“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.”
Those words from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are part of one of mankind’s greatest documents. That sentence, those mere 45 words, do more to address political censorship than any words ever written at any time in world history. In 1770 William Pitt stated, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Building upon Pitt’s statement in 1887, Lord Acton summed up why political censorship exists when he had this to say about power in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
What both of those statements say is that no matter how good the intentions of those in power, eventually they will fall into the trap of being all-powerful. They will then feel empowered to decide what is good and what is bad for the people they lead to read, see, and hear. Political censorship comes to the forefront in countries with totalitarian governments. These oppressive regimes use their power to prevent the free exchange of ideas.
When President-elect Trump criticized the cast of Hamilton and the skits on Saturday Night Live, he was, in a way, practicing censorship. As president-elect his words, whether we like or not, carry a certain weight to them•more weight than Joe Citizen’s words have. Oppressive regimes often prevent theatre groups from performing plays that are critical of government or that go against the social mores the government is trying to enforce upon the populace. Another example of this political censorship (although less obvious) is when these same authoritarian governments commission works that only have the point of view that the leadership wants the people to see. Although Trump said SNL should give him equal time, lets hope that we do not see any Trump-approved Broadway or sketch comedy shows in the near future.
In the United States, we haven’t seen what one would call “in your face” censorship, where something is out-and-out banned by the federal government. Instead, we have more subtle social and political censorship in this country. Most often it is on the local level where a mayor, civic leader, or self-appointed moral policeman makes decisions on what is good for the community. This is where Trump’s sycophants come in and where power corrupts—when someone like Trump or his followers feel that they have the power to decide what is good for the public, regardless of how the public feels about the issue.
That is not to say that we have not gone through periods of our history where censorship was at the forefront. This was most notable during the House Un-American Activities Committee investigations, where many good people had their lives destroyed because of their beliefs, their words, or because of whispered rumors, true or not, both directly and indirectly. These hearings in the early 1950s were a form of censorship and writers, actors, directors, and producers were blacklisted due to speech that the House Un-American Activities Committee decreed was specifically un-American (i.e. communist).
That is the era Trump and his surrogate, Newt Gingrich, want to go back to. Gingrich would reinstate the House Un-American Activities Committee, and Trump would use Twitter as a bully pulpit using newspeak. But this time, in addition to the hearings taking place behind the doors of Congress, they would also take place in social media and the court of public opinion. How chilling it would be for the press, the arts, or the common person to have the president of the United States berate you, berate your work, or your words in a public forum, while at the same time being called to testify in front of Congress and the newly re-formed House Un-American Activities Committee.
On the local level, censorship comes in many forms. It can be done via zoning laws, standards of public decency, naming an establishment a public nuisance, or even an anti-smoking ordinance, just to name a few. Imagine if Trump supporters, enabled by Trump’s criticism of the Hamilton performers, decided to take things a step further. They could pass local ordinances that are subtle censorship. Maybe an actor is fined for smoking a cigarette on stage during a performance. Or an overzealous school board member could be less subtle in their censorship by not allowing a high school to perform Rent because of the controversial subject matter. In some cases a theatrical performance could be pushed out of an area with zoning laws. These could apply to a theatre, book store, library, or adult entertainment venue—any place that has performances. If the material is what some in the local community may consider controversial or derogatory (especially toward Trump)—which could be anything from adult language, political content, sexual overtones or nudity—it could even shut down music venues if the performers and genre do not fit into so-called community standards.
Any governmental censorship, whether intentional or not, violates one of the pillars of our society: the First Amendment, where we as a people were granted freedom of speech. And freedom of speech by its very nature is equal to freedom of expression, as well. If during a performance an actor or playwright wanted to make a political statement by burning the flag of the United States or make a political statement because a government official was in the audience, then it cannot and should not be censored, and President-elect Trump should not be tweeting his displeasure. Is the act or speech distasteful? Does it offend? That is immaterial. But it would be even more offensive if we lived in a society where such an act is punishable by law.
Our civilization cannot grow and cannot expand knowledge if we do not move beyond old, outdated beliefs. We cannot grow if we are not allowed to dissent. In the case of the Hamilton cast speaking out while Vice President-elect Pence was in the theatre, their words reflected on society as a whole. Trump and his followers may not agree with that, but the United States is far more diverse than what they believe it to be, and white, straight, “Christian” males are not the only ones with a voice.
Life does not exist in a vacuum where language is always clean, where there is no violence and no dissent. For Trump and his toadies to say that it should be easier to sue for libel, for Mr. Trump to criticize an actor for speaking his mind at the end of a performance, goes against the very foundation of our society. As Pitt stated, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Trump, with the executive branch firmly in his control, with the Republican Party controlling both houses of Congress, and having a what will be a majority on the Supreme Court, for all intents has unlimited power. While hard to believe, that power will make an already unethical man even more corrupt.
It is up to those of us who are dissenting. We must push envelope. We must use the dramatic arts, writing, painting, film, and television to move people to action. We must stand firm against his lies, against his version of newspeak. If we do not, our nation, our society will falter, and that is not a future I want to contemplate.
This post was originally written during Thanksgiving weekend, knowing that I had a busy work week ahead of me and writing this early was the only way to meet deadline. Then on Tuesday morning, President-elect Trump fired off a tweet to fire up his base that is relevant to the subject of censorship and free speech.
As I stated earlier in this post, one of our core values as a nation is in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It represents freedom of speech. Speech can and does include freedom of expression, symbolic speech, art, and music, among other things.
You do not have to agree with what is being said. You can abhor a person's actions when they express themselves. Case in point: flag burning. As a veteran, it enrages me; however, it is protected free speech under the First Amendment and two Supreme Court cases, Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. It is constitutionally protected speech. Even the late Justice Scalia agreed. He was the deciding vote in Texas v. Johnson decision, finding flag burning abhorrent to him personally, but still protected free speech. In his own words he said of the decision:
“I hate the result [in Texas v. Johnson]...If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag,” Scalia said. “But I am not king.”
You do not have to like flag burning to understand that it is a right guaranteed to all Americans, as distasteful as it is. As much as we would like to ban it, or ban the KKK or Nazis from speaking, we cannot. It is one of the foundations of our nation: free speech. That’s why Trump’s tweet is so disturbing.
(By the way, if as a nation we want to end flag burning as a form of protest: just ignore it. If it has no shock value, no one will do it.)