Free speech is particularly valuable when it applies to the expression of unpopular ideas.British writer Oscar Wilde stated that An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.The term censorship usually applies to governmental restrictions in free speech in public places, such as a law that restricts displaying a Nazi flag, or a government official who shuts down a public art display.
These types of non-governmental challenges are legally permissible, but others break the law, such as if one political group steals campaign signs or vandalizes billboard advertisements by its rival political group.
From the standpoint of free speech advocates, both governmental censorship and non-governmental challenges are unjustly intrusive and should not be practiced in a free society.
The line between governmental censorship and non-governmental challenges is sometimes blurry, particularly when a private organization acts with implied governmental authority.
This is the case with self-regulated censorship: a private organization sets rules that regulate free expression within an industry, in exchange for which the government agrees to not get involved.
Yet it also seems that there should be limits to how far free speech extends, and societies are entitled to protect their value systems from attack.
In this chapter we will look at the conflict between free speech and censorship.
We will begin with a survey of the basic concepts used in this debate, and the main situations in which censorship has been imposed.
The issue of censorship rests on several interrelated concepts, foremost of which is free speech, a term that is used interchangeably with free expression.
The organizations are within their rights to restrict expression, and members can pack up and leave if they dont like it.
During our own free time, though, we have a greater expectation of free speech in public arenas.