Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Saturday, April 20
The Indiana Daily Student

letters

Be wary of selective censorship

In 1734, John Peter Zenger, publisher of The New York Weekly Journal, was arrested for his newspaper’s sharp criticism of then-Royal Governor of New York William Crosby.

The prosecution argued the criticism was injurious to the colonial ?government.

Zenger was eventually acquitted, and his principled defense of free speech would go on to inspire ?centuries of American journalists.

That is, most American journalists.

In its Feb. 16 editorial “Triple homicide alludes to hate,” the current Indiana Daily Student editorial board argues against the hard-won protections afforded to it by the First Amendment — and enjoyed by these three former IDS columnists — in favor of the same justifications for selective censorship wielded by Crosby and other would-be policemen of expression.

The editorial points out “the importance of the language and politics surrounding our every move,” yet fails to grasp that very same importance when it calls for “penalizing destructive or slanderous actions, speech and print that target a specific group.”

Was Zenger’s truthful criticism of Crosby and, by extension, the royal crown not “destructive” to a specific group?

Crosby and the colonial government certainly thought so.

While the board’s overall goal might be noble, it advocates for an exception to the First Amendment that swallows the rule.

One of the many problems with censorship is that it always comes back to bite you. It never stays contained to the evil at hand, and just as soon as you allow it to go after the ideas that today’s majority considers “destructive,” it’s no longer 1734 and those ideas are no longer considered verboten.

As James Madison said, men are not angels. Even the most well-intentioned, well-crafted law will be subject to abuse in support of today’s many ?orthodoxies.

Since the IDS’s editorial board has seemingly changed its mind on free speech since we were members, it should leave the same opportunity to future editorial boards — and not advocate for a government policy of selective censorship of minority ?opinions.

Get stories like this in your inbox
Subscribe