Censorship of “sensitive” words is HARM in disguise
The censorship of words that may disturb “sensitive” viewers is actually HARM in disguise
Language is comprised of words that have meaning. When the words are scrubbed to obscure the true meaning violent acts, they hide the real impact it has on victims of crime. I don’t know about you, but I find it infuriating! We don’t need media outlets to censor words such as: rape, murder, suicide or even the word death! What we need is a system that protects people from acts of violence and prosecutes perpetrators. THAT is what will protect the public, not censorship. Sanitizing factual language only serves to perpetuate societal harms.
YouTube and many other media outlets have run amok with paternalistic governance of what words we are allowed to say or hear. Anyone else roll their eyes upon hearing that someone has “been un-alived”? That’s not even a word but it is what creators have to say to not be censored. Parents are responsible for deciding what their children are exposed to but that doe NOT extend to the right of adults having free speech.
Interestingly, when searching Google, the parent company of YouTube, regarding the consequences caused by censoring language describing factual harm; this is the Google AI synopsis regarding why this is harmful:
“The primary consequence of scrubbing factual terms like rape, assault, and abuse from public discourse is the systemic erasure of the experiences of victims, which severely inhibits their ability to seek justice, healing, or societal support. When a society prioritizes linguistic sanitation over factual accuracy, it creates profound psychological, legal, and social dysfunctions.”
And yet, that is exactly what YouTube, Google, Yahoo and many other media outlets do. If you are bold enough to not surrender to their censorship, your work is hidden and demonetized. Censorship only protects perpetrators of violence and political operatives determined to suppress free speech. You have to wonder who are they actually trying to protect?
Additionally, censored language regarding violence and death further separates the impact of violence from reaching people who would be empathetic to victims, and perhaps even be moved to take action. It also stigmatizes victims of violence by demonstrating that the words that they experienced in real life are too dangerous to be spoken aloud; making what actually happened to a person become unrecognized or whose effects can be diminished.
Importantly, the dangers of censorship do not end with the blatant assault on civil liberty. It actively harms the ability for organizations that support victims of violence by minimizing data collection, which can be interpreted by hostile political groups to justify cutting funding for such needs. Without accurate and factual language, medical and legal systems are not able to fully understand the depth and breadth of these societal ills. Without accurate language legal systems are not able to directly address how these events effect an individual and society at large. Furthermore, it silences victims who want to talk about their experiences and potentially provide support for others. This is not possible if the words that describe their experience are erased from public discourse.
What is not spoken aloud dies in silence. We must speak up for accurate language to be used to describe real life dangers that will not cease to exist just because it is censored.
If you are curious about the results found in this search, it is copied below.
Google AI Overview
The primary consequence of scrubbing factual terms like rape, assault, and abuse from public discourse is the systemic erasure of the experiences of victims, which severely inhibits their ability to seek justice, healing, or societal support. When a society prioritizes linguistic sanitation over factual accuracy, it creates profound psychological, legal, and social dysfunctions.
1. Psychological and Interpersonal Harms
Gaslighting victims: Individuals cannot accurately name their trauma, leading to self-doubt and delayed healing.
Severe isolation: Victims assume they are alone in their experiences because nobody talks about them.
Shame and stigma: Replacing factual terms with vague euphemisms implies the reality is too shameful to acknowledge.
2. Legal and Institutional Failures
Weakened legislation: Lawmakers cannot draft precise protections or budgets without explicit, accurate terminology.
Underreported data: Crime statistics become deeply skewed, masking the true scale of societal violence.
Impeded law enforcement: Investigating, documenting, and prosecuting crimes requires precise, unambiguous language.
3. Societal and Cultural Erosion
Normalization of harm: Erasing the words does not erase the acts; it merely hides them, allowing perpetrators to operate with impunity.
Loss of public empathy: A population sheltered from the raw vocabulary of injustice loses its collective urgency to fight it.
Compromised education: Safeguarding programs and consent education become ineffective when they cannot explicitly define what constitutes abuse.
4. Policy and Resource Deprivation
Defunded support systems: Crisis centers and hotlines struggle to justify funding when their core metrics are erased from public records.
Misallocated medical resources: Healthcare systems cannot accurately track or treat the specific physical and psychological fallout of these crimes.
To explore this dynamic further, let me know if you would like to focus on:
Historical or literary examples of linguistic censorship (such as "Newspeak").
The psychological impact of "algorithmic censorship" (algospeak) on internet forums today.
How legal systems depend on precise definitions to protect human rights.
If you would like to read more on this topic, check out this article by Outcry Witness: