Dems Love Censorship
And their hatred for free speech grows with each passing year.
The First Amendment is a foundational principle in our Constitution. As the Founding Fathers of our fledgling country were outlining the Bill of Rights, they aimed to protect the God-given rights of freedom of speech, religion, the press, petition, and assembly. All of which were contested points in King George III’s England — and many other European monarchies.
More than two hundred years later, those freedoms, secured at a high price, are under strenuous attack, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech. According to a recent RealClearPolitics poll, the sentiments on censorship in American society are falling ever more clearly along party lines. Republicans are leery of allowing government censorship, and for good reason considering all the lies, cover-ups, and blatant partisanship conducted at the government’s bidding on social media. Democrats are much more in favor of the government engaging in censorship.
Perhaps the most shocking finding from this poll was that over one-third of Democrats (34%) believe Americans have “too much freedom.” They don’t believe that people should be allowed to voice their opinions, and they would rather the government had more control over ideas. This notion is one part laughable because the collective brain cells of many in the government couldn’t fill a spoon, and another part insidious because deep state actors are often rather nefarious.
RealClearPolitics clarified its findings further by citing a study conducted by three California college professors: Ruth E. Appel and Jennifer Pan of Stanford, and Margaret E. Roberts of the University of California, San Diego. That study also found Democrat voters are more likely to desire censorship when the content either misaligned with their own political leanings or would actively help promote their favored political party.
In the example provided in the study, 69% of Democrats overall would censor a headline and have it removed, compared to 34% of Republican respondents. Forty-nine percent of Democrats would report a headline as “harmful” to whatever social media site on which it happened to appear; only 24% of Republicans said the same. In fact, 65% of Republican respondents view actions like reporting a headline as “harmful” or having it removed as censorship. Only 29% of Democrats view it as such. This aligns with the RealClearPolitics poll.
How did our political parties get to be so far apart on an issue that is so foundational to our Constitution?
Perhaps a large part of this divide is a disparity in the political parties’ view of power.
It is much easier to control a people and garner power when they have no voice or when there are no competing ideas. Taking away dissenting voices seems to be a motivating factor, at least for the Democrats. Most Republican voters would rather debate their ideas than censor dissenting voices, though too many seem willing to squelch debate.
Another possible answer to the “why” of polarized views on censorship and free speech is grounded in religion. Many Democrats are replacing the God of creation with the god of individual autonomy. In a philosophy that declares morality subjective (moral relativism), the Democrats have stacked the deck in their favor. Their measuring stick of morality only becomes meaningful as a cudgel to be used against the other political party.
For example, one excuse Democrats use to censor headlines is that they view them as “harmful.” But what exactly is harmful? “Harmful” is a pretty good stand-in word for moral relativism, and for Democrats this philosophy is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
That’s how Democrats can get away with saying they are anti-racist for supporting Black Lives Matter while at the same time calling Republican men of color like Larry Elder the “black face of white supremacy” or Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom.”
Enforcing censorship should be about upholding the objective standard of morality based on Christian precepts. This is how limits on freedom of speech were imposed in the first place. One cannot slander, libel, use obscenity (though this one isn’t much enforced these days), or willfully mislead to cause chaos (e.g., can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater).
We see this in the Republicans’ pursuit of integrity in the arena of inappropriate/obscene books. Republicans have listened to the outraged cries of parents as their young children are exposed to books that are sexually explicit. Many of them are LGBTQ+ related, but others deal with gang rape or pedophilia.
Democrats were quick to label this Republican championing of parental rights as hypocrisy. That is until Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) took the lead from parents and read out loud to Congress explicit passages from one of these contentious books. Even the Democrats were forced to admit that the book content was not fit material for any non-adult.
Censorship should be a tool of principled moral people, not a weapon to garner power.
John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The further the Democrat Party drifts away from moral and religious precepts in favor of moral relativism, the further the political polarization on the subject of free speech and censorship — really freedom in general — will grow.
Start a conversation using these share links: