Spirit of censorship haunts discourse

The desire to silence speech with which they disagree seduces partisans of all persuasions. Each, doubtless, is certain that what is unreasonable when perpetrated by their opponents is wholly appropriate when effected by them - since theirs is the 'good' cause.

This authoritarian impulse takes form in numerous ways. Audience attempts to shout down public speakers and college student petition attempts to pressure universities into withdrawing speaking invitations fall into the anti-free speech clampdown category. So do self-appointed entertainment media watchdog groups deluging broadcasters with demands for representations to their liking, and efforts at silencing controversial political voices, altogether. (The "Flush Rush" campaign comes to mind. Of course Limbaugh says outlandish and sometimes despicable things. Personally, I would prefer that no one thought his way, let alone talked it. But the First Amendment does not protect only speech that is pleasant.)

I have in recent days made moves into several online discussions of social and political issues. I soon found that two things are certain: Advocates of quashing expression contrary to their particular views will in a heartbeat announce that theirs cannot be a censorial effort, as censorship refers to government action, not citizens'.

While technically true, that argument is meant to blur that self-appointed and unaccountable interest groups aim to engineer the same chilling effect as did, say, the Reagan-era Meese anti-pornography Commission or a slew of Moral Majority book burners.

I call it the Spirit of Censorship.

The other certainty? That many laptop enemies of free expression soon run out of sense and resort to ad hominem broadsides, frequently with profanities ladled generously in. Again, venturing into such waters hoping for an intellectually-invigorating exchange of viewpoints on crucial matters is a vain bid.

It's laudable to support social justice, but no good interest can be advanced by using tyrannical tactics.

Remember, the First Amendment's protection was of incalculable help to movements advocating for racial and sexual rights. The ability to speak controversial notions without fear of punishment -- or to write, film, draw, or sing them -- must never be considered expendable once a "correct" cultural environment has been established.

Just because someone is on what you or I might consider the right side of an issue does not guarantee that they will comport themselves legitimately in debate.

Always remember that a spirit creeps among us.

DC Larson is a novelist and freelance writer, based in Waterloo, Iowa. His work has appeared in Goldmine, Counterpunch, USA Today, and others.