Censorship

In this post, I will be discussing censorship. The difficulty is, however, that censorship, both what it is and when it is permissible, can be quite confusing and at times convoluted. In order to avoid any confusion, I will attempt to organize it in a way that makes the most sense, keep in mind however that these categories are not necessarily exclusive and don't interrelate. In fact, they very often mix.

Censorship, unspecific
Just as the general will is declared by the law, the public judgment is declared by censorship. The one who enforces censor does not judge or make people's opinions but simple states them. censorship is needed to preserve and uphold the morality of State, it's mœurs. Good censorship prevents opinions from growing corrupt, which preserves mœurs. The goal is not to denigrate personal liberty, but rather preserve the love of good in society. However, the only time sensors can be set up is it a time of constitutional strength, when laws are strong and being upheld. if actions of censorship are taken at this time all is load nothing that comes out of a time when laws are weak remains or are good.

Public v private censorship
It may be important to delineate uses censorship by that of the government versus that of private entities. Both can you censorship, in the same way, to uphold good opinion, to preserve societies mœurs. But one, that our government, has particular restrictions and duties that the other, private, does not, as sincerely. For the government is formed out of contract and is particularly apt to corruption and abuse of power. This, however, does not excuse the private entity, which is still part of the society and still has a duty to the state.

To reiterate before diving into the street, the point of censorship should be to preserve good morals and values. It may be the explicit job of government to enforce the public opinion, with restrictions so as to avoid tyranny, but it is also the duty of all to preserve morality, as duty to state is second to almost none.

With that being said, we can analyze the street. The conflict in question, Facebook, a private social media corporation, decided to ban some people it deemed "extremist leaders". If these people are in indeed and in fact extremist leaders who are threatening morality and good values, who are threatening stability and peace within the state without due cause and are using Facebook as a platform for said danger, then it is good form for Facebook to ban them. Facebook is doing its duty to the people in preserving mœurs. If Facebook is wrong, and these people are not a danger or threat to what is good and just in the country, then shame on Facebook. But it is reasonable to say that figures such as Alex Jones and the others banned do threaten American society. They often perpetuate mistruth and lies, which is dangerous and corrosive to the general will and good mœurs. Facebook as the platform that allows such behavior has done well to end its assistance in their misdeeds. If it were the government intervening, it may be more complicated, but that bridge could be crossed, if not very carefully (though similar conclusions may still be arrived at).