Solving Press Censorship by Revolutionary Means

By Ray Eschenbach

Image by Megan Krumpak

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, a Soviet-Russian poet, once said, “The truth is replaced by silence, and silence is a lie” (Yevtushenko 1). Throughout history and today, journalists and press organizations have faced censorship of many forms, including self, hard, and soft censorship. According to the 2021 World Press Freedom Index, nearly seventy-five percent of the world’s journalism is threatened. At the same time, China has detained over 115 people related to journalism, and BBC has even banned quite a few news services from airing in their country.i Often, it is because they are speaking critical truths about leaders, governments, or historical events. Because of how oppressive and controlling these governments and leaders can be, the people being ruled over feel there is no way to solve the issue. They believe there is no point in rebelling, for they would surely not be another step closer to gaining their freedom of speech and press. Conversely, any change conceived within a country or society comes about with rebellion and freely expressing beliefs. It is not enough to go out and spread awareness of the governments that strip its people of their rights to speech and press. People must communicate with each other and gather to bring about such a drastic change in how their country controls press freedom. While people can back down and live with constant oppression, that does not mean authoritarian and totalitarian countries can be permitted to utilize severe punishment to prohibit journalists from publishing the truth; therefore, people should gather to bring about a revolution for the betterment of their lives and others.

Undoubtedly, anybody claiming press censorship is not worth solving is sorely mistaken. About a year ago, journalists Maria Ressa and Dmitri A. Muratov won the Nobel Peace Prize for their outstanding work in journalism in the face of suppressive governments. In a few of her online news articles, Ressa criticized and questioned the leadership of President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, which has sometimes resulted in criminal charges against her. At the same time, both Ressa and Muratov complete some of their press work under the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, which also criticizes the leadership of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.ii Governments like these tend to suppress their criticism and publications by utilizing legislation and even arrests. Their global recognition for their relentless, truthful work not only gives humanity hope for the future of society, but serves as a wake-up call for people worldwide to recognize that not everybody is given the same opportunities to speak their opinion and demand justice. Great role models like these should not be ignored, for tens of thousands of people face a similar reality worldwide. The censorship of the press no matter how quiet or severe, is unjust and unfair to its people. Governments, like the ones mentioned previously, still manage to lead oppressively with virtually limitless power, and people view them as omnipotent and unstoppable because of it. People must find a way to get together, inspire each other to stand up for themselves, and earn their lost freedoms.

Even further, while some countries and governments impose laws and restrictions on what journalists can publish, others will quietly enforce press censorship with the hope that nobody notices them while they do so. A few weeks ago, a protest was held in Hertfordshire, England, concerning the ongoing Just Stop Oil movement, protesting the production and use of fossil fuels. While the protestors were arrested, the situation became a concern when an LBC (Leading Britain’s Conversation) radio reporter was also arrested. This reporter was taking note of the protest activity and was a decent distance away from the activists. Despite her distance and valid press card, she was arrested alongside the protestors with the same charge as them. What is even more concerning is that the officers that arrested her, as well as Hertfordshire’s police and crime commissioner David Lloyd, did not emphasize or state that arresting her was a mistake or misinterpretation of the situation. iii Granted, it is sometimes tricky to understand or grasp a situation happening somewhere in the world when they have never experienced those stressful environments. However, that does not qualify as a valid excuse for claiming that press censorship is not a big deal and can be easily solved. Totalitarian and authoritarian countries, as well as “well-rounded democratic” countries, are guilty to some extent of these acts of press censorship. Solving them at their core is not something that can be done at the flip of a switch. Governments, private organizations, and politicians will do anything and everything in their power to enforce their beliefs, rulings, and missions, even if it means censoring the truth so that they may continue to prosper and be viewed only through positive perspectives. Something must be done about this, for staying quiet is no longer a viable, productive option.

For a change to be made, there must be a revolution. One of the most significant decisions throughout history in the interest of earning freedom, including press freedom, is inspiring and bringing about a revolution against a ruler. They have led to drastic, dramatic changes in any given society, and they are the most effective way to ensure that its people receive their demands and earn for themselves the reality they most seek. While the reality remains that revolutions can and will bring about unimaginable events, ranging from violent nights to harsh conditions upon a country’s people, it is vital to remember that nothing great ever comes easy in life. Without structure and a will to fight for what is deserved and justified despite the authoritarian rulings, a revolution cannot occur, and no freedoms will be earned. The only thing that will remain is hope; hope cannot change society without somebody to utilize it. Thus, there must be a revolution in countries where press censorship is ongoing and unjust.

In reiteration, a revolution needs structure and unity for it to work. The people that lead and participate in the revolution must acknowledge the vitality of sharing identical goals and working as one. This is necessary to ensure that a revolution that overthrows their government and radicalizes new movements is accomplished. While people could rebel, express anarchy, and work in separate groups to achieve a similar goal, these are not guaranteed methods. Several years ago, Alessandro Moro, an economics professor at Foscari University in Venice, Italy, researched how the structures of revolutions affect their outcomes. As seen above in figure one, he compiled a collection of tables with timelines of simulated successful, anarchy, and failed revolutions.iv Unfortunately, the variables of these simulated revolutions are not precisely scaled; nonetheless, the calculations remain valid. In successful revolutions, where many people work together simultaneously, there are more active citizens than jailed ones, and more policemen die than revolutionaries. In contrast, the results of anarchy and failed revolutions are essentially the flipped results of a successful revolution. Revolutions can work to fulfill any demands a society wishes. With this data in mind, it is vital to recognize that revolutions must consist of structure to some capacity, and the people involved must work together to work towards a shared goal. Without a plan, anarchy will ensue, and little will be accomplished; without unison, revolutions will fail.

Furthermore, spreading radical ideas, reaching a standard agreement, and joining forces lead to a revolution’s success. For example, the French Revolution is one of many credible historical examples that resulted in a successful revolution and increased press freedom. The people involved in this revolution worked both harmoniously and with determination. The journalists of the revolution, especially, were involved and fought against their censorship. Ironically, some journalists during this period, including Jean-Paul Marat and Jacques Hérbert, became politicians that encouraged the values and acts in part of the revolution. While their spreading and encouragement of these radical ideas were what led to their execution, their publications, followed by their deaths, were what inspired the revolution and its Parisian workers to push forward.v Even during times of severe press censorship by a society’s rulers, the people still manage to rise to the occasion, summon their courage and dedication, and fight for their freedoms to end feudalism and return press freedom to its rightful status in society. While the world has evolved into a modern era that has separated its people with technology and “wise” rulers, the people being oppressed can still utilize these tools to their advantage. People can learn from history and use it to learn valuable lessons about why historical events failed horrifically. In learning from the people who initiated and accomplished revolutions, others can adopt these strategies, modify them where necessary, and initiate their revolutions to fight for whatever goals they seek, including press freedom.

Conversely, those that oppose this solution commonly argue that fighting for press freedom via a revolution is not a viable option because of their likeliness to fail. They believe that due to the absolute power that authoritarian and totalitarian countries possess, it is virtually impossible to initiate a revolution to change how a society runs without suffering mass casualties. They would argue that there must be better alternatives to changing how a government rules over its people by encouraging spreading awareness or protesting governments and laws prohibiting freedom of speech and the press. They would also refer to various historical moments of failed revolutions and the countless people suffering. For example, the Arab Spring started in 2010 and included countries ranging from Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. They each led many rebellions and attacks that contributed to one revolution, fighting for pro-democracy and against poverty and corruption. In short, the Arab Spring did not result in a successful revolution, and more violence, civil war, and oppressive political power ensued. People who oppose relying on revolutions to solve the issue of press censorship will utilize moments in recent history, such as the Arab Spring, to go against it. Unfortunately, the reality remains that revolutions bring about unspeakable violence and terrible events that result in the torture and deaths of many (both directly and indirectly). The people making demands will struggle and face the probability of failing because the people who rule over them will have more armed forces, supplies, and resources. Furthermore, many may see that revolutions can only be an absolute last resort to solving an issue.

On the other hand, the people who attempt to utilize moments in history where revolutions fail are still likely to overgeneralize or overlook a situation. They may argue that not all revolutions will succeed, but it is imperative to recognize why they may fail. It is not enough to say that revolutions will bring about great violence in the people who fight and the non-participatory citizens. One must analyze what state a country or society is in, what impediments they may face, and what they must do to counter them. Returning to the example of the Arab Spring, while it failed, it is vital to recognize why the sum of the events did not lead to a positive conclusion for those who rebelled. In Clea Simon’s article about the aftermath of the Arab Spring, he asked two people about their perspectives on the attempted revolt. Tarek Masoud, a professor of public policy at the Kennedy School and a professor of international relations at the Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman, briefly argued why things did not go according to plan. He explained the following: “If you look at the region right now, it’s really torn between these two movements: one movement for democracy, and another that’s led from the top by so-called modernizing autocrats who are saying to their people, “Look, we understand that our societies are bedeviled by a host of problems that are the result of decades of mismanagement.” (Masoud 8)

Even further, Hicham Alaoui, a Weatherhead Center for International Affairs associate, explained from an analytical perspective why the Arab Spring failed. He stated, “[The] first burst of energy disrupted the system, but it lacked structure — or plans for the future. In the power vacuum, Islamists rose up, and the surviving autocrats clamped down, as in Egypt, where the military repressed the Muslim Brotherhood” (Alaoui 3). There is no doubt that revolutions may not be the best or most attractive answer that anybody turns to when wanting to encourage a change in society. However, it is vital to recognize that not all protesting and methods of spreading awareness about an issue will work. One of the few ways politicians and leaders ever pay attention to what their people are saying is when they rebel against their rulings and laws. While revolutions are guaranteed to incite violence and destruction to some capacity, in cases like press censorship, where people are met with hidden corruption and death threats, there is no better way to change how society runs than with a revolution.

All in all, it goes without saying that censorship of the press continues to be a vital issue, and the best way to solve it is by starting a revolution. By going against the leaders that repress and silence the truth, people can stand up for themselves and start a new society that promises speech and press freedom. Freedom of expression is a vital idea that must be maintained in a society and throughout the world. It is one of the most significant fundamental rights a human being should have in life. More countries should encourage freedom of speech without governments silencing them because they are critical of their actions and beliefs. Even in the quietest ways, such as self-censorship, people will hide their publications, beliefs, and values in fear of criticism. Nobody should face censorship, whether due to an oppressive government or anxiety of society judging their work. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and press freedom must be vitalized worldwide. Only through a dramatic change in society via a revolution, however, will this happen. People must act, stand up for what is right, and demand justice and freedom for the fundamental right that all human beings deserve.

Endnotes

i “Censorship of the Press” Gale Global Issues Online Collection

ii Cohen, Roger “Recognizing the Growing Repression of…”

iii “In Censoring the Press,…” Sunday Telegraph

iv Moro, Alessandro, “Understanding the Dynamics of…”

v Cragin, Thomas “Journalism”

Works Cited

“Censorship of the Press.” Gale Global Issues Online Collection, Gale, 2021. Gale in Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CP3208520286/GIC?u=sshe_sru&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=1856fe0a. Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.

Cohen, Roger, et al. “Recognizing the Growing Repression of the News Media by Governments.” New York Times, 9 Oct. 2021, p. A5(L). Gale in Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A678419749/GIC?u=sshe_sru&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=5682d0f4. Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.

Cragin, Thomas. “Journalism.” Culture & Popular Culture/Modern Recreation & Leisure/Religion/Education & Literacy/Everyday Life, edited by Peter N. Stearns, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001, pp. 419-32. Vol. 5 of Encyclopedia of European Social History. Gale in Context: World History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3460500256/WHIC?u=sshe_sru&sid=bookmark-WHIC&xid=6c76f123. Accessed 19 Nov. 2022.

“In Censoring the Press, the Police Have Dangerously Overreached; The Arrest of a Reporter at a Just Stop Oil Protest Should Alarm All Who Care about Free Thought and Uncensored Debate.” Sunday Telegraph [London, England], 13 Nov. 2022, p. 18. Gale in Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A726363348/GIC?u=sshe_sru&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=0af7bb2c. Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.

Moro, Alessandro. “Understanding the Dynamics of Violent Political Revolutions in an Agent-Based Framework.” National Library of Medicine, Apr. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841579/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2022.

Simon, Clea. “Ten Years Later: Was the Arab Spring a Failure?” The Harvard Gazette, 3 Feb. 2021, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/02/ten-years-later-was-the-arab-spring-a-failure/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2022.