Thoughts on censorship

The word "censorship" gets tossed around a fair bit.
Given how emotionally charged this term is, and how frequently it gets used to stifle speech rather than protect it, I thought it'd be worth unpacking a bit.

Wikipedia gives a broad working definition: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information."

In most liberal democracies speech is protected, to varying degrees, from government censorship.  Canada's Charter protects speech from government censorship and persecution, setting out "reasonable limits" that exclude things like libel, hate speech, and inciting violence.  Importantly, these legal rights are there to protect us from would-be government censors.  "Free Speech" laws generally don't apply to the media, including websites and social media platforms.  Paradoxically, this actually lays a cornerstone of free speech - a free press must have editorial control, free from government interference, over its content.

So the semantics get weird when someone says "I was censored by such-and-such media".   By the dictionary definition, their speech is being "suppressed", yet no one has a "right" to publish on any given platform in the first place.  And, of course, their speech is not being censored by any legal definition.

Because "censorship" is such a charged word, I prefer to use it in the legal sense.  I accept others may use broader definitions that include any action by any party that prevents them from broadcasting their message on any channel.  But with such a broad definition, the term loses its meaning and power.  By such definitions, for example, blocking spam is a form of censorship - spam is a "public communication" and spam blockers are designed specifically to suppress it.  The real tragedy, though, occurs when the meaning of once-powerful words are so diffused they themselves become the tools of propaganda.

It is now common, for example, to label a protest against a speaker as "censorship", when in fact protest is itself an exercise of free speech.

Those who seek to spread hate and division often try to shield their ideas from criticism by invoking "free speech" and crying "censorship" or "cancel culture" when anyone speaks out against them.  But more speech is the opposite of censorship.

Apparently even organizing a public meeting to discuss how to resist divisive and hurtful speech occurring in one's community may be labeled "censorship".

What gets lost in all of this noise is the balance between a right to freedom of speech and a right to freedom from speech.  In a free society, you have the right to say what you like, but that does not create an obligation on anyone to listen.  To exercise our right to be free from speech, there needs to be an "off button".  That's not censorship, that's just asserting one's own rights and freedoms.

Words have power.  They can be weaponized.  We need to be careful with charged words like "censorship".  It can be a potent tool for holding those with power to account.   But when we use it merely to deride the rights, freedoms, or speech of those we disagree with, it loses its power and meaning.  Maybe it already has.