As I understand the definition of the word, only governments can “censor” your writings or your spoken words. Webster’s defines a censor as “an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter” [emphasis mine].
I suppose we should look to the root of the word. If we do, we see that it has Latin origins related to the word census and the power of census takers to fine or otherwise sanction certain words in the Roman Empire. Thus, official would be someone with the power of government behind them.
Private enterprise retains the right (I hope) to edit, rather than censor, what it deems offensive to its operation. If we think about this for a moment, how could it be otherwise? Newspapers and publishers edit all the time. Most of the time they are editing for spelling and grammar, in order to protect their brand, which (hopefully) projects an aura of accuracy and good grammar. Businesses can edit in the day to day running of their business, or can sue for judicial redress and subsequent action for words that it, the business, considers to be offensive to its rights at equity. The misuse of a trademark, for example, can be edited. The use of language that a business deems offensive (libelous or slanderous) can be met with legal action. People, everyday people, can do the same.
But the bar has been set, I think, purposefully high so as not to infringe on our rights (American rights) to say what we want, when we want, where we want. One must prove libel or slander in a court of law in order to have what it deems offensive language removed or retracted. Proof is sometimes hard to get to; thus, lawsuits of this nature are comparatively rare. Moreover, the bar is set perhaps even higher when one considers the inability to slander or libel one’s government. We get to say about our government what we want to say.
None of this ought to mean that we say whatever comes to mind. Self-editing, the lack of which is often considered tantamount to a mental disorder by the way, is an important character trait for adults (children, not so much). As freemen, we need to exercise restraint and consideration in our words and actions. The Buddhists go ever further and suggest that “right thought” is an important cornerstone of a life well-lived. Thoughts, after all, become speech at some point.
That said (pun intended), what is Facebook up to when they remove what they consider offensive posts? To my view, they are “up to” a protection of their brand – nothing more and nothing less. They are not doing me any favors (what I consider offensive is probably not the same as what The Zuck considers offensive, nor should it be). I mean, by editing posts, including mine, they are exercising their aforementioned rights. They get to do it. And I would go to my death defending their right to do so. I quit Facebook not because they blocked my posts (they didn’t) but because of what I perceive to be the business posture they assume when blocking others. And guess what? I don’t have to agree with their posture, their reasons, their motivations. Nor do they have to agree with mine.
In the larger scheme of things, however, if enough people quit Facebook for the same or similar reasons, good business practice would dictate a review of that posture. After all, in due course, with enough people quitting, the business might take a hit. This is the motivation behind boycotts, of which the Left is so enamored. But mine isn’t a boycott. I won’t go back no matter what The Zuck says. One cannot change one’s basic worldview, or so I believe, and at base, I do not care for his. Think here of the many leftists who will not even consider a Trump Presidency, thinking that they cannot ever agree with The Donald’s worldview. They get to. And so do I.
But the present uproar around Facebook’s “censorship” seems to me to be rather silly. To those conservative voices so offended by The Zuck, I say, “Quit!”
And stop misusing the word “censor.” Only governments can do that.
Thoughts?
