Precedent. Vehicle. Comfort. These three words are the building blocks to the single greatest threat to a society rooted in freedom. The road that winds between freedom and totalitarianism has many steps and shades of grey, but only one of these is irreversible. The beating heart of a free society is the freedom of speech and expression. True freedom abhors the word “except”. When a single “except” exists, a rule, a constriction against freedom exists. Once written, once “accepted”, this rule, no matter how innocuous or minute, becomes a precedent. Once in existence, a precedent, even if later rejected, can and will be used as a reference in future arguments. Once you can say the words, “Remember when…”, you can never remove that capability. Thus, our greatest weapon against the sinister threat of censorship is the lack of precedent. We simply do not do that. The First Amendment is, and must remain, philosophically inviolate.
Once we take a single step on that path, it is inevitable that a vehicle will be established. No matter how strict, no matter how convoluted, and no matter how well intentioned, a vehicle, once established, can, and will, eventually be misused. Consider this scenario: As a reaction to increased desire to remove Southern /Confederate memorials, State Legislature member Joe Random puts forth a bill establishing a “public works committee” consisting of 10 members and a head, who are to investigate and vote on whether a specific work, “accessible in the public domain”, ought to be removed. Sounds reasonable, right? Not only reasonable, but it also sounds realistic. This is a vehicle, a method, to allow censorship. It’s just too bad Representative Random did not consider that libraries are also accessible in the public domain, or he might have realized he just created a way for 11 people to prohibit libraries from having copies of the Quran. The danger in making a vehicle for any form of censorship is that it is impossible to tell who will control, or even have access to it, in the future. Consider this: If a simple 30% vote of the population of the US could remove, or ban, anything by declaring it offensive, how much would we actually lose? 30% or 40% is still attainable by both Trump and anti-Trump supporters. So, think of the things you fear to lose and ask if you want your political opposites to be able to use censorship.
When a vehicle is established, it is, inevitably, put to use. As this occurs with greater frequency, we become accustomed and desensitized to these uses done “for our own good”. Maybe, you think someone would stop things before they went out of control. Perhaps, you have faith that Americans are “better than that”. If this is the case, I challenge you to consider the most recent “witch hunt” in American history. No, not Trump. If you thought of him, I encourage you to learn what that term actually means. Trump had a habit of using Doublespeak, as well as just misusing words for his benefit. The most recent “witch hunt” in American history is also called “The Red Scare”. The primary feature of the Red Scare was an inquiry in which the committee interrogated and threatened American citizens until they either “confessed” or “gave up” more names to put before the inquest. It was a self-perpetuating vehicle, for the public good, that actively encouraged perjury. Sound awful? America not only accepted it but became accustomed to it. It was “safe” and comfortable. As observed by Ben Franklin: any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Once we become comfortable with any censorship, we open the door to more censorship.
A simple truth often quoted from Aesop’s Fables, is “you cannot please everyone”. I’ll take that a step further, and suggest, “Every idea offends someone.” I hate racism, intolerance, ethnic superiority, and prejudice of any kind. The concepts disgust me. However, the solution to them is not prohibition. Its taking away the power of their ignorance. Monuments need not be celebrations; they can be warnings. A society that removes every reminder of its moral failures risks repeating them under a different banner. As Santayana expressed, “Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it.” By trying to remove “offensive monuments” we have created over a hundred positions for them to rally around. By taking the fight “to them”, we give them someone to fight. By trying to censor their ideas and beliefs, we inherently acknowledge the right of censorship to ideas and beliefs in general. Precedent. Vehicle. Comfort. There is only one absolute defense against censorship. Not. One. Step. We do not walk that path. We do not even acknowledge it. We cannot. We must not.