Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?

Censorship is a controversial word that has been with us for as long as we can remember. While some say that censorship is what prevents the world from being corrupted, others reject this notion by stating that censorships exist merely to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.


Censorship as defined by Wikipedia, is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Usually, censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media.Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. This is because of certain individuals and pressure groups that identify these materials as inappropriate. So, putting the question into perspective, is censorship ever justified? As for me, I truly believe that censorship in certain circumstances is justified, though not in all. Below, I will present both sides of the argument with reference to three articles.
I believe that censorship in areas such as pornography and mass media is justified. With today’s profound increase in violence, sex crimes, teen pregnancy, and other corrupt acts, it is indeed necessary to practice censorship. A closer look at society might prove multi media as being the main cause in this changing of ideals. The modern society has become insensitive to the acts shown on television, movies and video games. One of the main culprits of criminal behaviour is the violence in films. Violence shown in films may not only have a negative influence on those who are already violence prone but might also hinder the growth of children. In this age of media, where mass media plays an important role in the lives of people, exposing materials without censoring them might cause the public to become desensitized to these corrupt values. This is because, constant exposure to the false reality that happen in the media, cause people to become immune to the atrocious acts that occur in real life. Hence, it is necessary to have restrictions to watch certain movies based on their age due to the presence of violence and sexual scenes in them.


I also support the censorship of pornography. Pornography not only leads to crime and sex discrimination but also poses a potential threat to children. Children spend a great amount of time surfing the net. Hence, not censoring pornographic material might lead youngsters to develop a corrupt mindset. Moreover, children who are not matured enough might not be in the position to differentiate the wrong values from the right ones. In a recent study, Psychologist Edward Donnerstein (University of Wisconsin) found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior. True, that censorship of pornography does not censor thoughts and ideas; but censoring material published in the media form will bring protection to the society. Hence, I firmly believe that pornography does not have a positive effect and should be censored.
With reference to the articles entitled ‘SEX ARTICLE IN WELLINGTON HIGH PAPER CENSORED ‘ and ‘Students sue school over censored articles’, it is possible to see the controversies that might arise due to censorship. While the principal of Wellington expressed concern over the publishing of sex articles, the students saw this as way of quietening them down and restricting their freedom in free speech and expression. The concern of the principal is indeed justifiable, as she was afraid that kids in the ninth grade might not have the maturity level to handle such articles. Moreover, the principal said that the trend of high school students thinking that losing their virginity is the popular census and that they see no harm in it, is indeed worrying. In this case, censoring is justifiable, as it done for the well-being of the students and shows the potential danger of exposing such material to them. The argument presented in the second article was similar to that in the first article.

Though, practicing censorship in certain areas can be justified it is not always the case. Examples where censorship is not justified is in the area of music and literature and in circumstances where disclosure of information to public is beneficial. Music is a way in which many express their innermost feelings, and censoring certain music is indeed equivalent to suppressing their thoughts and freedom in expression. Furthermore, the censoring explicit expression used in literature not only changes the meaning of it but also undermines its purpose. After all, music and literature are art forms that are meant to be expressed and conveyed to public. The third article entitled ‘Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him’ shows that censoring of information that might be beneficial to the general public and their well-being is indeed unjust. He said that the Bush administration had tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming which included critics of the leadership body in The United States. This clearly proves that valuable information was withheld from public to protect the government’s interest.

Furthermore, many believe that censorship can never be justified as they feel that they should be free to decide what they watch or read, since, they are mature enough to know what is good and bad. Moreover, they feel that censorship is pointless, as nowadays people can travel to other countries and discuss ideas or read materials unavailable in their own country and that it is also impossible to block material on satellite or on the internet. Opponents of censorship also claim that unless the people of a nation are fully educated that there can be no development. Finally, the biggest argument against censorship for many people is the idea of personal freedom. As put in words by Charles Bukowski, ‘Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist.’

In conclusion, I believe that it is not true to say that censorship can never be justified, as censoring material in certain areas have clearly benefited the mankind. Censorship is not taking away the rights of citizens; it is protecting the rights of people who do not wish to be exposed to certain things. It is also a great tool in preserving morals and social order.




Links:
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/02/22/s1b_wellhigh_0222.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800