Project Report: #1 CENSORSHIP
Miranda Estrada

What is Censorship?
Censorship affects everyone young, old, censorship doesn’t discriminate who it can reach but censors discriminate- that's part of the problem. To censor is to take away information from the public by suppression, this affects various groups of people but the result can be devastating. Having a more narrow focus, however, censorship has many consequences if left unaddressed. This can include people being subjected to censorship of ideologies, identities, and different groups of people by their governments both historically and presently. As long as we have been a place that has discrimination we have had censorship. This censorship can even be traced back to the “discovery” of the Americas as this censors the rich Native history of the Americans who had already occupied the area before.



What has been done about protecting against Censorship recently?
There are many different levels that censorship can occur at. For example within a household a parent can choose to censor certain types of content from being accessed from their home internet connection. But for a government censorship can have horrible consequences that lead to not only worse discrimination for the parties censored but also help perpetuate the problem as the new generation is taught that they do not have this freedom of thought and action to begin with. To protect Americans a plethora of legislation has been laid down to help protect the first amendment freedoms that include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and more.
Bills, Actions, and Cases Federally and at the State Level that involve censorship:
More recent legislation at the Federal level includes a bill supporting the rights of the people of Iran to free expression, condemning the Iranian regime for its crackdown on legitimate protests, and for other purposes, a resolution commemorating the life of Dr. Li Wenliang and calling for transparency and cooperation from the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Communist Party of China, and a bill to establish the China Censorship Monitor and Action Group, and for other purposes.

These bills have been co-sponsored and supported by those who are opponents of censorship taking place. The first bill mentioned, supporting Iranian free expression was a bill authored by the Congressional Research Service. It originated in the House of Representatives and was a resolution meaning the body had expressed that they would condemn the Iranian regime for all that it had done to people who had been protesting legitimately. Moreover, the second bill is the resolution commemorating the life of Dr. Li Wenliang and calling for transparency and cooperation from the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Communist Party of China. This bill originating in the Senate was cosponsored by five people Cory Gardner, Edward Markey, Robert Menendez, John Barrasso, Elizabeth Warren but was cited to be submitted by Tom Cotton, in place of an author. This, like the Iranian revolution, was a simple resolution that passed in a Senate Vote. Lastly the bill to establish the China Censorship Monitor and Action Group, and for other purposes. This bill originating also in the Senate was introduced by Cory Gardner and has 6 co-sponsors Jeff Merkley, Richard Durbin, Elizabeth Warren, John Cornyn, Marco Rubio, and Roger Wicker. It was introduced but no further action had been seen on the paper trail of that bill from what I could see. What was interesting is that while the bill had effectively died, its message lived on to the Congressional executive commission on China that is co-chaired by Marco Rubio. This is interesting as Marco Rubio was also someone who co-sponsored this bill. Legislation at the state level recently includes House Resolution: Relative to freedom of speech, AB-3169 Internet: social media or search engine service: censorship, and SB-51 Professional licensees: environmental sciences and climate change: whistleblower and data protection. House Resolution: Relative to freedom of speech is a resolution that originated in the Assembly. The author of this bill is California State Assemblymember Choi. This resolution was adopted and passed on 8/19/19. The next bill AB-3169 Internet: social media or search engine service: censorship was a bill introduced and authored by California State Assemblymember Gallagher. It ended up being a dead bill as its intention was to remove internet content depending on political viewpoint or affiliations, it would add to Title 15 and part 4 of division 3 of the civil code. This would effectively censor the content the user was exposed to. Additionally the last bill, SB-51 Professional licensees: environmental sciences and climate change: whistleblower and data protection. This, authored by California State Senator Jackson, originated in the Assembly. It was passed but then immediately vetoed by Governor Brown. In the bill’s details about its journey to being vetoed there is a statement by Governor Brown explaining that it was vetoed due to the fact that he believes that the state needs all scientific resources and research preserved and therefore that the California Environmental Protection Agency be preserved. He wants to make sure that Californians are able to receive pertinent scientific information that might be censored federally. He says this with the note “we cannot be too careful” when we are talking about preserving scientific research. While many actions taken by our Government regarding censorship are to halt it, the President has been caught or has advocated for censoring taking place. This includes Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is important to protect Internet Speech. There was a drafting of an executive order that was trying to undo that, it was opposed.

It also considers actions to censor press conferences of opinions questioning or against the opinions of the President. This has been happening for some time where the President or speaker will present false facts or lie to the press about pertinent information if they do not want to provide the actual factual information, Trump coined the term Fake News to represent all press who do not agree with him. This has had a ripple effect across the world, and now is regularly used by Authoritarian Governments to not listen to any facts against their regimes. The main fact is that the U.S. President is not supposed to be for censorship but Donald Trump has supported and spoken false statements and has drafted multiple executive orders that would seek to ban or censor groups of people. He has led people to believe false statements (most recently with Covid-19) therefore suppressing facts from being told to the public that are integral to the situation being resolved. This has caused Governors like the Governor of California to be distrustful of the Executive branch to be truthful with scientific information.

In contrast at the State level Gavin Newsom has supported internet privacy laws and anti-censorship legislation. Historically California Governors have protected institutions providing the public accurate information, and have taken it upon themselves to make sure the information is given to the people in case the federal government does not provide the same accuracy of information. Newsom has taken action to declare a state of emergency and order people to stay home and stop work if possible, some people believe this to be an act of censorship that is unjustified. Court cases have also defined how we enforce and deal with censorship.
What has been effective at curtailing censorship in the past (past legislation and actions)
Any view that is not dangerous or “evil" is protected under the ConstitutionAction that is effective against censorship is the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) whose job it is to broadcast all viewpoints, and whose only restriction on material is that any material that is “indecent” is protected by the First Amendment but must be broadcasted earlier or later of the day. Cases at the Federal and State level have helped homogenize how we deal with censorship effectively across the area we live in.Decided on June 22, 1964 Barr v. The City of Columbia was a case regarding lunch counter sit-ins (forms of protest during the civil rights movement in the U.S.) and whether arresting participants was a violation of their Fourteenth amendment rights (particularly equal protection under the law). It was decided that it was a breach of their constitutional rights to be arrested for being nothing other than “polite” during the sit-ins. Another case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (February 24, 2020) is related to my topic (censorship) due to the fact that it deals with the Free Exercise Clause pertaining to the First Amendment (freedoms of religion). In this current case it will revisit a decision made in Employment Division v. Smith, because this was a case involving religious freedom extending to religious ceremonies that use controlled or illegal substances. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club (Granted March 2, 2020) was deliberation over the Freedom of Information Act, (an act that allows the citizens of the United States Government to have access to records from “any federal agency.” Unless it falls under certain information that has exemptions this means citizens are allowed to be “in the know” of government information. This case will be to clarify the process and the exemptions in the Act currently, and see whether they are unconstitutional or not. At the state level is People v. Hall (originally 1854, overturned 1873) This is a large act of censorship where it was found that “Chinese persons” could not testify against a white man even if the case was involving a murder that the white man allegedly committed. This was only overturned as a case in 1873. This is direct censorship regarding people of Chinese heritage to be unfairly treated as citizens who could not stand up for themselves in court and have proper coverage under the law, this infringed on almost all rights and freedoms given by the bill of rights and the constitution. Another case, Yount v. City of Sacramento (2008) found that even if a citizen is convicted as a criminal, that does not mean the citizen is allowed to be deprived of their rights, and are allowed to take civil action in the case of excessive force being used against them. This case was about making sure that even if you are a part of the prison system or have a criminal conviction you are still given your right to civil action if you are wronged or deprived of your basic rights. Another case Sanctuary State (April 2020), is a current case that was denied to be heard in April 2020 because it went against prior legislation and in Huntington Beach where the law had been taken to the appellate courts, said that cities that create charters should have a say over local affairs related to their policing. This has set a precedent not with it being a case that had made a decision but the case not being accepted into the Supreme Court at all. This is a political statement for the State and its people. Lastly Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980). This case in 1980 is still very relevant today because it was decided that they impose “market share liability” on manufacturers of hazardous products. This allows a plaintiff to have a case known as a “prima facie” case if harmed by a product considered fungible even if they are unable to identify those who manufactured it. In the lower state court, the plaintiffs had been required to name who had manufactured the prescription drug which then gave the manufacturer's no accountability and therefore the market was allowed to be unaccountable for their fungible product. With this Supreme Court case it protects consumers and does not allow information that may be unavailable or removed about who is the actual manufacturer to stop someone from being able to form a case because they were negatively affected by the product in a terrible way.
Why we still have a long way to go
We must make sure that people are heard and that our allies are governments that do not censor their people like an authoritarian government. As a country we should not only make alliances with other countries because they have goods that we want (trade relationships) but also because they are quality governmental systems that are humane and protect their own citizen’s freedoms or we are being bystanders to millions of people suffering. It reflects badly on us that we do not reprimand other governments that treat their people inhumanely violating international law. The United States was founded to protect freedoms and establish a country that was not a monarchy, in this way of checks and balances of power we create a government where it is more difficult to censor information from the public thus creating a government where the citizens are able to participate and are free to express themselves in safe and healthy ways.

( Made with Carrd )