqué films and a series of off-camera scandals involving Hollywood stars tarnished the motion picture industry image (Miller 1994). Hays resigned as Postmaster General on January 14, 1922, to become president of the newly formed MPPDA (AP 1922).

The MPPDA, which later became known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began strictly enforcing it in 1934 (Miller 1994). The Production Code clearly spelled out what content was acceptable and what content was not acceptable for motion pictures produced in the United States. Content restricted by the Production Code included “scenes of passion” unless essential to a film’s plot, “sex perversion,” adultery, “indecent” dancing, and white slavery (AP 1930, 3). The Production Code was adhered to well into the 1950s, and then with the emergence of television, influence of foreign films, and directors who would push the envelope, 3 the Code began to weaken. In 1968, the Production Code was replaced with the MPAA film rating system (Miller 1994).

Censorship of the Comic Book Industry

Controversy regarding comic books and their content surfaced shortly after their debut in the 1930s. The first group to object to comics was educators, who saw comics as a “bad influence on students’ reading abilities and literary tastes” (Nyberg n.d., para. 3). Church and civic groups objected to “immoral” content such as scantily clad women and the glorification of villains. The NODL added comics to the materials it evaluated (Nyberg n.d., para. 4).

After World War II, there was a rise in the popularity of horror comics, bringing a third group into the comic book debate: mental health experts. With a focus on juvenile delinquency, noted New York City psychiatrist Dr. Fredric Wertham campaigned to ban the sales of comics to children, arguing that “children imitated the actions of comic book characters” and that “the content desensitized children to violence” (Nyberg n.d., para. 5).

In September 1954, the Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA) was formed in response to a widespread public concern over the gory and horrific content that was common in comic books of the time (“Horror” 1954). This led to the Comics Code Authority (CCA) and regulations on content published in comic books. Comic book publishers that were members would submit their comics to the CCA, which would screen them for adherence to its Code. If the book was found to be in compliance, then they would authorize the use of their seal on the book’s cover (Hajdu 2008). Pressure from the CCA and the use of its seal led to the censorship of comic books across the country.

Even before the adoption of the CCA, some cities had organized public burnings and bans on comic books (Costello 2009). The city councils of both Oklahoma City and Houston passed city ordinances banning crime and horror comics (“Horror” 1954). The movement against comics even infiltrated public libraries, with the Charlotte (North Carolina) Public Library system refusing to carry them in its collections in 1951 (Wiegand 2015).

These regulations were devastating for the comic book industry. According to Hajdu (2008), work for comic book cartoonists dried up, with more than 800 creators losing their jobs. The number of comic book titles published dropped from 650 titles in 1954 to 250 in 1956 (Hajdu 2008). Over time, the industry was able to recover as publishers left the CCA one by one. In January 2011, Archie Comics, the last remaining publisher still participating, announced they were leaving the CCA, rendering the CCA and its Code defunct (Rogers 2011).

Censorship of the Recording Industry

The music recording industry has faced censorship stemming from the use of Parental Advisory labels. The labels are placed on music and other audio recordings if the recording uses excessive profanities or inappropriate references. The intention of the labels is to alert parents of material that is potentially unsuitable for younger children (Cole 2010).

The idea for the labels was first outlined by Tipper Gore, wife of Al Gore and eventual Second Lady of the United States, and her advocacy group the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) in a 1984 letter to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and sixty-two record labels (Schonfeld 2015). The PMRC initially proposed a rating code: “Violent lyrics would be marked with a ‘V,’ Satanic or anti-Christian occult content with an ‘O,’ and lyrics referencing drugs or alcohol with a ‘D/A’” (Schonfeld 2015). With little response, the PMRC then proposed a generic label warning of lyric content. The RIAA eventually gave in and agreed to put warning stickers on albums, with early versions of Parental Advisory labels first used in 1985 (Schonfeld 2015). In 1990, “Banned in the USA” by the rap group 2 Live Crew became the first album to bear the “black and white” Parental Advisory label (Schonfeld 2015, para. 10).

Parental Advisory labels were originally affixed on physical cassettes and then compact discs. Now, with the rise of digital music through online music stores and music streaming, the label is usually embedded in the digital artwork of albums that are purchased online (Cole 2010). While the evolution of digital music has reduced the Parental Advisory label system’s efficacy, use of the labels has nevertheless impacted the recording industry, in some cases leading to censorship of the recordings. Many major retailers that distribute music, including Walmart, have enacted policies that do not allow the selling of any recordings containing the label in their stores (Cole 2010).

Censorship of LGBTQ Materials

Censorship of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning (LGBTQ) materials has occurred throughout the twentieth century and continues to face censorship today. The American Library Association has seen an increase in organized, coordinated challenges to LGBTQ materials and services in libraries (ALA 2020), and homosexuality was cited as a reason for censorship in many analyses of censorship trends over the last several decades (Woods 1979; Harer and Harris 1994; Sova 1998; Doyle 2000; Foerstel 2002; Karolides, Bald, and Sova 2005). In addition, some state legislatures even limit state funding for libraries that do not agree to restrictions on certain controversial LGBTQ materials (Barack 2005; Oder 2006).

Censorship of LGBTQ materials in libraries has been a common area of research, both for school libraries (Coley 2002; Garry 2015; Hughes-Hassell, Overberg, and Harris 2013; Maycock 2011; Oltmann 2016b; Sanelli and Perreault 2001) and public libraries (Burke 2008; Cook 2004; Curry 2005; Stringer-Stanback 2011). Research has shown that while gay-themed materials are often the subject of censorship, the country as a whole is becoming less conservative and is more open to finding such materials in their libraries (Burke 2008). Furthermore, a supportive community and administration is of utmost importance when building a quality, inclusive library collection (Garry 2015).

Despite these findings, LGBTQ individuals do often face harassment, discrimination, and even violence in society as a whole. Many LGBTQ young adults have learned to be secretive about their sexual identity for fear of rejection from their peers or even their families (Rauch 2011). This is particularly true for young adults who attend schools in small, less diverse, rural communities and communities with limited financial resources (Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz 2009). Those limited resources can be a particular drawback for public libraries, as they prevent them from circulating relevant, up-to-date materials (Van Buskirk 2005) that might increase awareness and tolerance of LGBTQ individuals and issues. While “partisan or doctrinal disapproval” (ALA 2010, 49) plays a large role in these materials not being available where they are most needed, the fact remains that many librarians and information professionals in these areas simply do not have the funds to provide these materials, either to LGBTQ students or to those who surround them.

Much of the controversy over LGBTQ-themed literature and materials deals with their dissemination to children (Naidoo 2012). Kidd (2009) writes how the “censorship of children’s books has accelerated in the twentieth century, as the censorship of adult materials became less acceptable and as childhood was imagined more and more as a time of great innocence and vulnerability” (199). DePalma and Atkinson (2006) write that oftentimes children are considered to be innocent asexual beings, and therefore many believe they must be “protected from the dangerous knowledge of homosexuality” (DePalma and Atkinson 2006, 339). Parents frequently challenge books with LGBTQ themes, claiming they are not suitable for the child’s age group. This makes it difficult for families with LGBTQ members to access these materials. According to Wolf (1989), “Homophobia . . . still keeps most gay families hidden and accounts for the absence of information about them. It also keeps what information there is out of the library, especially the children’s room, and makes it difficult to locate through conventional research strategies,” (52).

One example of this occurred in Wichita Falls, Texas, and led to the federal case Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas (2000). Residents of Wichita Falls, Texas, who were members of a church sought removal of the two books Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate . The residents sought removal of the books because they disapproved of the books’ depictions of homosexuality. The City of Wichita Falls City Council then passed a resolution to restrict access to the books if a petition was able to get three hundred signatures asking for the restriction. A different group of citizens then filed suit after copies of the two books were removed from the children’s section of the library and placed on a locked shelf in the adult area ( Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas 2000). The District Court ruled that the city’s resolution permitting the removal of the two books improperly delegated governmental authority regarding selection decisions of books carried in the library and prohibited the city from enforcing the resolution (ALA 2006; Steele 2017; Steele 2019b).

As school libraries are often not safe spaces for LGBTQ teens, they will often seek out public libraries for resources related to their issues and identity questions (Curry 2005). However, as Curry’s study showed, not all reference librarians were even aware of relevant terminology—for example, “gay-straight alliance”—and were therefore unable to address the questions posed to them by the researchers regarding their LGBTQ collections. Some also seemed nervous or uncomfortable with the questions being posed to them (Curry 2005, 70). This not only hindered the search, but also raised the question of whether the librarians were maintaining objectivity about the nature of the materials (Curry 2005, 72).

Alvin M. Schrader’s 2009 article, “Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries,” discusses the importance of including LGBTQ materials in libraries so that young people can turn to these materials for support. Schrader explains that librarians are avoiding building these collections and are claiming that their libraries do not serve people who need, or want, LGBTQ materials or that the library cannot afford to purchase those materials (107). Schrader challenges librarians to “foster diversity and resilience. They can create safe places. They can turn pain into opportunity, tolerance into celebration, despair into hope” (109). This message should empower librarians to resist the pressure to censor these materials in their libraries.

While some adults may feel that censoring certain materials from young people is a way of protecting them, it is in direct opposition of the ALA’s Freedom to Read Statement . Section 4 of the Freedom to Read Statement states, “There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression” (ALA 2010, 203). Parents, teachers, and librarians all have a responsibility to prepare young people for the diversity of experiences that they will be exposed to in life. Through both the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement , the ALA places the professional responsibility on librarians to provide the population with information that meets their needs, including the LGBTQ community.

The Internet and Twenty-First-Century Censorship

The question of what forms of communication are or are not protected under the First Amendment becomes even more complicated with the move into the digital age. The arrival of the internet brought a wave of new concerns, particularly about the safety of children. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed by Congress on February 1, 1996, and signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996. The CDA imposed criminal sanctions on anyone who knowingly

(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs. (CDA 1996)

The CDA marked Congress’s first attempt to regulate pornography on the internet. Parts of the law were eventually struck down by the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997). In the case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against Janet Reno in her capacity as attorney general of the United States, claiming that parts of the CDA were unconstitutional. In the ruling on the case, a unanimous Supreme Court specifically extended the First Amendment to written, visual, and spoken expression posted on the internet ( Reno v. ACLU 1997). This case was significant as it was the first to bring the First Amendment into the digital age.

Another prominent case dealing with censorship and the internet was Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library (1998). In this case, a group of adult library patrons and individuals in Loudoun County, Virginia, brought a suit against library trustees, board members, and the director of the county’s public library, claiming that the library’s use of internet blocking software to block child pornography and obscene material was an infringement on their First Amendment rights ( Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library 1998). The library’s internet policy was highly restrictive in that it treated adults the same as children. The court ruled that, because the library decided to provide internet access, the First Amendment limited the library board’s discretion in placing content-based restrictions on access to the internet, therefore declaring the Loudoun County internet policy invalid (ALA 2006; Steele 2017; Steele 2019a).

In 1998, Congress passed its second attempt to regulate internet pornography, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which restricted access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the internet (COPA 1998). On June 29, 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , the Supreme Court ruled that the law was likely to be unconstitutional. The Court wrote, “filtering software may well be more effective than COPA is confirmed by the findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, a blue-ribbon commission created by Congress in COPA itself. Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors’ ability to gain access to harmful materials on the Internet” ( Ashcroft v. ACLU 2004, at 668).

On December 21, 2000, Congress passed into law the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The law requires K-12 schools and libraries in the United States to use internet filters to be eligible to receive e-rate federal funding (CIPA 2000). The law was later challenged by the ALA as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled that public libraries’ use of internet filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment free speech rights and that CIPA is constitutional ( United States v. ALA 2003).

Also related to censorship and the internet is the censorship of social media content. Companies like Facebook and Twitter rely on a growing team of employees to remove offensive material—a practice known as “content moderation”—from their sites (Chen 2014). While the content being removed, such as pornography and gore, can be disturbing, it is censorship nonetheless. In addition, with the public becoming increasingly reliant on social media for their access to news, some social media sites have come under fire for censoring their trending news stories. Facebook has been accused of censoring its trending news sidebar and purposely omitting stories from conservative news sites, though research contradicts these claims (Bowles and Thielman 2016). With the rise of social media, the censoring of social media content is an issue that is becoming increasingly relevant to today’s world.

As stated in the eighth edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2010), “Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected” (xvii). For some librarians, it made them question the very ideals and core values that the profession stands for. Bosseller and Budd (2015) write, “The Internet’s entrance into the library changed (and challenged) many librarians’ commitment to intellectual freedom” (34). Regardless, the internet and its ability to more quickly and easily provide access to information like never before has ushered in a new era for librarianship.

Whether dealing with the issue of obscenity, the evolution of technology and the internet, or other free speech controversies, the question of what is protected under an individual’s First Amendment rights is an issue that is highly debated. First Amendment rights and the right to free speech is also of particular concern for libraries when dealing with issues of censorship.

Foucault writes in The History of Sexuality (1978) how “instances of muteness which, by dint of saying nothing, imposed silence. Censorship” (17). Censorship has been, is, and will continue to be one of the single most important issues for librarians. This silencing has kept society from talking about many issues, particularly issues that some find controversial or uncomfortable to discuss. While some people may find it hard to allow these controversial materials to continue to take up residency in their libraries, it is not up to them to decide how people should live their lives or what they should read.

Many librarians are not always in a position to take a proactive stance in enacting the Library Bill of Rights . This is sometimes caused by an inability to affect change, whether because of legislation, political and social norms, or financial shortcomings. However, in some cases, this is due to a lack of awareness of the extent, exact nature, and possible solutions to problems. By upholding professional guidelines set in the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights , Code of Ethics , and Freedom to Read Statement , librarians and information professionals can refrain from censorship and assist library users with their information needs to the best of their abilities.

Allen, Frederick Lewis. 1959. Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s . New York: Harper & Row.

American Library Association (ALA). 2006. “Notable First Amendment Court Cases.” http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases .

———. 2010. Intellectual Freedom Manual (8th ed.). Chicago: ALA.

———. 2016. “Challenge Support.” http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport .

———. 2020. “State of America’s Libraries 2020: Issues and Trends.” http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2020/issues-trends .

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , 542 U.S. 656, 124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5352124576782659763&q=Ashcroft+v.+American+Civil+Liberties+Union&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Associated Press (AP). 1922. “Hays to be Mogul in Silver Screen Realm.” San Antonio Express , January 15, p. 4.

———. 1930. “Producers Adopt Code of Conduct for Screen Shows.” Calgary Daily Herald , April 1, p. 3. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WyRkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WHsNAAAAIBAJ&dq=motion%20picture%20producers%20and%20distributors%20of%20america&pg=3606%2C4315324 .

Baggett, Holly. 1995. “The Trials of Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap.” In Susan Albertine, ed., A Living of Words: American Women in Print Culture (pp. 169-88). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Bald, Margaret. 2006. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds , rev. ed. New York: Facts on File.

———. 2011. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds , 3rd ed. New York: Facts on File.

Barack, Lauren. 2005. “AL Lawmaker to Ban Pro-Gay Books.” School Library Journal 51(1): 24.

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico , 457 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 2799, 73 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1982). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11432514393725128521&q=Board+of+Education,+Island+Trees+Union+Free+School+District+No.+26+v.+Pico&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Bobinski, George S. 1968. “Carnegie Libraries: Their History and Impact on American Public Library Development.” ALA Bulletin 62(11): 1361-67.

Bossaller, Jenny S., and John M. Budd. 2015. “What We Talk About When We Talk About Free Speech.” Library Quarterly 85(1): 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/679024 .

Bowles, Nellie, and Sam Thielman. 2016. “Facebook Accused of Censoring Conservatives, Report Says.” Guardian , May 9. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news .

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12120372216939101759&q=Brown+v.+Board+of+Education&hl=en&as_sdt=6,25 .

Burke, Susan K. 2008. “Removal of Gay-Themed Materials from Public Libraries: Public Opinion Trends, 1973–2006.” Public Library Quarterly 27(3): 247-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616840802229552 .

Burke, Susan K. 2011. “Social Tolerance and Racist Materials in Public Libraries.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 49(4): 369-79. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.49n4.369 .

Bussert, Leslie. 2012. “Americans’ Tolerance of Racist Materials in Public Libraries Remained Steady Between 1976-2006.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7(1): 116-19. https://doi.org/10.18438/B83313 .

Chen, Adrian. 2014. “The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed.” Wired , October 23. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ .

Child Online Protection Act, Pub. L. 105-277, Div. C, Title XIV, 112 Stat. 2736 (1998). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104publ104.pdf .

Children’s Internet Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-554, Div. B, Title XVII, 114 Stat. 2763A-335 (2000). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ554/pdf/PLAW-106publ554.pdf .

Cole, Tom. 2010. “You Ask, We Answer: ‘Parental Advisory’ Labels-The Criteria and the History.” NPR , October 29. http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2010/10/29/130905176/you-ask-we-answer-parental-advisory---why-when-how .

Coley, Ken P. 2002. “Moving Toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School Library Media Specialists.” School Library Media Research 5.

Communication Decency Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, Title V, 110 Stat. 133 (1996). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/html/PLAW-104publ104.htm .

Comstock Act, Ch. 258, § 2, 17 Stat. 599 (1873), repealed with amended provisions at 18 U.S.C. § 1461. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=017/llsl017.db&recNum=640 .

Cook, Jennifer Chance. 2004. “GLBTQ Teen Literature: Is it Out There in Indiana?” Indiana Libraries 23(2): 25-28.

Costello, Matthew J. 2009. Secret Identity Crisis: Comic Books and the Unmasking of Cold War America . New York: Continuum.

Counts v. Cedarville School District , 295 F. Supp. 2d 996 (W.D. Ark. 2003). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4899935302137642081&q=counts+v+cedarville+school+district&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Curry, Ann. 2005. “If I Ask, Will They Answer? Evaluating Public Library Reference Service to Gay and Lesbian Youth.” Reference & User Services Quarterly (1): 65-75.

Darling, Richard L. 1979. “Access, Intellectual Freedom and Libraries.” Library Trends 27: 315-26.

de Grazia, Edward. 1992. Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius . New York: Random House.

DePalma, Renée, and Elizabeth Atkinson. 2006. “The Sound of Silence: Talking About Sexual Orientation and Schooling.” Sex Education 6(4): 333–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810600981848 .

Doyle, Robert P. 2000. Banned Books: 2000 Resource Book . Chicago: ALA.

Foerstel, Herbert N. 2002. Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. An Introduction . New York: Random House.

Garry, Candi Pierce. 2015. “Selection or Censorship? School Librarians and LGBTQ Resources.” School Libraries Worldwide 21(1): 73-90.

Gehring, Denise Rachel. 2016. “Faith-Informed Intellectual Freedom: An Annotated Bibliography.” Collection Building 35(2): 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-12-2015-0020 .

Gillers, Stephen. 2007. “A Tendency to Deprave and Corrupt: The Transformation of American Obscenity Law from Hicklin to Ulysses .” Washington University Law Review 85(2): 215-96.

Gorman, Michael. 2000. Our Enduring Values . Chicago: ALA.

Hajdu, David. 2008. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America. New York: Picador.

Harer, John B., and Steven R. Harris. 1994. Censorship of Expression in the 1980s: A Statistical Survey . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Harris, Michael. 1973. “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist Interpretation of History.” Library Journal (1876) 98: 2509-14.

Hippenhammer, Craighton. 1993. “Patron Objections to Library Materials: A Survey of Christian College Libraries, Part I.” Christian Librarian 37(1): 12-17.

———. 1994. “Patron Objections to Library Materials: A Survey of Christian College Libraries, Part II.” Christian Librarian 37(2), 40-47.

“Horror on the Newsstands.” 1954. Time , September 27, 64(13): 79.

Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Elizabeth Overberg, and Shannon Harris. 2013. “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ)-Themed Literature for Teens: Are School Libraries Providing Adequate Collections?” School Library Research 16: 1-18.

Jacobellis v. Ohio , 378 U.S. 184, 84 S. Ct. 1676, 12 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1964). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15356452945994377133&q=Jacobellis+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Joyce, James. 1922. Ulysses . Paris, France: Sylvia Beach.

Karolides, Nicholas J., Margaret Bald, and Dawn B. Sova. 2005. 120 Banned Books: Censorship Histories of World Literature . New York: Checkmark Books.

Kidd, Kenneth. 2009. “Not Censorship but Selection: Censorship and/as Prizing.” Children’s Literature in Education 40(3): 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-008-9078-4 .

Knox, Emily. 2014. “‘The Books Will Still Be in the Library’: Narrow Definitions of Censorship in the Discourse of Challengers.” Library Trends 62(4): 740–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2014.0020 .

Kosciw, Joseph G., Emily A. Greytak, and Elizabeth M. Diaz. 2009. “Who, What, Where, When, and Why: Demographic and Ecological Factors Contributing to Hostile School Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(7): 976-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9412-1 .

Lambe, Jennifer L. 2002. “Dimensions of Censorship: Reconceptualizing Public Willingness to Censor.” Communication Law & Policy 7(2): 187–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326926CLP0702_05 .

Magnuson, Marta L. 2011. “Perceptions of Self and the ‘Other’: An Analysis of Challenges to And Tango Makes Three .” School Library Media Research 14: 1-9.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun , 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13796536557265673818&q=mainstream+loudoun&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Maycock, Angela. 2011. “Issues and Trends in Intellectual Freedom for Teacher Librarians: Where We’ve Come from and Where We’re Heading.” Teacher Librarian 39(1): 8-12.

McGilligan, Patrick. 2004. Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light . New York: Harper Perennial.

Miller, Frank. 1994. Censored Hollywood: Sex, Sin, and Violence on Screen . Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing.

Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=287180442152313659&q=miller+v+california&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Molz, R. Kathleen. 1990. “Censorship: Current Issues in American Libraries.” Library Trends 39(1/2): 18-35.

Naidoo, Jamie Campbell. 2012. Rainbow Family Collections: Selecting and Using Children’s Books with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Content . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226851723986989726&q=new+york+v+ferber&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Nyberg, Amy Kiste. n.d. Comics Code History: The Seal of Approval . http://cbldf.org/comics-code-history-the-seal-of-approval/ .

Oder, Norman. 2006. “Oklahoma Targets Gay Books.” Library Journal (1976) 131(7): 20.

Oltmann, Shannon M. 2016a. “Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives.” Library Quarterly 86(2): 153-71. https://doi.org/10.1086/685402 .

———. 2016b. “‘They Kind of Rely on the Library’: School Librarians Serving LGBT Students.” Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults 7(1): 1-21.

Oppenheim, Charles, and Victoria Smith. 2004. “Censorship in Libraries.” Information Services & Use 24(4): 159-70. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2004-24401 .

Osborne v. Ohio , 495 U.S. 103, 110 S. Ct. 1691, 109 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1990). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4775063558409617777&q=Osborne+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Paul, James C. N., and Murray L. Schwartz. 1961. Federal Censorship: Obscenity in the Mail . New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Pinnell-Stephens, June. 1999. “Libraries: A Misunderstood American Value.” American Libraries 30(6): 76-81.

Pinnell-Stephens, June. 2012. Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Public Library: Scenarios from the Front Lines . Chicago: ALA.

Prebor, Gila, and David Gordon. 2015. “Collection Development and Censorship in Torah Studies Libraries in Israel.” Collection Management 40(1): 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2014.965862 .

Rauch, Elisabeth W. 2011. “GLBTQ Collections are for Every Library Serving Teens!” Teacher Librarian 39(1): 13–16.

Regina v. Hicklin , L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868).

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union . 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=Reno+v.+American+Civil+Liberties+Union&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Rogers, Vaneta. 2011. “Archie Dropping Comics Code Authority Seal in February.” Newsarama , January 21. http://www.newsarama.com/6892-archie-dropping-comics-code-authority-seal-in-february.html .

Rosen v. United States , 161 U.S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 40 L. Ed. 606 (1896). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=835112669579863938&q=Rosen+v.+United+States&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625&q=Regina+v.+Hicklin&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Sanelli, Maria, and George Perreault. 2001. “‘I Could Be Anybody’: Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Students in US Schools.” NASSP Bulletin 85(622): 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650108562209 .

Schonfeld, Zach. 2015. “Does the Parental Advisory Label Still Matter?” Newsweek , November 10. http://www.newsweek.com/does-parental-advisory-label-still-matter-tipper-gore-375607 .

Schrader, Alvin M. 2009. “Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries.” Feliciter 55(3): 107–9.

Sova, Dawn B. 1998. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds . New York: Facts On File.

Steele, Jennifer E. 2017. “Censorship in Public Libraries: An Analysis Using Gatekeeping Theory.” PhD diss., University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Steele, Jennifer E. 2019a. “Cases of Censorship in Public Libraries: Loudoun County, VA.” Public Library Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1660755 .

———. 2019b. “Cases of Censorship in Public Libraries: Wichita Falls, TX.” Public Library Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1692324 .

Stringer-Stanback, Kynita. 2011. “Young Adult Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Non-Fiction Collections and Countywide Anti-Discrimination Policies.” Urban Library Journal 17(1): 1-27.

Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas , 121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Texas 2000). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5196691822154706461&q=sund+v+city+of+wichita+falls+tex&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Thompson, Anthony Hugh. 1975. Censorship in Public Libraries in the United Kingdom During the Twentieth Century . Epping, England: Bowker.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15235797139493194004&q=Tinker+v.+Des+Moines+Independent+Community+School+District&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

United States v. American Library Association, Inc. , 539 U.S. 194, 123 S. Ct. 2297, 156 L. Ed. 2d 221 (2003). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487&q=United+States+v.+American+Library+Association,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5544515174778878625&q=United+States+v.+One+Book+Called+%E2%80%9CUlysses%E2%80%9D&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Van Buskirk, Jim. 2005. “Out of the Closet?” Library Journal 130(6): 62-65.

Wachsberger, Ken. 2006. Preface to Dawn B. Sova, Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds , rev. ed. (pp. vii–viii). New York: Facts on File.

Walker v. Popenoe , 149 F.2d 511 (D.C. Cir. 1945). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1236221801164736269&q=Walker+v.+Popenoe&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+Virginia+Board+of+Education+v.+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Wiegand, Wayne A. 2015. Part of Our Lives: A People’s History of the American Public Library . New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolf, Virginia L. 1989. “The Gay Family in Literature for Young People.” Children’s Literature in Education 20(1): 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128040 .

Woods, L. B. 1979. A Decade of Censorship in America: The Threat to Classrooms and Libraries, 1966–1975 . Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

1 . In 1945, the Postmaster General of the United States, Frank Comerford Walker, filed suit against the author and publisher of a pamphlet, called “Preparing for Marriage” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945), which he withheld from the mail on the grounds of the Comstock Act (1873). The pamphlet contained “detailed information and advice regarding the physical and emotional aspects of marriage” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945, at 512). However, the Court ruled that the order barring the pamphlet from the mail without a hearing was “a violation of due process” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945, at 513).

2 . While the segregation of libraries might not be considered censorship by all definitions, it does involve the exclusion of information from people of particular races. Under the American Library Association’s definition of censorship (ALA 2016), exclusion is considered to be a form of censorship.

3 . An example of a director pushing the envelope and working around Production Code guidelines was Alfred Hitchcock with his 1946 film Notorious . In the film, he worked around a three-second-kissing-only rule by having the actors break off every three seconds, while the entire sequence actually lasts two and a half minutes (McGilligan 2004, 376).

Figure 1. The Comics Code Seal. Courtesy of the Comic Code Authority.

Figure 2. Parental Advisory Label. Courtesy of Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.

• There are currently no refbacks.

ALA Privacy Policy

• ENCYCLOPEDIA
• IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Articles » Topic » Issues » Issues Related to Speech, Press, Assembly, or Petition » Censorship

Written by Elizabeth R. Purdy, published on August 8, 2023 , last updated on May 6, 2024

The First Amendment protects American people from government censorship. But the First Amendment's protections are not absolute, leading to Supreme Court cases involving the question of what is protected speech and what is not. On the issue of press freedoms, the Court has been reluctant to censor publication -- even of previously classified material. In the landmark case New York Times v. United States, the Court overturned a court order stopping the newspaper from continuing to print excerpts from the "Pentagon Papers", saying such prior restraint was unconstitutional. In this June 30, 1971 file picture, workers in the New York Times composing room in New York look at a proof sheet of a page containing the secret Pentagon report on Vietnam. (AP Photo/Marty Lederhandler, reprinted with permission from The Associated Press.)

Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.

Censors seek to limit freedom of thought and expression by restricting spoken words, printed matter, symbolic messages, freedom of association, books, art, music, movies, television programs, and Internet sites. When the government engages in censorship, First Amendment freedoms are implicated.

Private actors — for example, corporations that own radio stations — also can engage in forms of censorship, but this presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved.

Various groups have banned or attempted to  ban books  since the invention of the printing press. Censored or challenged works include the Bible, The American Heritage Dictionary, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, To Kill A Mockingbird, and the works of children’s authors J. K. Rowling and Judy Blume.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, integral elements of democracy. Since Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) that school officials have broad power of censorship over student newspapers. In this photo, Tammy Hawkins, editor of the Hazelwood East High School newspaper, Spectrum holds a copy of the paper, Jan. 14, 1988. (AP Photo/James A. Finley, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment

Freedom of speech and press are not, however, absolute. Over time, the Supreme Court has established guidelines, or tests, for defining what constitutes protected and unprotected speech. Among them are:

• the  bad tendency test , established in  Abrams v. United States  (1919),
• the  clear and present danger test  from  Schenck v. United States  (1919),
• the  preferred freedoms doctrine  of  Jones v. City of Opelika  (1943), and
• the  strict scrutiny , or  compelling state interest , test set out in Korematsu v. United States (1944).

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.  offered the classic example of the line between protected and unprotected speech in Schenck when he observed that shouting “Fire!” in a theater where there is none is not protected speech. Categories of unprotected speech also include:

• libel and slander ,
• “ fighting words ,”
• obscenity , and

Libel and slander when it comes to public officials

Determining when defamatory words may be censored has proved to be difficult for the Court, which has allowed greater freedom in remarks made about public figures than those concerning private individuals.

In  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan  (1964), the Court held that words can be libelous (written) or slanderous (spoken) in the case of public officials only if they involve  actual malice  or publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. Lampooning has generally been protected by the Court.

In  Hustler Magazine v. Falwell  (1988), for example, the Court held that the magazine had not slandered Rev. Jerry Falwell by publishing an outrageous “advertisement” containing a caricature of him because it was presented as parody rather than truth.

On the issue of press freedoms, the Court has been reluctant to censor publication of even previously classified materials, as in  New York Times v. United States (1971) — the  Pentagon Papers  case — unless the government can provide an overwhelming reason for such prior restraint.

The Court has accepted some censorship of the press when it interferes with the right to a fair trial, as exhibited in  Estes v. Texas  (1965) and  Sheppard v. Maxwell  (1966), but the Court has been reluctant to uphold  gag orders , as in the case of  Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart  (1976).

In general, rap and hard-core rock-n-roll have faced more censorship than other types of music. In this photo, rap artists DJ Jazzy Jeff (Jeff Townes), left, and The Fresh Prince (Will Smith) are seen backstage at the American Music Awards ceremony in Los Angeles, Calif., Monday, January 31, 1989, after winning in the category Favorite Rap Artist and Favorite Rap Album. (AP Photo/Lennox McLendon, used with permission from the Associated Press)

When words incite “breach of peace”

In  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire  (1942), the Supreme Court defined “ fighting words ” as those that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Racial epithets and ethnic derisions have traditionally been unprotected under the umbrella of “fighting words.”

Since the backlash against so-called political correctness, however, liberals and conservatives have fought over what derogatory words may be censored and which are protected by the First Amendment.

Determining whether something is obscene

In its early history, the Supreme Court left it to the states to determine whether materials were obscene.

Acting on its decision in  Gitlow v. New York (1925)  to apply the First Amendment to limit state action, the Warren Court subsequently began dealing with these issues in the 1950s on a case-by-case basis and spent hours examining material to determine obscenity.

In  Miller v. California  (1973), the Burger Court finally adopted a test that elaborated on the standards established in  Roth v. United States (1957) . Miller defines obscenity by outlining three conditions for jurors to consider:

• “(a) whether the ‘average person, applying contemporary community standards,’ would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
• (b) whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and
• (c) whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Proposals to  censor music  date back to Plato’s Republic. In the 1970s, some individuals thought anti-war songs should be censored. In the 1980s, the emphasis shifted to prohibiting sexual and violent lyrics. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also sought to fine radio stations for the broadcast of indecent speech. In general,  rap and hard-core rock-n-roll  have faced more censorship than other types of music. Caution must be used in this area to distinguish between governmental censorship and private censorship.

Courts have not interpreted the First Amendment  rights of minors, especially in school settings , to be as broad as those of adults; their speech in school newspapers or in speaking to audiences of their peers may accordingly be censored.

Advancing technology has opened up new avenues in which access to a variety of materials, including obscenity, is open to minors, and Congress has been only partially successful in restricting such access. Parental controls on televisions and computers have provided parents and other adults with some monitoring ability, but no methods are 100 percent effective.

Censorship often increases in wartime to tamp down anti-government speech. In this 1942 photo, W. Holden White, clips items from U.S. newspapers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the office of censorship to determine newspaper compliance with censorship rules prescribed by the office. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Wrestling with sedition and seditious speech

In general, sedition is defined as trying to overthrow the government with intent and means to bring it about; the Supreme Court, however, has been divided over what constitutes intent and means.

In general, the government has been less tolerant of perceived sedition in times of war than in peace. The first federal attempt to censor seditious speech occurred with the passage of the Alien and  Sedition Acts of 1798  under President John Adams.

These acts made it a federal crime to speak, write, or print criticisms of the government that were false, scandalous, or malicious. Thomas Jefferson compared the acts to witch hunts and pardoned those convicted under the statues when he succeeded Adams.

Laws attempting to reduce anti-government speech

During World War I, Congress passed the  Espionage Act of 1917  and the  Sedition Act of 1918 , and the Court spent years dealing with the aftermath.

In 1919 in  Schenck , the government charged that encouraging draftees not to report for duty in World War I constituted sedition. In this case, the court held that Schenck’s actions were, indeed, seditious because, in the words of Justice Holmes, they constituted a “clear and present danger” of a “substantive evil,” defined as attempting to overthrow the government, inciting riots, and destruction of life and property.

In the 1940s and 1950s,  World War II  and the rise of communism produced new limits on speech, and  McCarthyism  destroyed the lives of scores of law-abiding suspected communists.

The  Smith Act of 1940  and the Internal Security Act of 1950, also known as the  McCarran Act , attempted to stamp out communism in the country by establishing harsh sentences for advocating the use of violence to overthrow the government and making the Communist Party of the United States illegal.

After the al-Qaida attacks of September 11, 2001, and passage of the  USA Patriot Act , the United States faced new challenges to civil liberties. As a means of fighting terrorism, government agencies began to target people openly critical of the government. The arrests of individuals suspected of knowing people considered terrorists by the government was in tension with, if not violation of, the First Amendment’s freedom of association. These detainees were held without benefit of counsel and other constitutional rights.

The George W. Bush administration and the courts have battled over the issues of  warrantless wiretaps , military tribunals, and suspension of various rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate acceptable conditions for holding prisoners of war.

Certain forms of speech are protected from censure by governments. For instance, the First Amendment protects pure speech, defined as that which is merely expressive, descriptive, or assertive. Less clearly defined are those forms of speech referred to as speech plus, that is, speech that carries an additional connotation, such as symbolic speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court upheld the right of middle and high school students to wear symbolic black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In this photo, Debbie Wallace, left, and Phyllis Sweigert, 17-year-old seniors at suburban Euclid High School in Cleveland, Ohio, display armbands they wore to school in mourning for the dead in Vietnam, Dec. 10, 1965. The girls were suspended from school until Monday. (AP Photo/Julian C. Wilson, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Expressive and symbolic speech

Certain forms of speech are protected from censure by governments. For instance, the First Amendment protects pure speech, defined as that which is merely expressive, descriptive, or assertive. The Court has held that the government may not suppress speech simply because it thinks it is offensive. Even presidents are not immune from being criticized and ridiculed.

Less clearly defined are those forms of speech referred to as speech plus, that is, speech that carries an additional connotation. This includes  symbolic speech , in which meanings are conveyed without words.

In T inker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District  (1969), the Court upheld the right of middle and high school students to wear black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

One of the most controversial examples of symbolic speech has produced a series of  flag desecration  cases, including  Spence v. Washington  (1974),  Texas v. Johnson  (1989), and  United States v. Eichman  (1990).

Despite repeated attempts by Congress to make it illegal to burn or deface the flag, the Court has held that such actions are protected. Writing for the 5-4 majority in Texas v. Johnson, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated, “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

When speech turns into other forms of action, constitutional protections are less certain.

In  R.A.V. v. St. Paul  (1992), the Court overturned a local hate crime statute that had been used to convict a group of boys who had burned a cross on the lawn of a black family living in a predominately white neighborhood.

The Court qualified this opinion in  Virginia v. Black  (2003), holding that the First Amendment did not protect such acts when their purpose was intimidation.

This article was originally published in 2009. Elizabeth Purdy, Ph.D., is an independent scholar who has published articles on subjects ranging from political science and women’s studies to economics and popular culture.

Send Feedback on this article

How To Contribute

The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Please  donate now!

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• The status of "individuality”
• Requirements of self-government
• “Freedom of expression”

Ancient Greece and Rome

Ancient israel and early christianity, ancient china.

• Medieval Christendom
• The 17th and 18th centuries
• The system in the former Soviet Union
• Censorship under a military government
• Freedom of the press
• Freedom and truth
• Character and freedom

History of censorship

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• University of Washington Pressbooks - Media and Society: Critical Approaches - Censorship and Freedom of Speech
• Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University - Censorship
• The Canadian Encyclopedia - Censorship
• Oklahoma State University - School of Media and Strategic Communications - Defining Censorship
• Humanities LibreTexts - Censorship
• Frontiers - Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process
• Cato Institute - Shining a Light on Censorship: How Transparency Can Curtail Government Social Media Censorship and More
• American Library Association - First Amendment and Censorship
• censorship - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• censorship - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

It should be instructive to consider how the problem of censorship has been dealt with in the ancient world, in premodern times, and in the modern world. Care must be taken here not to assume that the modern democratic regime, of a self-governing people, is the only legitimate regime. Rather, it is prudent to assume that most of those who have, in other times and places, thought about and acted upon such matters have been at least as humane and as sensible in their circumstances as modern democrats are apt to be in theirs.

Recent News

It was taken for granted in the Greek communities of antiquity, as well as in Rome, that citizens would be formed in accordance with the character and needs of the regime. This did not preclude the emergence of strong-minded men and women, as may be seen in the stories of Homer , of Plutarch , of Tacitus , and of the Greek playwrights. But it was evident, for example, that a citizen of Sparta was much more apt to be tough and unreflective (and certainly uncommunicative) than a citizen of Corinth (with its notorious openness to pleasure and luxury).

The scope of a city-state ’s concern was exhibited in the provisions it made for the establishment and promotion of religious worship. That “the gods of the city” were to be respected by every citizen was usually taken for granted. Presiding over religious observances was generally regarded as a privilege of citizenship: thus, in some cities it was an office in which the elderly in good standing could be expected to serve. A refusal to conform, at least outwardly, to the recognized worship of the community subjected one to hardships. And there could be difficulties, backed up by legal sanctions, for those who spoke improperly about such matters. The force of religious opinions could be seen not only in prosecutions for refusals to acknowledge the gods of the city but perhaps even more in the frequent unwillingness of a city (no matter what its obvious political or military interests) to conduct public business at a time when the religious calendar, auspices , or other such signs forbade civic activities. Indicative of respect for the proprieties was the secrecy with which the religious mysteries, such as those into which many Greek and Roman men were initiated, were evidently practiced—so much so that there does not seem to be any record from antiquity of precisely what constituted the various mysteries. Respect for the proprieties may be seen as well in the outrage provoked in Sparta by a poem by Archilochus (7th century bce ) in which he celebrated his lifesaving cowardice.

Athens , it can be said, was much more liberal than the typical Greek city. This is not to suggest that the rulers of the other cities did not, among themselves, freely discuss the public business. But in Athens the rulers included much more of the population than in most cities of antiquity—and freedom of speech (for political purposes) spilled over there into the private lives of citizens. This may be seen, perhaps best of all, in the famous funeral address given by Pericles in 431 bce . Athenians, he pointed out, did not consider public discussion merely something to be put up with; rather, they believed that the best interests of the city could not be served without a full discussion of the issues before the assembly. There may be seen in the plays of an Aristophanes the kind of uninhibited discussions of politics that the Athenians were evidently accustomed to, discussions that could (in the license accorded to comedy ) be couched in licentious terms not permitted in everyday discourse.

The limits of Athenian openness may be seen, of course, in the trial, conviction , and execution of Socrates in 399 bce on charges that he corrupted the youth and that he did not acknowledge the gods that the city did but acknowledged other new divinities of his own. One may see as well, in the Republic of Plato , an account of a system of censorship, particularly of the arts, that is comprehensive . Not only are various opinions (particularly misconceptions about the gods and about the supposed terrors of death) to be discouraged, but various salutary opinions are to be encouraged and protected without having to be demonstrated to be true. Much of what is said in the Republic and elsewhere reflects the belief that the vital opinions of the community could be shaped by law and that men could be penalized for saying things that offended public sensibilities, undermined common morality , or subverted the institutions of the community.

The circumstances justifying the system of comprehensive “thought control” described in Plato’s Republic are obviously rarely to be found. Thus, Socrates himself is recorded in the same dialogue (and in Plato’s Apology ) as recognizing that cities with bad regimes do not permit their misconduct to be questioned and corrected. Such regimes should be compared with those in the age of the good Roman emperors, the period from Nerva (c. 30–98 ce ) to Marcus Aurelius (121–180)—the golden times, said Tacitus, when everyone could hold and defend whatever opinions he wished.

Much of what can be said about ancient Greece and Rome could be applied, with appropriate adaptations , to ancient Israel . The stories of the difficulties encountered by Jesus , and the offenses he came to be accused of, indicate the kinds of restrictions to which the Jews were subjected with respect to religious observances and with respect to what could and could not be said about divine matters. (The inhibitions so established were later reflected in the manner in which Moses Maimonides [1135–1204] proceeded in his publications, often relying upon “hints” rather than upon explicit discussion of sensitive topics.) The prevailing watchfulness, lest someone say or do what he should not, can be said to be anticipated by the commandment “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). It may be seen as well in the ancient opinion that there is a name for God that must not be uttered .

It should be evident that this way of life—directing both opinions and actions and extending down to minute daily routines—could not help but shape a people for centuries, if not for millennia, to come. But it should also be evident that those in the position to know, and with a duty to act, were expected to speak out and were, in effect, licensed to do so, however cautiously they were obliged to proceed on occasion. Thus, the prophet Nathan dared to challenge King David himself for what he had done to secure Bathsheba as his wife (II Samuel 12:1–24). On an earlier, perhaps even more striking, occasion, the patriarch Abraham dared to question God about the terms on which Sodom and Gomorrah might be saved from destruction (Genesis 18:16–33). God made concessions to Abraham, and David crumbled before Nathan’s authority . But such presumptuousness on the part of mere mortals is possible, and likely to bear fruit, only in communities that have been trained to share and to respect certain moral principles grounded in thoughtfulness.

The thoughtfulness to which the Old Testament aspires is suggested by the following counsel by Moses to the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:5–6):

Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”

This approach can be considered to provide the foundation for the assurance that has been so critical to modern arguments against censorship (John 8:32): “And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Further biblical authority against censorship may be found in such “free speech” dramas as that described in Acts 4:13–21.

It should be remembered that to say everything one thought or believed was regarded by pre-Christian writers as potentially irresponsible or licentious: social consequences dictated a need for restraint. Christian writers, however, called for just such saying of everything as the indispensable witness of faith: transitory social considerations were not to impede, to the extent that they formerly had, the exercise of such a liberty, indeed of such a duty, so intimately related to the eternal welfare of the soul . Thus, we see an encouragement of the private—of an individuality that turned eventually against organized religion itself and legitimated a radical self-indulgence.

Perhaps no people has ever been so thoroughly trained, on such a large scale and for so long, as the Chinese. Critical to that training was a system of education that culminated in a rigorous selection, by examination, of candidates for administrative posts. Particularly influential was the thought of Confucius (551–479 bce ), with its considerable emphasis upon deference to authority and to family elders and upon respect for ritual observances and propriety. Cautiousness in speech was encouraged; licentious expressions were discouraged; and long-established teachings were relied upon for shaping character. All in all, it was contrary to Chinese good taste to speak openly of the faults of one’s government or of one’s rulers. And so it could be counseled by Confucius, “He who is not in any particular office has nothing to do with plans for the administration of its duties” ( Analects [ Lunyu ], 7:14). It has been suggested that such sentiments have operated to prevent the spread in China of opinions supportive of political liberty.

Still, it could be recognized by Confucius that “oppressive government is fiercer than a tiger.” He could counsel that if a ruler’s words are not good, and if people are discouraged from opposing them, the ruin of the country can be expected ( Analects , 13:5). Blatant oppressiveness, and an attempt to stamp out the influence of Confucius and of other sages, could be seen in the wholesale destruction of books in China in 231 bce . But the Confucian mode was revived thereafter, to become the dominant influence for almost two millennia. Its pervasiveness may well be judged oppressive by contemporary Western standards, since so much depended, it seems, on mastering the orthodox texts and discipline .

Whether or not the typical Chinese government was indeed oppressive, effective control of information was lodged in the authorities, since access to the evidently vital public archives of earlier administrations was limited to a relative few. In addition, decisive control of what was thought, and how, depended in large part on a determination of what the authoritative texts were—something that has been critical in the West, as well, in the establishment of useful canons, both sacred and secular . Thus, Richard McKeon has suggested, “Censorship may be the enforcement of judgments based on power, passion, corruption, or prejudice—political, popular, elite, or sectarian. It may also be based on scholarship and the use of critical methods in the interest of advancing a taste for literature, art, learning, and science.”

Censorship in the United States

• Equal Rights
• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• Ph.D., Religion and Society, Edith Cowan University
• M.A., Humanities, California State University - Dominguez Hills
• B.A., Liberal Arts, Excelsior College

The right to free speech is a long-standing tradition in the United States, but actually respecting the right to free speech is not. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , censorship is "the suppression of words, images or ideas that are "offensive," and it happens "whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others." Our freedom of expression may be limited, says the ACLU, "only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest."

This history of censorship in America describes the major steps to restrict speech taken by individuals, groups, and the government since the founding of the country, as well as the outcomes of battles to overturn them.

1798: John Adams Gets Revenge on His Critics

Keith Lance / Getty Images

"Old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled, toothless Adams," one supporter of challenger Thomas Jefferson called the incumbent president. But Adams got the last laugh, signing a bill in 1798 that made it illegal to criticize a government official without backing up one's criticisms in court. Twenty-five people were arrested under the law, though Jefferson pardoned its victims after he defeated Adams in the 1800 election.

Later sedition acts focused primarily on punishing those who advocated civil disobedience. The Sedition Act of 1918, for example, targeted draft resisters.

1821: The Longest Ban in US History

Ronald Dumont  / Getty Images

The bawdy novel ​"Fanny Hill" (1748), written by John Cleland as an exercise in what he imagined a prostitute's memoirs might sound like, was no doubt familiar to the Founding Fathers; we know that Benjamin Franklin, who himself wrote some fairly risque material , had a copy. But later generations were less latitudinarian.

The book holds the record for being banned longer than any other literary work in the United States--prohibited in 1821, and not legally published until the Supreme Court overturned the ban in Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966). Of course, once it was legal it lost much of its appeal: by 1966 standards, nothing written in 1748 was liable to shock anybody.

1873: Anthony Comstock, Mad Censor of New York

Bettmann / Getty Images

If you're looking for a clear-cut villain in the history of U.S. censorship, you've found him.

In 1872, feminist Victoria Woodhull published an account of an affair between a celebrity evangelical minister and one of his parishioners. Comstock, who despised feminists, requested a copy of the book under a fake name, then reported Woodhull and had her arrested on obscenity charges.

He soon became head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, where he successfully campaigned for an 1873 federal obscenity law, commonly referred to as the Comstock Act , that allowed warrantless searches of the mail for "obscene" materials.

Comstock later boasted that during his career as censor, his work led to the suicides of 15 alleged "smut-peddlers."

1921: The Strange Odyssey of Joyce's Ulysses

Ingolf Pompe / LOOK-foto / Getty Images

The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice successfully blocked the publication of Irish writer James Joyce's " Ulysses " in 1921, citing a relatively tame masturbation scene as proof of obscenity. U.S. publication was finally permitted in 1933 following the US District Court ruling United States v. One Book Called Ulysses , in which Judge John Woolsey found that the book was not obscene and essentially established artistic merit as an affirmative defense against obscenity charges.

1930: The Hays Code Takes on Movie Gangsters, Adulterers

Kurt Hutton / Getty Images

The Hays Code was never enforced by the government—it was voluntarily agreed upon by film distributors—but the threat of government censorship made it necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) that movies were not protected by the First Amendment, and some foreign films had been seized on obscenity charges. The film industry adopted the Hays Code as a means of avoiding outright federal censorship.

The Hays Code, which regulated the industry from 1930 until 1968, banned what you might expect it to ban—violence, sex, and profanity—but it also prohibited portrayals of interracial or same-sex relationships, as well as any content that was deemed anti-religious or anti-Christian. Roth v. U.S. was a 1957 case that confirmed that obscenity, which appealed to prurient interests, was not constitutionally protected.

1954: Making Comic Books Kid-Friendly (and Bland)

crisserbug / Getty Images 

Like the Hays Code, the Comics Code Authority (CCA) is a voluntary industry standard. Because comics are still primarily read by children—and because it has historically been less binding on retailers than the Hays Code was on distributors—the CCA is less dangerous than its film counterpart. This may be why it is still in use today, though most comic book publishers ignore it and no longer submit material for CCA approval.

The driving force behind the CCA was the fear that violent, dirty or otherwise questionable comics might turn children into juvenile delinquents—which was the central thesis of Frederic Wertham's 1954 bestseller "Seduction of the Innocent" (which also argued, less credibly, that the Batman-Robin relationship might turn children gay).

1959: Lady Chatterley's Moratorium

Derek Berwin  / Getty Images

Although Senator Reed Smoot admitted that he had not read D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" (1928), he expressed strong opinions about the book. "It is most damnable!" he complained in a 1930 speech. "It is written by a man with a diseased mind and a soul so black that he would obscure even the darkness of hell!"

Lawrence's odd story about an adulterous affair between Constance Chatterley and her husband's servant was so offensive because, at the time, non-tragic portrayals of adultery were, for practical purposes, nonexistent. The Hays Code banned them from films, and federal censors banned them from print media.

A 1959 federal obscenity trial lifted the ban on the book, now recognized as a classic.

1971: The New York Times Takes on the Pentagon and Wins

Robert Daemmrich Photography Inc / Getty Images 

The massive military study titled "United States–Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense," later known as the Pentagon Papers was supposed to be classified. But when excerpts of the document were leaked to The New York Times in 1971, which published them, all hell broke loose—with President Richard Nixon threatening to have journalists indicted for treason, and federal prosecutors attempting to block further publication. (They had reason to do so. The documents revealed that U.S. leaders had—among other things--specifically taken measures to prolong and escalate the unpopular war.)

In June 1971, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the Times could legally publish the Pentagon Papers.

1973: Obscenity Defined

Barbara Alper / Getty Images

A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Warren Burger, outlined the current definition of obscenity in Miller v. California (1973), a mail-order porn case, as follows:

• the average person must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
• the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
• the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

While the Supreme Court has held since 1897 that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, the relatively small number of obscenity prosecutions in recent years suggests otherwise.

1978: The Indecency Standard

Paul Natkin / Getty Images

When George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine was aired on a New York radio station in 1973, a father listening to the station complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC, in turn, wrote the station a firm letter of reprimand.

The station challenged the reprimand, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's landmark FCC v. Pacifica (1978) in which the Court held that material that is "indecent," but not necessarily obscene, may be regulated by the FCC if it is distributed through publicly owned wavelengths.

Indecency, as defined by the FCC, refers to "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

1996: The Communications Decency Act of 1996

designer491 / Getty Images

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 mandated a federal prison sentence of up to two years for anyone who knowingly "uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."

The Supreme Court mercifully struck the act down in ACLU v. Reno (1997), but the concept of the bill was revived with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, which criminalized any content deemed "harmful to minors." Courts immediately blocked COPA, which was formally struck down in 2009.

2004: The FCC Meltdown

KMazur / Getty Images 

During the live broadcast of the Super Bowl halftime show on February 1, 2004, Janet Jackson's right breast was slightly exposed; the FCC responded to an organized campaign by enforcing indecency standards more aggressively than it ever had before. Soon every expletive uttered at an awards show, every bit of nudity (even pixelated nudity) on reality television and every other potentially offensive act became a possible target of FCC scrutiny.

2017: Online Censorship

Luis Alvarez / Getty Images

When the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act in Reno vs. ACLU in 1997, it was a strong victory for free speech rights and a glorious upholding of the First Amendment regarding cyberspace.

But according to the ACLU, at least 13 states have passed online censorship legislation since 1995 (several of which the ACLU has struck down), and many state censorship laws violate the First Amendment.

The media watchdog Columbia Journalism Review argues that "new technologies make it more difficult, and ultimately impossible, for governments to control the flow of information. Some have argued that the birth of the internet foreshadowed the death of censorship. "But that isn't the case, and censorship is being used by the government in an intimidating manner against social media, print media and in the flow of online information.

• Freedom of Speech in the United States
• Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
• Overview of Roth v. United States 1957 Supreme Court Decision
• Reno v. ACLU: How Does Freedom of Speech Apply to the Internet?
• Miller Test is the Standard Used for Defining Obscenity in U.S. Courts
• Timeline of the Freedom of the Press in the United States
• How Media Censorship Affects the News You See
• ACLU: Purpose, History, and Current Controversies
• What Is Prior Restraint? Definition and Examples
• Gitlow v. New York: Can States Prohibit Politically Threatening Speech?
• History of Television Censorship
• What Is Symbolic Speech?
• Top 10 "Obscene" Literary Classics
• Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
• What Is The Fairness Doctrine?
• 6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases

What Is Censorship?

RECENT CENSORSHIP NEWS > Prosecution of TV Provider Raises Free Speech Questions (8/24/2006) > Massachusetts Education Department Liable for Unconstitutional Censorship (8/1/2006) > Library Association Supports Lawsuit Against School Board Over Censorship (7/7/2006) > ACLU of Florida Sues to Stop Book Censorship by School Board (6/21/2006)

> Artistic Freedom

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about these questions. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment’s protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books — whatever the human creative impulse produces.

Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is “content neutrality”– the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous — or just plain bad.

The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.

SEX SEXUAL SPEECH Sex in art and entertainment is the most frequent target of censorship crusades. Many examples come to mind. A painting of the classical statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers of the shopping mall found its semi-nudity “too shocking.” Hundreds of works of literature, from Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, have been banned from public schools based on their sexual content.

A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe in an art exhibit.

American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world — but sexual expression is treated as a second-class citizen. No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Rather, the Supreme Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds — a remnant of our nation’s Puritan heritage.

This does not mean that all sexual expression can be censored, however. Only a narrow range of “obscene” material can be suppressed; a term like “pornography” has no legal meaning . Nevertheless, even the relatively narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups who want to impose their personal moral views on other people.

PORNOGRAPHIC! INDECENT! OBSCENE! Justice John Marshall Harlan’s line, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” sums up the impossibility of developing a definition of obscenity that isn’t hopelessly vague and subjective. And Justice Potter Stewart’s famous assurance, “I know it when I see it,” is of small comfort to artists, writers, movie directors and lyricists who must navigate the murky waters of obscenity law trying to figure out what police, prosecutors, judges and juries will think.

The Supreme Court’s current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case called Miller v. California, has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average person’s prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way” as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression — in contrast with “obscenity” — is entitled to some constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media (broadcasting, cable, and telephone) may be regulated. In its 1978 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the government could require radio and television stations to air “indecent” material only during those hours when children would be unlikely listeners or viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: “language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” This vague concept continues to baffle both the public and the courts.

PORNOGRAPHY is not a legal term at all. Its dictionary definition is “writing or pictures intended to arouse sexual desire.” Pornography comes in as many varieties as the human sexual impulse and is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the definition for illegal obscenity.

VIOLENCE IS MEDIA VIOLENCE A THREAT TO SOCIETY? Today’s calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of “scientific studies” that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.

There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent. And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible.

But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.

WHAT THE STUDIES SHOW Studies on the relationship between media violence and real violence are the subject of considerable debate. Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for “aggressive” behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce “object aggression” in some children (such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but not actual criminal violence against another person.

CORRELATIONAL STUDIES that seek to explain why some aggressive people have a history of watching a lot of violent TV suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemma: does violent TV cause such people to behave aggressively, or do aggressive people simply prefer more violent entertainment? There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS are no more helpful. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate — much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare. What the sudies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is — not much.

The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.

WHERE DO THE EXPERTS AGREE? Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most expert believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch. In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a 200-page report, “Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence,” which concluded, “The effect [of television] is small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with the real violence of our society.” Twenty-one years later, the American Psychological Association published its 1993 report, “Violence & Youth,” and concluded, “The greatest predictor of future violent behavior is a previous history of violence.” In 1995, the Center for Communication Policy at UCLA, which monitors TV violence, came to a similar conclusion in its yearly report: “It is known that television does not have a simple, direct stimulus-response effect on its audiences.”

Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public’s attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good.

WHICH MEDIA VIOLENCE WOULD YOU BAN? A pro-censorship member of Congress once attacked the following shows for being too violent: The Miracle Worker, Civil War Journal, Star Trek 9, The Untouchables, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. What would be left if all these kinds of programs were purged from the airwaves? Is there good violence and bad violence? If so, who decides? Sports and the news are at least as violent as fiction, from the fights that erupt during every televised hockey game, to the videotaped beating of Rodney King by the LA Police Department, shown over and over gain on prime time TV. If we accept censorship of violence in the media, we will have to censor sports and news programs.

Related Issues

• Free Speech

Stay Informed

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Censorship in 100, 200, and 300+ Words 

• Updated on  
• Feb 15, 2024

Essay on Censorship: Censorship is the practice of examining books, movies and likewise and removing things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, and harmful to society. The authorities in many countries have put certain restrictions or limits on the information and expression that reaches the common public.

The idea behind these restrictions is to take preventive measures that may hurt sentiments and disturb the public order. Regulatory bodies are set up that review and certify films, television shows, and publications before release.

Also Read: Highest Paying Careers in the Entertainment Industry

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Censorship 100 words
• 2 Essay on Censorship 200 words
• 3 Essay on Censorship 300+ words

Essay on Censorship 100 words

Censorship is the restriction imposed on the expression of restricted content by the authorities. The basic reasons behind such censorship are based on several reasons, such as maintaining the morals of the public, safeguarding the national interest and security, and controlling harmful content that might be unsafe for the peace of the country. 

While serving the country´s harmonious atmosphere, the different types of censorship bodies in India also face criticism and hatred. Students need to recognise the challenges of censorship and understand the balance between the safety and perspective of the restrictions.

In a world of abundant information, it is the responsibility of citizens to better understand the responsibilities of content that is served via social media, the entertainment industry, and likewise.

Also Read: Top 16 Motivational Movies for Students

Essay on Censorship 200 words

India has a complex relationship with censorship. The factors that influence censorship authorities in the country are diversity in culture, societal norms, and political considerations. 

Intending to bring more transparency to the suppression, the Indian government introduced The set-up of authorities regarding the censorship for safeguarding the sentiments of people and society created an impact on various social media platforms. It resulted in restrictions on content such as misleading information, hate speech, and the spread of fake news. However, the implementation of restrictions on the content followed back with sparking debates regarding the fine line between censorship and freedom of expression.

Maintaining peace in a country where diversity in culture plays an important role is not an easy task; it adds a layer of complexity to the decision of the censorship board. What may be acceptable in one culture might be challenging in another. Here censorship plays an important role in balancing the community as well as sentiments by controlling the freedom of expression or keeping it according to the teachings of the religion. 

In conclusion, Censorship in India aims at making and implementing rules that make sure that people from every religion can enjoy movies, shows and more without any disappointment or rage. The practice of creating a balance between different religions not only helps in maintaining peace but also boosts in respecting the differences in our cultures.  

  Also Read: Famous Books and Authors

Essay on Censorship 300+ words

Censorship refers to the suppression of speech, public communication or other activities or information that may be considered harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient. Censorship can be conducted by governments or other controlling bodies.

The idea behind censorship is that it brings protection for social values, manages order and upholds the national security of the country. When these restrictions are taken too far, however, censorship can greatly impose restrictions on individuals’ human rights and civil liberties. There is always a debate about whether censorship promotes social stability or curtains the freedom of thought and expression of people. 

Censorship takes many forms and targets different kinds of expressions. Governments censor materials that criticise their policies, the area of writing restrictions that might be deemed offensive to the dominant culture, and media alleged to undermine security. Furthermore, artistic works of books, films, plays and music are censored if their content is judged to be obscene or intended to provoke. Educational materials are censored if the information provided is deemed inappropriate, inaccurate, or contradictory to the approved curriculum. The press and journalists also face censorship through control of licensing, lawsuits, and even violence. In the digital age, censorship is imposed as blocking of websites, removing social media posts, and restrictions on online searches.

People who support censorship argue that it protects public morality, prevents offensive or provocative material from society and guards against the spread of false information. However, critics contended that censorship curtains the freedom of expression, thought, belief and idea which are essential for human rights. According to them, in the name of censorship or protecting society political agendas are served by the power or authorities. 

Striking the right balance between freedom and control is the key challenge of censorship. Human rights and free speech are the fundamental principles that should be restricted when it creates harm. Societies that follow democracy should be transparent and should have more openness for the impression of individuals than authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, people and societies should also understand the balance of sensitivity and expression of speech.

In conclusion, censorship in any country is all about taking care of what we see, hear, and read. Also, it takes care of the safety and security of the people. While the laws seem strict in real life, they help protect the values, dignity, and religious practices of people and create a safe environment to live in.

Also Read: Short Note on the Indian Press Act of 1910

Ans. Censorship is the prevention of content like words, images or ideas that are controlled by the government to reach the general public. 

Ans. Another word for censorship is ban or blacklist. 

Ans. Censorship in India is all about taking care of what we see, hear, and read. Also, it takes care of the safety and security of the people.

Ans. Books might get censored due to inappropriate content such as wrong, disturbing content, or written words.  

Related Blogs

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Deepika Joshi

Deepika Joshi is an experienced content writer with expertise in creating educational and informative content. She has a year of experience writing content for speeches, essays, NCERT, study abroad and EdTech SaaS. Her strengths lie in conducting thorough research and ananlysis to provide accurate and up-to-date information to readers. She enjoys staying updated on new skills and knowledge, particulary in education domain. In her free time, she loves to read articles, and blogs with related to her field to further expand her expertise. In personal life, she loves creative writing and aspire to connect with innovative people who have fresh ideas to offer.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

• Live Chat Talk to a specialist
• Self-service options
• Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
• Ultius 101 New client? Click here
• Messenger  

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

• How it Works

Learn more about us

• Future writers
• Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample essay on censorship.

Select network

This sample research paper reflects how government leaders and organizations have continued to use censorship in an effort to control people more effectively. The role censorship plays in governing people is truly something one must grasp to understand contemporary international and domestic politics. Whether you are a beginning student or a practicing professional in your field, this issue is important and one you should be as informed on as possible. This particular document is more suited to an introductory level discussion, but Ultius writers are ready and able to write on this subject up to the dissertation level .

Censorship: true governmental power?

Conservative views are a group of beliefs that have not experienced much in the way of change. Through the censorship of modern thought, expression and belief, conservative minds have been able to preserve their noticeably closed minded way of doing things. Censorship dates back as far as the age of antiquity and further with Socrates being one of the first notable figures to perish at its hands . Some have come to view the government as a savior for censoring what they consider wrong, while others see the government as overly authoritative in its attempt to pass judgement upon what is right or acceptable for the masses. While censorship is often viewed as a relatively moralistic venture, throughout history, it has actually been one of the key tools by which governments have maintained their control.

Censorship throughout history

Over the years the fight for censorship has proven to be dangerous for those who oppose it. History has shown that even though the government was created to help people, their views of what they consider "corrupt" or "profane" have frequently been called into question. According to BeaconForFreedom.org:

”Perhaps the most famous censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities.”   (Newth).  

Many think that the government hides the truth behind the guise of protecting the innocence of youth, while others believe that the world is safe from the true evils that surrounds them. Some decisions that governments have made have left endless questions about why censorship ever came into existence. While government policies still insist that freedom of expression is an inherent human right, it seems to feel that it can place limitations upon how far this freedom extends. Whether it is music, newspapers, or media, the government will always play a hand in the extent to which free expression can be exercised, though the view of its use in America has changed as time has passed. 

Legal Issues with Censorship

While the censorship of music has cause the greatest stir in modern history, the age of censorship first appeared in print. In early years of the mass marketed press, owners wallowed in defeat if their newspapers were censored, often experiencing a shutdown of their businesses if censorship was employed. In America, the freedoms granted by the 1st amendment to the Constitution are often called into question by censorship. Though many elements of censorship have changed where the free press is involved, not all views of what should be shared is taken lightly. The censorship of the printed word doesn’t just affect newspapers read around the world. High school press papers are well known examples of censorship, due to the perceived "fragility" of young minds. This "preservation of youthful innocence" has long been a shield behind which the supporters of censorship have hidden. The decisions made may not be acceptable or fair to those who oppose them, but the protection of the innocence of youth will always be what is most important for many. 

Hazelwood school district

One example of censorship and the question of academic freedom was in the case of Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier. Students who worked for the school paper at Hazelwood East in 1983 thought that it would be a noble idea to dedicate certain parts of the paper to students who:

• Were HIV positive
• Were pregnant
• Lived in homes affected by divorce

Once the school’s principal, Robert Reynolds, read the proofs of the articles, however, he wanted them removed from the paper. With this decision being made, the students in charge of the paper were outraged, accusing the principal of censorship of freedom of press. Even though the students who were interviewed in the articles were not named, the principal still felt that it was too much of a risk to take in allowing the newspaper be read by other students and teachers. Reynolds feared that the students who were talked about in these articles would be discovered and that it would have been a matter of time before harm came to them.

Need an opinion piece written on this subject? Our team has the skills and time to help you reclaim your schedule .

Censorship in the 21st century

Music has long been a target of censors and continues to be one in the 21st century. For many, censorship represents all that is wrong with the world and that secrets and hidden truths are concealed behind the walls of government. For many parts of the world, the eyes of the people are closed to the secrets carried in their government due to censorship which has been attributed to the concealment of:

• Planned attacks
• Embezzlement

Still other atrocities remain hidden behind the veil of censorship, keeping the public ignorant to them. For some, censorship can either hurt a community or raise its values to higher standards. However, censorship does protect the innocence in situations where safety can be compromised. In the Hazelwood School District case, it is conceivable that protection was needed due to harm that could have come to the students that were discussed in the school paper. The newest target of censorship is understandably the internet. There has long been a cry to the government to impose regulations on content available online .

Censorship may not always be fully understood or appreciated by those it is designed to "protect", but it is sometimes needed for the building of the core values of youth. Like any new policy, law, or rule, there are elements that are not liked or respected. Boundaries will always be tested with censorship, because some believe that no one, particularly the government, should be the judge of what is right and what is wrong beyond established law. Figures of authority will eternally strive to "protect the innocent" that they feel cannot judge or fend for themselves. However, there will always be those who stand in opposition. Certainly, it can be said that there are some things that we probably should not know or see due to its graphic nature and ability to disrupt the emotional well-being of our otherwise happy lives. The question that remains, however, is who gets to decide this?

Giving a speech on this subject? Ultius writers can help you prepare your presentation .

Works Cited

Newth, Mette. The Long History of Censorship . 2010. Norway. < http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475>.

Zeinert, Karen. Free Speech: From Newspapers to Music Lyrics . New Jersey. Enslow, 1995.

Cite This Post

This blog post is provided free of charge and we encourage you to use it for your research and writing. However, we do require that you cite it properly using the citation provided below (in MLA format).

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius Blog . Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, 19 May 2013. Web. < https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html >

Thank you for practicing fair use.

This citation is in MLA format, if you need help with MLA format, click here to follow our citation style guide.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html

• Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 20 May. 2013. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2013, May 20). Sample Essay on Censorship. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Censorship." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. May 20, 2013 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-censorship.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

• Writer Options
• Custom Writing
• Business Documents
• Support Desk
• +1-800-405-2972
• Submit bug report
• A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

• Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

• Name Samantha M.
• From Pepperdine University '22
• Studies Psychology
• Won $2,000.00
• Award SEED Scholarship
• Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

Building the (Fire) Wall: Internet Censorship in the United States and China

In a time of ever-increasing wealth of information on the internet, China has become notorious for having the most stringent internet censorship policies and surveillance systems in the world. Search engines and social media platforms that are ubiquitous in the United States and much of the world—like Google, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter—are blocked from China’s internet. In response, the US government, US technology companies, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks have publicly criticized and taken action against China’s restrictive policies. However, the newly instituted “Clean Network Initiative” in the United States strikes eerie parallels with China’s “Great Firewall,” leading to concerns about the state of internet freedom in the United States and abroad. As governments limit what citizens can and can’t see on the web, internet freedom and accessibility is threatened, limiting conduits for democratic thought, innovation and research, and global communication.

A Brief History of China’s Internet Censorship

Before President Xi Jinping’s rise to power in China, the internet was a relatively transparent and open platform for discussion. Although the Chinese government implemented restrictions on the internet almost as soon as its inception with a national network security and content blocking project, the Golden Shield, it had few restrictions and was easily circumvented by citizens. At the turn of the millennium, popular bloggers and influencers were able to advocate for social and political reforms by organizing protests and exposing political corruption through the internet. In the late 1990s, the China Democracy Party grew from twelve members in one region to hundreds of members across the country, primarily through email communication. Around the same time, the spiritual group Falun Gong used mobile phones and email to organize a silent protest against the Chinese government’s suppression of their religious practices. As more people gained access to the internet, the use of bulletin board systems (BBS) and chat rooms became critical for publicizing sensitive political topics and creating discussion forums for underground organizations.

However, dissenting groups and protests quickly drew harsh responses from Chinese authorities. Leaders of the China Democracy Party and Falun Gong were traced and imprisoned. Government paranoia surrounding the internet was further heightened by the introduction of modern social media platforms, such as Sina Weibo. By 2013, over 2 million citizens were employed as “public opinion analysts” to monitor user activity and social media, while other officials blocked posts that were deemed threatening to the party and published party propaganda masked as ordinary citizens.

The election of President Xi Jinping ushered in a new era of the China Communist Party’s (CCP) control over the internet; in 2016, Xi demanded that “all the work by the party’s media … reflect the [China Communist Party]’s will, safeguard the party’s authority, and safeguard the party’s unity.” His efforts to strengthen the Golden Shield and the “Great Firewall of China” involve collaboration between “the government and the domestic technology and telecommunications companies compelled to enforce the state’s rules.” These projects aim to ensure complete social and political conformity in the real and virtual world.

Consequences of Censorship

In response to domestic and international criticism, Chinese authorities argue that internet regulation is necessary for national security, social stability, and the protection of Chinese culture. However, this comes at a high cost; China faces serious repercussions in its economic development, scientific advancement, and creative innovation. China’s internet is “notoriously unreliable” and “ranks 91st in the world for speed” due to its large network of censors and restrictions, despite its general improvement in internet infrastructure.

This lack of efficiency can significantly slow economic growth, especially for corporations who struggle to keep their websites online due to China’s commercial censorship aimed specifically at foreign industries. Many in the global trade community claim that “China’s internet controls constitute a barrier to market access and are therefore a violation of China’s global trade obligations.”

Although scientific innovation is particularly valued by the Chinese government and in Chinese culture, the Chinese government continues to ban access to valuable internet resources such as Google Scholar, which are crucial for international scientific collaboration. Before 2015, many Chinese scientists and citizens used virtual private networks (VPNs) to route their internet traffic through foreign servers, bypassing the firewalls on Chinese servers and staying hidden from government surveillance. However, President Xi’s 2015 crackdown on VPNs made it nearly impossible to use them within China’s cyber-borders. In response, one Chinese biologist lamented the inefficiency of internet research in China in an essay entitled “Why Do Scientists Need Google?” He wrote: “If a country wants to make this many scientists take out time from the short duration of their professional lives to research technology for climbing over the Great Firewall and to install and to continually upgrade every kind of software for routers, computers, tablets and mobile devices, no matter that this behaviour wastes a great amount of time; it is all completely ridiculous.”

US Policy and Industry Intervention

The United States has traditionally been a major supporter of global free speech and internet accessibility, and has advocated for policies to “promote internet freedom in China’s increasingly restrictive environment and to mitigate the global impact of Chinese government censorship.” In 2000 for example, Congress established the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) “to monitor China’s compliance with international human rights standards, to encourage the development of the rule of law in the PRC, and to establish and maintain a list of victims of human rights abuses in China.”

The US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), is an independent agency of the US government that aims to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” The USAGM sponsors Radio Free Asia, a non-profit news corporation, that connects with in-country sources and journalists to provide censored information to the Chinese public.

Private US information and communications industry interests in promoting free internet access in China are represented through the Global Network Initiative (GNI) ; members of the GNI include high-profile companies like Google, Microsoft, Verizon, and Facebook. Like many others in the global trade community, these corporations cite that China’s restrictions are unjustly discriminatory towards foreign industry.

US Clean Network Initiative

At the same time that US initiatives attempt to promote internet freedom in China, domestic policies threaten that same ideal at home. On August 5, 2020, the Trump administration, under Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s direction, announced its expansion of the Clean Network Initiative , which builds upon the 5G Clean Path Initiative .  The Clean Network initiative aims to guard “citizens’ privacy and [US] companies’ most sensitive information from aggressive intrusions by malign actors, such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).”

Pompeo’s press statement delineates five principles of a “clean network”:

• Clean Carrier: Ban untrusted People’s Republic of China (PRC) cell carriers from connecting to US networks.
• Clean Store: Remove untrusted PRC apps from US app stores to prevent spread of viruses, propaganda, and violation of privacy.
• Clean Apps: Block untrusted PRC smartphone manufacturers, such as Huawei, from pre-installing trusted apps (from the United States or abroad) on their app store.
• Clean Cloud: Prevent US personal information and intellectual property (ex. COVID-19 vaccine research) from being stored in cloud-based systems that can be accessed by foreign adversaries, such as the PRC (ex. Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent).
• Clean Cable: Protect undersea cables from intelligence gathering by the PRC.

The justification for these restrictive, China-centered policies are summed up in Pompeo’s concluding sentence: “building a Clean fortress around our citizens’ data will ensure all of our nations’ security.” Ironically, the Chinese government similarly often cites national security to justify its harsh restrictions, even when empirical evidence does not support their claims. Both the Clean Network Initiative and the Great Firewall require concessions of internet freedoms from their citizens in return for vague promises of national security and privacy. They also paint foreign influences as “intruders” upon the nation’s internet (though the internet was not created with state borders or separations), with China’s policies warding against almost all foreign nations while the Clean Network specifically targets China. The United States and China are essentially waging an “internet sovereignty” war, where each side employs the tactics of the other.

The day after the introduction of the Clean Network Initiative, President Donald Trump published an executive order imposing sanctions on the Chinese-owned apps TikTok and WeChat, which aims to remove them from US app stores and prohibit transactions between consumers and the apps. While US citizens would still be able access TikTok and WeChat if the apps are already on their device, they would not receive new software updates, effectively resulting in the apps becoming unusable over time.

During one of the many preliminary injunctions against Trump’s executive order, a judge blocked the order due to a lack of specific evidence regarding the presumed insecurity of WeChat. Another federal judge questioned “whether the order would harm First Amendment rights,” arguing that “it would shut down the primary means of communication for the Chinese community.” WeChat is one of the only social media platforms available to users in China, so users abroad rely on WeChat to stay connected with their families, friends, and business partners in China.

While Trump and Pompeo claim that these measures are necessary to our national security, the lack of concrete evidence behind their claims and singular focus on Chinese media point to other geopolitical motivations. The Clean Network Initiative doesn’t specify exactly which Chinese-owned applications will be removed; for example, it is unclear whether Chinese-owned entertainment platforms such as League of Legends are banned, since League of Legends is owned by TENCENT, one of the companies mentioned in the Initiative under “Clean Cloud.” However, it is abundantly clear that the Clean Network Initiative and Trump’s executive order specifically target Chinese-controlled social media platforms, telecommunications providers, and cell phone manufacturers, which disproportionately impact Chinese American communities (compared to League of Legends, which has a much more diverse user base). These policies exhibit a degree of xenophobia and racism against Chinese American citizens and discourages any ties, whether professional, familial, or (rarely) political, with China.

In the Clean Network Initiative, Pompeo emphasizes that “more than thirty countries and territories are now Clean Countries,” and urges other US allies to join this pact. By turning other countries against Chinese media and the CCP, the Trump administration may be attempting to assert US dominance in the international cybersphere and promote a pro-American internet free of Chinese influence.

Upon the introduction of these policies, Beijing has expressed outrage at the clear distrust of Chinese companies and government. In an interview, the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi claimed that this is a “textbook case of bullying,” since he believes the United States is acting to “keep its monopoly in science and technology but deny other countries the legitimate right to development.” He also accuses the United States of conducting its own mass surveillance around the world and domestically, contradicting the principles delineated in Pompeo’s press release. While Wang Yi claims that China promotes open business environments and international exchanges in science and technology, it is clear that neither China nor the United States is accomplishing those goals with their mutual censorship and foreign internet policy.

International Implications

Global internet freedom has declined as countries have imposed stricter censorship policies and weaponized social media as a tool to advance state agendas. Chinese development of more advanced censorship software and social media surveillance tools have often been seen by many in the international community as the inspiration in the development of their own censorship programs. Chinese firms reportedly connected to the Chinese government, such as Semptian and Knowlesys, advertise their surveillance products at international trade shows, demonstrating features such as “monitoring your targets’ messages, profiles, locations, behaviors, relationships, and more” as well as how to “monitor public opinion for election.” Authoritarian regimes can easily purchase these systems to find and block dissident users, creating an environment of fear and self-censorship in cyberspace.

The downward spiral of internet freedom threatens the very values the Internet was founded on: quite literally named the “world wide web,” it aimed to enable open and free access to information across the globe. This vision of a globally connected network is at risk of crumbling under increasing internet censorship within individual countries. This push towards a divided internet limits global conversations and collaboration, while further polarizing each nation by creating echo chambers in which we can only hear our own voices. At a time when global cooperation is needed more than ever, we are building more walls than we are tearing down.

Cover photo: President Donald J. Trump joins Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, at the start of their bilateral meeting Saturday, June 29, 2019, at the G20 Japan Summit in Osaka, Japan. Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead, Public domain, accessed via Wikimedia Commons .

Qijia Zhou is a staff writer for the HIR. Qijia is interested in international politics, as well as the intersection between science and policy.

Recent Posts

Facts or false alarms: the state of illicit arms in ukraine.

Natural Capital Beyond Borders: Interview with Dr. Pushpam Kumar, Senior Economic Advisor and Chief Environmental Economist for the UN Environment Programme

Illicit Natural Resource Trading in Sub-Saharan Africa: Interview with Roger Baro, Burkina Faso’s Minister of the Environment, Water, and Sanitation

Stemming The Flow

Unhealthy Economy, Unhealthy Bodies: Egypt’s Obesity Epidemic

You Might Be Interested In

Is beijing creating a new sino-russian world order the russian invasion of ukraine might change beijing’s calculus for taiwan and the united states, defying dictatorships: an interview with garry kasparov, cambodia’s triumph and tragedy: the un’s greatest experiment 30 years on.

• The Magazine
• Digital Library

A Small-Town Texas Librarian’s Big Stand Against Book Bans

In Llano County, a local librarian fought back against censorship, prompting a federal court fight and national recognition but losing the job of her dreams.

by Lise Olsen

June 20, 2024, 8:00 AM, CDT

Suzette Baker, from unincorporated Kingsland, was feted recently by the Authors Guild in New York City as a “Champion of Writers” —the first-ever recipient of a national award established to honor librarians who fight book bans.

In 2022, ​​she was fired from her job as a Llano County librarian after resisting orders to ban books and protesting against censorship. In response to Baker’s story, a local mom named Leila Leah Green and other library patrons filed a federal lawsuit, supported by the Author’s Guild. In 2023, they won a court order that forced county officials to restore eight of the 17 titles that had been removed from library shelves.

“Baker’s brave defense of her community’s right to read is a testament to the vital role librarians play in upholding free speech and creative expression in the face of censorship,” said Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, the nation’s oldest and largest writers organization.

Baker continues to fight for freedom of expression and is pursuing her own wrongful termination lawsuit against the Llano County officials. Still, in some ways, Baker, a mother of five and grandmother of two, would rather still be working in the Kingsland Branch Library, assembling quirky displays, recommending books, and helping adults and kids access the internet. Being a small-town librarian was her dream job. The Observer spoke to her about books and censorship.

TO: The lawsuit you filed in 2024 tells how you got fired. It started with something so simple: putting up a display in your branch library. Did you know at the time the display could get you in trouble?

No, that’s the funny part! So we had a marquee, and I was always putting up funny little signs. That was just a constant thing. And I put little quirky things on the billboard outside, and it brought people into the library. … And so after the Tennessee burning of the Harry Potter books by the minister in 2022 [which was live-streamed], I decided to put a sign on the marquee, which said: “We put the Lit in literature,” a pun. And then, on the inside, “Check out our lit books” or something like that next to a display of the most commonly challenged books.

Some of the books were ones that you’d been ordered to remove from the collection right? 

The books included some on a list that Bonnie Wallace [a member of the Llano County library advisory board ] had sent us. I put that all onto the display because if people are telling you that you shouldn’t read this, the first thing you think of should be: “Well, why not? What is their motivation behind this? And is it true?” And everything on the list that [Wallace] sent me as quote-unquote “pornographic” was not pornographic in the least bit. It just isn’t. 

So I put it on there for people to see, and I had sent a screenshot to Amber Millum, who was the [Llano County system] library director and she sent me a text back: “Hahahaha awesome.”

And then the next day, Amber Millum called me up. She said, “You’ve got to take it down.”

So obviously someone had called her in between?

Oh, yeah. Somebody yanked her chain and made her do it.

So I know that earlier this year you filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Llano County, saying you were fired for fighting censorship. The county claims you were fired for insubordination. Did you refuse to take down the display?

I did not refuse to take that one down. All I did was change the title … to something like “Smoking hot books” or something. And I had a picture on it of Joseph Goebbels [Hitler’s propaganda minister] burning books in Berlin.

I altered what I called the display, but I didn’t take the books off it.

It was on a red shelf that we put all these displays on. Easter books at Easter time and patriotic books for 4th of July, Memorial Day. It went through the seasons. Romances are up there for Valentine’s Day and mysteries maybe in the summertime. … So it, you know, it could pivot. So it was a continuously revolving display.

Did you put the Llano County proposed list of banned books on that display?

I didn’t have the list up there. The list was behind the desk. I had just taken books off that list and put them up there. 

A lot of the so-called insubordination was things like, my boss sent us the [book ban] list, and I sent her back a link to the American Library Association ‘s Office of Intellectual Freedom [with information] on what censorship is and how to fight it. 

What does getting this award mean to you? I mean, this is the Authors Guild and you’re being feted at a gala in New York City. It’s a big deal!

It’s beyond anything that I can imagine. But it’s a double-edged sword. You know, this is amazing and phenomenal. And it’s something that I would never have even considered happening in my lifetime. But it happened because of a bad thing that happened to me. So you know it’s kind of good and bad.

I know that a lot of the Texas librarians have really tried hard to fight against censorship, but I believe you’re the only one who has been fired over it, right? 

As of right now, I’m the only one that’s been fired over it, but I’m kind of the litmus test for this group. How far they can push their local government. So it’s important that we fight back as hard as we can. … If they get away with this, then they’re just going to clean house in libraries in Texas.

Have you gotten recognition from your fellow librarians?

Oh, yes, after this happened, we were supposed to go to the Texas Library Association conference as a library group, and they pulled the plug on that for us. And so I decided that after I got fired, that I’m going to go anyway. So I went to the TLA not as a librarian, but just as a person. And when I walked into a room they all knew who I was, which still to this day, it’s just overwhelming, the amount of support that I’ve got from those people, my fellow librarians, it was just amazing.

I read some sad news about your own library in a recent Austin American-Statesman story . Kingsland is one of only three county branch libraries and its hours have gone down and they have not replaced you. Is that still the case?

Yes, it is, unfortunately. They have cut out two of the children’s programs. It’s falling behind. [The Llano County library] lost its accreditation. It’s on probation … so you can’t go in the library anymore and order a book from another library. It’s just. It’s sad. 

It’s not open on weekends and it’s not open past 5:30. So anybody who has a job can’t go. … I mean, they can sit outside in 100-plus degree weather and get on the free Wifi, but that’s it.

You told me you’re working 45-50 hours a week at a hardware store now to pay the bills. And you’re still taking care of your adult disabled son. Is working at another library just not a possibility? 

There’s only the Llano County public library.  And then there’s the Burnet public library, which is in the county next door. And they’re not going to hire me. … I don’t wanna leave here. But [I] might end up having to, because I’m not going to find a decent job here. But I’m trying to fight it out as long as I can.

You May Also Like

A Queer Teacher in Edgewood Picked a Fight He Couldn’t Win

Learn4Life of San Antonio suspended Michael Gonzales after he tweeted a picture of himself in his classroom beside a pride flag.

by Gabriel Arana

Conservative Group Pushes Religious Books While Seeking to Ban Others

The Brave Books campaign promoted their own publications under the guise of protecting free speech.

by Steven Monacelli

Eye on Texas

Charlatans, False Prophets and Flimflammers

A veteran NPR reporter tells all about his misadventures covering religion in America.

by John Burnett

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

What Happened to Stanford Spells Trouble for the Election

By Renée DiResta

Ms. DiResta is the former research director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, a unit of Stanford University that studies abuse of online platforms.

In 2020 the Stanford Internet Observatory, where I was until recently the research director, helped lead a project that studied election rumors and disinformation. As part of that work, we frequently encountered conspiratorial thinking from Americans who had been told the 2020 presidential election was going to be stolen.

The way theories of “the steal” went viral was eerily routine . First, an image or video, such as a photo of a suitcase near a polling place, was posted as evidence of wrongdoing. The poster would tweet the purported evidence, tagging partisan influencers or media accounts with large followings. Those accounts would promote the rumor, often claiming, “Big if true!” Others would join, and the algorithms would push it out to potentially millions more. Partisan media would follow.

If the rumor was found to be false — and it usually was — corrections were rarely made and even then, little noticed. The belief that “the steal” was real led directly to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Within a couple of years, the same online rumor mill turned its attention to us — the very researchers who documented it. This spells trouble for the 2024 election.

For us, it started with claims that our work was a plot to censor the right. The first came from a blog related to the Foundation for Freedom Online, the project of a man who said he “ran cyber” at the State Department. This person, an alt-right YouTube personality who’d gone by the handle Frame Game, had been employed by the State Department for just a couple of months .

Using his brief affiliation as a marker of authority, he wrote blog posts styled as research reports contending that our project, the Election Integrity Partnership, had pushed social media networks to censor 22 million tweets. He had no firsthand evidence of any censorship, however: his number was based on a simple tally of viral election rumors that we’d counted and published in a report after the election was over. Right-wing media outlets and influencers nonetheless called it evidence of a plot to steal the election, and their followers followed suit.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia
• Environment
• Asia Defense
• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints

Pacific Money

• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View
• Photo Essays
• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

Singapore Is in Perfect Position to Court AI Companies From China

Recent features.

Japan: No Indo-Pacific Order Without International Order 

Mongolia’s Precarious Energy Security

Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh Pressured to Join Myanmar’s Civil War

In Southeast Asia, the Authorities Are the Biggest Gun Dealers in Town

Uzbekistan: From Shared Taxis to Ridesharing

Five Decades On, Cambodia Is Taking Ownership of Its Troubled Past

Myanmar’s Conflict Reaches the Doorstep of Bangladesh’s Saint Martin’s Island

China, Taiwan, and the Future of Guatemala

What Will Modi 3.0 Mean for China-India Relations?

Re-Thinking New Zealand’s Independent Foreign Policy

Asia on Edge: What MAGA Think Tanks Reveal About a Trump 2.0 Presidency

The Burning of Buthidaung: Allegations, Denials, and Silence in Myanmar’s Rakhine State

Pacific money  |  economy  |  southeast asia.

With China facing advanced chip and equipment bans from the United States, Singapore is an increasingly attractive place for Asia-based talent to set up AI companies.

Singapore is once again attracting talent and capital from the wider Asian region, especially from China, as artificial intelligence companies race to develop the next super app. The Lion City has in the last few years been a top destination for big tech firms to set up their Asia-Pacific headquarters as geopolitical tension heats up between the United States and China, and domestic regulations intensifies in China. Singapore is now a major hub for ByteDance, Google, Netflix, Shein, and others.

The Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) announced a GenAI Sandbox program in February to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across industries in adopting AI and offering a grant to be part of a three-month trial run program. 

Tribe, a “startup ecosystem builder,” and Digital Industry Singapore, a joint office between the Economic Development Board, Enterprise Singapore, and the IMDA, also recently announced a collaboration with U.S. tech giant Nvidia in establishing an AI-focused accelerator program , showcasing multiple arms of the government bolstering the enhancement of the AI ecosystem in Singapore.

“Singapore is a good location for two reasons,” said Kelly An, co-founder of OpenCord.AI, a 24/7 on-demand social media manager. “First, it is easy to establish a company in Singapore, and for Chinese companies going global, Singapore allows more international and diverse exposure. Second, Singapore’s overall tech environment is relatively strong, with all the major companies having huge operations here. So it’s easier to build those networks and connections.”

When pro-democracy protests broke out in Hong Kong in 2019, Singapore saw an influx of capital , more specifically private equity money. Years later, it is a top choice for family offices and venture capitalists to set up shop. In comparison to the previous first choice, Hong Kong, Singapore boasts better tech entrepreneur visa rules , tax incentives, and often a lower cost of operations. 

Now, with China facing advanced chip and equipment bans from the United States, Singapore is once again the perfect place for Asia-based talent to set up AI companies, from software to hardware. Singapore checks all the boxes needed for a founder, as it offers a strong talent pool, a vibrant ecosystem, proximity to private equity and venture capitalist money, and a free and open internet.

A country of under 6 million people, Singapore made up 15 percent of Nvidia’s revenue in the October 2023 quarter , only trailing behind the United States (34.8 percent,) Taiwan (23.9 percent), and China including Hong Kong (22.2 percent). Whether the chips are used domestically for AI development or data centers, or they are being repackaged and shipped off elsewhere, Singapore has successfully positioned itself as one of the world’s leading AI players.

The concerted push to attract some of China’s most promising AI startups to relocate seems all too natural and a win-win for both the companies and for Singapore. Companies get access to international networks, public and private investments, and mature digital infrastructure, while Singapore gets another chance to court some of the brightest minds in the industry and leapfrog to obtain frontier technology. 

“Singapore is an attractive place for many founders to set up entities targeting the global market because it shares the same internet ecosystem as the rest of the world, has good internet connectivity, and serves as an easy-to-access travel hub so many Singaporean AI companies can easily adapt a global roadmap,” said Yichen Guo, CEO of CapGo.AI, a Singaporean AI productivity app for lead generation.

Many echoed his comment and said that the fact that the country can offer AI developers access to a free internet would be enough incentive to draw in Chinese talent. The issue with training large language models (LLMs) in China is that companies are limited to using data within the Great Firewall, due to both institutional censorship and self-censorship. 

Ultimately, “ LLM performance improves with scale – more parameters, more and better training data, more training runs, and more computation,” Goldman Sachs wrote in a recent note . There is simply less information available in a closed internet. So Chinese AI companies face an inherent disadvantage, as there is more data (in all languages, from all countries) to train on for companies outside of China. 

An, of OpenCord.AI, said that for Chinese companies going global, the United States or Europe could be intimidating while “Singapore feels like a safe harbor.” But companies setting up shop in Singapore are not problem free, Guo added. “The biggest challenge for AI applications in Singapore is that the market size of the region (Southeast Asia) is still relatively small and fragmented. Software businesses, in general, thrive better in developed countries with a higher willingness to pay.”

Metta Ni contributed to the research of this story.

Amazon Web Services Announces $9 Billion Cloud Investment in Singapore

By sebastian strangio.

Why Singapore Airlines Had a Good 2022

By james guild.

Breaking Down Singapore’s 2023 Budget

Singapore Mulls Tighter Restrictions on Crypto Trading

How Did China, India, and the BRICS Approach the Swiss Peace Summit on the Russia-Ukraine War?

By abhilash kolekar.

China and the Philippines Inch Closer to Conflict in the South China Sea

By Saqlain Rizve

Maldives Bans Israeli Tourists, Then Rethinks Decision

By ahmed naish.

By Jagannath Panda, Julie Yu-Wen Chen, and Richard Ghiasy

By Telmen Altanshagai

By Dayna Santana Pérez

By Lindsey Kennedy and Nathan Paul Southern

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Effects of Social Media — Censorship In Social Media

Censorship in Social Media

• Categories: Censorship Effects of Social Media Social Media

About this sample

Words: 812 |

Published: Apr 29, 2022

Words: 812 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

• Anat, Z. & Fernadez, W. (2016). Countering violent extremism on social media: An analysis of communication campaigns. International Journal of Communication, 10, 5406-5423. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5345/1718
• DeNardis, L., & Hackl, A. M. (2015). Internet fragmentation: An overview. SSRN Electronic Journal.
• Flew, T. (2015). Communication and social media. Oxford University Press.
• Gibson, R. (2019). Freedom of speech and the limits of social media censorship. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/freedom-of-speech-and-the-limits-of-social-media-censorship-125726
• Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
• Hasen, R. L. (2016). Facebook and the new face of media regulation. The University of Chicago Law Review Online, 83, 37-43. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/83_u_chi_l_rev_online_37.pdf
• Howard, P. N., Agarwal, S. D., & Hussain, M. M. (2011). When do states disconnect their digital networks? Regime responses to the political uses of social media. The Communication Review, 14(3), 216-232.
• Jørgensen, H. (2018). Facebook and democracy: In defence of an extended understanding of freedom of expression. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1388-1403.
• Mossberger, K. (2008). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Georgetown University Press.
• Stevenson, J. (2000). Freedom of speech: The history of an idea. Penguin.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 854 words

2 pages / 966 words

4 pages / 1980 words

1 pages / 666 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Effects of Social Media

Bennett, S. (2014). The selfie. Photography and Culture, 7(1), 75-92.Carrotte, E. R., Vella, A. M., Lim, M. S., & Hellard, M. E. (2015). “Fitspiration” on social media: A content analysis of gendered images. Journal of Medical [...]

Anderson, C. A., & Jiang, S. (2018). The value of social media data. Marketing Science, 37(3), 387-402.Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2013). The news gap: When the information preferences of the media and the public [...]

Phillips, D. (2016). The 2016 Cyberbullying Report. Cyberbullying Research Center. . Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2017/06/30/a-run-down-of-social-medias-effects-on-our-mental-health/?sh=5153a3861e2e

Alton, L. (2017, May 15). Is Working From Home Making You Feel Miserable?. NBC news. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/amy-morin/heres-why-internet-has-made-us-lonelier-than-ever.html

Many of us in this day and age can’t live without our cellphones and especially our social media accounts. We use our social media to get our news, to find out what events are going on in the world, in our communities, in our [...]

Khurana N (2015) The Impact of Social Networking Sites on the Youth. J Mass Communicate Journalism 5:285. doi: 10.4172/2165-7912.1000285Steyer James (2009), “Is Technology Networking Changing Childhood?’- A National Poll by [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

College of Engineering

Summer engineering institute gives high schoolers a taste of college.

The College’s new weeklong camp blends engineering sessions and insider info on college admission to hook students on STEM majors.

Summer Engineering Institute campers toured the Student Competition Center and heard from team members about the vehicles they designed and built. Here, a camper gets to sit the in cockpit of the GT Motorsports Formula SAE car. (Photo: Liz Kelly)

For many high school students, a summertime Tuesday might include hanging out with friends, relaxing by the pool, or a part-time job.

For a dozen metro Atlanta high school students, a recent Tuesday found them Zooming with a representative from NASCAR’s Hendrick Motorsports and sliding into a simulator at Georgia Tech’s Student Competition Center to test their own driving skills. Later, they designed miniature solar-powered cars to race against each other and talked to an engineer from General Motors.

Welcome to the College of Engineering Summer Engineering Institute (SEI), a series of two weeklong camps for students to get excited about all things engineering and help them craft a compelling college application.

In week one, motorsports was the portal to almost every facet of engineering the group explored — aerospace and materials science for designing light, sleek vehicles; electrical and computer for the sensors and electronic systems in those vehicles; mechanical for the engines and chassis. For high schoolers in the camp’s second week, aerodynamics served as the focal point, including indoor skydiving.

“Summer camps are a great way to build our pipeline and get students excited about engineering while preparing them to successfully apply to college,” said Joy Harris, director of Women in Engineering (WIE) and a Georgia Tech graduate herself. “I did summer camps in junior high school and high school, and it changed my trajectory for college.”

Organized by Harris and WIE Associate Director Desiree Turner, the camp was open to all high schoolers, and participants ended up split evenly between girls and boys. Their agenda for the week mixed engineering-focused activities — a design thinking workshop, engineering design project, and lab visits — with college prep sessions. Students learned about writing college application essays, taking the SAT, and Georgia Tech’s campus resources and admission process.

That mix of engineering exploration and insider admission tips was especially attractive to Falyssa, a rising junior from Duluth who would be the first in her family to attend college.

“I’ve never really had college advice, especially from admission officers, and the advice they've given me in this program is invaluable,” she said. “I would have never known how to write a college essay, how to get into Georgia Tech or any other top college without the advice they've given me. They really have prepared me for junior year and the rest of my high school planning.”

Falyssa, whose last name is being withheld because she’s a minor, has taught herself to code and pursued several related certifications. But she said she hasn’t been able to get much hands-on engineering experience.

“Georgia Tech is the dream school that I want to go to, so I wanted to come here to not only get to know Georgia Tech, but also get to know more about engineering,” she said. “At school, we don't really get to deep-dive, so I was looking for more of a challenge and also to meet other fun kids who also like engineering.”

SEI participants worked on an engineering design project throughout the week-long camp, top, and heard from members of the RoboJackets robotics competition team as part of their day at the Georgia Tech Student Competition Center, bottom. (Top Photo: Mikey Fuller, Bottom Photo: Liz Kelly)

Falyssa is most interested in computer engineering and circuit design. For their SEI design project, she and her teammates worked on a prototype of a cheaper, more effective tool to help people with autism spectrum disorders communicate. It’s an idea borne from her own family: She has a younger sibling with autism who doesn’t speak.

Turner said having a full week to work with students and giving them time to explore their passions like that is the real value of SEI.

“We get to spend a lot more time with the students, and they’re exposed to so many different sides of STEM and engineering than we traditionally are able to do in a one-day program,” she said.

Related Content

With Added Programs, Expanded Reach, Women in Engineering Charts a New Course

After helping increase the number of women undergraduates in the College, WIE expands to grad students and postdocs to build on its thriving community.

Student Competition Center

The Student Competition Center at Georgia Tech is home to seven student engineering competition teams. With its extensive machining resources, the SCC is ground zero for fostering engineering innovation among hundreds of students.

Two years after Dobbs; militants attack in southern Russia

Today's top stories.

Two years ago today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade , removing federal protections for abortion. The Dobbs decision allowed states to ban and restrict abortion, significantly changing access—and the nature—of abortions in America

• 🎧 The number of abortions is actually up across the U.S., NPR’s Elissa Nadworny tells Up First . While access is a lot more limited in some states, Nadworny says there’s been a major rise in the use of telehealth , making it easier for doctors to prescribe and send abortion pills through the mail. Even people in states with strict abortion restrictions like Texas or Mississippi can legally access pills from providers in places like Massachusetts and New York. She adds the big thing she's following is how abortion could be on the ballot this fall in as many as 10 states. Here's where voters will decide. She’s also waiting on the latest Supreme Court decision expected as early as this week about access to abortions in emergency room situations.

​​​​​​Armed militants killed more than 15 police officers and several civilians in Russia’s southern republic of Dagestan on Sunday , its governor Sergei Melikov said in a video statement early Monday. The gunmen opened fire on two Orthodox churches, a synagogue and a police post in two cities, according to the authorities. The attacks took place in the region’s largest city, Makhachkala, and in the coastal city of Derbent.

• 🎧 Authorities say these attacks were well planned and coordinated, NPR’s Charles Maynes reports on Up First. Maynes says authorities launched an investigation into what they’re calling acts of terror, though it remains unclear how many militants were involved. Dagestan is a predominantly Muslim region on the Caspian Sea that has a history of separatist and militant violence. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is in Washington to discuss the next phase of the Gaza war and escalating hostilities on the border with Lebanon . Even though the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court requested an arrest warrant for Gallant, the U.S. sees him as a close partner in Israel’s right wing government.

• 🎧 The visit comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself at odds with his biggest ally, the United States, NPR’s Hadeel Al-Shalchi reports . Yesterday Netanyahu said in a lengthy TV interview the current phase of fighting against Hamas in Gaza is winding down and that the military’s focus could then shift to Israel’s northern border with Lebanon. He also signaled that there is no end in sight for the war in Gaza. Al-Shalchi says Netanyahu’s language seems to contradict the deal that the Biden administration is pushing, which could lead to an end to the unrelenting war and secure the return of the remaining hostages in Gaza.
• 🎧 Hezbollah is much stronger than Hamas. Could Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system hold up in a war with the group? NPR’s Geoff Brumfiel talks to missile experts who say that Hezbollah's arsenal could push the system past its limits.

Behind the story

This essay was written by Daniel Estrin, NPR's international correspondent.

It was a few months into the Gaza war when NPR’s producer in Gaza, Anas Baba, called me with exciting news: he found a bakery selling cakes.

This is how we began to follow professional baker Ibrahim Abu Hani.

Abu Hani reopened his Rafah bakery, Batool Cakes, to high demand. One man wanted a birthday cake for his injured son. Another man in a tent camp begged for a wedding cake: he was getting married that very night.

The baker did his best to make a high-quality product, even with supplies dwindling in the war.

Soon, the baker got word that a branch of his bakery in Khan Younis suffered extensive damage after an Israeli ground offensive against Hamas there.

It wasn’t long after that Abu Hani himself had to flee.

When Israel launched its offensive in Rafah, he gathered all the baking equipment he could, and moved it to his brother’s outdoor car mechanic shop, farther away from the bombardment.

Despite the flies, he made cakes for children in a nearby tent camp, to help them celebrate their birthdays.

“When you strive to bring happiness to others, you will feel joy, no matter what obstacles come your way,” he told us.

Our producer Anas Baba has documented a lot of horrific scenes in this war, but this baker’s story is just as important. Abu Hani helps people celebrate life amid extreme hunger and hopelessness. While the world sends Gaza canned beans, he offers children delicious cake.

Listen to our radio story featuring him as we continue to follow his journey throughout the war.

Life advice

What was the first thing you did when you woke up this morning ? If you immediately grabbed your phone, you might not be aware of your behavior and how it shapes your whole day. And it could mean that you're too online. A recent survey claimed Americans check their phones once every 4 minutes. You can audit your phone usage with this quiz and learn some practical tips to find balance in your digital habits. 📱 Social media is designed to be addictive . The only way to get around it is by setting boundaries, either by deleting apps from your phone or using a screen timer. 📱 Don’t go to bed with your phone. Research shows it makes a big difference to your sleep and focus. 📱 Observe how you feel when you’re scrolling your phone. Experiment with shutting down social media, then slowly reintegrate the apps that serve you. 📱 After a couple of weeks practicing digital minimalism, you might have more time on your hands than you’re used to. Use the time to reconnect with people and re-invest in your hobbies and interests.

3 things to know before you go

• At 91, Bruce Onobrakpeya, the Nigerian sculptor and printmaker who reimagined the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, is celebrated at the Smithsonian's National Museum of African Art with a solo exhibit.
• The late Alex Trebek will be featured on a Forever Stamp set by the U.S. Postal Service . The stamps honoring Trebek, who died in 2020, will go on sale next month.
• A Florida family is suing NASA after a piece of metallic space debris belonging to the agency fell to Earth and tore through their Naples home earlier this year, leaving a hole in the roof.

Copyright 2024 NPR