The backwards logic of censorship
Synopsis: The Backwards Logic of Censorship
In this thought-provoking episode of @The-Well, historian and free speech advocate Jacob Mchangama explores the paradoxical effects of censorship. Delving into historical examples, such as the crucifixion of Jesus and the trial of Socrates, Mchangama illustrates how attempts to silence dissenting voices often backfire, inadvertently magnifying their influence. He cites the modern-day “Streisand Effect,” where efforts to suppress information merely increase interest and exposure, as exemplified by Barbra Streisand’s attempt to remove a photo of her Malibu mansion.
Mchangama argues that while free speech can lead to uncomfortable or chaotic discourse, its benefits far outweigh the perceived need for control. Rather than suppressing undesirable ideas, society should embrace the messiness of free expression, fostering a richer and more inclusive public dialogue. His insights prompt a critical examination of current attitudes toward censorship, emphasizing that true progress lies in safeguarding the freedom to express diverse opinions.
Join Jacob Mchangama on this enlightening journey to understand why the quest to silence voices may ultimately empower them, making a compelling case for the protection of free speech as a cornerstone of a thriving democracy. Don’t miss the chance to subscribe to The Well for more enlightening discussions!
Watch the video by Big Think
Author Video Description
This interview is an episode from @The-Well, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the @JohnTempletonFoundation.
Subscribe to The Well on YouTube ► https://bit.ly/thewell-youtube
Watch Mchangama’s next interview ►
Historian and free speech advocate Jacob Mchangama explains how suppressing voices often has the opposite effect. From the crucifixion of Jesus fueling Christianity to Barbra Streisand accidentally amplifying photos of her Malibu mansion, attempts at censorship often strengthen what they aim to silence. Mchangama argues that while free speech can be messy and ugly, it remains essential to preserve its many benefits.
———————————————————————————-
About Jacob Mchangama:
Jacob Mchangama founded and leads The Future of Free Speech, is a research professor at Vanderbilt, and a Senior Fellow at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). A prolific commentator and author on free speech and human rights, he created the podcast “Clear and Present Danger” and wrote the 2022 book “Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media.”
———————————————————————————-
About The Well
Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life’s biggest questions, and that’s why they’re the questions occupying the world’s brightest minds.
Together, let’s learn from them.
Subscribe to the weekly newsletter ► https://bit.ly/thewellemailsignup
———————————————————————————-
Join The Well on your favorite platforms:
► Facebook: https://bit.ly/thewellFB
► Instagram: https://bit.ly/thewellIG
About Big Think
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content — with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields.
Video “The backwards logic of censorship” was uploaded on 10/21/2025 to Youtube Channel Big Think
📍
Helo
freedom of speech:
the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of RETRIBUTION.
Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level.
In private, freedom to speak one’s mind, is entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or auditorium, purely as a practical joke. Those who believe that free speech should be totally unconditional, will not be able to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example.
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma, is unethical, and must be punished by a superior – again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instruct them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
Hopefully the left come to realize this.
Free speech is paramount to the forward evolution of ideas and opportunities for humanity to grow with empathy and compassion! Well said
Freedom of Speech is a GIFT and a CURSE. In regard to humans expressing their ideas through various platforms, it's a GIFT. Transferring that right to technology is a CURSE. Humans are no longer solely behind internet accounts. Social media is manipulated by troll farms, special interest groups, algorithms and now artificial intelligence bots. In today's world, Americans are using "Freedom of Speech" to protect the very thing destabilizing their society. Rival nations, and special interest groups are weaponizing social media to sow division within the US. Until that concern is addressed, I feel "Freedom of Speech" in technology will make life a lot harder for Americans.
Martyrdom is a mostly religious phenomenon but if we going beyond of boundary of this tragic executions and violence we can see a very simple psychological effect: people and society as whole always is interested the price of the word, namely, is human’s persuasion, vision, words more worthy and valuable for him than his/her life, is he/she ready sacrifice himself for the ideas that he/she preach?
It's funny how the Templeton Foundation wants to champion the cause of religion, in this case, Christianity, and conveniently leaves out the elephant in the room: the Catholic Church's shady history suppressing, censoring 'heretical' ideas or books contrary to the Church teachings: Simone de Beauvoir, John Milton, David Hume, to name but a few in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
0:47 "open and tolerant" .. yeah thats the phrase for our current time.
Good or bad, without freedom to imagine (I'd argue that telling any individual what they can speak will also curtail what they imagine) we would not be living in the world we are today and very likely I wouldn't be typing this on a fancy electric communications box.
Censorship doesn't encourage much, besides corruption.
So, there was no media censorship in the USA during WW2?
I must say I doubt that Socrates is taught to "every" college student. Seems like the truth is close to none of them learning about him in college
Like finding uncensored jav.
Israel has no right to exist
danke
Please don't compare our Good Lord and his holy martyrs to these self proclaimed false "martyrs".
Charlie Kirk is the American Martyr.
Wow what an unbelievably silly take on the matter. The 2 key examples for speech that was ‘censored’ and then spread are not good examples of what u hope to talk about.
In both historical moments, the ideas being suppressed were addressing legitimate concerns the populace had with the current status quo. So there continued to be an appetite for these ideas, censored or not.
Are we pretending that there is a legitimate appetite for medical disinformation or nazi propaganda? I just don’t understand the point of this video.
Wouldn’t a much more interesting question be to ponder how do you handle speech or ideas that are intended explicitly to harm, misinform, and divide?
To tangle with your example of Christianity; no one today is saying we ought to suppress populist speech around class solidarity or labor reform, (even tho our corporate media actually does suppress that lol)
Where the martyrs at for that?
Obviously the issue lately is what to do with speech or ideas that are designed to harm, divide, and misinform.
If this is ‘big thinkin’ then maybe you need ur head shrunk.
Censorship saves lives.