The Subtlety of Censorship

The truth is that words matter.  We write things a certain way because it means something different than if we were to write it another way.  Luckily, in America we have the First Amendment, which is supposed to prohibit the government from making any law to infringe upon our freedom of speech.  Here is what it says, as our Founding Father's wrote it:  "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."  Unfortunately, here in America, Congress is breaking the law.

When did it start?  The first attempt was in 1798 by President Adams and the Alien And Sedition Acts.  This law didn't beat around the bush.  If you opposed any U.S. law or spoke out against the president or congress, you were to be jailed for up to two years.  This law was eventually allowed to expire.  Since then, congress has tried to strip us of our free speech.  Since then, they have succeeded.

Of course, these days it's all about the art of being subtle.  Do we think twice when we listen to the radio and hear the edited versions of songs?  Some of us even defend the censorship of music, saying that words like that shouldn't be listened to by children.  I say it's up to the parents to decide what their children listen to.  When we watch TV, well, any TV that isn't a premium cable channel, we think nothing of censorship.  Should inappropriate language, themes and situations be censored?  If you answered yes, who determines what is appropriate?

I'm all for not allowing children to watch R rated movies, or adult television shows, or listen to explicit songs.  But that is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.  We have rating upon rating on music, television, and film, but as far as I'm aware, there are no ratings on books.  An elementary school kid can go to the library and check out Mein Kampf.  Over the history of our country, many books been banned, and those have been overturned.  Other forms of media have not enjoyed the same amount of protection that books have enjoyed.

If all books are appropriate, why aren't all songs, TV shows, and videos?  Are those types of media more subversive than others?  Books are seen by many as 'pure.'  While music and videos have the negative stereotype of being for lazy people.  Because of this, the government managed to sink its teeth into these forms of media.  What if the government is after more than just media?

The government is after all free speech, no matter what form it takes or who utters it, publishes it, posts it, or records it.  The Patriot Act, signed into law by George Bush, changed the definition of terrorism to be so broad that this blog could be considered terrorism.  Section 802 of the US Patriot Act changes Section 2331 of Title 18 of the United States Code to read, "The term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that... appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."  Read more here.

Now, this blog is not intimidating anyone, and you could argue that it's not coercing anyone either.  Intimidation is a stretch, but my blog does fall under coercion.  According to Merriam-Webster, to coerce is to, "to compel to an act or choice."  Under the Patriot Act, I could be tried as a domestic terrorist.  How did this bill get passed?  How have any of the recent bills been passed?  The health care bill?  Prior to the health care vote, Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."  The same was true with the Patriot Act.  Only one senator, Russ Feingold (D-WI), opposed it, based on, "[Attorney General Ashcroft] provided the text of the bill the following Wednesday, and urged Congress to enact it by the end of the week. That was plainly impossible."  He was the only politician to say he didn't have time to read it.  If he didn't have time to read it, did any of his colleagues?

The government preys on the citizens, using fear as their primary motivator.  After 9/11, they passed the Patriot Act to 'protect' us.  At least, that's what they claimed.  Upon further examination, they passed the Patriot Act to strip us of our freedoms, to infringe on the first and fourth amendments.  They used fear to exploit our faith.  Our faith that the primary job of the government is to protect its citizens from harm.  If there is one thing that history has taught me, it's that the only person I can count on to protect me is myself.  I have no faith in the government.  They will not censor this citizen.

© Nate Phillipps 2010

Faith Through Fear: Part 1

The government has instituted a policy, an unofficial policy, of faith through fear. This concept was lifted from the church, but probably works better for the government, because they are experts at exploiting it. How it works for the church, is that you have a supreme, all-knowing entity that has set down rules for your life.  The church then tells you that if you do not follow those rules, or if you do not love this higher power with your whole heart, you will be condemned to hell.  The government uses the same technique, except they base it in the real world.  If you don't trust the government to take care of you, you will be blown up by a terrorist.  The government bases it in reality, but very loosely.  The government’s goal is to wrap all of its citizens up in a blanket of “Public Safety.”


I use the term blanket, because the concept of public safety is as effective at saving your life as tossing a blanket over your head if a criminal breaks into your home, in hopes they won’t see you. Public safety is a concept for the naïve and uninformed. The only person you can rely on to keep you safe, to protect your life and property, is yourself.

The government wants you to believe that they will take care of you, because if you believe that, then they have control. Is it a coincidence that the H1N1 scare came as the government was struggling to pass a major health care reform, that would give the government unprecedented control over the health care industry?  Is it a coincidence that the regulations the government imposed on Wall Street caused a financial collapse?  If you think it was, look at what the government is doing now; trying to pass more regualtions and restrictions on Wall Street.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am merely using some exaggerated examples to show the importance of asking one question, is this for our own ‘good,’ or is this a faith through fear tactic?

The government wants to employ the use of full body imaging devices at airports. These devices have been proven to be ineffective in addition to the government lying about how long the images are stored.  These devices have the capability to save images, just like your computer.  Do they honestly expect us to believe that some security guard they're paying minimum wage won't save some of the images?  With such flawed technology, why would anyone want to institute this?  Their response is always, “Public safety.” Does the government and/or airlines have the right to invade our privacy in this manner? Or is this another faith through fear tactic?

It is not my intention to denounce one political party over another; simply, I am denouncing politicians, all politicians, everywhere. All the government should do is maintain a standing army, maintain a police force, and maintain a court system. The government should not do a single thing more that those three core functions. However, through fear, we are tricked and forced, to grant the government sanction.

© Nate Phillipps 2010