Is censorship a tool in the hands of the state to control the freedom of the press?

Introduction

The statement says that censorship is an instrument the state uses to control the press. It is partly true as a matter of history and practice, but the matter is more complicated, because some limits on speech can be defended. The answer gives reasons on both sides.

Freedom of expression and the press

Freedom of expression is among the choices placed in the minimum area of non-interference. It gives people room to be creative and original in writing, dance, music and other activity; and the right to express one's views freely and to protest and dissent are civil liberties which, with political rights, form the basis of a democratic system. Protest, NCERT says, forms part of the free expression the Constitution guarantees to citizens, provided it harms neither other people's life or property nor the State's, and citizens may use the media, among other means, to try to influence public opinion and government policy. The demands for bans that NCERT discusses reach published work of every kind: books, plays, films and even articles in research journals. The saying attributed to Voltaire, that one may disapprove of what is said and yet defend the speaker's right to say it, is NCERT's example of the commitment a society should have.

The reasonable-restrictions test applies to the press as to all expression: a constraint must be capable of being defended by reason and not out of proportion to what it restricts. Citizens are also told to be vigilant when governments restrict civil liberties in the name of national security, since such powers can be misused and governments can become authoritarian.

Censorship and its limits

Meaning. Censorship is the restriction, by an authority, of what may be said, written, shown or performed. NCERT's discussion begins from demands to ban books, plays, films and even academic articles, and it treats the censorship of films, where only a portion is cut, as a partial form of banning. The authority need not be the state alone: constraints backed by organised social, religious or cultural authority, or by the power of the state, restrict freedom in ways that are hard to fight against. A ban also has a cost beyond the work it silences. It quiets the protesters quickly, but each ban makes the next one easier, and a society that starts banning slides into the habit, to the lasting harm of its freedom.

The case against. J. S. Mill defended freedom of expression even for ideas that look false, and his reasons fall into two groups. Some concern the limits of our knowledge: (1) we can never be certain that what we now hold true really is true, and ideas once suppressed as false have later proved true; (2) an idea that seems false may still carry a part of the truth, which a ban would throw away. Others concern how truth stays alive: (3) a truth that is never tested against opposing views turns into an unthinking cliché; (4) truth is in any case reached only through the clash of rival views. For Mill there is always a presumption in favour of liberty, so those who would restrict it must justify the restriction, and he wanted every restriction on free discussion removed because truth comes out of a free competition of ideas. Freedom of expression also gives people room to be creative and original, and the right to express one's views, to protest and to dissent is among the civil liberties on which democratic government rests.

The case for limits. Freedom may be constrained when other-regarding actions cause serious harm to others. Someone who runs an online campaign urging neighbours to drive a family of another faith out of their housing colony is not merely expressing a view: the campaign threatens the family's own freedom, so tolerance need not extend to it and it may be restrained. Lesser nuisances call only for social disapproval, as Mill held. Rights are also limited by the equal rights of others, and when they collide they have to be balanced: free speech gives no licence to urge a mob to attack a rival's shop, and freedom of expression has to be weighed against another person's privacy.

Reasonable restrictions. In constitutional discussion in India the justified constraints are called reasonable restrictions. A restriction qualifies only if it is in proportion to the act it targets, goes no further than it must, and rests on reasons that can be openly defended; it must never be so heavy that it destroys freedom itself, and restricting by habit is itself a danger to freedom. Justified constraints must also be supported by proper procedures and important moral arguments.

Evaluation. Restrictions should be narrow and reasoned, and the burden lies on those who would restrict; society should be willing to bear some inconvenience to protect freedom of expression. The question stays live because the pressure for bans often comes from groups in society, not only from the state, and it recurs whenever a book, film or play offends someone: suppose a comedian's show in a city auditorium is cancelled after one association objects to a single joke, and the case has to be argued afresh.

Is censorship a tool of the state? An assessment

In support of the statement. States have often used censorship against criticism. A ban settles a group's demand at once, which makes it tempting, but every ban makes the next easier, so a state that starts banning soon does it out of habit. Constraints backed by the power of the state restrict freedom in ways that are hard to fight against, and Mill's reasons show that suppression of opinion harms the search for truth. Rights exist to place constraints on state action, and restrictions on civil liberties imposed for national security can themselves become a threat to rights, because such powers can be misused and governments can become authoritarian.

Against the statement. Not all limits are tools of control: hate campaigns and incitement to violence cause serious harm to the freedom of others and may be restrained; the pressure for bans often comes from groups in society and not only from the state, as when an association forces a theatre to drop a play it finds offensive, with no government order involved; and rights themselves have limits.

Conclusion

Censorship can be used by the state to control the press, which is why restrictions must be narrow and reasonable, supported by proper procedures and moral arguments. But it is not by definition only a tool of control; the real test is whether a restriction prevents serious harm and is proportionate.