Censorship Part II: Banishing What's Left to Achieve What's Right

Let us set aside the madness of celebrity thugs and analyze the facts, shall we? Censorship is a slippery slope, unless, of course, one has a specific goal when utilizing it. Perhaps the goal could be to create confusion, even division, among those who have been censored. It is difficult to ascertain the meaning behind such things. After all, the last thing major corporations would want is to stop us from criticizing them. These days, the term conspiracy theorist is used a bit lightly. I often times see very good journalists with unique stories branded as conspiracy nuts but couch potato critics everywhere. Sometimes it is difficult to know what is true and what is not true, or what is funny or what is not funny, and, supposedly, the answer to this mild inconvenience is to have people we will never meet decide what we view, hear or even write. Is there any real science behind censorship? Does it actually work? One may point to the fact that the rumored second attack from the DC rioters did not occur as "proof" for censorship working, but what is more likely is that the rioters saw the national guard prowling around with AK-47s. You know, the national guard that was absent the first go around. I am pretty certain that would make most rioters think twice, don't you?

I am already well aware that you cannot point to a scientific report that proves the effectiveness of censorship because censorship and science are, in fact, at odds with each other. Scientists are, by nature, skeptical of societal norms, which causes them to challenge said norms. If solid evidence is discovered that runs contrary to the political narrative of the moment, it is often censored. We have all heard the stories of the struggles of classical scientists, but do we still experience this censorship of knowledge today? Here is a quote from the article "Science and Censorship" by none other than the National Coalition Against Censorship:

"The benefits to society of robust and unencumbered scientific research and debate are incalculable, especially considering that government-sponsored research is often the primary means to developing sound public policy. While censorship in the fields of art and politics has traditionally garnered the preponderance of public attention, the 21st Century have brought increased scrutiny of First Amendment concerns in the area of scientific research.


Nationally, science has grown politicized. The federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, has frequently suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports. This incursion on the scientific community has impinged on a wide range of topics and research, including the environment, climate change, sex and health education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These attacks occur on both the state and federal level."

If the experts that we so frequently defer to are openly admitting that our government, who sets the standards for education, is "motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda", how do we know that science we acquire is up to date? No need to blame the schools here at all. Teachers can only teach what they are instructed to teach. The question here should not be, "how do we prevent people from being influenced by conspiracy theories"? The question worth answering is, "why do people seek knowledge that society cannot offer them?" As you have likely noticed by now, there is not much difference between a false conspiracy belief or a religious belief; the harsh reality is that believers don't have to be crazy, but they can all be censored.