Censorship: A Necessary Evil or a Weapon Against Dissent

Note to the reader, I am currently posting each chapter in the order in which I have completed it rather than posting them in chronological order as the history unfolds. As such, I apologize for any confusion this may cause.

Introduction
Even in its most benign form, the practice of censorship is an undeniable violation of a human being's inherent right to express his or herself, and any policy which allows for censorship is detrimental to the foundation of a progressive society. Generally, censorship has been utilized by organizations (be they political, religious, commercial, or social in origin) as a way to suppress unpopular ideas, opinions, or viewpoints, particularly if they suggest a dissenting perspective. While many people may associate censorship with foreign dictatorships or the corporate media, the issue is far more expansive and pervasive. Indeed, censorship has prevented the exchange of information for many, many centuries and its history is arguably as old as our own.

At its core, censorship is a way to restrict people from self-expression and limit their exposure to ideas. By controlling the public's awareness of and access to certain information outlets that may be deemed controversial or subversive, authoritarian powers are able to place a stranglehold on the collective perception of a community. Often the application of censorship is accompanied by the use of propaganda, disinformation, or materials with which opinions can be swayed in favor of one party or against another. While these techniques are nothing new, the methods of enforcing them have greatly evolved over the centuries as technological advancement has occurred.

In today's world, censorship is so common (as is the use of propaganda and disinformation) that the average citizen of most highly populated countries is likely to be affected by it in some manner on an almost daily basis. As such, paranoia regarding the media has also become common. While questioning the validity and integrity of information and its source is necessary in the world's modern sociopolitical arena, mistaking editorialization with censorship has become an increasingly frequent problem that tends to exacerbate hostilities between people of opposing viewpoints. To prevent unnecessary conflict, it is then necessary to create crystalline definitions that lay down the extent to which free speech can be limited, altered, or discouraged altogether. Below are definitions of censorship, editorialization, propaganda, and disinformation taken from the dictionary.

censorship
cen•sor•ship (sen´sər ship) n.
1. the act of censoring.
2. the work of or position of a censor
3. the examination and prohibition of materials deemed to be objectionable

editorialization
ed•i•to•ri•al•ize (ed´ə tô ré əl ĭzā´shən) n.
1. to express editorial opinions on a given topic
2. to place editorial information into a written article
3. to present what is considered by an editor to be relevant content while omitting any content considered irrelevant or inappropriate

propaganda
prop•a•gan•da (präp é gan´da) n.
1. Any system of which is used to promote or disseminate certain ideas, doctrines, practices, or people
2. any material used for the sole purpose of proselytizing an individual and/or group of individuals in a concerted effort of converting them to a specific viewpoint or to adopt a particular set of beliefs

disinformation
dis•in•for•ma•tion (dis in´fər mā´shən) n.
1. erroneous or inaccurate information intentionally and often covertly spread in an attempt to divert or distract people from the truth

What’s interesting about these definitions is how purposefully vague they are. It’s clear that on a person-to-person basis, the way that censorship, editorialization, propaganda, and disinformation are perceived will vary from one person to the next, thus causing these words to be defined as much by our own perspectives as by their very nature. Failing to establish a definitive, universal set of guidelines as to what constitutes these acts may at first appear unhelpful, but in their subtle ambiguity we can also find the very freedom that these acts negate. To truly understand these concepts, one must look not to their definitions (as these metamorphose and evolve over time), but rather seek out their meanings through the history of their existence. In the following essay, I shall attempt to illuminate said history and provide readers with the information needed to form their own philosophical stance on the matter.

Early Forms Of Censorship
It’s difficult, if not virtually impossible, to determine when and where the first acts of censorship took place. The reason being that the whole history of censoring is so filled with gaps due to the proficiency of its practitioners. While it’s more than likely that we’ve had censorship in some form or another for as long as we’ve had verbal communication and since before the invention of the written word, these first instances are long lost to us. However, it’s not difficult to imagine how such a thing might have occurred. Whether it was an early coupling of man and woman when a husband first silenced his wife at the mention of his infidelities or whether it was a jealous huntsman scratching out a rival huntsman’s etchings on a cave wall depicting his triumphant kill, no one can be sure.

What is probable is that censorship began as a mere desire for secrecy motivated by insecurity, fear, jealousy, or any other of the common frailties that exist within the human condition. Censorship is the defense mechanism of a fragile ego that does not want its vulnerabilities made known.
Yet censoring would not remain such a benign act, for the suppression of communication would grow and mutate in its insidiousness. As civilizations sprung up from our earliest tribal gatherings, censorship would also be cultivated and evolve from the personal defense mechanism of a fragile psyche into a weapon for those who refused to accept or tolerate the existence of contrary beliefs. Censorship would become the hammer by which the intolerant and the tyrannical could chisel society into the shape that he desired.

During the formation and growth of early civilizations, before written languages were commonplace, it was very easy and simple to institute censorship; all one had to do to silence controversial speech was to silence the speaker. This could be done in a number of ways including bribery, blackmail, threats, violence, and even murder. In early tribal communities, when someone spoke "evil" words, that person might be forced to do penance in any number of ways from performing extra physical labor to going without food. Sometimes the person might even be exiled from the community and told never to return. But as the written language began to spread, its influence was felt in many cultures around the world, and censorship became a much more complex matter.

In ancient times, censorship was often employed by one society as a political and military tactic to defeat rival societies. Typically, when an army invaded a city, state, or country, one of the first things to be done was to burn and destroy their enemy's temples of worship and their libraries. Throughout history and right up to the present, the practice of destroying literature, known as libricide, has been used as a way to deconstruct one set of societal values in order to replace them with another set of societal values. In the long history of conquest and genocide, this was done in an attempt to ensure that the culture under attack would not rise up from their ruins and reestablish themselves, but it was also a way to prevent others from learning about and sympathizing with the conquered culture. Once these people were seen as foreign and mysterious, it became easier to vilify and dehumanize them with propaganda. Examples of this can be seen during the Greco-Persian Wars, during the Medieval Crusades, during the Holocaust, and in most countries where European colonialism took place, particularly Africa and India.
If a race, religion, culture, or political group was perceived as inferior or less than human, then the desire to dominate that group and justify its destruction became almost inevitable.

Ancient Greece, Rome And Egypt
The foundation of official government censorship was first laid down by the Romans in 443 B.C.. The Comitia Centuriata (or Century Assembly) was a democratic assemblage of Roman soldiers who helped to determine the direction of the Roman government via the electoral process and the assignment of magistrates. One of the magistrates was the Censor, whose duty it was to oversee the census, select financial matters, and of course to ensure, by force if necessary, that Roman citizens conducted themselves in a manner that was suitable for the Roman Republic. Today, it is this position and practice which is the basis for the word censorship and its application in society.
What's fascinating is how similar these early Censors were to our modern day ones. Though the Censors had very little in the way of actual political power, their influence was widespread as their responsibilities effected virtually all of Rome. Because the Censors were also used to moderate the behaviors of the Roman populace, a duty known as Regimen morum, they were given the nickname of Castigatores or chastizers

Despite being divided into various city-states which often warred with one another, ancient Greece was a very progressive place. The most progressive city-state was Athens, which served as something of a cultural center of Greece and would later became the country's capital. Athens was home to many of the great artists, poets, philosophers, politicians, and military leaders that helped to form what we now consider Western Civilization. They were an extremely liberal society that was openly tolerant of homosexuality, different political and philosophical beliefs, and they founded the concept of democracy. Athenians believed in free thought and free speech. Theirs was one of the first major societies to adopt a system of government in which the populace as a whole (with the exception of women, children, and slaves who were not permitted to vote) decided upon the policies of the times. In this climate of intellectual progress, many great thinkers including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, spoke out on a wide range of topics from politics to sexuality to metaphysics.

For Athenian philosopher Socrates, Athens was progressive in comparison to other city-states and other countries, but it was not progressive enough for him. Socrates criticized some of the popular democratic beliefs held in Athens and he even at times praised the practices of the rival Spartans. However, this form of criticism wasn't uncommon and free speech was ardently encouraged in Athens, so for the most part Socrates' statements weren't seen as a real threat to Athenians or their security, though they were taken with a grain of salt. But over time, Socrates developed the reputation of a social "gadfly" and there were some Athenians who felt that his criticisms were unpatriotic and counterproductive. For Socrates, this was not the case, as he understood that society could not improve upon itself unless it possessed a sharp self-awareness and an ability to learn from its mistakes. With this in mind, he continued to question the laws, the moral and social standards, and the logic of the Athenian democratic system.
Socrates began to look down upon the citizenry of Athens as ignorant, pompous, and over-confident while also intellectually stunted. Meanwhile, he continued to praise rival city-states such as Sparta and certain controversial militant organizations. This led to a decline in his reputation and he was eventually viewed by many as a public nuisance especially to the prideful Athenian elite. Rather than tone down his criticisms of Athens and its people, Socrates defended his words believing that the city-state would not continue to progress and improve if it wasn't without its detractors and critics. This refusal to impede his own speech would result in a trial, organized by the Athenians in an effort to silence Socrates' constant complaints, during which Socrates suggested that he would be better off dead than to live in a place where a dissenting opinion wasn't valued or, even worse, was threatened with censorship. Ultimately, Socrates was found guilty of "corrupting the minds of Athenian youths" and not believing in the gods of the state. He was sentenced to death by drinking a poison made from hemlock. While in prison, Socrates was given opportunities to escape, but he refused to do so because he was a philosopher and it was thought that philosophers should have no fear of death, as well as because he knew that it would be improbable that his criticisms would be received any better elsewhere, and he had to accept the laws of Athens under which he had chosen to live even if they resulted in his own execution.
To this day, Socrates is remembered as the founder of Western philosophy and also as something of a martyr. Just as he criticized his contemporary Athenians, he too has been the subject of criticism and scholarly debate up until the present. Still, many people are in agreement that the trial and death of Socrates in 399 B.C. is one of the first major examples of censorship by a democratic form of government.















One of the greatest examples of the intentional erasure of historical documents is the destruction of the Royal Library of Alexandria, a massive storehouse of knowledge, which contained within it thousands of priceless scrolls. The Library of Alexandria, which was built in Alexandria, Egypt during the 3rd Century B.C., housed the writings of some of the greatest scholars of the ancient world and was perhaps the most vaunted treasure of the Grecian intellectual elite. The library was the center of progressive thinking for centuries, but its gradual destruction (over time and by a number of unrelated incidents) was one of the world's most tragic losses and was likely the result of libricide at the hands of invading armies.


Ancient China
During the 3rd century B.C., Imperial China was ruled by the oppressive Qin Dynasty. The Qin Dynasty was very concerned with attaining power and wiping out the remnants of prior dynasties. While the Qin Dynasty was very successful in some of their reforms such as improving China's commerce and fortifying the strength of the Imperial Army, they also used methods that became controversial, including censorship and libricide. It was decided by Chancellor Li Si that in order for China to move forward and adopt new governmental standards and religious ideologies, then the old standards and ideologies needed to be permanently removed from China's cultural history, so the Qin Dynasty oversaw the burning and destruction of thousands of documents and literary works between the years 213 and 206 B.C.. If that weren't bad enough, the Qin Dynasty went even further by burying between five hundred to a thousand scholars while they were still alive. The horrific irony is that much of this was done in vain as the Han Dynasty which succeeded the Qin Dynasty would revive many of the practices and beliefs that the Qin Dynasty wanted forgotten.

Religious Censorship
Censorship also occurred within religious groups, so that not only were outside religious ideas prevented from spreading within an established religious order, but also to construct a set of fundamental religious principles.
In Judaism, the Third Commandment is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,", thus restricting any the use of the name 'Jehovah' to prayer and the recitation of holy texts. This belief was later passed on to Christianity and Islam and many devout practitioners of all three religions still consider the utterance of God's sacred name outside of prayer to be a sacrilege.
Another commandment, the Ninth Commandment, states, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," which was in many ways a precursor to modern laws to prevent slander, libel, and perjury.

Similarly, in Asia, there is the philosophy of "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" behind which is the idea of moral probity suggesting that it is better to not be aware of unpleasant or objectionable images, words, and thoughts or to be involved in activities that may have a corrupting influence on those exposed to them. Another phrase that describes this is belief is "Ignorance is bliss", a line taken from a poem by Thomas Gray.

In Christianity, especially, blasphemous or heretical concepts were subject to suppression by the Church. Speech, literature, and art which conveyed notions that might portray biblical figures or members of the church in an unflattering light were kept away from Christian followers at all costs for it was believed that any temptation might cause them to deviate from the spiritual path of the Christ.

In Islam certain depictions of the Islamic prophet Mohammad are forbidden.
In 1989, Islamic author Salman Rushdie was sent letters that made threats on his life after his book The Satanic Verses, which featured Mohammad as one of its principal characters, was published. Many Islamic fundamentalists called for Rushdie's death and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwā, a religiously backed declaration in Islam, saying that it was the duty of all good Muslims to kill Rushdie for blaspheming the name and life of Mohammad. Beyond this declaration, the book went on to be banned in India and Islamic groups in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Iran held protests.


Even more recently, in 2005, a Danish news publication featured a series of cartoons depicting Mohammad, controversially, as a terrorist and a thug. This resulted in many Muslims across the world protesting against the depiction and many non-Muslims, although they were opposed to extreme fundamentalism or terrorism, agreed that the cartoons were culturally insensitive. While some non-Muslims felt that the images were indeed offensive and should be banned, others expressed that insensitive or not that to allow censorship based on religious grounds would be a travesty of free expression.
In another similar incident, Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist gained infamy when he created a series of drawings that openly mocked Mohammad. Not only did numerous art galleries refuse to display the extremely controversial artworks for fear that the imagery would exacerbate already strong religious tensions and incite violence, but Muslims throughout Sweden protested when one of the drawings found its way into an article on religious freedom and censorship. Muslims throughout the Middle East and many in Europe condemned the artist, the artoworks, and the newspaper in which had published the drawing.


The First Amendment And The Guarantee Of Freedom Of Expression
As a result of the growing conflicts between British colonialists in America and the British government, the War for Independence began in 1775 and would last for six years.
On July 4, 1776, the thirteen American colonies declared their independence from Britain, its laws, its taxes, its religious conformity, and its monarchy.
In 1781 the British surrendered and in 1783 they acknowledged the independence of the United States of America.
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified into the U.S. Constitution and promised the American people specific liberties, which were protected by law. In this historic document, Americans were guaranteed the right to express themselves freely, to practice (or not practice) the religion of their choice, and to use the press to criticize the government. The First Amendment read:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


However, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has been a center of controversy since it was initially proposed. It was felt by some, such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason, that free speech must be encouraged and protected legally in order to preserve the health of the newly founded American democracy and the rights of its citizens to express themselves. But there were also individuals, such as the Federalists Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who felt that there was little need for a Bill of Rights since, in their view, the government had no right nor reason to threaten the freedoms of the American citizens. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson adamantly disagreed with this view, siting the many injustices that had been visited upon the peoples of other nations by their governments and the need to protect Americans from such intrusions of their rights.
Jefferson stated, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth..."

To this day, there are great debates concerning the specifics of the First Amendment and to whether or not all forms of expression were intended to be protected. Most of the arguments over the issue have arisen from the way in which the language of the First Amendment was penned, which is in a rather grandiose, sweeping, and eloquent manner that failed to address certain details regarding what, if any, forms of communication could be legally prohibited and by whom.
Many people point out the that the First Amendment appears to be primarily concerned with preventing government censorship of the enforcement of political and religious ideologies. Nowhere does it mention freedom of expression in the arts, music, poetry, or fictional literature. This has lead some people to question whether or not the government or other entities have the right to censor these areas of expression and for what purposes.
Generally, it is the interpretation of this vague aspect of the First Amendment that has divided people into two schools of thought: those who believe the founding fathers intended all forms of expression to be guaranteed by law and those who believe that only the exact forms of expression described in the Bill of Rights are to be protected.

Censorship in the 19th, 20th & 21st Centuries
Since the Industrial Revolution, the methods used to suppress freedom of expression have changed radically due to the availability of diverse communicative materials ranging from photographs, telephones, and motion pictures to television, video games, and the internet.
As tensions have grown between liberal and conservative groups, various schisms have been founded, there has been a growing number of arguments on whether censorship should be allowed, for what purposes, who and what should be censored, and who is best suited to carry out the censorship. One of the pervasive concerns has been about the perceived decline in moral values and the claim that Western Civilization has become corrupted by cultural media. Some people feel that excessive depictions of violence and sexuality should be closely monitored and regulated because they might have an adverse affect on societal values and behaviors. On the other side of this issue, there are those who feel that the fixation on violence and sexuality are the result of centuries of repression and had censorship not been introduced in the first place, then these fixations would not have come to bear such a burden. While the argument continues as to whether censoring is harmful or beneficial, the only real certainty has been that censorship occurs around the world regardless of its cause or effect and that wherever it occurs it will have those people who endorse it and those who protest against it.

Censorship has been common particularly in the realms of religion and politics, but it has also expanded into the corporate world where corporations often silence reports about the safety of certain products in order to insure that those products sell. In some instances, pharmaceutical companies have gone to great lengths to prevent claims about negative side effects of medicines from surfacing for fear of lawsuits and financial losses. There are various groups that have advocated censorship and laws banning the smoking and advertising of cigarettes on the grounds that they are unhealthy meanwhile tobacco companies censor their own research into the health risks and dangers of smoking. There are many religious and political leaders who feel that censorship needs to be introduced into the motion picture industry to prevent the continuous flow of violent, pornographic, or exploitative films. The global economy is on a whole very much dependent on what is or is not being censored and by whom.

Anthony Comstock, Anti-Obscenity Laws & The Vice Patrol
Throughout Western Society, there has often been a dualistic view of sexuality, and to say that there are double standards would be a terrible understatement. In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, Americans straddled the lines between what was seen as acceptable and what was not, all the while the pendulum of social behavior swung back and forth between repression and decadence. Much of the conflict between the people during this time was instigated by a revival in very conservative fundamentalist groups after the Civil War. Many of these groups felt that modern science was encouraging people to behave in animalistic ways and that humankind was falling away from God into a state of indecency and sin.


















One man who held such moral beliefs was Anthony Comstock who in 1873 formed the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. Comstock has been at war with sexual texts and images since after the Civil War when he moved to New York and was shocked by the amount of prostitution and pornography could be found in the city streets. In the early 1870s, Comstock not only managed to form the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, but he also convinced congress to pass the Comstock Act, which made it illegal to send or receive obscene materials via the mail. Comstock was appointed as a special agent of the United States Post Office and this allowed him to not only monitor the contents of what was being sent but also to confiscate it and arrest anyone who broke the anti-obscenity laws he helped to create. Thus Comstock's puritanical views were enforced upon the American citizenry. Comstock and his vice patrol arrested and jailed hundreds of people and seized hundreds of thousands of pictures and texts, most of which were subsequently destroyed. It didn't take much to arouse Comstock's wrath and he wasn't too picky about what was considered obscene or immoral. Everything and anything from pornography to information on venereal diseases and contraceptives were enough for him to make arrests and take people to court. What's somewhat ironic is that Comstock had little to no effect on the overall amount of prostitution in the country despite the fact that it was prostitution that had catalyzed him into action.

Among the many individuals targeted by Anthony Comstock and the Comstock Act were Ida Craddock and Margaret Sanger, both advocates of women's rights and sexual education.


















When Ida Craddock published her pamphlet The Wedding Night, a delicate instructional booklet on how young lovers should treat each other, she caught Comstock's attention to her own detriment. In 1902, Comstock had Craddock arrested for allegedly sending her pamphlet out in the mail, though many decried these claims as an excuse for him to carry out his agenda. At a rather unusual trial, a jury found Craddock guilty of violating anti-obscenity laws, though this was done without the jury being able to actually view the pamphlet as evidence since Comstock had confiscated them. Craddock was never sentenced. Determined not to be defeated by Comstock, whom she saw as a sex-obsessed sadist, or censored by his prudish and oppressive laws, Craddock took her own life by inhaling natural gas thus becoming a forgotten martyr of free speech and women's rights activism. In her suicide note which was addressed to the general public, she declared, "I maintain my right to die as I have lived - a free woman, not cowed into silence by any other human being."


















Margaret Sanger, however, lived to see her own victory over Comstock.
Sanger was a nurse from New York and during her time in Greenwich Village, she saw the country's desperate need for sexual education and the supply of prophylactics. She became an outspoken proponent for sexual liberation and birth control. Outraged by Sanger's articles on feminine hygiene and venereal disease prevention in the leftist newspaper The Call, Comstock threatened to have the newspaper's mailing permit revoked. Not willing to back down, Sanger openly defied Comstock in a future article of her column What Every Girl Should Know, where she had written, "What Every Girl Should Know... Nothing - by Order of Anthony Comstock."

In 1914, Sanger's own publication The Woman Rebel was the first to use the term "birth control" in print. Comstock retaliated and ordered the arrest of both Sanger and her husband for the distribution of materials that violated the Comstock Act. Margaret fled to England before she could be arrested, though her husband was arrested and went to trial. When she returned to America in the Autumn of 1915, she was hailed by the feminist movement as a quasi-celebrity and the first real spokesperson for birth control. In 1916 the charges against Sanger were dropped and the obscenity case was dismissed since Anthony Comstock has passed away from a cold, which it was believed he had gotten during Sanger's husband's trial.
Though Comstock was gone, his censorial laws would remain alive for decades later and some of the anti-obscenity laws he established remain to this day, although in modified form.


Comic Books, Fredric Wertham & The Comics Code Authority
During the late 1940s and early 1950s the hysteria of anti-communism was not the only symptom of paranoia, nor was it the only excuse for censorship. As Americans watched the crime rate of juveniles soar, it became a necessity to identify the root of youthful rebellion and delinquency. Lacking any real social awareness when it came to the cause of this rise in criminal activity, it became a trend for parents, teachers, law enforcement, and even psychiatrists to blame pop culture for children's behavior. One prominent example of this was a government study of how pop culture was affecting the mental health of young people and to determine whether or not there was a correlation between between juvenile delinquency and media content.


Following in this trend, a German-born psychiatrist named Fredric Wertham began his own studies into abnormal behavior in adolescents in the late 1930s. Beginning in 1948, he claimed that the results of his studies showed that the majority of his patients read comic books and hence comic books were detrimental to society. Wertham's book Seduction of the Innocent: The Influence of Comic Books on Youth was published six years later in 1954. With his book, Wertham attacked comic books of all kinds and claimed that they lead to criminal activity, sexual deviance, and a predilection for violence. He charged that Superman was a sadistic fascist and un-American, that Batman and Robin were homosexuals, and that Wonder Woman was a terrible role model for young women since she possessed strength and independence (apparently not desirable qualities in American housewives during the 1950s). In particular, Wertham targeted horror and crime comics, which he saw as encouraging deviancy, and as a cause of mental instability, and violent activity. These claims among similar ones lead to various comic book burnings and concerned parents asking for the government to step in and censor the books. It wasn't long before congress did sit up and take notice of comic books in a senate hearing for which Wertham was the primary witness despite the fact that he had little evidence nor documentation to connect juvenile behavior good or bad with what they read. What Wertham offered were incidents of juvenile delinquency in which case the delinquents in question just happened to read comic books. What he failed to show was the many, many of well adjusted and healthy juveniles and adults who grew up on comics. He also used unsubstantiated arguments, exaggerated and falsified accounts, and biased reports, some of which were clearly not objective and in which testimonies were influenced by Wertham's interaction with his patients and their families. Wertham also failed to establish that comic books were any more harmful to children than other pop-cultural mediums such as television, radio, art, or other forms of literature.
In retrospect, most cultural historians and comic book readers today disregard most of Wertham's claims because of the lack of accurately gathered information and evidence that he presented to support them. However, most will agree that as misguided and misleading as Wertham's claims were, he did have a genuine concern for the psychological well-being of children and society.

Fearing that government censorship would be inevitable if they didn't change the content of their publications, comic book publishers formed a self-censorship group known as The Comics Code Authority or the CCA.
Below are the guidelines on what the CCA prohibited:

1. Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.

2. If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

3. Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.

4. In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.

5. Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.

6. No comic magazine shall use the word horror or terror in its title.

7. All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.

8. All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.

9. Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.

10. Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.

11. Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

12. Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.

13. Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

14. Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

15. Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.

16. Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

17. Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

18. Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.











As a result of these guidelines, many writers and artists felt that they no longer could flourish creatively or even take the industry seriously, and ultimately many left the business altogether. Comic book sales, which had been at a record high prior to the senate hearings and the CCA crackdown, began to plummet, dropping more than 50%. It would take over fifteen years before the comics code was modernized to reflect the issues of the late '60s and early '70s. Eventually, many writers and artists rebelled against the restrictions during the 1980s and even went so far as to encourage others to work outside the guidelines, which was often done by publishing through independent or underground publishers. By 2011, the code was abandoned for a more commercially beneficial rating system that evaluated and assigned each comic based on the age group it would be best suited for, though some publishers still refuse to publish certain books for fear of causing controversy.

The Music Industry, The PMRC & The Parental Advisory Label
While censorship has been a persistent threat to the creative and expressive freedom of writers, artists, filmmakers, political activists, etc., it has been a relatively new problem within the world of music. A good reason for this being that much of the music produced before the invention of the phonograph contained little in the way of lyrical content with the exception of certain classical works (most of which featured lyrics in Latin, Italian, or German) and folk songs which often served as narratives. So, for the most part, there wasn't much for anyone to object to, but naturally things changed as various audio recording/playing devices were invented making it possible for people to listen to music within their own homes.
With Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877, everything changed and recorded audio could then be replayed whenever and wherever a listener desired, which meant that communicative recordings and music would have greater exposure to people than ever before. The result of this was two-fold since it meant that people who couldn't afford to go to concert halls or were for some reason unable to leave their home could now listen to music, but it also meant that one could control what recorded material was made available and for whom.

As music styles changed over the years, some moral reform groups felt that the more modern styles of music, such as jazz and blues, were indecent and too suggestive in regards to sexual behavior. In some towns, local ordinances were passed that banned the playing of controversial types of music, though with the phonograph people could now listen to this music privately and discreetly in their own homes without detection. In more recent years, there have been efforts to monitor and limit the kind of recorded content that is available to the general public. This has been true, not just in terms of audio recordings, but also with televised concerts and music videos. Censorship of music began to proliferate with the onset of rock 'n' roll in 1955 and would continue to do so for the next fifty plus years in various forms.
























When singer Elvis Presley caused a panic among conservative parents and organizations, who feared that his unbridled sexuality would seduce and corrupt their children, some radio stations and television programs refused to air his music or show his dancing. In 1956, Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show television program in the first of of three appearances there. Contrary to actual history, a popular rumor has spread that the camera showed him only from the waist up because his gyrating was deemed risque and unsuitable for family viewing, but this was not the case. Yet Elvis' crooning voice and hip-shaking would be just the beginning, for, in years to come, popular musical performers would push the boundaries of what was considered acceptable behavior to great extremes and arouse the wrath of censors along the way.















In 1966, a controversy arose from a statement by singer/songwriter John Lennon, of The Beatles, when he jokingly commented that the phenomenally popular rock group had become "more popular than Jesus". After this, many radio stations across the United States and some in Europe banned the playing of The Beatles' music and there were even bonfires held by religious groups where they burned records and various Beatles memorabilia.

On August 25, 1967, blues-rock group The Doors appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, where they performed their hit song "Light My Fire". However, before the performance, they were asked to change the lyrics to the song slightly. The lyric that raised some concern was "Girl, we couldn't get much higher" because this was taken as drug reference and it was suggested that the line be changed to "Girl, we couldn't get much better" despite the fact that this didn't rhyme. The Doors agreed to this, but rebellious lead singer Jim Morrison sang the original line anyway, whether intentionally or not, and infuriated Ed Sullivan. Sullivan canceled their future appearances on his program. This incident became infamous and would foreshadow future controversies surrounding the group's live performances.















December 9 of that same year, Morrison again caused outrage when he was caught by a police officer engaging in intimate behavior with a female companion in a shower stall backstage at a New Haven, Connecticut concert. When the officer told Morrison to stop and demanded that Morrison and the girl go their separate ways, Morrison allegedly told the officer to "Eat it." At this the officer responded by taking out a can of mace and warning, "Last chance...", to which Morrison then replied, "Last chance to eat it." Later that night, Morrison was arrested during the concert for going on a strange rant of obscenities explaining what had happened with the police officer and insulting the people of New Haven. He was literally dragged off stage in the middle of the concert and forcefully put into the back of a police vehicle and taken to jail. Meanwhile, angry concert attendees began a riot, which then spilled out into the streets. Morrison was charged with indecency and obscenity, but the charges were dropped due to a lack of hard evidence.
These incidents were fairly minor compared to The Doors' most controversial concert held at the Dinner Key Auditorium in Miami, Florida on March 1, 1969. During the infamous performance, Morrison was supposedly intoxicated and bored with the audience, so he began shouting out to them alternately insulting and propositioning them for affection. At one point, though there are many contradictory accounts, Morrison allegedly put one hand down his pants and revealed his penis while using his other hand and his mouth to make lascivious gestures simulating oral sex. Morrison was later convicted, fined, and sentenced to jail time, but he died before the matter could be resolved.

This behavior, while shocking during the late 1960s was comparatively tame to the kind of performances that would become the norm in later decades. By the time the 1980s befell upon the United States, on-stage behavior, lyrical content, album artwork, and music videos had pushed the envelope to such a degree that the government stepped in to address the problem in a proactive manner. Spurred to action by the complaints of parents, teachers, and moral groups, who were fearful of the influence that obscene music was having on children and families, it was proposed to record labels that either they "clean up" their act or it would be necessary restrict access to certain popular musicians and artists.

In 1985, the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was formed by Tipper Gore, Susan Baker, Pam Howar, and Sally Nevius. The group became know as the "Washington Wives" because all of the founders were the wives of wealthy men, all of whom had ties to Washington, D.C. and politics. The most famous member of the PMRC is Tipper Gore, the wife of Senator and future presidential nominee Al Gore. Tipper was appalled by the vulgar use of language and the lurid descriptions of sexual and violent behavior in music. The issue was brought to her attention in 1984 when Tipper and her daughter heard a song from the soundtrack album to the motion picture Purple Rain, which starred and featured music by pop singer Prince. She was horrified by a line in which the title character in the song "Darling Nikki" is described as a "sex fiend" and engages in masturbation.
"I knew a girl named Nikki
I guess you could say she was a sex fiend
I met her in a hotel lobby
Masturbating with a magazine"
Tipper began consulting with friends and fellow parents and realized that many were upset about the kind of music sold in record stores, being played on MTV, and on the radio. She proposed that such inappropriate music she be kept at distance from children and that record labels should include a warning label on the albums that contained potentially offensive content. The record labels unsurprisingly refused to submit to her wishes on the basis that it would be too difficult to accurately label all of the music and, more importantly, that to place a label on albums would be potentially unhealthy for the financial success of the record labels and the artists under contract with them. Tipper accused contemporary pop, rock, and rap music of being harmful to society and suggested that they were "...infecting the youth of the world..."
In addition, they accused certain groups and artists of using subliminal messages in their music, though in most cases these accusations were never verified or the accusations were disproved outright.
The PMRC even went so far to create a list that they dubbed "The Filthy Fifteen", which consisted of albums that contained sexual, violent content, drug references, and occult subject matter. Fears of government censorship were high amongst musicians, singers, and songwriters.

One thing lead to another and in August of 1985, nineteen record companies reluctantly agreed to place a "parental advisory" label on albums containing explicitly violent, sexual, or obscene content. These labels were often irreverently referred to as "Tipper Stickers" by people within the music industry. One month later, on September 19, 1985, a Senate hearing was held to determine the dangers of what some were calling "pornographic music" and "porn rock".

Supporting the claims of the PMRC were various political figures, a music professor, a psychiatrist, and of course members of the PMRC. Among them were Millie Waterman, who suggested that record companies place R ratings on albums with lyrics or images including sexual, violent, drug, or occultism; Paula Hawkins, who pointed out potentially offensive album covers and artwork; child psychiatrist Dr. Paul King suggested that heavy metal in particular to children simply because it was "mean-spirited" and "hateful"; Susan Baker, who claimed that the music in question was partially responsible for "suicide, rape, sadomasochism, and so on."

In strong opposition to the PMRC and their claims were three musicians, namely Dee Snider of the glam metal band Twisted Sister, eccentric musician and music producer Frank Zappa, and folk singer John Denver. While Snider maintained that heavy metal music was harmless entertainment, that it was often misinterpreted, and that the responsibility of keeping children safe from content considered harmful to their mental and emotional development was up to the child's parents and not a government organization. Frank Zappa accused the PMRC of pushing their own political agenda and of infringing on the civil liberties of the American people. John Denver explained his own beliefs opposing censorship in any form, saying, "That which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting. Consequently, a great deal of time and energy is spent trying to get at what is being kept from you."


On November 1, 1985, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) agreed to place content warning stickers on specific albums despite many complaints from various groups and individuals who felt that this would lead to restrictions of freedom of expression. Furthermore, many large retailers such as Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney's, and Sears refused to carry albums marked with the stickers. In some of these retailers, alternate versions of the albums were available in which objectionable language had been edited out with the supervision of either the musicians or the record company. This editing of music drew an outcry from many fans who didn't want watered down versions of their favorite artists' songs.

The PMRC remains a controversial organization among most people within the music industry and many artists have expressed their dislike of the group and their policies in song lyrics.
Heavy metal performer Glenn Danzig wrote and recorded the 1988 song "Mother", a vitriolic attack on the PMRC and its affect on the freedom of speech. The song became Danzig's most popular single.

In 1992, progressive-metal band Tool appeared naked in their music video for the song "Hush" with only signs of the parental advisory sticker covering their private parts. The band has been very outspoken in its advocacy of free speech and of their opposition to censorship.


At the 1993 Lollapalooza concert series, the politically motivated hard rock/rap band Rage Against the Machine followed in Tool's footsteps with a similar protest appearing on stage naked with the letters P-M-R-C painted on their chests and duct tape over their mouths, meanwhile guitar feedback blasted from the speakers. They later gave a free performance for fans to make up for any disappointment.

Ironically, the PMRC's attempts to control controversial music content and its availability backfired as many musicians used the PMRC to express their dissent, often in an intentionally shocking manner designed to offend the PMRC members. Additionally, the parental advisory label which was intended to keep kids from purchasing music that their family might object to, lead to spikes in record sales of music that had before been only moderately successful. Soon, many rap, metal, punk, and pop artists even used the label as a way to heighten sales since they knew rebellious children and adolescents were more apt to buy albums that they felt were objectionable to their parents, teachers, and church leaders.

Rap music has been a frequent target for censorship, though for different reasons on separate occasions.

In early 1992, rapper Ice-T was the center of a nationwide controversy because of the song "Cop Killer" from his metal-rap album Body Count. In the song, which has become notorious since, the rapper had attempted to bring attention to the cycle of violence being perpetrated by white police officers upon black youths and how such violence lead to retaliation. The song was ironic and confrontational and it was disturbing to many police officers and to many families in which family members were police officers slain in the line of duty. The song was banned on many radio stations and there were rallies of people at Warner Bros. Records, where they demanded that the company cease the distribution of the album. There were also those who felt that the song was not protected by the First Amendment since it could be perceived as inciting acts of violence. Ice-T denied this, explaining, "The song isn't going to make somebody murder anyone." He claimed that he was just expressing himself and Warner Bros., owned by Time Warner, stood by him, saying that they would not allow this to happen. In a response given after the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas' request that Warner withdraw the album, a Time Warner spokesperson said, "We absolutely deplore all violence and particularly violence against law enforcement officials. Nevertheless it is vital that we stand by our commitment to the free expression of ideas for all our journalists, recording artists, screenwriters, actors and directors." Various demonstrations and boycotts lead to actor Charlton Heston publicly condemning the record and asking for the album to be pulled off store shelves. Less than two weeks later, Warner Bros. did end up doing this, though ultimately at Ice-T's request.


In an appearance on Saturday Night Live on October 3, 1992, Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor created a veritable firestorm of controversy when during her performance of reggae singer Bob Marley's song "War", she tore up a picture of the Pope John Paul II and said "Fight the real enemy." Broadcasting network NBC couldn't do anything about this at the time since the program aired live, but in all repeat broadcasts they have edited out this section of her performance and replaced it with footage of her dress rehearsal performance. The act was done without informing NBC of her plans and was intended as a protest of child abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, however most people did not see it as a acceptable form of protest and were offended by the disrespectful implications of ripping up a photo of the Pope, a symbol of hope to so many. Not only did O'Connor's actions upset people within religious groups, but they also inspired some people to hold protests against her and her music. In one town, they gathered a truck load of O'Connor's records and had a steamroller run over them. Many radio stations refused to play her music from that point onward.


One of the most recent incidents to incur censorship and change the way live broadcasts are handled was a performance by pop singers Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake at the February 2004 halftime show of Superbowl XXXVIII. The first part of the performance went as planned while Jackson sang a medley of some of her most popular songs from the past. But when she was joined on stage by Timberlake during one of his songs, at one point during the choreographed dance sequence as Timberlake sings the lyric "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song", he pulls away a piece of Jackson's outfit to reveal her right breast. The incident became known as the "Superbowl XXXIII wardrobe malfunction". While both Jackson and Timberlake insist that the flashing of her breast was not intentional, most people feel that it was a publicity stunt on the part of Jackson to promote her upcoming album, Damita Jo, which was already noted for its overt eroticism.
Since then, there has been a slight time delay on the broadcast of all future halftime shows to avoid a similar incident.

To be continued in future installments...

For further information and to take action against censorship in the media, please look into these organizations:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
http://www.aclu.org/

American Library Association (ALA)
http://www.ala.org/

Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE)
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF)
http://cbldf.org/

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
http://www.eff.org/

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
http://www.fair.org/

First Amendment Congress
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/

Freedom Forum
http://www.freedomforum.org/

Free Speech Coalition
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
http://www.ifex.org/

National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAP)
http://www.ncac.org/

People For the American Way (PFAW)
http://www.pfaw.org/

Project Censored
http://www.projectcensored.org/

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
http://www.rcfp.org/

World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC)
http://www.wpfc.org/