Blog Post #7: Anti-War Messaging

Prior Restraint and the Spiral of Silence

The Spiral of Silence is the phenomenon in which individuals tend to silence themselves when they believe their opinion goes against the majority. Prior restraint is when the government prohibits speech or expression before it happens. Prior restraint is almost always unconstitutional; however, the government is still interested in controlling what is said, whether or not they do it outright. The spiral of silence allows the government to effectively prevent people from speaking out against the government by influencing the mass media.

                                    

Prior Restraint Exceptions

As stated before, the government, while constitutionally limited, has a desire to silence minority opinions. One of the exceptions to the prior restraint rule is the idea that threats to national security, especially during times of war, are able to be restrained without being unconstitutional. This prompts the government to stay in war. War gives the government more power to silence minority opinions. War gives people something to stay focused on while the government does what they want. It can seem cynical to claim that the government actively searches for ways to violate our constitutional rights, but the rights were put in place because they would otherwise be infringed upon. Without the protection of these rights, our government has genuine interest in creating narratives and silencing minority opinions that speak out against government action.

Desire for Comfortability

It is human nature for people to want comfort. The mainstream media needs to give people what they want in order to maintain ratings. One side effect of this idea is that the mainstream media is reluctant or unwilling to present controversial stories under the threat of public backlash. Anti-war messaging is often viewed as "extreme" or "isolationist" or as a threat to the government, so the media tends to avoid those stories. Outlets like CNN or Fox News have consistent and thematic news cycles and brands of stories, so these stories that challenge the status quo are generally left out in favor of comfort and stability through consistency.

These outlets are also in the business of controlling narratives, and anti-war messaging muddies these narratives and complicates what could be simple. They take the simple "good guy vs. bad guy" idea and complicate it. Anti-war protesting and journalism also shows people they are not powerless against the government and they don't have to be passive. This is not something corporate sponsors of the mainstream media want you to think.