Popular Censorship
Whether through the dismantlement of government censorship and the subsequent proliferation of “lewd” images in the media, the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 which liberated decades of secret government activity, or the constant fight against the limits of the Sedition Act, the history of free speech in the United States is defined by the struggle to realize rights already outlined in the Constitution. Time and again, the Constitution has stood stalwart against the natural tendency of governments to suppress information, opinions, and beliefs deemed unfit for public consumption. Through our constant struggle against governmental censorship, we have collectively shorn off the vast majority of limits placed on our right to hold and proclaim any opinion, regardless of its popularity. And yet, in recent years, it seems as if we have experienced a regression in political thought and the freedom to express it.
Using the Constitution as a tool of the people, not of the state, we have eliminated most barriers standing in the way of our freedom of speech. Ironically, the threat those freedoms now face comes not from our government, but from the populace itself. With an animosity that has only heightened since the election of Donald Trump, and one that shows no signs of mitigating anytime soon, the people of this country, not the government, have become the ultimate arbiters of a reverse Orwellian state. Although this increasingly timely and disturbingly relevant dystopian novel depicted a government tyranny over the people, the liberal censorship portrayed by Orwell in 1984 stands as a fitting model for the oppressive political climate of today.
Though more discreet than its governmental counterpart, popular censorship by the Left has effectively stifled political dissent and conversation, marginalizing and alienating those who do not fit a certain, increasingly exclusive, mold. This distorted offshoot of liberalism bears little resemblance to the Democratic Party of old, which fought against censorship and oppression. Its undemocratic tactics and politics will only lead to the fulfillment of that which it dreads most: the re-election of Donald Trump.
While we have set up institutions to safeguard against a despotic government, we have little protection from a despotic populace. This form of liberalism works to the detriment of Democrats and Republicans alike, and serves only to deepen the divide in an already disunited nation.
Professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University — a Democrat — inveighed against the identity politics of today in a November article for the New York Times, citing it as having “distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing,” an observation for which he received the very kind of blind criticism against which he was writing. Supporting the stereotype that Democrats accept diversity of all except of opinion, this alt-Left movement, for lack of a better term, demands conformity and fears dissension. Their flimsily constructed political beliefs, it seems, cannot withstand the force of disagreement.
This is all made acceptable by the dehumanizing nature of their politics, which relegates anyone who has not drunk the Kool-Aid quite fast enough, not to mention Republicans, to a position of intellectual and moral inferiority. Most distressingly, such tactics work to weaken the Democratic Party in a time when — holding minority status in every sect of government — unity in opposition has never been so critical. Nevertheless, popular censorship on the Left remains unchecked.
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. — Thomas Jefferson, 1787
The alt-Left proclivity for eliminating free speech has reared its ugly head in anticipation of the Women’s March on Washington, a protest to be held on January 21st in opposition to the more misogynistic messages President-elect Trump has delivered. What should be a celebration of free speech that the organizers of the march highlight as being against “the rhetoric of the past election cycle,” which “has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us,” has since devolved into something far less hopeful. Farah Stockman of the New York Times writes that “contentious conversations about race have erupted nearly every day among marchers, exhilarating some and alienating others.”
One such source of this tension has risen from a post by a march volunteer that “advised ‘white allies’ to listen more and talk less,” and rebuked those who, it read, “were only now waking up to racism because of the election.” Such rhetoric has unsurprisingly driven many once enthusiastic marchers away. While implementing a limit on free speech is inherently divisive, it also works against the objective of the march and those participating in the first place. The Left’s increasing exclusivity and abandonment of the center is leaving previously grounded Democrats with nothing to stand on.
This form of censorship is mild compared to that imposed upon Conservatives, a fact right-wing internet troll Milo Yiannopoulos is becoming closely acquainted with. A self professed internet “super villain,” Yiannopoulos takes himself far less seriously than his Liberal opposition, which sees him and his opinions as “fascist,” as evinced by the latest protests at UC Davis over his appearance. Apparently not fascist is the Left’s attempt to prevent his book from being published. A recent deal with publishing house Simon & Schuster has left many on the Left seething in anger, which, though concerning, has done little in the way of preventing his book from moving forward: It is now number one atop Amazon’s preorder list.
Regardless, the desire to actually prevent the book from being published is concerning. To disagree with Yiannopoulos is natural; he acknowledges that he is patently offensive and there are few who would state otherwise. Disagreement is not, however, a license to take preventive measures. As Orwell wrote in ever-timely fashion, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” The last place that politics belongs is in publishing, a fact that the Founding Fathers were well aware of, but one that nonetheless seems to have escaped our collective national conscious. By boycotting all books published by Simon & Schuster as a result of Yiannopoulos’ upcoming book, The Chicago Review of Books is also boycotting the publisher of Hillary Clinton and Amy Schumer. Brilliant.
What is frightening about popular censorship is that it can hardly be curtailed by an outside institution. We created barriers against government oppression, but have yet to construct any to protect against our own nefarious tendencies. It is counterproductive, it is alienating, and it is undemocratic. There is no right to be unoffended, and a life without offense is one without challenge, growth, or development. If this is the life the alt-Left desires, than by all means, pursue it to its fullest extent. But please, if that is the case, stay out of politics, and stay out of the Democratic Party.
