“Error Page Not Found”: Digital Censorship and its Dangerous Ramifications for Us All

Article by: Amy Boghoussian / Graphic by: Kailyn Mai

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

This quote has stuck in my mind like glue since the moment I first heard it. It’s a simple phrase, yet it has persisted in my head for years, not because of its sophistication, but because it represents the true foundation of our democracy, one I believe we are losing as a nation: freedom of expression. While our Constitution enshrines this right, those in power are attempting to control the narrative. This isn’t new, censorship has existed since the conception of power itself. Yet in our digital age, censorship has taken on a new form, and if we as a nation fail to protect our right to voice our opinions, our freedom to do so may erode, along with America as we know it.

Censorship today manifests in many forms: political censorship imposed by legislation and mandates, religious censorship dictated by faith doctrines, corporate censorship driven by profit motives, and self-censorship practiced by individuals. But in America, where just six companies control 90% of our media, and where both Big Tech and these multibillion-dollar conglomerates receive generous taxpayer-funded incentives, subsidies, and tax cuts, the line between private company and public utility is blurring. And when notifications become the new paperboy, that line needs to be loud and clear, because digital censorship has become indistinguishable from government censorship.

Big Tech is now doing the government’s dirty work, and it will continue to act as an obedient lapdog just as long as the money keeps rolling in. While this problem has worsened in recent years, it has persisted across administrations and eras, making it a bipartisan issue. Whoever controls the country now holds undeniable influence over what we see and do online, with the power to silence dissenting voices at will. And with the current presidential administration doing just that – by filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage it dislikes, threatening to revoke broadcast licenses, and pressuring social media platforms to comply with its agenda, – the question of what we can say, and where we can say it, has never been more important.

Of course, like any complex issue, there are no absolutes. Censorship can be beneficial, and even necessary, in some instances. While the First Amendment protects much of our expression, certain forms of speech whose harmful effects outweigh their constitutional freedom have been deemed unprotected by the Supreme Court. These include incitement or threats of violence, obscenity, and defamation. The ability to remove such content protects everyone, especially those most at risk of prejudice and bigotry, such as minorities, and those who are impressionable and should be shielded from obscene material, such as children.

However, as we enter an era of intensifying ideological polarization, people now seek not merely to limit speech that is demonstrably harmful, but to suppress any expression that challenges their worldview. Increasingly, individuals place comfort over constitutionality, demanding protection from discomfort rather than from injustice. Again, this issue transcends party line. From book banning to political violence, both sides of the spectrum often support, endorse, and excuse censorship when it serves their own interests.

This leads to an essential question: Who determines what content should be censored? And how do their biases influence the lines they draw? If we allow our voices to be silenced, it must be for a justifiable reason. We cannot conflate feelings with constitutionality in an attempt to preserve any illusion of unity.

Censorship, no matter how well-intentioned or expertly justified, weakens the foundation of our nation and leaves our populace less informed, more divided, and, ultimately, more easily manipulated. When open debate online is replaced by shadow-bans, algorithmic suppression, and “fact-checks” that serve political convenience, truth itself becomes a casualty. In its place, lies and propaganda thrive, shaping perception and reality alike. Political polarization deepens as citizens retreat into echo chambers, hearing only what confirms their beliefs. And as our digital public square shrinks, power consolidates. And it ultimately and predictably serves the same group: those whose interests have already prevailed. Authoritarianism does not always arrive with violence or fanfare, instead it seeps in quietly, disguised as protection, order, or virtue. People then begin to censor themselves, fearing judgment or punishment, until the spiral of silence becomes complete.

Yet, the solution to harmful or offensive speech has never been less speech – it has always been more of it. The antidote to ignorance is conversation, not suppression. Through dialogue and disagreement, we can sharpen our ideas, strengthen our democracy, and create better, more honest public governance for all. If we truly wish to preserve America’s liberty, we must defend not just the speech we agree with, but the speech don’t. Because the moment we begin deciding who may speak, we also decide who must remain silent, and that silence will cost us our nation.

Works Cited

Frasz, Sofia. “Impacts of Censorship on Political Polarization.” Honors Program Theses, 2022, scholarship.rollins.edu/honors/175.

G, Valeria. “Pros and Cons of Censorship: A Detailed Breakdown.” Internet Reputation, 7 May 2024, www.internetreputation.com/pros-and-cons-of-censorship-a-detailed-breakdown.

G, Valeria, and Valeria G. “Pros and Cons of Censorship: A Detailed Breakdown.” Internet Reputation, 7 May 2024, www.internetreputation.com/pros-and-cons-of-censorship-a-detailed-breakdown.

Gibson, James L. “Self-censorship and the ‘Spiral of Silence’: Why Americans Are Less Likely to Publicly Voice Their Opinions on Political Issues.” The Free Speech Center, 10 Oct. 2025, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues.

Karina Kalfas, Nicolette. When Words Become Weapons: How Hate Speech Threatens Democracy. 25 Sept. 2025, www.idea.int/news/when-words-become-weapons-how-hate-speech-threatens-democracy.

Nossel, Suzanne. “The Fate of American Democracy Depends on Free Speech.” MIT Press Direct, 1 Aug. 2024, direct.mit.edu/daed/article/153/3/119/123992/The-Fate-of-American-Democracy-Depends-on-Free.

Seuferle, Justus. “Why Real Democracy Needs Conflict, Not Consensus.” Social Europe, 10 Aug. 2025, www.socialeurope.eu/why-real-democracy-needs-conflict-not-consensus.

Spike, Justin, and Nicholas Riccardi. “Trump’s Moves Against Media Outlets Mirror Authoritarian Approaches to Silencing Dissent.” PBS News, 18 Sept. 2025, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-moves-against-media-outlets-mirror-authoritarian-approaches-to-silencing-dissent.

Stone, Geoffrey, and Eugene Volokh. “Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press | Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/266.