Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. We are definitely in the Christmas season. If you celebrate Christmas, then if you're like me, you enjoy this time of year because it seems like everyone is a little bit nicer and a little more kind. If you celebrate something other than Christmas, then I wish you all the best at this time of year as well. I know that a lot of people have more stress at this time of year because of obligations and things that they need to do. But I know that it also is a time of year to focus on remembering Jesus Christ, who gave his life for everyone on earth. And so for me, it's a great time of year to really commit to living this way throughout the whole of the year. And sometimes that's a challenge, but that is the ideal, certainly, at least for me anyway. And I hope for you, whatever it is you believe and whatever it is you you hold dear to your heart, that you are able to incorporate that in the coming year, this new year, which is right around the corner. In my last episode, I talked a little bit about feelings and contrasted that with thinking. And post-episode, my wife and I had a discussion about it, and typically she imparts to me some nuggets of wisdom that I try to remember in my life. And as a result of our discussion, I thought about that more, and I just didn't want anyone to get the impression that somehow I'm discounting feelings. I don't discount feelings. I often have a difficult time expressing those feelings, but as is typical with my wife and I, she tends to bring out the best in me, and I strive to live a little better each day because of her and try to be in touch more with my feelings than I would probably otherwise be. So in any case, I wanted to clarify that and also to say that I do believe that thinking is important, and I think that sometimes our thinking can be muddied up because of how we're feeling. So, yes, it's important to recognize the feelings that we have, but it's also, I think, very important to make sure that we are thinking about what it is that we are doing or that we're going to do, particularly in decisions that are really, really important, that will have a tremendous bearing upon our life. I just think that it's important that we're thinking clearly, that we're not allowing anger or fear or any other, perhaps negative emotion, sway our opinion about what it is that we're trying to do. And so that's all I wanted to say about that. So I wanted to make sure that I clarified that a little bit. If you haven't listened to the last episode, then you might want to go back and listen to it. And this will certainly make more sense once you do. So thanks for that. Today I'm talking about censorship. What does it mean to censor? The dictionary defines censor as a person who supervises conduct and morals, an official who examines materials like publications or films for objectionable matter. And that, ladies and gentlemen, then begs the question, who decides what is questionable or not? Now, I'm often interested in the etymology of a word, and simply put, it's the history and development of words and their earliest recorded use. In the case of the word censor, it comes to us from as early as the fifth century BC, a Roman magistrate, and I'm reading this from something that I found online at I think it's etemonline.com, et y m online.com. In any case, there was a Roman magistrate who took a census and oversaw public manners and morals, and then from the French censor and directly from Latin censor, from censor, C-E-N-S-E-R-E, to appraise, value, or judge. It goes on further to say that they also had charge of public finances and public works. The transferred sense of officious judge of morals and conduct in English is from the 1590s. The Latin censor had also a transferred sense of a severe judge, a rigid moralist, a censor. It goes on to say that from the sixteen forties as an official empowered to examine books, plays, and later films, to see that they are free of anything immoral or heretical. By the early decades of the nineteenth century, the meaning of the English word had concentrated into a state agent charged with suppression of speech or published matter deemed politically subversive. I know that's a lot to take in there, but suffice it to say, a censor back centuries ago had a lot more power and authority to actually destroy someone's life because they were not conforming to what the prescribed censor had in mind, which was a very in one case rigid moralist. I'm certain that most of us would probably not be too happy to live in such a society as that which I just read from the fifth century, as well as from the 17th and 19th centuries. So I guess count your blessings, folks. And I will say that I, for one, am certainly happy to be living in the 21st century. But in any case, who has the right to censor speech or conduct or art or anything like that? Isn't it true that generally speaking, works of art like books and movies, in other words, all works that can be classified as art are given greater latitude than, say, political speech? I think so. I think that oftentimes art has this notion that it's protected, that people should be able to express themselves in a way that pleases them, and that is then classified as some form of art, and that political speech doesn't necessarily reach that definition. I don't know why that's generally true, but I think it is. And remember, of course, that the origins of censoring revolved around individual conduct and morals. I don't know that that is the case today. I mean, if it's indeed legal to produce all kinds of what I would refer to as questionable art, say in paintings or music, books, even pornography, which is legal, then why is it that the act of free speech isn't given the same latitude? That's a question I would have. And perhaps maybe that's a question you've asked yourself before as well. And if you haven't, now's a good time maybe to try to figure out an answer to that question. Well, there are numerous examples of what I'm talking about, and I'll just cite a few here. One is how about social media outlets that control what users can see on their platforms? That's an attempt to control speech. What about banning conservative groups from college campuses or banning public figures from social media platforms like what happened at Twitter with Donald Trump? And what about the government targeting political groups simply because they believe differently? Now, as I said, these are just a few examples of probably many, many others that we could come up with if we took the time, but that's not what I'm going to do today. I wanted to cite a few examples just to give you some context of what I'm talking about. Personally, I simply do not care what political philosophy people believe. I simply believe that they should have the right to believe what they believe, and they should have an ability to say what they want to say, whether that's in a social media setting or wherever else, at a college campus or doesn't matter where. People should have the right to speak about what it is that they believe in. That's the American way. And though it's true, I may disagree with a particular form of art, it doesn't mean that I want it to be banned. I simply choose not to support it. And that is the essence, I think, of disagreement or of speech that we don't particularly care for. Guess what? There's a ton of different outlets out there today. Go and find something that you like, something that you can support. You don't have to be forced to listen to something or to watch something that you don't want to. It's that simple. I mean, come on. Now, certainly when it comes to children, I believe that they should be protected from such art or not exploited by it because a small minority of people seem to think it's okay for children to be exposed to it. As an adult, I have the ability to distinguish whether something is morally destructive to me, but a child does not. Furthermore, many people willingly submit themselves to a canon of religious or otherwise moral belief. Now, in that case, if one is found to have violated a certain standard, then one may be subject to excommunication from the organization. Now, such actions are known typically by those who accept the prescribed canons of their religion. And if some sort of censorship takes place, it is usually at the purview of the governing body. Most people get into something, and when they do get into something, whether it's religious or some other organization, they typically are aware of prescribed behavior that must be adhered to in that organization. And if it's not, then actions will be taken and someone could run the risk of being excommunicated, as I said. But let's talk specifically about our system of government. In other words, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. We are free to speak our beliefs without fear of reprisal from the government or even from social media outlets. That's just the way it is. You may be thinking that since no one is forcing us to subscribe to a particular social media outlet, then they are at liberty to determine who they censor and who they don't, meaning those who run those particular social media companies. And for the most part, I would agree with that. However, if the censoring is one-sided, as it most often is, then that's where I have a problem with it. For Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or any other social media outlet to claim misinformation, disinformation, or speech or conduct that is detrimental to democracy is nothing more than an excuse because it is typically extremely subjective. In other words, if any social media outlet doesn't like the say conservative or center right leaning opinion, and let's face it, most of the opinions of the social media companies, the media, is very left-leaning. There's a bias there. If you don't believe that that's true, then we could have a discussion about it sometime. But I would ask you to take a look at it and objectively look at how the media and social media outlets treat conservative or center right leaning thought, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is subjective, and there's simply not a lot, if any, objectivity to even the newscast of the day. It's pathetic. In reality, as far as I'm concerned, the only way that speech can be controlled is by Congress. Listen to this. Quote, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, end of quote. So if Congress is the only organized body that is permitted by the Constitution to make a law abridging speech, then where does that leave everyone else? I get it. I understand what the First Amendment says. It says that Congress shall make no law. No one else can create a law. It can certainly create a standard that is, again, very subjective and very, I would say, damaging to free speech. And they do it all the time. These social media companies do it all the time. But any entity other than Congress that attempts to abridge speech in any way, to me, seems to be a violation of our rights. As far as I'm concerned, there is no organization outside of government that has the right to make a law or even decree that speech is curtailed or even remove the right to speech. But if that ever was to happen, in other words, if our government ever creates a law that restricts our right to speech, worship, assembly, and the press, then God help us. Because we will have devolved into a totally morally bankrupt society, without a doubt. My view on this whole thing of censorship really is if you're so concerned that an opposing view is so detrimental, then maybe you should evaluate or re-evaluate where you stand in your beliefs. Because I'm not worried at all about anybody having a belief that is different from mine. What I'm concerned about and what I will do is support and defend the Constitution, because that's where the bedrock of our society is. If that is taken away, or if rights are stripped away from it, then as I said, we will be in trouble. There is no other way to characterize it. These rights must be preserved by everyone who loves freedom and liberty in this country. There's no other way to say it. No social media company, no government, no media, no one has the right to curtail speech. And again, to make excuses for it by saying that it's misinformation, disinformation, or somehow threatens democracy is a pathetic excuse for saying uh we don't like what you're saying because it might persuade other people to go away from us. When it comes right down to it, it's a fear of losing power. When politicians get into office, they want people to vote for them. There's no mistaking that. But what they want is they want power. They're drunk with it, they lust after it. It is the most important thing to some politicians, and I dare say, unfortunately, many politicians. We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow people to be in office who would usurp the Constitution, who would willingly strip rights away from citizens. It's diabolical and it must never be allowed to happen. And if it does happen, we need to do something about it. We need to get people out of office who are going to do these things, and get people into office who will preserve these rights for everyone. Period. Well, I hope you enjoyed this episode, ladies and gentlemen. I certainly enjoyed putting it together for you, and I appreciate your taking the time to listen. And there are a ton of podcasts out there. So thank you very, very much for taking the time to listen today. I want to end this episode today with a quote from Charles Dickens. We all know Charles Dickens as the author of many great works, one of which is a Christmas carol. This quote, however, has nothing necessarily to do with Christmas, but he said this The American elite is almost beyond redemption. Moral relativism has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning right from wrong. Everything can be explained away, especially by journalists. Life is one great moral mush, sophistry washed down with Chardonnay. The ordinary citizens, thank goodness, still adhere to absolutes. And with that, if you can think it, you can plan it. If you can plan it, you can do it.