Free-Market Censorship

In the US, the airwaves and the internet often include offensive, racist, unhinged, and violent rhetoric. Given the very limited degree to which the US government can intervene in the content of speech, underpinned by the First Amendment, there is virtually no way to ban destructive rhetoric through the legal and regulatory system. US society thereby depends on “free-market censorship” to sanction hate speech. This paradigm holds that offensive speech can be “defeated” in the marketplace of ideas through a variety of mechanisms. This presumes that the truth is more commercially profitable than lies, which is not always the case. Offensive shows attract an audience drawn to deranged rhetoric. If the show becomes commercially successful, the audience is unlikely to boycott the show in opposition. To get a better idea on the notion of free-market censorship, this paper first explores the jurisprudence of censorship as it exists in the US, followed by the construction of a working definition. Finally, the case of Glenn Beck’s tenure at Fox News will be explored. Ultimately, we will observe that free-market censorship remains a blunt and largely ineffectual tool for driving offensive speech from the marketplace of ideas