A defining feature of all authoritarian governments and ideologies, censorship is hardly a new phenomenon. Just take a cursory glance at history, and you will find countless examples of people imposing censorship as a means of thought control, often with devastating consequences. It comes as no surprise that freedom of expression is often seen as the hallmark of a civilised society – and for good reason. The suppression of dissenting opinion invariably paves the way for further abuses of human rights, and betrays the values of democracy.
However, this issue has never been more relevant than today. The 21st Century has seen a sharp rise in political engagement, and both the mass and social media have created a climate which actively encourages conflict and division. Virtually all events that have reached international attention – including Brexit, the 2020 presidential elections, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic – have been surrounded by a frenzied and hyperbolised media coverage, which gives more weight to sensationalist headlines than actual facts. Companies profiting from the spread of misinformation have allowed a troubling rise in fake news, a problem that’s hard to recognize and even harder to solve. Nonetheless, the genuine danger of such misinformation and escalating tensions cannot be understated, and once again raises the question of censorship: is it ever appropriate? Can free speech be used as a justification to spread proven falsehoods and dangerous disinformation, or does it have its limits?
One of the most prominent examples of this problem is the vaccine debate. It perfectly demonstrates the dangers of widespread disinformation and unrestricted platforming of science denialist views. A report from the NGO Center for Countering Digital Hate found that up to 65% of anti-vaccine content on social media can be traced back to just 12 sources, and observed that the social media accounts responsible for the anti-vaccine infodemic have increased their following by roughly 7.8 million since 2019. It is no coincidence that this rise in misinformation is accompanied by a falling vaccination rate worldwide – the CCDH has warned that the spread of anti-vaccine content could undermine the roll-out of future vaccines, and lead to children and young people in particular missing out on life-saving medicine.
Clearly, the consequences of allowing these claims to spread unchallenged are dire, and have real-life implications on public health. When it comes to such cases, many people – including staunch advocates for free speech – agree that censorship is the only solution. The argument is not without merit; after all, there is an obvious distinction between genuinely-held beliefs and proven anti-scientific misinformation. Social media platforms may have a responsibility to uphold impartiality, but encouraging a misinformation infodemic will come at a great cost to society. The recent rise in science denialist views is worrying and allowing it to continue would, of course, be reckless – the challenge now is finding a way to tackle widespread misinformation without endangering freedom of speech.
Although censorship may be justified under these circumstances, it is far from an ideal solution. It is the unfortunate reality that a precedent for censorship may be exploited in the future, and could lead to the stifling of free speech more widely. It is wholly reasonable to suggest that dangerous information – such as extremist and totalitarian views, terrorist content, and incitement to violence – should be removed immediately and without exception, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, censoring information (even if it’s unpopular and controversial) raises more issues than it solves.
To understand the disastrous consequences of state-sponsored censorship and media control, look no further than the political reality in Russia. Draconian laws have been passed by the Russian authorities to control and isolate internet content; the Human Rights Watch have warned that these regulations have the potential to severely restrict the freedoms of people in Russia. This was proven to be true when Roskomnadzor (Russia’s federal censorship agency) exploited its power to target opposition leader Alexey Navalny, and block his official website. Under the guise of censoring ‘extremist content’, Roskomnadzorblacklisted Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation – an organisation set up to expose corruption among high-ranking Russian officials – and ordered it to stop its investigations. Navalny is a vocal critic of Putin’s government, and an advocate for more freedom and transparency in Russian politics; his work was vital in combating government corruption and exposing the criminal activity of numerous ministers. However, this earned him the fury of the Russian authorities, and in February, Navalny was incarcerated by a Moscow court. He is currently serving 3½ years in prison.
Navalny’s plight goes to show the undeniable power that a government holds when it is permitted to censor content with impunity. We mustn’t forget the genuine danger of censorship – however slight and justified it may seem, it could lead a country down the path of authoritarianism and state control. This is particularly important today, given the worrying trend of self-censorship and the silencing of academic debate, especially in UK universities.
Historically, universities have played a vital role in defending free expression and challenging conventionally held beliefs. The tradition of encouraging critical debate in academia was invaluable in reforming public understanding of many complex issues, but the last few years have seen a troubling rise in self-censorship, with many academics reporting that the climate in universities is antithetical to free expression, and prevents constructive debate around controversial topics. There have been high-profile cases of academics being de-platformed for expressing thought-provoking, if unpopular, views, and a study by King’s College London showed that students across all political backgrounds often felt unable to engage in discussion for fear of sparking controversy.
So as we find ourselves facing these dilemmas – How should we tackle misinformation? What falls within the bounds of free expression? What should we do to stop fake news from spreading? – it’s important to remember that censorship isn’t the perfect answer. If we want to encourage open and compassionate conversation, we should remember the value of free expression and create an environment where a wide range of views can be heard with an open mind. Perhaps, instead of censoring content, we should be approaching the problem in a different way: by investing in strong education and teaching children critical thinking skills from a young age, misinformation and conspiracy theories will have much less sway over society. We mustn’t forget the destructive effects that censorship has on human rights and freedoms – by focusing on alternative solutions, we can address dangerous content without compromising free speech, and we will all be better equipped to navigate the complexities of modern day debate.
