Political censorship is thecensorship ofpolitical opinions in violation offreedom of speech,freedom of the press orfreedom of assembly.Governments can attempt to conceal,fake, distort, orfalsify information that its citizens receive by suppressing or crowding out political news that the public might receive through news outlets. In the absence of neutral and objective information, people will be prevented to dissent against the government orpolitical party in charge. The government can enforcemedia bias tospread the story that the ruling authorities want people to believe. At times this involvesbribery,defamation,imprisonment, and evenassassination. The term also extends to the systematic suppression of views that are contrary to those of the government in power.
According toCommittee to Protect Journalists's2024 prison census the world's leading jailers of journalists are:China, Israel and Palestine,Myanmar,Belarus,Russia,Egypt,Eritrea,Iran,Vietnam,Azerbaijan.[1]
The Cuban media is operated under the supervision of theCommunist Party'sDepartment of Revolutionary Orientation, which "develops and coordinates propaganda strategies".[2]
In the2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, strategic use of censorship by theEuropean Union has blocked the Russian government-owned media outletsSputnik andRussia Today at multiple levels and platforms. Studies show these two channels have been a disinformation tool at the discretion of theKremlin for years.[3] In turn,Putin has blocked foreign and domestic press as well asTwitter andFacebook through legislation punishing what the government labels as disinformation with long prison sentences. Oriol Navarro and Astrid Wagner from theInstitute of Philosophy (IFS-CSIC) suggest that this censorship poses a danger to freedom of expression and that the term “disinformation” can be easily used to legitimize the suppression of dissent in an analogue to the use of the word “terrorism”.[4]
In the Republic of Singapore, Section 33 of the Films Act bans of the making, distribution and exhibition of "party political films", at pain of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Act further defines a "party political film" as any film or video
In 2001, the short documentary calledA Vision of Persistence on opposition politicianJ. B. Jeyaretnam was also banned for being a "party political film". The makers of the documentary, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, later submitted written apologies and withdrew the documentary from being screened at the 2001Singapore International Film Festival in April, having been told they could be charged in court. Another short documentary calledSingapore Rebel byMartyn See, which documentedSingapore Democratic Party leader DrChee Soon Juan's acts of civil disobedience, was banned from the 2005Singapore International Film Festival on the same grounds and See is being investigated for possible violations of the Films Act.
This law, however, is often disregarded when such political films are made supporting the rulingPeople's Action Party (PAP).Channel NewsAsia's five-part documentary series on Singapore's PAP ministers in 2005, for example, was not considered a party political film.
Exceptions are also made when political films are made concerning political parties of other nations. Films such asMichael Moore'sFahrenheit 911 are thus allowed to screen regardless of the law.[citation needed]
Many countries' campaign finance laws restrict speech on candidates and political issues. InCitizens United v. FEC, the United States Supreme Court found that many such restrictions are an unconstitutional form of censorship.[citation needed]
Over the course of history, many nations andpolitical organisations have utilised political censorship andpropaganda in order to manipulate the public. TheAncien régime, for example, is well known for having implemented censorship.
In 1851,Napoleon IIIdeclared himself emperor. Thewealthier citizens immediately saw in him a way to protect theirprivileges, that were put in danger by theFrench Revolution of 1848, which threatened to re-organise thesocial hierarchy. This was a time when all sorts of cultural productions was censored, fromnewspapers toplays.[6]
Independent journalism did not exist in theSoviet Union untilMikhail Gorbachev became its leader; all reporting was directed by theCommunist Party.Pravda, the predominant newspaper in the Soviet Union, had a near-monopoly. Foreign newspapers were available only if they were published bycommunist parties sympathetic to the Soviet Union.[citation needed]
In 1973, a military coup took power in Uruguay, and the state employed censorship. For example, writerEduardo Galeano was imprisoned and later was forced to flee. His bookOpen Veins of Latin America was banned by the right-wing military government, not only in Uruguay, but also in Chile and Argentina.[7]
