Gordon S. Jackson: The S-R’s new letters policy is dumb, but it isn’t censorship

By Gordon S. Jackson

Following The Spokesman-Review’s recent decision to limit its letters policy to local issues, we’ve seen a flurry of letters decrying what the writers see as censorship. Two points are worth making. First, what the paper is doing isn’t censorship. Second, it’s still a dumb idea.

Point No. 1 hinges on your definition of censorship. Many people define the concept as any curb on content in a way that ticks them off, no matter who does it. That’s a definition so broad as to be meaningless.

Here’s my definition: “Formal censorship occurs when a government acts to prevent or hinder the distribution of information or content, in whatever medium, or punishes such distribution after the fact. Such an act occurs within a clearly specified legal jurisdiction.” (As noted in my book, “Christians, Free Expression, and the Common Good.”)

Whether you accept my admittedly clunky definition or not, you’ll understand why I contend that the paper isn’t engaging in censorship. First, censorship is an action by government, not a private agent like The Spokesman-Review. If I owned a bookstore and refused to carry any books on gardening, that may be eccentric but it wouldn’t constitute censorship; you could still get your gardening books on Amazon or from Auntie’s Bookstore downtown. But if the U.S. government banned all gardening books, then we’re talking censorship.

Censorship can be formal, as when the U.S. military classifies certain documents. “No sir, I’m sorry, you can’t have the plans to our new nuclear submarine.” Or it can be informal, as when a dictatorial government indicates that speaking out in opposition may lead to your legs getting broken – or worse.

Most of us know that the First Amendment comes with various limits. As the cliché has it, the authorities are empowered to punish you for yelling fire in a crowded theater. Your free speech rights don’t extend to advocating imminent violence. Or perjury. In these ways, the government is censoring you by limiting your speech – and as a society we see that as a good thing.

The fact is, we all seek or accept some level of government-backed control of information – that is, censorship. We typically have no problem with the principle of the government keeping secrets (think again of that submarine), or personnel records of government employees. In each case the authorities are keeping information from us, and as a society we agree that’s a necessary thing to protect national security or the employees’ privacy. (Abuses of the military classification system are another issue.)

My definition also notes that censorship is dependent on jurisdiction, both nationally and locally. In Germany, you’ll encounter the government’s wrath and punishment if you engage in Holocaust denial. You’re free to do that in this country. But Germany cannot tell our government what to ban, just as we can’t tell them what to do. Likewise, at the local level, cities will differ on zoning laws about where you can put a billboard, for example.

Technically, the city of Spokane is censoring you if you may not place your billboard within 5 yards of a highway, for safety reasons. Maybe 25 yards is OK. While it’s legal for city officials to limit how and where you may proclaim your message, they have few constraints on what you say.

The government is the sole agency capable of engaging in censorship. That also extends to agencies of government, such as public schools, the Coast Guard and the Spokane Police Department. These agencies have the legal authority and enforcement mechanisms that aren’t available to you, me or your local Kiwanis club. That’s because I as an individual have no legal basis for silencing your views. I can refuse to sell gardening books and The Spokesman-Review can exclude whatever letters they want; that’s their prerogative. Those may be poor choices but they don’t constitute censorship.

To conclude, calling something censorship doesn’t necessarily make it so. You may disagree with my definition of censorship and its applicability to this paper’s new letters policy. If so, maybe we’ll find common ground on the wisdom of that policy. As I said above, I think it’s a dumb move. (Did I say “dumb?” I meant “short-sighted.”)

I don’t see what the editorial pages gain by excluding what could be letter writers’ rich insights and perspectives on national topics. The paper can still prioritize local content and carefully select letters dealing with national topics. Instead, the Spokesman has just left several of us frustrated or puzzled.

But perhaps an unintended benefit is that we’ve been prompted to think more carefully about what exactly we mean when we cry “censorship.”

Gordon S. Jackson is a retired journalism professor and the author of a book on censorship, “Christians, Free Expression, and the Common Good.”