Censorship

"Journalism is the mouthpiece of the Party. -- Chinese saying

"You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. -- Old newsroom saying

The pen is mightier than the sword.

   Freedom of the Press, which includes free speech, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated by the United Nations in 1948.
   However, free speech does have limits, some agreed on by the general public, and some imposed by government. The problem is that when government goes too far in imposing limits that it becomes censorship. Free speech includes the freedom to criticize, but when government uses censorship to prevent criticism, and to penalize those who challenge its policies that democracies run the risk of degenerating into tyranny.
   It's important, though, to remember the context of Justice Holmes' comment upholding limits on speech. The case before the court was about a group distributing pamphlets criticizing war and the draft, and a government ban on such activity, which the court upheld. The alleged offense, however, was in 1915, and the case did not get to the court until 1919, by which time the war was over. So was the ban relevant?
   At the same time, hateful speech, that which causes injury to others, libel, slander, and anonymous Web postings that directly or indirectly harm others, are all forms of speech that we are not free to indulge in. False or misleading advertising is also prohibited.
   Also, information relative to national security may be subject to restrictions, and such things as cartoons that insult or are offensive to certain groups also face restrictions. But are restrictions on these forms valid? That's where the issue gets sticky.

   Some agencies of government, such as the CIA and the FBI, are notorious for labeling anything and everything they gather as "important to national security," and therefore cannot be talked about or released to the public. It becomes laughable when newspaper clippings and magazine articles already in public view are labeled "Top Secret" and further publication or discussion put under pressure to conceal.
   The New York Times encountered government opposition when it moved to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers, which detailed lies the government was reporting about the war in Vietnam. At the same time, the Times delayed, at the government's request, publishing information it had obtained about a pending invasion of Cuba. The invasion went ahead as planned, but failed. President John Kennedy was later quoted as saying that if the newspaper had gone ahead and published, the invasion likely would have been called off, saving the administration from the embarrassment of a failed mission.
   Then there are incidents like the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper that Muslims around the world deemed extremely offensive to their religion. And the fatwa pronounced against author Salman Rushdie for the supposedly offensive themes in his novel, "The Satanic Verses."
   Where is the line that diffentiates free speech from offensive speech? Sometimes free speech is offensive, but does it warrant death threats and violence?

   Government uses censorship to prevent or punish criticism, and politicians can be very thin-skinned when reporters question or challenge their policies or behaviors. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who along with colleague Alan Bernstein, was instrumental in bringing down President Richard Nixon, encountered this recently when a White House aide allegedly said, "You'll be sorry if you publish this." This time, both sides were being thin-skinned.
   Woodward, after all, is the guy wielding the pen.

   As for political leaders claiming that the government "is doing this for your own good," that policy, too, has limits. That sort of paternalism is okay in matters of public health and safety, such as food and drug inspection, or construction codes to prevent fires or building collapse, but Big Brother is always looking for ways to impose his group's ideas on the rest of society.