Is the censorship by the government ever justified?

On one hand, governments often argue that restrictions on speech are necessary to protect public order and prevent harm.

Preventing the spread of misinformation - The rise of social media has allowed the mass accessibility of any type of information, whether true or false. Such an unregulated environment has allowed misinformation to spread, especially regarding journalism of political events. The UK has proposed and developed various initiatives, such as the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU). The CDU aims to tackle misinformation and disinformation online, particularly surrounding the COVID-19 Pandemic. This led to the flagging and censorship of various posts, such as those questioning the validity of vaccinations. 

Censorship, when dealt with care, can serve to protect public safety, prevent harm and maintain social stability

Preserving Order - Perhaps governments may choose to censor content that incites violence and hate speech. In these cases, censorship can be seen as necessary to maintain public order and protect religious/political beliefs, races, and genders from being excluded from a democratic society.

Preventing Extremist Polar ideologies - Similar to preventing speech that may incite violence or hate speech, governments may censor material that promotes a more extreme version of hate speech, such as extreme ideology. This form of censorship is typically done to prevent individuals from being recruited into terrorist groups. For example, the Prevent Strategy in the 2022/23 period led to over 6,000 referrals, supporting vulnerable individuals at risk of radicalisation.

On the other hand, many critics believe that such measures work towards infringing on fundamental freedoms of speech and democratic participation for the benefit of those who are censoring. 

Undermining free speech - One of the most common rebuttals against government censorship is that it undermines citizens' freedom of speech and ability to judge the world on their own accord. Furthermore, censorship goes against codified laws regarding freedom of speech, such as Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (1998) or the Higher Education Act (2023) in the UK. These laws are designed to protect open dialogue and prevent any type of government intervention. So, by these laws, government infringement on speech through censorship should not be permitted.

Censorship by governments, while often justified under the guise of societal welfare, inevitably clashes with the principles of free speech

Driven by an agenda- Even if the government prioritises the welfare of society, it cannot be denied that government censorship of speech sometimes requires a side to be taken. The government can sometimes censor investigations and opinions to hide its state secrets and promote a certain worldview. As a result, the state puts forward an agenda, preventing citizens from formulating opinions. Such censorship is largely undemocratic. 

No clear outlines - The censorship of speech by governments has no clear outlines. Without a well-defined criteria, the application of censorship can become inconsistent and unpredictable. Various examples have demonstrated this such as the mass-banning of books in Southern America. Such cases highlight the dangers of unclear standards, where the scope of censorship extends beyond what it may have intended to do.