IAFF: Union Censorship

I blog occasionally about our union and post on the Facebook pages of my local and state organizations.

I’ve had posts removed from both by administrators or moderators.

Local 2068 removed a satirical post two days ago.

And the Virginia Professional Firefighters removed an earlier one because I referred to the IAFF executive board as “maggots feeding on a rotten carcass.”

I hope they don’t decide to censor this blog about censorship, though it would be ironic.

What’s an appropriate standard for censoring communications in a labor union?

My own local (2068) says the site is “lightly moderated” but they censored satire, one of the oldest and most respected forms of dissent. They did it despite the fact the short piece was full of references to current issues before our union.

A vibrant exchange of ideas is essential for any healthy society and limiting speech is, at least in our country, considered to be a grave exercise of authority only warranted under extreme circumstances.

Censoring is usually considered the province of management or the government.

Since the early 20th century, the definition of freedom of speech in the U.S. has continued to expand.

Should unions look to U.S. court decisions, especially those from the Supreme Court, for guidance on free speech?

Brandenburg v. Ohio, decided by the Supreme Court, is the effective standard, stating language must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

Clearly, members sharing strong opinions, and even doing so with strong language, is nowhere near the Brandenburg threshold.

Truth, as they say, is its own defense and anything short of hate speech or threats of violence should remain to be read and commented on.

The price of hair-trigger censorship is the forfeiting of an informed membership and the standard of “don’t like it, don’t read it” should apply to adult professionals.

In fact, the act of censorship is to suggest that the censor is able to think for the reader, a reckless idea, for sure.

As a society, and certainly as a union, we have much more to lose by chilling or curtailing the right to free and open debate than we gain by censoring ideas.

That’s when the bullies really triumph.