Ethics – Censorship (Topic 1/6)

BUSI-1084 Group Assignment Case Study – Historical Censorship HKS

Abstract: The goal of this project is to shine a light on the variety of influences censorship has on
individuals, communities, and our society, as well as how it affects our daily lives, the ways that we think
about and perceive the world around us, its effects on politics, media, film and literature, education,
culture, and so many more. First and foremost, whether it be codified or customary; proscribing self-
expression (hair color, wardrobe, gender identity, body modifications) or the surveillance and
suppression of communication can be argued to be forms of censorship. However, my focus will
primarily be state-supported efforts to control mass communication over the course of history; justified
on the basis that it is to protect public interest from the filth residing within obscene material;
presupposing standards of which must be complied with. The underlying motive is to keep the public
ignorant of information that can potentially threaten authorities. Further historical rationale I’d like to
acknowledge without going too deeply into is including but not limited to; the protection of private
property for the purpose of protecting trade secrets, economic efficiency, the encouragement of honest
communication between lawyer-client and/or doctor-patient confidentiality as well as protection from
otherwise possible retaliation, etc.

Introduction to Historical Use of Censorship

Censorship has two preventative means; it may involve withholding or editing existing information, as
well as preventing information from being created. Limitations and regulations regarding communication
were incorporated into the Criminal Code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemy and defamation,
disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, the spread of disinformation, false news, public
mischief, obscenity, and indecency. However, such transparent attempts to censor speech are rare in
Canada; speech is more commonly regulated in the form of laws that regulate film, media and literature
made accessible to the public.

Originations of Censorship Regulations

The use of censorship proves to date as far back in time as the fifth century, when Pope Gelasius issued
for the papal decree list of forbidden writings ‘Decretum Gelasianum’ to be prohibited. Greek
philosopher Plato also insisted on the use of censorship, as he believed that the arts possessed an innate
ability to corrupt young minds if not censored to be presented with only the good, claiming all else
worthy of rejection. In 399 B.C., Socrates was forced to drink poison for his acknowledgement of
unorthodox divinities. While the news is more accessible than ever in this modern information age,
making disinformation and false news just as accessible for the ignorant, technology is hardly needed to
spur censorship.

Being one of the more prominent, and often strictly enforced, has been the Index Librorum
Prohibitorum, introduced by the Catholic Church in 1559. This Index intended to ban books considered
by the catholic church to be heretically or morally/ideologically dangerous, and it was abolished as late
as 1966.
Historically, the concept of the press originates to as early as the 16th century, dating back to newsletters
circulating in some parts of India, with Switzerland following suit and establishing the first newspaper in
1610. It didn’t take long before a chain reaction began and other European countries, such as England,
France, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, and Poland all did the same. However, this rapid growth of information
was disapproved of by some authorities. To curb free information dissemination, the Licensing Act of
1662 was introduced in Britain and remained until shortly after the Great Plague ended in 1665.
Furthermore, in Germany, press was effectively curbed through not only censorship, but also through
restrictions of trade and high demand of printing paper giving way to unavailability.

Abolishment of Censorship Laws

In Sweden, 1766, the abolishment of censorship laws was passed alongside the passing of a law that
guaranteed freedom of the press. Denmark and Norway followed suit in the year 1770. Moreover, the
First Constitution of the United States guaranteed freedom of speech and self-expression in 1787. The
Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen was passed in France in 1789 which declared that “The free
communication of thought and opinion is one of man’s most precious rights; every citizen may therefore
print, write and speak freely.” Government regulated censorship was discontinued in most western
countries in the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, colonial governed countries such as Britain and Russia
still strictly enforced regulated censorship laws. In 1921, the Soviet Union created the Glavlit (General
Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press) which proved a fine instrument of controlling
literature for decades. However, true eradication of literature proved impossible as those in opposition
of censorship circulated handmade copies of banned literature.

In the year 1937, the Accurate News and Information Act was passed in Alberta to reign in on the press.
The law would have required newspapers to cite their sources, disclose the names of their writers, as
well as print out any government-provided “corrections” of any critical news coverage. Violations of this
law could have resulted in a large fine and a ban on publishing restricted information. However, in 1939,
the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the act was beyond the control of the Alberta government,
ruling for the first time that provinces were unable to restrict fundamental freedoms.

State-Imposed Censorship Regulations

When censorship was imposed by the state, its agents could include police, customs officers, post office
workers, censor boards, and public prosecutors. Censorship could also be imposed by the War Measures
Act (est. 1914) and the Official Secrets Act (est. 1939) to protect the integrity of the state. There is
substantial variation in censorship among democracies, some of these variations include but are not
limited to content, communications via social media, time and government ruling, and so on.
Furthermore, two considerable, more specific examples of state-imposed censorship could include the
removal of behavioral depictions that undermine public morals (e.g. Controversy, sexuality) and
expressions of unpatriotic ideas.

In 1954, the Catholic Women’s League, Women’s Farm Unions, and the University Women’s Club
founded the Advisory Board on Objectionable Publications in conjunction with the Alberta government.
Six years later, in 1960, the provincial government worked alongside civic and religious organizations to
form an Obscene Literature Committee in Ontario. Otherwise, Quebec was the only other province to
establish a censorship board for published literature, however that’s not to say other methods of
informal censorship were not used elsewhere throughout the nation. Distributors, fearing prosecution
for carrying obscene materials, welcomed the board to avoid hefty legal fees. Saskatchewan and New-
Brunswick banned twenty-eight books simply because they’d been banned elsewhere, while a publisher
in Nova Scotia removed eighty publications following a threat from popular gospel teacher ‘Perry
Rockwood’ to “drag him to court” had he not done so. Meanwhile, Newfoundland banned twenty-three
magazines that had been seized from a drugstore, and Prince Edward Island removed eight magazines
following a threat from home and school associations threatening to take legal action. It wasn’t until
1962 that the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal to lift the ban on a piece of literature titled
“Lady Chatterley’s Lover” by D.H. Lawrence. This resulted in a partial liberalization of the obscenity laws
by allowing experts to testify the merits of controversial or obscene literature.

Soft Surveillance and the Collection of Personal Data

Fascination for this topic is strongly related to technological communication developments. A trend that
began with the printing press, new technologies involving newspapers, mass-produced books and
magazines, radio, telegraph, telephone, television, film, audiocassettes, video, fax, the internet, and their
ability to reach a vast amount of people of many differing ethnicities and backgrounds, have created
higher demand from conflicting groups for greater openness. However, such demands have managed to
open the doors wide open for the collection of personal data and soft surveillance; alongside the
creation of data-collecting algorithms that keep close track of our digital footprints. Welcome to a whole
new style of regulating citizens behavior, also known as ‘Soft Paternalism,’ has emerged from decades of
research, and suggests that human beings are not quite as rational as we might be led to believe. This
approach to controlling civilians’ favors using government-initiative to engineer people’s decision-making
rationale towards a particular outcome, while at the same time, preserving the illusion of choice. This
form of paternalism is said to be justified by virtue of consent, or rather, lack of dissent.

Sources:
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/soft-surveillance-mandatory-voluntarism-and-the-collection-
of-personal-data/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309851041_Censorship

https://bridwell.omeka.net/exhibits/show/heresyerror

https://historyofrights.ca/encyclopedia/main-events/censorship/

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/about/news/the-red-pencil-censorship-in-russia-and-the-soviet-union/

https://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/cenandsec.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030642207200103-404

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
281785140_Media_censorship_Freedom_versus_responsibility