ABSTRACT
The courts have never constitutionally recognized, except in some narrow and isolated circumstances, any private right to censor. Only in a certain few cases have the courts allowed a burden on speech to be justified by anything remotely resembling a private right to censor. The Supreme Court decision, in its balanced look at the relative burdens involved, followed the parameters of a private right to censor. There has always been a common sense foundation for a private right to censor. Obviously, people do not indiscriminately read or view every bit of speech with which they come in contact. In terms of personal autonomy, a private right to censor is on par with the right to speak. Because of the changed circumstances of media pervasiveness, however, a private right to censor may now need not only constitutional recognition but governmental support, so as to make it a viable and workable right.
