Skip to main content

6: Prior Restraint - The Construction of The Public

As discussed in our textbook, prior restraint has been a tool utilized by the government to censor material and information deemed inappropriate, immoral, and a threat to our national security (Tedford & Herbeck, 244). Throughout the chapter the authors elude to this idea of "public decency", citing the reason for censorship as the publication or dissemination of immoral material. Because they serve as gatekeepers of this information, the government has the agency and power to interpret and construct what and who the "public" is. Or rather, who and what is protected. And use this vague terminology to rationalize their actions. Last week during our lecture on commercial speech, we discussed about what types of persons are protected (in the context of sin to vice product advertising): the pregnant, elderly, children, and babies.

I think it's interesting to draw this distinct parallel between the censorship of publication and the censorship of commercial speech. Because this ethical premise of protecting the public has been the foundation of government interventions with prior restraint. Clearly seen in the restriction of film through the creation of film review boards, literature in schools, and mass media, the government has a vested interested in regulating this type of material. However, I would argue that with this vague interpretation it allows the government to overstep their rule under the guise of public decency. In this article, there was an instance where libraries were considered government bodies, and were subject to covert censorship. It showcases that when convenient, this construction of the public is ever changing, and with that, the type of censorship that can be implemented. That is why I believe the prior restraint is unconstitutional in most cases, and with the emergence of new means of communication that isn't limited to our nation's borders, these censorship cases need to be reviewed closely, to ensure that our freedom of speech is not infringed.

Sources

http://fictionwritersreview.com/shoptalk/banned-books-week-an-act-of-censorship-say-what/

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. N.p.: STRATA, 2017. Print.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 24, 2017 at 6:55 PM

    The last paragraph of this piece parallels a thought that came up in my small group discussion on Tuesday. In our talk, we explored the idea that the use of prior restraint and the determining factors that constitute its usage are essentially malleable and subjective based on whichever administration is in power. To use Edward Snowden as an example, a number of presidential candidates on both sides of the political spectrum (everyone from Ted Cruz to Bernie Sanders) initially expressed support for the whistleblower back in 2013, especially when the constitutionality of the leaked material was brought into question. Although some of these candidates later reversed their position on Snowden, their initial thoughts were different than that of the Obama Administration - John Kerry encouraged him to come back to the United States to stand trial.

    In the context of whistleblowers, there appears to be an expansive interpretation as to how prior restraint should be applied, and it seems largely dependent on the executive branch to reach these conclusions.

    Sources:

    Pilkington, Ed. “'Edward Snowden Did This Country a Great Service. Let Him Come Home'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Sept. 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/edward-snowden-pardon-bernie-sanders-daniel-ellsberg.

    Richardson, Bradford. “Cruz Shifts on Edward Snowden.” TheHill, 14 Jan. 2016, thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265889-cruz-flip-flops-on-snowden.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more