Censorship goes viral with the Internet

By Marjorie R. Esman
Guest Columnist

During the week of September 21–27, the ACLU of Louisiana joined organizations around the country to participate in Banned Books Week. The week is highlighted by gatherings where people read from books that have been banned at one time or another. On one side, the annual event celebrates the freedom to read and the freedom of expression. On the other, it shines the spotlight on the bigger and more pervasive problem of censorship, which affects not just books but all means of expression.

While challenges to literary works are nothing new, censorship efforts have found a new arena in the Internet. Ubiquitous as a source of information and opinions, and as a means of transmitting this information, the Internet provides fertile ground for censorship zealots who would try to control what we read, write, see and say. Sgt. Colt Landry with the Abbeville, Louisiana, Police Department found that out recently when he posted comments on his Facebook page about working conditions at the Police Depart­ment. Sgt. Landry was informed that city policy, General Order 222 prohibits department employees from engaging in commentary on social media if the comments might give a “negative view towards” the police department, the city or its employees or residents. What constitutes a “negative view” isn’t defined, so there’s no way for anyone to know what kind of comment might get them in trouble.

Because the policy violated Landry’s right to free speech, the ACLU of Louisiana has filed suit to stop enforcement of General Order 222. Sgt. Landry maintains a private Facebook page on which he, like millions of Americans, posts comments about issues of concern or interest to him. Like many others, his comments occasionally address conditions at his workplace, but unlike most Americans, Sgt. Landry is subject to discipline if he posts anything that could be construed as critical—not just of his workplace but of the community itself or anyone who lives there. It’s impossible to know whether he could post a photo of a building in disrepair, because someone might think that reflects negatively on the community.

Sgt. Landry, like the rest of us, has the right to say what he wants on his private Facebook page, maintained on his own time. He shouldn’t have to risk his job for stating his opinion about his community. And because General Order 222 doesn’t define what is prohibited, workplace discipline is left to the arbitrary discretion of supervisors. Without clear guidance as to what is and what isn’t permitted, the employees of the City of Abbeville police department are, in effect, prevented from using social media altogether. This total ban on the expression of personal opinions and statements is simply not permitted in a free country.

This problem is not unique to Abbeville. Communities around the country have resorted to bans on internet speech for one reason or another, usually because they don’t want public criticism. The ACLU sued Abbeville for Sgt. Landry not just because his rights were violated, but also because he represents many others who suffer the same risk of punishment. The fact is that public employees have free speech rights like anyone else, and they don’t lose those rights simply by accepting jobs with the government. At the very least, the government has an obligation to provide clear standards so that people will know what they may and may not do – and when it comes to restrictions on speech, those standards have to be drawn very narrowly.

Censorship remains with us, despite the very clear Constitu­tional protections against it. Books, Internet speech, music, film, and all other forms of expression remain at risk if government is allowed to punish people for what they say or hear. The fact is that in a free society it’s not the government’s business to regulate what an adult chooses to read, say, listen to, or see. Recently we used this column to address mass surveillance tactics sometimes used by law enforcement and other government agencies. While censorship and surveillance may seem unrelated, they originate from a single line of thinking—that the government should have control over our very private thoughts. That, of course, is akin to totalitarianism, not free democracy. And as long as government agents forget that a free society means free speech, the ACLU will be around to remind them.

This article originally published in the October 13, 2014 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.