So, what IS censored by the gov’t in the US? Or, what speech or expression is criminal by federal, state, or local laws? Terroristic threats and child porn, I get. False IDs to cops and shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, I get.
But what else? Can I publish floor plans of the White House living quarters? How to make a nuclear device? Names of criminal witnesses if the judge orders anonymity? I really have no idea how much info is restricted by the gov’t under penalty of criminal prosecution.
You can see the floor plans for the White House if you simply Google it. Now, the specific security setup is probably going to be restricted under national security. Which I think answers most of your question. Most things that are classified and restricted in the US are done so under various national security directives.
Again, you can Google this. What would be restricted are the specifics of US nuclear weapons design and test data, as well as other information specific to US nuclear weapons programs.
You can look up the stuff that E. Snowden swiped and published…a lot of that would have been restricted or classified and not for public dissemination.
I don’t think that classified information is censorship, per se. Nor do I think restricting the names of witnesses that are under the witness protection program is censorship either. To me, the censorship the US participates in is mostly things like broadcasting nudity on regular TV, or restricting language on radio…that sort of thing. Anything to do with child pornography, as you noted or what someone feels is indecent or immoral (though this varies a lot across the country).
You would be well advised to start here for a general overview of the subject.
For the “nuclear plans” question, the relevant jurisprudence will be the born secret concept, and in particular the court case United States v. Progressive, Inc.
I think I have a broader definition of censorship. Any information or expression the gov’t bans creating or disseminating I think is censored. So a town ordinance that bans garage sale signs left up overnight I think is censorship. Same with states that allow the sale of porno movies, but not their creation, because it’s prostitution. (That’s my understanding of the law in Michigan: porn is legal because it’s “expression”, but paying actors to perform sex acts is prostitution, so filming a porno in Michigan is illegal. IANAL though.)
Obscenity? Libel/slander? Threats/harassment? Conspiring to commit a crime?
There is a huge amount of media censorship by media.
A very simple example is the recent car bombing in Syria that killed over 40 primary school pupils.
Big news? You bet! Except the pupils were Alawites so the story never made it to mainstream. As far as I recall only the LA Times ran it. all the other majors blanked it.
Yeah. Any of those, what are the “community” standards near you? Libel and slander I think of as civil infractions, not things “the gov’t” prosecutes people for.
The “talking” part of conspiring to commit a crime is, I believe (IANAL) still legal, until at least some non-talking steps are taken.
Note that the government dropped the case before this concept was subject to judicial review. There were other reasons to drop the case (the plans had been published by other sources by that point) but it is an interesting, and potentially quite relevant, fact about the whole theory.
By this standard, every time you choose to not repeat a rumor, it’s censorship.
Also, the idea of a single monolithic “mainstream media” is idiotic. Do you seriously mean to tell me that you think MSNBC and FOX News are run to the same standards, or by the same people? What about the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report?
In the example i cited it wasn’t a rumour. It had factual agency reports, and as I pointed out, an actual reporter written report by the LA Times correspondent in Beirut.
You can’t honestly say that the vast majority of US media choosing to not run the story isn’t a form of collective censorship?
If this had happened in Israel or anywhere in Europe it would have been news for years. If it happened to Syrian Sunni primary school kids it would have been news for weeks.
It happened to Alawite children. That doesn’t fit the standard Western narrative of ‘Alawite bad, “Heroic rebels” good’. As a result it was blanked. i.e. censorship.
I’m inclined to agree with you that there are certain mechanisms at work that affect the dissemination of certain news/informations. Media outlets (the “mainstream media” if you wish) do indeed have an agenda. However, this is not what the OP was looking for (as I understand it). Censorship is about laws and government intervention. No government agency in thee US is actually attempting to stifle news reports about actions by certain parties in the Syrian civil war.
Many critical things can be said about the United States, but when it comes to freedom of speech, it is absolutely and unequivocally the freest country in the world, freer for example than every single European country.
If it’s censorship, what isn’t censorship? Is it censorship to not run the story that Crackpot Inventor #3359 claims to have a cure for cancer? Is it censorship for a national news media outlet to not run the story that there’s a dog missing in Steubenville Pike, Pittsburgh, PA?
Most actions in a war aren’t newsworthy to people on a different continent. The only reason they get reported is to fill time or tell a story, which is what news always is. A sequence of events with no narrative, while it is accurate and true-to-life, is disjointed, confusing, and supremely unenlightening. If Hunter Thompson couldn’t actually make a go of it, what chance does CNN have?
Some news sources have latched on to a specific narrative to use to make sense of one conflict. Granted. Describing them as ‘The mainstream media’ as if they were a single, monolithic whole is still neither justified nor useful: It imputes to them a level of coordination they don’t possess. Besides, the whole concept of a handful of ‘mainstream’ news sources with various minor and local news sources off to the side is a relic of a time when TV wasn’t increasingly restricted to people old enough for AARP.
So claiming ‘The mainstream media’ has censored a story because some group of news sources didn’t report on one event in a war on some other continent displays a misunderstanding of both how news is reported and how the media works these days.
I’m in total agreement with this.
I am, too, but I think being “freer than the Europeans” sets a pretty low bar; don’t they arrest people for denying the Holocaust?
Media censoring themselves is, in my mind, editorial freedom.
And I’m familiar with most of the major supreme court cases that control speech and the press. (Although I guess I don’t know why some consensual adult porn is “free expression” and some is forbidden.)
But I think some strange laws exist at the local and state levels, and I was hoping Dopers had some examples. (I remember years ago a cop somewhere in the US asked passersby at a mall if a kid’s shirt was offensive. When they said, “yes,” he ticketed the kid for obscenity because it was obscene by “community standards,” i.e. the passersby.)
There are numerous cases about students who were told not to wear certain T-shirts in schools. This happens frequently. Displaying an American flag can also be considered offensive:
I can’t believe people are arguing US media isn’t self-censoring.
There’s no way to get perspective unless you travel outside the US but I have to say it is the most extraordinary media I’ve ever experienced. After a day you just have to wash your head out.
But the OP is not talking about self-censorship. Read the OP again:
(Bolding mine).
That’s because some pornography is considered “obsene” and thus not protected by the First Amendment. Now, when is some expression obscene while others are not? Courts ultimately make that determination, based on the three-part test set out by the Supreme Court.*
One of the prongs of the three-part test I mentioned above considers “community standards” in determining whether the average person would consider the material appeals to the “prurient” interest – so yes, community standards are a valid factor when considering whether expression is protected by the First Amendment.
*Trivia note: when the Supreme Court first began taking cert and reviewing the obscenity cases, the law clerks had to set up film projectors (this was pre-VHS days) for the Justices’ viewing (cite: my former con law professor).
Thank you. This nonsense is what I find fascinating–that Tinker allows a Heckler’s Veto that would be upheld by the 9th Circuit just turns the 1st Amendment on its head.