Cens*rs**p

Many years ago, I read a book that painted a grim picture of a future filled with fear and emotional suppression. Originally published in 1949, “1984” was written by George Orwell. The book introduced “Big Brother,” an entity capable of convicting people guilty of “thought-crimes” and other misdemeanors. In its present day signification, “Big Brother” has been taken to mean the looming and ever-present danger of governmental abuse, particularly as regards excessive intrusion into the personal and private space of civil liberties. It is extreme supervision and surveillance  to the point of censorship.

*      *      *      *

On an almost daily basis we deal with censorship, in one form or another: whether as a self-imposed restriction, or as a result of social convention, i.e. the price of living in a “civilized” society and the virtue of being “civil.”

As a parent, when I decide on and impose restrictions on the shows my children watch, the websites they visit, or the words they say, I impose a form of censorship (under the more acceptable term “parental guidance” or as a necessary offshoot of “discipline”).

In many ways, this is not so different from how censorship is enforced on a macro-governmental level. A “Big Brother” society would be analogous to “strict” parents who monitor their children’s every move and, conversely, an “anarchist” society would be akin to lax parents that let their kids do whatever they please. But between these two extremes there exists a middle ground: Democracy.

*      *      *      *

The free expression clause is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society and is what sets it apart from fascist, totalitarian, and dictatorial regimes. It stems from the firm belief that, in a “free society,” everyone should have a right to speak their mind, as society is enriched not by the mentality of a hive-mind but through their free “negotiation” and “commerce” in the marketplace of ideas.

Of course logic and experience dictate that this rule cannot be absolute. Limitations exist when the free expression involves “unprotected speech” such as an incitement to illegal activity, hate speech, defamation, or speech so vulgar as to amount to the obscene.

Returning for a moment to my earlier “parenting” analogy, as a father, I encourage my children to think and express their ideas openly and without fear of punishment. The practical reason is this: when my children have questions and problems, they need to know that they can (and I would rather that they do) talk to me about them. If they’re afraid of punishment, then they won’t do that. (This is a far cry from the experience of children from my generation: that is, when conversations with one’s parents meant that children must simply listen.)

This is not to say that I let my kids say anything that they want: part of parenting is preparing our children for “adulthood.” If their utterances debase and detract from the value of “speech” (i.e. “a waste of air space”)  for example, when it is inciteful, spiteful, or otherwise crass  then, of course, deliverance and reparations (read: measures to enforce parental discipline) are swift in coming.

As a parent, I have to think of the good of all my children (and of their good, as little “would-be/inchoate adults”) and, although I encourage candor, there should always be respect. (And, of course, since we belong to the same family unit, then there is the added desire that these words must come from a place of love and concern.)

*      *      *      *

In this respect and in a similar vein, our government tries to act as the parent of its citizens. (In fact, in certain instances consistent with parens patriae, the State intervenes to protect against abusive or negligent parents.) In enforcing its policies, there are moments when the State invariably winds up defining the limits of “free speech,” and, in doing so, it sometimes makes mistakes  what parent doesn’t?  but for the most part, it tries to be fair.

This is why the basic counterpart to censorship, the right to “free expression,” has been given refuge within the protective mantle of our Constitution. Our Constitution does not mean to prevent or foreclose censorship entirely. In fact, censorship has been allowed and upheld by our Supreme Court on many occasions. The MTRCB is a legal example of censorship. What our Constitution provides is more of a regulation on censorship, rather than an outright ban. Hence, just as we all have a fundamental right to speak our minds, we should treat it with respect and not abuse. (Perhaps a more “enlightened” view is to think of our freedom of expression as that which enables our ability to converse and dialogue with one another  a “freedom of conversation,” so to speak, much in the same way that “conversation” is an art of give and take. Every once in a while, one should be prepared to withhold and reel it in.)

As members of a free society, we have an implicit duty to each other not to abuse the rights granted by our Constitution (and afforded by our democracy). When we shirk this duty  or fail our own nobler senses and sensibilities  we risk (the ire of?) governmental intrusion into what should come naturally to us as human persons: meaningful intersubjectivity. And with that in mind, allow me to share with you one final thought: that censorship, in and of itself, is not necessarily an “evil” per se, as some would make it out to be. It is not a bad word. Au contraire. Sometimes, it is the censorship of bad words that keeps good conversations flowing.

*      *      *      *

Greetings: A gift of four centavos is given to our hard working Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who celebrates her birth anniversary today. Pangadyi namo ki Amang Diyos na lumawig pa ang buway mo.

*      *      *      *

“I may not agree with what you have to say,

 but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”  Voltaire

E-mail:[email protected]