1. CMW313 Q10938541
Is censorship a moral necessity
or simply a tool of state and/or religious control?
Jennifer Richards
Throughout history our world has seen the rise and fall of many political and religious powers; an endless
clash of titans that contest in a universal arena for power and privilege. Twenty-eight years ago a novel
surfaced that has, arguably, caused one of the biggest cultural controversies this last century has seen.
In this essay, I will be looking into how the nature of this crisis correlates to a consistently tempestuous
discussion of the relationships of power between privileged freedom of speech and the freedom of speech
that is fought for. From McCarthyism to the Rushdie incident, I will discuss the varying perspectives on
censorship; whether they come from a governmental need for control or an artistic desire for an open
discussion. In a post-enlightenment society, many would find it hard to believe in an oppressive religious
rule in the western world. Since literature and art forms have widely been accepted as cultural
alternatives to the collapse of the Christian framework in western society, criticisms of any prominent
religious sectors are nationally tolerated as satire. However to believe that these criticisms are shrugged
off by powerful organisations, and have no collateral effect on western society is somewhat naïve. Citing
incidents such as McCarthyism, the Iraq war, the assassination of the Black Panther movement and the
Brixton riots, we are consistently reminded of the dangers that pose freedom of speech in a secular
civilisation.
When we look at Salman Rushdie's dangerous discourses against Islam, it is not the hate nor the fear
that he incited among the Muslim east that was the most damaging; the Islamophobia that remains
rampant today was the most prominent consequence. His voice came from a pulpit of privilege, even as a
Muslim citizen in the United Kingdom, he attained a position of power as a well-connected artist, as Todd
Green points out in his article on the Rushdie Affair: “as a renowned author, he rubbed shoulders far
more with the movers and shakers of Britain than with the country's growing number of Muslims. His
fame as an author gave him access to publishers and media outlets that enabled his voice to be heard
and his views to be spread far and wide”.
It is a mistake to believe that freedom of speech can be freely exercised among all groups of people in
every situation; throughout history one will consistently find that this “freedom” is only truly free to those
in positions of power, “ More often than not, cultural and political elites have access to a pulpit from which
they can preach their views and shape public opinion. Not everyone is so fortunate.” - (Green, 1)
Regardless of their message, there will usually be a fallout, and rarely will those in such positions be
required to pay the price. Considering this, can one see the notion of free speech as paradoxical?
Wherever a corrupt government exists this is almost certainly the case. While the act was implemented
with the intention of benefiting those bereft of power, privilege or freedom; scarcely does this make a
difference.
When it comes to literature, many writers would argue, vociferously so, that it is a duty to disparage
censorship and open up a platform for liberal discourse. In the case of Arthur Miller this was certainly

2. true; Fighting a national lockdown on artistic, or even verbal freedom, his play 'The Crucible' was born of
such an incident. Highlighting the dangers that cultural witch-hunts can pose, as well as the abhorrent
affront of civil liberties. However, there are moments in which authors must reach their own catharsis in
how dangerous this can be, not for them, but for those without a voice. While legally in the west all
citizens are entitled to freedom of speech, in practise this sadly remains a far-fetched reality; therefore, I
would pose the notion that as writers, our duty should not be so broad as to simply oppose censorship,
instead, to acknowledge our privilege and power, and exercise caution. Indeed, we should give a voice to
those that are silenced; but this practice is so delicate and intrinsic that without proper caution, one may
generate decades of unconditional violence and hatred towards entire groups of people as has happened
with the 'Rushdie incident'.
To counter this, an entirely different perspective can be found; when literature is one of the only truest
forms of free speech that provides a power and privilege in itself, is it not just as corrupt to exercise
restraint and deny a completely open platform of discussion? As Salman Rushdie said himself: “Either
everything is off limits, or nothing is.” While caution should be exercised when exercising freedom of
speech, it is near impossible to define where “the line” is, as offense and morality, in general, are
completely subjective. Is it not therefore just as irresponsible to censor oneself with artistic expression?
Orhan Pamuk claimed that his experience guiding Arthur Miller and Harold Pinter through Istanbul taught
him: “Whatever the country, freedom of thought and expression are universal human rights. These
freedoms, which modern people long for as much as bread and water, should never be limited by using
nationalist sentiment, moral sensitivities, or—worst of all—business or military interests.” If you spend
too much time refining and catering your message, you are likely to lose the message itself.
In a recent expose of one of America's biggest abusers of free speech, the Westboro Baptist Church, a
prominent member gave her story as to how an equal and open discourse between a supposed “enemy”
of her message gave her the motivation to free herself of alleged indoctrination. With this in mind, can
one argue that, not only did the importance of free-speech between equals illuminate the abuse of this
act by her own community, but that restraint is not a required element to a debate when it comes to
moral sensitivities, perhaps creativity and tolerance are the answer to expressing one's views without
limiting the message.
Looking now at supposed abusers of free speech, I return to the point of those speaking from a pulpit of
privilege. Whether it's a government, an organisation or an individual, where they obtain a cultural
privilege and or position of power, their open discourse becomes less of a fundamental right and more of
an unconditional luxury. For them to profess an unfiltered message, that may have detrimental effects
upon society, is just as much of a censorship to that society; by expressing free thought without
restraint, disregarding consideration for its effects, a cultural dynamic may be created that overrides the
voices of others by way of ignorance, incited by the initial act of free expression from said position.
Sensitivities and creative liberties aside, for the cohesive function of a society, or even the security of its
people, where free speech is a luxury, it is a luxury that should be dealt with carefully and with restraint,
as Tariq Modood explains: “if people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they
mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism”.
Many would argue that regardless of this, freedom of speech that may or may not incite negative

3. consequences is important. Seen as by many to be an element essential to societal growth, as Kenan
Malik says: “In such societies it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of
others.” However, this can be seen as an overly idealistic perspective. History has provided us with
enough reason to be wary of this mentality. Malik goes on to express that these opportunities for conflict
should be resolved with open discussion, yet this claim labours under the assumption that every
individual will react accordingly. With this assumption, one could go as far as to say that this implicates a
“hive-mind” society, in which every individual is expected to respond to every pocket of free speech with
the same discretion that Malik rejects. With this in mind, the purpose of liberal discourse and unfiltered
free speech becomes redundant, as it is because of our individual mindsets and opinions that freedom of
speech retains its relevance. Unfortunately, because every human being cannot be expected to react with
tolerance, open-mindedness and refined discussion to even the least controversial of opinions, conflicts
greater than a social dispute have arisen, and will continue to do so. It is far too simplistic to expect
these issues to be resolved by discussion alone. To profess that such a conclusion is all that is required to
combat the dangers of free-speech, diminishes the cultural weight of free speech, and ignores the evident
disastrous effects it can have, these same perspectives argue this because of their belief in the
importance of freedom of speech. With this in mind a paradox can be found, because our 20th to 21st-
century mentalities are heavily contradictory. Orhan Pamuk argues that: “It is because our modern minds
are so slippery that freedom of expression becomes so important: we need it to understand ourselves,
our shady, contradictory, inner thoughts.” Can one then summarize that this paradox is the essential
lubricant to personal and social evolution?
Considering this, we can imagine what happens when personal freedoms conflict with national security. A
crisis of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. It can be argued that in a time of complete country-wide crisis,
the 'all is lost' moment, freedom of speech takes a paramount position in our cultures; allowing for a
platform in which every citizen has the opportunity for equal discourse. In contrast, however, not only can
completely uncensored freedom of speech contribute to a crisis, or cause one; personal values, opinions,
beliefs, an individual's voice may need to be sacrificed, if only temporarily, for the greater good. Were it
not for some form of restraint, a crisis almost three decades old could have been avoided. To add to that,
if freedom-of-speech is the primary cause for a crisis, placing free speech and expression as paramount
in its importance can send a negative message to those devastated by it; if a country is unwilling to
correct an issue, and instead widens its platform, one could find its people losing faith.
As previously stated; un-regimented freedom-of-speech can be as oppressive as total censorship. With
that being said, a blanket censorship of personal expression is inarguably an oppressive incident on its
own. Both scenarios can lead to further devastation; for the latter, we have the McCarthy incident, in
which individuals were both culturally and socially censored for the sake of “national security” that
opposed Soviet communism. It was a type of censorship that border-lined on terrorism. For the former
we have today's crisis of Islamophobia and rampant pockets of individuals that verbally and physically
oppress religious minorities, arguably sparked by both Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' and Margaret
Thatcher's immigration act. The best solution to these issues is, unfortunately, the most idealistic and
unrealistic. Self-censoring, as it is commonly known, is often looked down upon, but can prove essential
for societal cohesion. Exercising consideration in one's thoughts and actions; yet as individuals go even
with the most extensive thought and care, a conflict will always arise.

4. When it comes to the moral necessity of censorship, that entire concept is contradictory in itself; morality
is subjective, and so no morality is a universal necessity. We are then left with censorship, to apply this
from an individual's morality is to inarguably oppress others. Therefore, regardless of intent, of morality,
of Gemeinschaft or Gesellschaft, censorship is automatically a tool for control. There can be no issue
great enough to justify the placement of one person, or a collective's morality over another, especially to
the extent of eradicating that opposing morality. Even 'Mein Kampf', a book steeped in historical
darkness, has had its commercial ban lifted in Germany as of January 2016. Proving that, even when
risking the opening of still healing wounds from one of the world's greatest tragedies, censorship in a
legal and societal context has no place. With that being said, and as previously indicated, censoring is
also a form of protection. In the last two yours, a movement has surfaced that is colloquially titled “PC
culture”; often looked down upon as totalitarian social censorship, PC culture emerged as a response to
rampant aggressions against minority groups. It was designed to combat certain stigma that, while
socially seems harmless, can lead to serious threats against certain groups of people. Many would argue
that this culture goes too far in its censorship, or the very notion of it is an affront to civil liberties. While
this may be true to an extent, instead of freedom-of-speech being born of censorship, this censorship
was born of harmful free-speech. Meaning that were it not for the dangers of completely unfiltered free-
speech that were being posed, PC culture may have never existed. Inarguably, this is still a movement
attempting a form of control, however, it is for the sake of preventing bigger societal problems, it alleges.
When we look at the seemingly uncontrollable dangers that freedom-of-speech pose, as discussed before,
the reason as to why control is vital can be considered in the same way that laws are vital. If every single
person is allowed to, or encouraged to say whatever they want, whenever they want, then how much
thought can be expected to be placed in those words? And what discussion is to be had or progress is to
be made if no thought has entered the equation? Censorship, even for control, in many situations is more
beneficial to everyone than un-regimented freedom-of-speech. This is where we need to draw the line,
this is when it becomes, not a state under the control of an individual, but a state in control of itself. With
the topic of un-checked free-speech, we have to then consider, can any progression be made of this? Is
there a brighter side to the potential threat? Looking at Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', we are given
the Rushdie incident, yet this novel extends so much further than an incident. While his message may
have been irresponsible and his words may have incited decades of Islamophobia, were it not for his civil
right to speak freely, think of what little the world would have learned. From academia and creativity in a
literary context, the discussions that progress artistic thought would have been lost, and from a national,
social and cultural perspective, the effort made by people today and since then to bridge the gap between
East and West, as an affront to the discrimination, would never have occurred. While historically,
freedom-of-speech has been catastrophic, it has also been progressive.
When we look at everything that has been discussed, one can see that censorship goes a lot deeper than
oppressive dominion over civil liberties and creative freedom. It can also be seen that freedom-of-speech
and civil liberties can be a great deal more simplistic than perhaps originally imagined. However much
like many of the balances that hold societies together, there are indeed a great deal of similarities behind

5. these two stances. On both sides, many who implement or defend either stance would proclaim it to be
their duty, or in the name of security, in the name of freedom, for the greater good, or for the individual.
They are both equally dangerous and equally protective. One will inevitably lead to the other, and yet
neither will permanently replace the other and so, I will end with this: evidently, in order for our world to
function and evolve, an ever circling balance is required. Undeniably, censorship is an oppressive tool for
control, but without the implementation of this oppression throughout history, freedom-of-speech could
never have cultivated as a result, and societal issues that lay under the surface would have remained,
unfixed and unchanged. So to conclude, there is no right or wrong with either censorship or free speech;
the former is both a tool of state and or religious control, as well as a moral necessity for the sake of
change, the latter is both the tool with which we change and progress, and it is a weapon that can wreak
untold havoc.
References
American Masters,. "Arthur Miller ~ Mccarthyism | American Masters | PBS". N.p., 2006. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Fifth Annual Reedom To Write Lecture. Paris: n/a, 2010. video.
Green, Todd. "The Satanic Verses 25 Years Later: Why The Rushdie Affair Still Matters". The Huffington Post. N.p.,
2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Juma, Shahid. "The Satanic Verses - A Critique". Islamicentre.org. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Malik, Kenan. "Should Religious Or Cultural Sensibilities Ever Limit Free Expression? - Index On Censorship | Index On
Censorship". Indexoncensorship.org. N.p., 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York: Viking Press, 1953. Print.
Pamuk, Orhan, and Maureen Freely. "Freedom To Write". The New York Review of Books. N.p., 2006. Web. 8 Jan.
2016.
Public.wsu.edu,. "Notes For Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses". N.p., 1996. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Rushdie, Salman. "On Censorship - The New Yorker". The New Yorker. N.p., 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York, N.Y.: Viking Penguin Inc., 1989. Print.

6. these two stances. On both sides, many who implement or defend either stance would proclaim it to be
their duty, or in the name of security, in the name of freedom, for the greater good, or for the individual.
They are both equally dangerous and equally protective. One will inevitably lead to the other, and yet
neither will permanently replace the other and so, I will end with this: evidently, in order for our world to
function and evolve, an ever circling balance is required. Undeniably, censorship is an oppressive tool for
control, but without the implementation of this oppression throughout history, freedom-of-speech could
never have cultivated as a result, and societal issues that lay under the surface would have remained,
unfixed and unchanged. So to conclude, there is no right or wrong with either censorship or free speech;
the former is both a tool of state and or religious control, as well as a moral necessity for the sake of
change, the latter is both the tool with which we change and progress, and it is a weapon that can wreak
untold havoc.
References
American Masters,. "Arthur Miller ~ Mccarthyism | American Masters | PBS". N.p., 2006. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Fifth Annual Reedom To Write Lecture. Paris: n/a, 2010. video.
Green, Todd. "The Satanic Verses 25 Years Later: Why The Rushdie Affair Still Matters". The Huffington Post. N.p.,
2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Juma, Shahid. "The Satanic Verses - A Critique". Islamicentre.org. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Malik, Kenan. "Should Religious Or Cultural Sensibilities Ever Limit Free Expression? - Index On Censorship | Index On
Censorship". Indexoncensorship.org. N.p., 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York: Viking Press, 1953. Print.
Pamuk, Orhan, and Maureen Freely. "Freedom To Write". The New York Review of Books. N.p., 2006. Web. 8 Jan.
2016.
Public.wsu.edu,. "Notes For Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses". N.p., 1996. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Rushdie, Salman. "On Censorship - The New Yorker". The New Yorker. N.p., 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York, N.Y.: Viking Penguin Inc., 1989. Print.