We must not censor our entertainment industry

Note- This post is also published on The Huffington Post.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, from across the spectrum of the gun control debate, various actors are challenging the entertainment industry's right to free speech. Representing Obama, Biden has met with industry representatives. NRA chief, Wayne LaPierre, has suggested that the industry bears the largest share of the blame for Sandy Hook. Most disappointingly however, major media contributors have also jumped on the anti-free speech bandwagon. These individuals apparently believe that they have the right to define appropriate programming for others.

Consider this argument by Ramin Setoodeh. Setoodeh arrogantly proclaims that because he was uncomfortable with the recent movie, Texas Chainsaw 3D, ".... gore at the movies just doesn’t feel entertaining". Therefore, he argues, Hollywood must abandon this genre. Except, as indicated by Chainsaw's box office takings, many others obviously thought the opposite. For me, this is the crux of the issue. While individually, we might not always agree with its products, our entertainment industry is nonetheless at the heart of what America is all about. Not just in terms of its vigorous manifestation of free speech, but also, in terms of how this 'freedom to create' interacts with broader notions of American capitalism. Put simply, the fundamental truth is that the success of movies/video games resides upon their consumer desirability. While the First Amendment essentially assures that government cannot impose excessive legal restrictions on speech, my great concern is that further pressure from various actors could fuel an already present (see South Park) condition of self-censorship in the entertainment industry. This would be a disaster. Such a dynamic would not only assert the authoritarian moral judgments of the few, in preference to the majority opinions of society, it would also encourage a slippery slope towards greater future censorship. In essence, the question would be asked, if violence is to be divorced from entertainment, then why not also the presentation of drugs (for the children's sake)?, or sex (let's stop STDs)?, or religion (we can't risk inflaming violence)? etc. The precedent would be set and the following consequences would be clear: A thought police society locked in the despair of a creative, emotional and intellectual prison. 

Just look at Europe for an example of what happens when political correctness takes root. 

I'm not being alarmist. Today, censorship sympathizers are sadly a mainstream occurrence (see my response - it's the first comment after the op/ed).
 

No one should deny that the Sandy Hook massacre was a tragedy of terrible proportion. I freely agree, as a country - republicans, democrats and independents alike, we need to work together to reduce the risks of future atrocities. But when it comes to the entertainment industry, the correct course of action is obvious. Parents should exert greater control over the entertainment choices of their children and adults should ignore products which offend their moral values. It's incredibly important that we remember, without controversial speech, America would not have been born and slavery might have longer endured.  

In it's ability to drive debate forwards, often in unpredictable ways, controversy can be an incredible force for good. Because of its polluting influence, content based censorship of America's entertainment industry must be avoided at all costs.

South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker discussing censorship (comment at 5.10 is especially important)

UK laws on free speech

UK law is stupid when it comes to issues of free speech. Recently, a number of criminal prosecutions have been brought against individuals who made remarks on the internet which upset people. These comments were dumb, mean spirited and deserving of repudiation. However, they should not have received criminal sanction. The fact that English law imposes a burden on a speaker to ensure that his speech will not reasonably be perceived as offensive (even if he does not intend for it to be so) is truly ridiculous. Such a burden restricts emotional debate and chills public discourse on matters of key public concern. It also leads to a profoundly tiered approach towards determining what is and what is not legitimate speech, allowing prosecutors and the police to apply their own flexibly subjective standards in the enforcement of the law. These laws are un-democratic and authoritarian. Sadly they are supplemented by equally bad UK laws on defamation. I am gratified that the US still protects free speech where the UK does not.

It shouldn't be illegal to be an ass hole.

Facebook 'Like' = Free Speech?

The decision by a US District Judge to reject constitutional protection for a man who clicked 'like' on a political candidate's Facebook page, was in my view a serious error. The US Appeals Court should overturn this ruling. The individual was affirming his support for a political ideal and was engaged in a public domain speaking on an issue of public concern. To suggest that a Facebook 'like' falls below the standard for constitutional protection, is similar to suggesting that the government should be able to restrict a speaker from setting up a yard sign on his front lawn. In both cases the speaker is attempting to present his private political agenda to a public audience. From my perspective, a Facebook 'like' is an affirmation of agreement and thus a clear statement of opinion.