Category: Censorship

Introduction

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right but also a conflicting right as people are free to express their discontent and create upheavals in the working of society. Therefore, censorship of some kind is a must to stabilize or control society through the government’s assistance. First, the widespread support for censorship rest on the important societal goals served by it. It works for the benefit of each individual inhabiting society, whether it’s children, people, or society as a whole. Second, censorship protects each one’s religious or cultural background. They don’t let any sort of speeches publish that incites threat to any religion. Third, censorship is the heredity of government to safeguard a country’s unity, integrity, security. No matter with what sort of freedom people are being endowed, censorship defends national’s pride and honor. Thus, the rationale of censorship is that it is necessary for the protection of the three basic social institutions; the family; the religion; the state.

Essay Body

Censorship is the control of speech and other forms of human expressions which are entrusted for the benefit of society. Precisely, it restricts children from being dragged to the wrong path of life. (Dershowitz, 174) It fights for child pornography, unwanted sexual expressions, restricting them by fixing age compulsion for being participants of lottery games, drugs, visiting restaurants. In addition, it uplifts the social standard of society. It restores the moral values of society and protects people from defamation and obscenity. Apart from this, it checks that no people should enjoy other’s freedom. It allows people to enjoy their freedom by being in their bound. For example, if you have freedom, it does not mean that you will show your natural body in society. Therefore, censorship allows people to relax with their freedom and reminds them of its reciprocal duties and responsibilities.

Censorship refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, the internet, and other communication media to alter and suppress those parts thought to be offensive or objectionable for religious tolerance. It does not tolerate any sort of misbehaves with religions. It checks offensive speeches that are intended to stir up aggression against certain groups of religious, racial. Proponents of freedom adhere that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has mentioned in Article 19, “Everyone has the right to express, opinion, information regardless of frontiers.” Arguably, some circumstances get created in a society where no option is left with the government except “Censorship”. (Harer, 121) Such as, when 13 Nepalese were brutally murdered in Iraq and Nepal went through the destruction of Human Power Agencies and other resources were submerged in the anger on Nepalese people, the government has only one option to put censorship in the form of curfew. Moreover, some scholars criticized censorship on the ground that, “Censorship is an evil and suppresses people’s opinions by acting as totalitarian government.” But, one should not forget the good intention behind this suppression. This suppression is only for benefit of society. Therefore, censorship not only suppresses people’s freedom but also suppresses the evils of society. (Ziegler, 67)

The practice of supervising, restricting, or prohibiting the expression of intellectual conceptions or the dissemination of ideas is as old as the organization of society itself. Someone holding authority or claiming authority was always ready to object to the free circulation of ideas as a threatening danger to existing institutions, religious or political. The two earliest authorities recognized, by men, that of the ruler, whether of the family, the clan, or the State and that of the priest, the representative of the accepted religion, were equally interested in retaining control over the direction and the expression of thought. In the earlier communities, political and religious authority was frequently combined in the same individual. It is probable that in these states the contention for an authoritative control of opinion rested chiefly upon the risk that heretical utterances might interfere with the public peace.

Censorship cannot be explained by describing the United States as a nation hostile to freedom and intolerant of diverse debate, particularly since the country has become home to the greatest diversity of immigrants and ethnic groups the world has ever witnessed. Instead, the occurrence of censorship attempts reflects the remarkable degree of freedom present in society. For instance, the unsuccessful attempts to stop a Nazi demonstration several years ago in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois, only revealed the substantial degree of freedom available even to those who espouse the most unpopular of ideas. Indeed, censorship attempts achieve notoriety primarily because they contrast with the prevailing attitudes of freedom. (Dershowitz, 180)

Political scientists and legal scholars may debate the degree of freedom present in American society, but most people have fairly strong opinions on the freedom they believe they possess. Some of the most common expressions made in casual conversation or heated argument include: “It’s a free country”; “Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion”; and, of course, “You can’t tell me what to do.”

Whether they are or not, most citizens feel that they are free. The public appeal of the gun lobby and its banner of the freedom to own a gun, as well as the harsh reactions of people to any restrictions on their freedom to drive and travel, demonstrate the emotional hold of freedom on the American soul. (Harer, 124) In the United States, as the movies preach, anything can happen and anyone can say whatever he wants. Indeed, according to many social critics, the current problems in society do not arise from restrictions on individual freedom but stem from various excesses of certain types of freedoms.

As the oldest democracy on earth, political freedom has flourished here longer than in any other country. In addition to democratic political freedoms, Americans also enjoy the wide exercise of individual freedoms. Among those are the freedoms of religion, association, privacy, speech, and press. These liberties help construct a tolerant society of relatively free and diverse individuals.

Since Roger Williams departed from Massachusetts Bay Colony to start his settlement in what is now Rhode Island, religious tolerance has been both a legal and cultural principle. Although the early Puritans envisioned a society unified in the Puritan beliefs, it soon became a place of extraordinary religious diversity. From all across Europe came denominations of many kinds. Consequently, one of the constitutional aims of the independence movement was the prevention of any established church in America, particularly the Anglican Church of England. (Wirenius, 214)

In addition to the proliferation of sects in America, the religious activity of Americans has always been intense. The Enlightenment movements in both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, just as the evangelical movements today, revealed the vast public enthusiasm for religion and religious activity. This activity has also translated into political activity, as various religions have taken part in political reform movements such as abolitionism and antimonopoly of the nineteenth century and the child welfare, social justice, and civil rights movements of the twentieth century.

The courts have long upheld the free exercise of religious beliefs, even though that exercise may conflict with certain secular values and practices. For instance, a child cannot be expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag if such an act would violate the child’s religious beliefs. Nor can a person be forced to recite an oath that includes the phrase “so help me God” if that oath infringes on the person’s spiritual beliefs. (Harer, 127) The Supreme Court has ruled that if an individual is discharged from her job because her religious beliefs do not allow her to work on Saturday, that individual cannot be denied unemployment compensation benefits. Furthermore, compulsory school attendance laws cannot be enforced against children for whom such attendance would violate their religious beliefs. Even statutes forbidding fortune-telling have been held to not apply against persons whose religious exercise would be infringed. And, of course, persons who object to war on religious grounds cannot be forced to perform military duties or service. Even mandatory ROTC for public high school students has been held unconstitutional as applied to conscientious objectors. (Dershowitz, 182)

Although censorship has been defeated many times in the past, it has never been resolved. For to resolve the occurrences of censorship, we must discover and address the social forces underlying censorship crusades. Yet society’s primary focus on the question of censorship has usually occurred in the courts, which have to deal with the legal disputes over censorship activity of the government. The courts, however, can only tell the government how far it can go in controlling or interfering with whatever speech is at issue. (Harer, 128) They cannot determine the initial social and political causes of the eventual government censorship activity, nor can they resolve whatever underlying concerns the advocates for censorship may have been trying to address through censorship. The courts can only uphold or overturn each particular government-sanctioned censorship attempt.

Judicial determinations of specific censorship questions have often failed to resolve in the public mind the rules about that particular kind of censorship. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. State of California that certain obscene speech could be censored if “the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” (Wirenius, 212) Although this test was intended as an objective test, it is fraught with vague and uncertain elements and requirements. Thus, even if the public’s censorship attitudes rested on the rulings of the Court, those rulings fail to provide sufficiently specific and objective standards on which the public can rely.

Two important reasons exist for why society should not look to the courts for a fundamental resolution of the censorship question. First, the courts can generally only entertain cases involving government censorship — that is, where some governmental act or regulation infringes or restrains speech. However, since much censorship activity in society takes place outside of any governmental agency or activity, as is particularly the case at present, the courts are excluded from a majority of censorship matters that arise. (Barron, 79) Second, the judicial system can address a censorship issue only long after the particular censorship activity has been in effect and has slowly proceeded through the legal process to a final resolution. Because of the long delays in the judicial process, the courts often cannot aid the public in resolving or avoiding protracted and divisive censorship conflicts that absorb their social and political energies. (Cohen, 91)

This distractive quality of censorship presents one of its greatest dangers. As history has revealed, censorship of particular expressions never endures — the marketplace of ideas is never fully and forever denied the censored speech. Eventually, repressed speech breaks out into unfettered expression. However, the time and energy that society expends in the fight over censorship can never be regained. The more America concentrates its political and social energy on censorship matters, the less attention democratic politics can devote to the more pressing issues of the time. (Wirenius, 214) Consequently, politics becomes less responsive to the real needs of society. Thus, not only does our preoccupation with censorship prevent us from addressing other social concerns that require action, but it also contributes to a politics in which both public trust and political efficiency are eroded.

The distractive power of censorship arises in part from the democratic mindset. Democracy requires public attention on public issues. However, the framers of American democracy devised a political system subordinate to society and thus forced to compete with other social concerns for the attention of the citizenry. Within the scheme of America’s constitutional democracy, the government and political system were to be limited. Consequently, in the American democratic tradition, individuals have generally possessed and exercised a limited amount of political energy and attention. This limited political attention is reflected in the part-time status of many state legislatures. (Chambers, 54)

As a democracy ultimately run by citizens concerned with private careers, family lives, and community activities, America is capable of devoting only so much of its attention to the political arena. The more attention siphoned off by censorship battles, the less that is available for perhaps more pressing commitments. Thus the distractive role: an overly extended emphasis on censorship issues distracts the nation from needed action on other political matters.

It is difficult to determine how much of society’s attention and energy are devoted toward censorship disputes. Censorship has existed in various forms throughout the nation’s history, and therefore we cannot precisely determine the amount of social energy devoted to censorship simply through the presence of such issues. Nonetheless, one rough indication of the social energy consumed by censorship is the amount of attention devoted to such issues in the national political arena.

In education in general, like generations past, we are still exerting heavy censorship of what our children read and see. Within the last year, books including The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye, The Grapes of Wrath, and Ulysses were banned or removed from school libraries. Even My Friend Flicka was removed from a sixth-grade reading list in Green Cove Springs, Florida because the book contained the words “damn” twice and “bitch” once. (Dershowitz, 186) A Mankato, Minnesota, school system excluded books advocating corporal punishment, and in the state of California during a recent two-year period there were approximately three hundred censorship challenges to various books, films, and other school materials used in the education curriculum. About half of those challenges were based on religious grounds or objections to depictions of Satan or witchcraft included in such classics as Shakespeare Macbeth and even in Snow White. Even films such as E.T. met with censorship challenges. (Wirenius, 216)

Sexually provocative and explicit materials continue to endure censorship pressures, as they have since public reactions against such classic literature as Nabokov Lolita, Joyce Ulysses, and Lawrence Women in Love. Today, as in the 1960s and 1970s, groups ranging from religious fundamentalists to radical feminists oppose the distribution and content of magazines like Playboy and Penthouse. (Ziegler, 66) As with the play Oh, Calcutta! in the 1960s, controversial plays and movies still feel the threat of censorship. The play, Norman, Is That You? was canceled from various performances across the state of Florida. It is a comedy about a couple who discovers their son is gay. The cancellations, according to gay rights activists, we’re part of a statewide censorship craze. (Barron, 84)

In the music field, things may not have changed greatly since Elvis Presley first came on the scene. Just as many found Elvis’s gyrating pelvis in need of censorship, so too do many find Madonna’s lyrics and antics similarly worthy of censorship. And as 1960s rock groups like The Doors, Frank Zappa, and The Rolling Stones irritated the censorship nerve, so too do contemporary groups like 2 Live Crew and The Dead Kennedys. (Cohen, 85)

Thus, the censorship questions of the last three or four decades have continued to recur and distract American society. Issues of free expression that we thought were settled in the 1960s and 1970s remain with us in the 1980s and 1990s. Though other political issues like budget deficits and crime control persistently remain on the public agenda, unlike censorship issues they do not absorb an inordinately large amount of social attention and energy. The current complaint is that censorship issues command too little attention. In a recent New York Times poll, the respondents named morality and pornography as more important problems facing the nation than those surrounding the savings and loan bailout, child abuse, women’s issues, Soviet relations, family breakdown, and Japanese competition. (Ziegler, 68)

The attention-absorbing power of censorship and its consequent distractive role derives from the public’s tendency to take an immediate interest in censorship matters and to become quickly opinionated on those matters. Unlike complicated budget and foreign policy issues, questions on censorship can be easily understood and lend themselves to rather quick and definite judgments. As the opinion polls demonstrate, few people fail to form an opinion on censorship issues in the political arena, such as flag-burning and the funding of the NEA. Polls conducted in 1990 on the flag-burning issue, for instance, revealed that only 5 percent of the people surveyed had failed to form an opinion on the issue. (Ziegler, 70) On the other hand, polling on such issues as the environment, education policy, and the savings and loan crisis produced “no opinion” responses from up to 20 percent of the respondents. (Hull, 135)

Public opinion tends to be much more flexible or uncertain on issues that are complex or involve judgments on highly specialized information. Government economic programs such as the agricultural program, for instance, are so complex and specialized that few persons understand them. (Cohen, 89) Consequently, only a small segment of the public not involved in a program forms specific and firm opinions about it. Censorship issues, on the other hand, do not involve such highly specialized knowledge or information. They do not involve government programs evolving over decades of political existence. Instead, people can form an opinion on these issues by glancing at the newspaper headlines while drinking a cup of coffee.

Language is one of the few identifying characteristics of a nation and society. As such, it is often an emotive issue. This emotion is seen in countries where, for instance, two or more languages compete for the national identity. Confusion, anger, violence, and separatist movements have characterized the struggles between English-speaking and French-speaking Canada. Differences simply in language, not to mention the content of that language, often inspire emotional reactions. Even the regional differences in American speech tend to prompt emotional responses among persons of different speech groups — Northern, Midland, Southern, and New England. (Hull, 136)

Thus, judgments on censorship issues tend to be formed rather quickly and rather strongly. There is usually no factual research or additional knowledge needed for an individual to form a judgment on such issues. Indeed, very few people proceed to the more abstract and objective question of whether a free society ought to allow a particular repulsive speech. Yet even consideration of this question need not preclude the formation of a strong opinion, since most persons have some concept of freedom that would enable them to reach a fairly definite opinion. (Barron, 78)

As a result of censorship issues quickly galvanizing public opinion, political battles relating to these issues also tend to become particularly fierce and protracted. The debate does little to change minds. Opinions run high and intense, and the political process tends to become a bitter fight rather than a process of resolution. Consider, for example, the intense and dragged-out debates over the various legislative proposals introduced in 1990 in connection with the funding of the NEA and possible restrictions on the types of art funded by the agency. Although a bipartisan commission had been created by Congress to review the NEA’s grant-making procedures, a political impasse and stalemate still occurred in Congress because of wide disagreement over how to handle the agency and the art that it funds. (Hull, 138) This impasse devoured much of Congress’s legislative energies.

As demonstrated by this NEA struggle, inordinately large amounts of energy are consumed in dealing with censorship disputes. This diversion of political energy also results from the emotional nature of censorship matters. Although, as earlier mentioned, speech can carry emotive power in itself; the particular speech that becomes the object of censorship attempts is often speech relating to an especially emotional issue for Americans.

Censorship issues tend to be some of the most emotional issues in the public arena. Not only does it touch upon an activity that lies at the heart of human freedom and that expresses the most personal of all human possessions — thoughts and feelings — censorship also often tends to occur with a speech about moral and cultural issues. These issues evoke strong and passionate emotions and can be highly divisive. Consider, for instance, the abortion issue-obviously a very emotional one. (Cohen, 91) Censorship has been frequently attempted on this issue by groups on both sides of the debate. The most recent examples of censorship of abortion-related speech include, by the pro-life faction, a federal regulation prohibiting clinics receiving federal funds from even mentioning abortion, and, by the pro-choice side, the attempts to ban or restrict the picketing of pro-lifers outside abortion clinics. Thus, the emotional nature of abortion, as demonstrated by its political history throughout the last two decades, clearly contributes to the distractive power of censorship issues relating to the expression of abortion views. (Cole, 204)

The emotional aspect, and hence distractive power, of censorship, also arises from the symbolic nature of speech. When a person burns a flag on national television, he or she is not perceived to be simply performing an isolated individual act. Instead, at issue is the symbol of a community, a nation, and perhaps even a way of life or a set of values. Consequently, such an act inspires emotional reactions in each person who witnesses it through the media, primarily because of the emotional feeling about that which the flag symbolizes. (Norris, 85) A similar reaction occurs with racist or pornographic speech. Such speech becomes a symbol for the type of society in which the speech is made. When we hear racist speech, a desire for censorship may run high from the symbolism created — since symbols often define society, symbols of racism may denote a racist society.

As a symbol, speech can epitomize or even become the reality surrogate of personal beliefs and values. Expressions about sex, for instance, can become emotionally and even logically the act about which one speaks. Thus, if a person thinks a certain sexual act is morally wrong, any expressions about that activity can also be morally wrong. Though it is a product of a logical language system and a cognitive reasoning process, speech nonetheless carries great emotional intensity as it touches the human soul and heart, as well as the mind. And when speech occurs on value-laden or personal issues, the response to that speech will be highly emotional. (Norris, 91) Moreover, it need hardly be said that emotional matters absorb and consume our attention and energies more than more unemotional ones.

Consequently, when censorship conflicts enter the political forum, they often become intensely emotional. As a result, the political system bogs down in divisiveness. Reflecting the emotions of the individuals participating in it, politics becomes emotional in itself. More passionate speeches are made, and even more, emotions are aroused. In the recent NEA funding debate, for instance, Congress went into great detail about what kind of art the agency should fund. With no other agency does Congress try to monitor and control so closely the daily workings and operation. (Cohen, 228) Yet while the economy continued to lumber under the budget deficit and children went hungry and uneducated, Congress devoted days and weeks talking about art. Because of the symbolic, emotional nature of the issue, however, Congress was not only talking about art, it was discussing national values and identity.

Symbolic and emotional issues like censorship have played an increasingly distractive role in modern American politics. During the last several years, the great ideological battles have shifted from the field of economics to that of culture. Controversies over free speech and the arts, multiculturalism, and education, and the relations between races and genders have stirred more intense passions than have any disputes over economic policy or electoral politics. (Cohen, 230)

E. J. Dionne argues in Why Americans Hate Politics that our political leaders have allowed politics to be dominated by symbolic issues that have little practical or social relevance. (Delgado, 45) For instance, instead of dealing with the causes of crime, politicians simply debate the symbolic and largely ineffectual death penalty. As Dionne recognizes, symbolic issues tend to be highly emotional and tend to distract the political system from other more relevant and urgent issues.

Like the death penalty, abortion is also, in part, a symbolic issue. Compared with issues of child care and education, it exerts little practical influence on the daily family life of most Americans. Yet it has consumed a disproportionate share of political attention in recent decades and has caused great divisiveness in the political process. Abortion has not only inspired intense passions but also produced rigid positions on each side of the issue. In 1988, only 2 percent of the population had no opinion on the question of the legality of abortion, and when asked if the advanced medical knowledge gained over the last decade about the first stages of life had changed their opinion, more than 70 percent responded in the negative. (Delgado, 52) Though the rigidity and influence of such issues as abortion may be a handicap of the political system, it also is a problem of censorship, since it is one of the more emotional issues that cause similar distractions to society.

The distractive effect of censorship further elevates the need to discover and resolve the underlying causes and motivations for censorship. The challenge is to resolve censorship in a manner that will lessen its occurrence and its consequent distractive power. We must attempt to go beyond simply waging the censorship war — fighting over whether censorship should occur every time controversial expressions take place. History demonstrates that no matter how many times censorship is defeated, it continues to return. And if the recent decade is any indication, censorship attempts are not only persisting but increasing. (Cole, 202)

Since censorship has never been resolved, in the sense that its social foundations have not been discovered and addressed, it has had a snowball or cumulative effect over time. Even though particular censorship attempts, such as those dealing with flag desecration and sexually explicit expressions, may fail regularly, they contribute to a snowball effect insofar as they continually related and their underlying causes remain unaddressed. As society becomes increasingly familiar and comfortable with censorship, the recurrent pattern of censorship is further solidified.

Court judgments on censorship disputes have not fundamentally resolved the public’s concerns or censorship desires. For decades the judiciary has handled censorship cases involving sexual and political discussion. In the 1950s, the courts addressed censorship of ideas perceived to be un-American, while in the 1980s the courts addressed censorship of supposedly un-American activities like flag-burning. And throughout the last four decades, the courts have tried to draw the line between protected sexual speech and constitutionally unprotected obscenity. (Cohen, 233) Yet despite the volume of case law, censorship attempts keep surfacing in the public — a public whose attitudes and concerns underlying and motivating its censorship impulse have not been settled by any court decree.

The snowball effect of recurrent censorship also endangers the growth and development of the new communications technologies emerging today. The introduction of new forms of media and communications services has historically been accompanied by a wave of censorship aimed at that new media form. When motion pictures were introduced, they inspired intense censorship activity. Books, which had been the previous subject of censorship, suddenly were significantly freer of such pressures. When magazines and paperbacks became popular in the 1950s, censorship advocates immediately turned to these forms. Television and record albums, in turn, became the censors’ targets in the 1960s and 1970s. (Kick, 136) The recent introduction of computer information systems, electronic mail, computer bulletin boards, and telecommunication services like the 900 system promise to greatly expand the individual’s ability to communicate personally with a greater number and diversity of people. (Delgado, 55) Not surprisingly, however, these new media and communications technologies are being met with censorship pressures. If censorship is to be kept from suffocating these new communications services before they can fully develop, as it almost did with the motion picture industry in the 1930s, the snowball effect of the censorship impulse in society must be lessened. Otherwise, censorship attempts in the future will be more intense and will have deeper social roots, and will thus be harder to defeat. Furthermore, the snowball effect will propagate the illusory influence of censorship.

Censorship often creates the illusion that a social problem has disappeared if the speech highlighting that problem has disappeared. However, just because a child quits complaining about vegetables does not mean that she is going to eat them. Likewise, just because the social dialogue contains fewer references to violence or AIDS does not mean that those problems have diminished, particularly if the decline in a speech about those problems results from censorship pressures.

The human tendency, of course, is to try to eradicate the appearance of a problem, especially if the problem itself cannot be easily remedied. That is why parental demands for cleanrooms often translate into a more compact but hidden mess under the bed. (Kick, 139) Just as the progressive social reform movement of the early twentieth century initially sought to clean up society and ended up trying to clean up the books that society read, activists today who want to stop alcohol and tobacco abuse or who want to fight racism frequently end up trying to censor the speech signifying those problems.

Censorship offers an easy way to substitute quality of life concerns for the quality of speech concerns. Particularly in our modern media society, we tend to think that if the problem is not talked about or depicted on television, it has gone away. But if censorship is used to achieve this illusion, it has given a false sense of security — false security that must be maintained through increased censorship in the future. Consequently, we become more and more dependent on censorship. (Chambers, 50)

Only by confronting truth through open and free discussion can this snowball effect of censorship be reduced. The desire for truth has often proved an effective censorship repellent. Since the pursuit of truth is the first step to meaningful action, a close tie exists between speech, truth, and action. If we censor our speech, we tie our hands to action and close our minds to the truth. Senator Bill Bradley recognized this need for open dialogue in a recent speech on race relations. (Delgado, 57) He warned that our unwillingness to speak straightforwardly about race only causes the underlying race problems to continue simmering. In warning against our self-imposed censorship on such sensitive and emotional issues, Senator Bradley stated that “we will never understand the problems of our cities until a white person can point out the epidemic of minority illegitimacy, drug addiction and homicides without being charged a racist.” Indeed, the desire for truth and action greatly influences the American attitudes toward speech and censorship. (Cole, 197)

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in his 1919 dissent in Abrams v. the United States, speech in America deserves protection and freedom because only through the competition of free and unhindered speech can society discover the truth necessary to govern itself as a democracy. (Chambers, 54) Since the people in a democratic society are the ultimate arbiters of social truth, there must exist a means by which the public can learn and acquire truth. As Justice Holmes stated, and as judges and philosophers since have recognized the best and perhaps only means to acquire such truth is through open and free expression of ideas. (Cole, 199) Constitutional protections of free speech in the twentieth century have derived in large part from the American conception of democratic truth as the result of the free competition of ideas. Therefore, it is logical that censorship attitudes likewise derive from the underlying social attitudes toward truth.

Conclusion

Censorship defends national sovereignty. First and foremost, it does not take a chance of exposing national documentaries to the public or foreigners because of the high risk associated with it. For example, it keeps secret the national security documents, like troop movements in wartime. Also, it prohibits anyone from offending national flags, symbols, songs, and defense. Similarly, it maintains political stability in the country. It restricts people to go for frequent and unwanted strikes or revolts. Similarly, it allows society to carry out its societal goals smoothly and the economy to plan out for its short-term and long-term goals by preventing civil disobedience movements. As, for example, some credit for the booming economic condition of china goes to its Communists party which follows less freedom i.e. censorship. For these reasons, censorship guides society along with its economy to track into the development process rather than being trapped into the web of political instability.

In short, no one can deny that freedom of expression is born right of people. But as the famous saying goes, “man is born free and he is chained everywhere” accordingly some circumstances outcome in a society where implementation of censorship is a must. However, censorship without any base is evil and the government which adopts it is nothing more than a dictator. Therefore, any kind of censorship to be practiced must be provided by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and must be in proportion to its aim. Finally, the government is selected by people and they would not get anything by oppressing their selector’s rights, so selectors should trust the government for making censorship.

Works Cited

Barron, Jerome A. and Dienes, C. Thomas. First Amendment Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2004: 78-84.

Chambers, Simone and Costain, Anne. eds. Deliberation, Democracy, and the Media. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000: 50-54.

Cohen A. Raphael. The Scope of Tolerance: Studies on the Costs of Free Expression and Freedom of the Press. New York: Routledge, 2005: 228-233.

Cohen, David B. and Wells, John W. eds. American National Security and Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004: 85-91.

Cole, David. Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism. New York: New Press, 2003: 197-204.

Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean. Understanding Words That Wound. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004: 45-57.

Dershowitz, Alan. Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. New York: Basic Books, 2004: 174-186.

Harer, John B. and Harrell, Eugenia E. People for and Against Unrestricted Expression. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002: 121-128.

Hull, Mary E.. Censorship in America: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1999: 135-138.

Kick, Russ. ed. Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies. New York: Disinformation, 2003: 136-139.

Norris Pippa, Kern Montague, and Just Marion, eds. Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government, and the Public. New York: Routledge, 2003: 85-91.

Wirenius, John F. First Amendment, First Principles: Verbal Acts and Freedom of Expression. New York: Holmes, 2000: 212-216.

Ziegler, John. The Death of Free Speech: How Our Broken National Dialogue Has Killed the Truth and Divided America. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House, 2005: 66-70.

The censorship of works of art or media images is a timeless issue for two different groups of people: supporters who are affected by the restrictions, and those who are appealing to the freedom of expression. Looking at the problem through the arguments of Plato, Aristotle, and David Hume provides enlightenment for a revision of the notions of beauty, art, and censorship.

Plato speaks about the previously mentioned concepts in relation to God. The figure of the creator is an embodiment of good, or virtue, and the only reality, which represented in the Forms. Everything that has been made by its power is truth. On the other hand, the art designed by a human being is only a reflection of the creator and its work in the human world.

Therefore, man-made art is not a reality but an illusion. The concepts of deception and evil are contrary to that of virtue and, according to Plato, everything that distorts and corrupts reality should be restricted. The works of art that do not manifest grace but disfigure the significance of the matter and, thus, harm human beings should be censured.

It is helpful to follow Plato’s argument to justify the limitations on media images and artwork. The philosopher defines God and the creator’s responsibilities in the text of the Republic: The creator is real and the opposite of evil. A lot of people ascribe the formation of all things to God, however, it does just a few, and the making of all kinds of misery should not be attributed to the creator (Ross 12). According to Plato, a work of art is not a deed of God, but of a man.

The efforts of a human being cannot be comparable with the creator’s design considering excellence; the art only strives for perfection, and as far as the creation is virtuous, it represents God’s intention. Deliberate or not, the lack of integrity in art forms may lead to corruption, which is a sign of evil (Ross 8). As an illustration, the numerous images that objectify women as a sexual commodity and circulate in the media distort the perception of the female body and the role of women in society.

Another representation of cruelty is shown in Irreversible (2002), Gaspar Noe’s film, filled by the graphic scenes of violence and sexual abuse. The natural response to such depictions is “disgust as a unique defense reaction manifested as nausea, turning away from the image or even physically distancing oneself from it” (Kuplen 8). Should these pieces of human creation be restricted from availability to the general public? Applying Plato’s logic, they may negatively affect a viewer, especially a young one, deceive him, and distort his knowledge of reality and, thus, require limitation.

One of Plato’s foundations, the concept of ideal Forms that are a genuine representation of virtue and beauty and could only be reflected in works of art, is challenged by Aristotle. He assumes that these universal ideals are integral parts of an object because they change with the development of the matter. Moreover, the origin of the Forms as God’s creations does not explain their connection with the real substances, and in particular, those that have been produced by a man. Since the perception of beauty or virtue is linked to the understanding of the object, they are pieces of it (Ross 67).

Nevertheless, in his critique of Plato’s ideas, Aristotle considers art as modesty: “Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity, – I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character” (Ross 31). Aristotle’s examination of poetry as an art form brings him to the conclusion that the ethical aspect of a literary piece is the primary concern of an author. Philosopher’s assumption that the character who reflects high ethical standards can demonstrate what is right or bad ( Ross 72) while the depraved personifications have potential destructive forces does not lead to the idea that the works of art should be censured even though they have negative protagonists or distort reality.

Beauty is an essential element in works of art for both philosophers. They refer to a word, kalon, which can be translated as grace, however, not literally. For Plato and Aristotle, beauty is entirely connected to moral virtue (Irwin 382). This raises the question: Is it necessary for only exquisite matters and characters with strong ethics to be present in artwork? The philosophers’ arguments reject the necessity of this notion. According to Plato, evil as the antagonism of beauty demonstrates the wrong approach, and can be overcome by itself through the search for truth. The philosopher writes that malicious entities are wicked by their essence (Ross 59). Moreover, they cannot destroy other bodies that do not contain the presence of corruption and, thus, a soul cannot be demolished by an alien evil (Ross 60). Therefore, Plato’s ideas leave space for a critical approach to censorship that should not be applied without the proper understanding of the nature of the offensive parts of the works of art or the whole pieces affected by unpleasant content.

The idea of taste in art as introduced by David Hume is helpful in the process of evaluating products of the media and artistic creations. Development of taste to perceive the aesthetic value in works highlights the notion of inner integrity, which is supposed to exist, according to Plato, inside of a human being, at least, for the reason that man was designed by God and like all of creation, an individual has excellence inside of him. This perfection assists a man in what may be, at times, a strenuous effort to separate the virtue from the evil.

At the same time, Hume claims that virtue is an ideal image created in the mind, and affects the perception of pieces of art from person to person. Accepting this assumption, it is possible to conclude that neither works of art nor media images should be censored or restricted in any way. The understanding of art depends only on individuals and their natural inclinations. If a man is moral by his nature, he will perceive the piece of art according to his intrinsic values. The same is of value for a man who is corrupted. His understanding of the same work of art will be different because his personality and experience allow him observing something that the man of virtue cannot comprehend. Therefore, the introduction of censorship will limit the scope of meanings that the images have.

In summary, applying Plato’s view on art, the regulation of media products and the aesthetic domain has to be limited by common sense. Every person perceives information according to diverse personal and social aspects. There will be a threat of an absence of various voices if any one position, even the virtuous one, is accepted as the truth.

Works Cited

Irwin, T.H. “The Sense and Reference of Kalon in Aristotle.” Classical Philology 105.4 (2010): 381-396.

Kuplen, Mojca. The Notion of Disgust in Comparison to Ugliness: A Kantian Perspective.

Ross, Stephen. Art and Its Significance: An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory. Albany: State University of New Yok Press, 1994. Print.

Plot summary of the novel “To kill a mocking bird” by Lee Harper

The novel, “To Kill a Mocking Bird” is a 1960 publication of a story in Maycomb, Alabama during the great depression period. It is a narration of Finch Scout, six years old, living with her father and brother. The two children meet Bill, who comes visiting the neighborhood during the summer. Radley Boo a neighbor, who the adults hesitate to talk about, becomes the focus of the children. Though Radley does not give personal appearance to the kids, he extends a hand of affection through gifts to them. Atticus, Scout’s father receives a court appointment for the defense of Robinson Tom, a black man faced with accusations of rape on Ewell Mayella, a youthful white woman. The agreement of Atticus to engage in the defense raises criticisms especially on his children from their age mates and other people. The innocence of Tom is displayed by Atticus from the sexual advances on him by Ewell Mayella and the fact that her father was aware of this and other significant evidence establishing Mayella and her father Ewell who were the accusers to be telling a lie. Contrary to expectations, Robinson is convicted by the jury and later killed during an attempted prison escape. Trial frustrations lead Ewell to revenge through; spitting on Atticus’s face, disturbing Robinson’s widow, attempts of breaking into the house of the presiding judge and attacks on Scout and his brother Jem on their way from school. Radley saves Jem who is injured in the attack while in the process the sheriff of Maycomb discovers the killing of Ewell in the attack. Following prudent consultations with Atticus, the story of Ewell falling on her own knife is accepted. The story ends with the disappearance of Radley and the children are not able to express their gratitude for the gifts (Pakula & Mulligan, 1962).

Plot summary of the film “The Exorcist”

“The Exorcist” was released in 1973 and was produced by Marshall Noel and Blatty Peter who was also the writer, with Friedkin William as the director. The film has an opening where the sickness of Father Karras’s mother causes him to doubt his faith while Father Merrin is in Nineveh Iraq. An actress Macneil (acted by Burstyn Ellen) notices behavior changes in her daughter Regan who is 12 years old. Medical tests reveal nothing while queer occurrences remain in the household of Macneil with the death of the director of Chris’s film in the process of babysitting Regan. Exorcism turns out to be the doctor’s recommendation due to psychosomatic symptoms linked to demonic possession. Fathers Karras and Merrin attempt exorcism on Regan the climax of which the priests are ridiculed and terrorized by the demons with the eventual death of Father Merrin. The attempt of Father Karras to save Merrin causes Regan to giggle. Father Karras eventually dies while Regan is restored in health although the memory of the incident is lost. The film ends with Regan and her mother leaving their trauma behind in George Town (The Exorcist, 1973).

Censorship of the Novel “To Kill a Mocking Bird”

The inclusion of the novel in classroom studies in the early 1960s especially 1963, spurred criticisms due to the issues of contention addressed by the novel. Critics argued that the novel posed threats on the social norms and traditional values. This was due to the use of violence, sex references, profane language, witchcraft and super natural references, statements lacking respect to authority, characters’ ungrammatical speech and conflicts portrayed between children and elders (May 1988). It is argued that the use of fiction in the novel creates native prejudices through the presentation of the poverty of majority of white characters (Flynt, 1985). Further, the issue of racism has been contentious from the novel. This has been characterized by the association of blacks with poverty, racial injustices of the judicial system, bad treatment of Hadley and the black housekeeper and racial segregation (Nadeker, 2000). The various stakeholders in education have been against the novel especially as part of literature study in schools terming it as immoral due to the manner in which rape is addressed. The main proponents of this novel have been the Hanover county school board and Georgia school board while the Charles County censured the novel alongside others on the basis of inappropriateness to children (Partlow, 2004).

The novel, “To Kill a Mocking Bird” is deemed to have had some positive impacts despite the magnitude of the negative influences. The portraying of the racial situation in the South in the 1930s does not elicit much criticism from the southern areas because the novel had not been strictly adopted for classroom learning in the south (Beach & Marshall, 1991). The novel is said to have impacted the readers and ranked second to the Bible in terms of influence (Atchity, 1996). The manner in which racism is portrayed caused genuine introspection on the readers. Majority of whites especially those of Deep South dropped the racial prejudices they had inherited after confrontation and questioning in reference to the novel (Partler, 2009).

Despite the fact that the novel by Harper had positive impacts, its censorship was based on the interests of the affected parties. The greatest and most persistent criticisms and opposition of the novel has been from organizations, leaders, school board members, students, parents and teachers most of who were African Americans and African Canadians with increased opposition over the decades until the eventual censor (Partler, 2009). The protests to the novel were based on negative psychological effects to the process of integration in a positive manner. This was highly heated by the use of the term “nigger” over 45 times in the novel, offensive references and racial language focused on demeaning (Finn, 2003). Although Partler (2009) believed that such protests were out of fear, superstition and ignorance, the need to have an outlook that is open cannot be undermined. Many students especially in the African Heritage had trouble in studying the novel (Ryan, 1999).

The use of the novel as class literature requires it to be read aloud and discussed. The language used thus elicits embarrassment from the negative racial connotations used and since the students are normally in their teens, it causes deep psychological damages (Partler, 2009). The novel has been found to elicit discomfort especially when read aloud and discussed in class with attention being directed to racial terms used thus victimizing the students of that race. Students especially blacks have revealed how their peers stare at them during such lessons with the teachers becoming coy and peering at them at the mention of racial terms. Consequently, negative and racial references in the novel have been known to cause emotional imbalance to the black students to the extent of them openly opposing it or emotionally breaking down to crying (Ryan, 1999). Barvey, a 13 year old student of 8^th grade, openly protested to the novel especially the term “nigger” referring to blacks. He embarked on non-violence demonstration through the shirt he wore that had phrases from the novel such as; “nigger lover, nigger rape and nigger snowman” as a way to draw the attention of the nature of the book (Herald, 2004).

The censorship of the novel took into consideration the interests of the children that were subjected to study it. The move was to protect children from psychological damage and the need to fulfill the requirements for positive integration of races especially in education (Partler, 2009). Emphasis has been on protecting the interests of the white children from adopting racial attitudes and for black children to experience freedom in learning (Ryan, 1999). Though the positive impacts of the novel cannot be undermined, censorship is based on the fact that the benefits can be derived from other art works but the damages cannot be erased by other art works easily (Finn, 2003).

Censorship of the film “The Exorcist”

The film was first censored in 1973 in Mississippi but was later reversed by a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and later reversed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi (Couvares, 2006). The film, characterized as the most terrifying, brought out rumors of the strange happenings surrounding it as though haunted by evil forces. Its filming was surrounded by strange events that could not be explained. The characters experienced strange things during filming or after the release of the film that included: the death of MacGowran (who acted as Dennings Burke), Blair’s grandfather and Sydow’s brother; the injury of Jason, Miller’s son and Ellen. Other strange bizarre included; the burning down of the Mac Neil house and the mysterious illness of Noni who was Patty’s secretary (Newman, 1974).

The film elicited misinformation as to its special effects out of strange happenings in the same. The director claimed that the strange visions and images on the film were not anticipated for. There was heated debate as to the double effect of the movie which the director had denied but subsequently acknowledged the work of the parties used to create the effect such as McCambridge. The uncertainty was evident due to the psychological testing the characters were subjected to that was intensive (Kermode, 1990). The viewing of the film had strange effects on the audience causing the cinema managers to prepare ambulances for the support of the audience. The effects ranged from heart attacks, fainting, vomiting and few instances of miscarriage. The film had great potential to cause harm ranging from criminal and suicidal cases. The death of Power John, a 16 year old, and the murder of Simpson Sandra, a 9 year old, by Bell Nicholas are among many other deaths associated with the film (Newman, 1974).

The film did not have ratings since they claimed it did not have incidences of excessive violence or overt sex. This increased the negative effects since children could watch it (Bernstein 2000). Pressure caused the rating bodies to introduce an ‘R’ rating and increased the age restrictions to 17years. The film had been blamed for the social ills especially sexual assaults (Kermode 1990).

The film has further been blamed for the usage of aural stimulants which were visually subliminal causing traumatizing effects on the audience. The main subliminal effects include Blair’s deathly appearance during the tossing and Miller’s appearance of a death mask. The film has been charged of subconscious foul play especially due to the facial hide from the audience, the appearance of skull-shaped shadows in the church and the flashing of the death mask of Karras severally during the film (Keys, 1976). Although the film had been banned unofficially for many years, it was banned in 1999 in the United Kingdom despite regular views in the cinemas (McCabe, 1999). The Video Recordings Act of 1984 introduced warners which delayed the film release. The film had been constantly accused of child abuse and its effects could only be avoided through the censor of the same (The Exorcist, 1973).

The film’s censor was mainly for the protection of children since though the film had ratings introduced later, the video version could be retrieved and watched by children. The censor also sought to protect the public due to the adverse effects of the subliminal images (Keys, 1976). Although the director claimed to draw inspiration from the subliminal images, it had to be denied due to the negative impact on the majority (Kermode, 1990). The strange happenings and associations of the film was suspicion enough to pressure for its censor. The cinema managers also were affected by the traumatizing effects on the audience. This led to the increase in costs incurred due to incident preparedness. In addition, the controversies as to the lack of acknowledgement of some of the characters and the false explanations to this claim lowered the credibility of the film and hence the public had to be protected (Keys, 1976). The ban on the film of 1975 by the Censorship Board of Tunis was based on the grounds of presenting propaganda unjustifiable for the Christian religion. This censor was to protect the other religions while ensuring harmony through religious equality. This was also motivated by the dominance of Islamic religion in Tunisia which contravened with the film (Kermode, 1990).

Reference List

1. Atchity, K. (1996) The Renaissance Reader. New York, Harper Perennial.
2. Beach, R., & Marshall, J. (1991) Teaching Literature in Secondary Schools. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
3. Bernstein, M. (2000) Controlling Hollywood: censorship and regulation in the studio era. London, The Athlone Press.
4. Couvares, F. (2006) Movie censorship and American culture. Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts Press.
5. Flynt, W. (1985) Poor but Proud: Alabama’s Poor Whites, Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press.
6. Herald, D. (2007) Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Censorship Debate & Schools. [Online]
7. Kermode, M. (1990) Devilish deceptions: The exorcist tribute zone. [Online] Web.
8. Keys, W. (1976) Media sexploitation. New York, Prentice-Hall.
9. May, J. (1988) Censors as Critics: To Kill a Mockingbird as Case Study, in Cross Culturalism in Children’s Literature. New York, Pace University Press.
10. McCabe, B. (1999) The Exorcist. New York, Omnibus Press.
11. Nadeker, D. (2000) Essay on “To kill a mocking bird.” [Online]
12. Newman, H. (1974) The Exorcist: The Strange Story behind the Film. New York, Pinnacle.
13. Pakula, A., & Mulligan, R. (1962) To Kill a Mockingbird. Hollywood, Universal Pictures.
14. Partler, N. (2009) Killing the mocking bird: Historical and contemporary efforts to ban Harper Lee’s “To kill a mocking bird.” [Online]
15. Partlow, J. (2004) School Board Goals Draw Impassioned Opposition. New York, American Library Association.
16. Ryan, J. (1999) Race and Ethnicity in Multi-Ethnic Schools. Ontario, Multilingual Ltd.
17. The Exorcist (1973) The Exorcist. [Online]

Known as the attempt at silencing those attempting to address controversial topics, censorship typically represents instances of people trying to push their agenda, beliefs, and views on others while silencing any dissenting opinion. Often seen as contradicting the very premise of the freedom of expression principle, censorship, indeed, typically serves to suppress the opposing views. However, in a number of cases, censorship is necessary to safeguard underage people from viewing inappropriate content or participating in activities to which they cannot consent. Though the novel “13 Reasons Why” by Jay Asher could be seen as inappropriate for young adults, attempting to censor it would mean infringing upon the author’s right to self-expression and the readers’ right to choose the type of information that they wish to consume.

What makes the novel especially controversial is the topic that it tackles quite straightforwardly. Specifically, “13 Reasons Why” addresses the problem of suicide, providing multiple examples of how young people and teenagers choose to end their lives. Focusing primarily on the suicide of Hannah Baker, with Clay Jenson, the protagonist, exploring the circumstances of her untimely death, the novel is truly tragic and frighteningly realistic. Having found out that Hannah ended her life due to constant exposure to humiliation. Clay analyzes the tapes left by Hannah containing details about her life and terrifying death (Asher, 2007). He continues to study the case, discovering other facts about Hannah and suicide, in general, which allows painting a very accurate picture of the turmoil and suffering experienced by suicidal people.

In defense of his book, the author explained that he had made thorough research before beginning to write the novel so that he could capture the experiences of suicidal people as accurately as possible. Therefore, the book should be seen not as a socking attempt at capitalizing on the suffering and deaths of others, but as a tool for understanding the mentality of suicidal people and the place from which they come when deciding that life is not worth living (Chesin et al., 2020). The focus on teenagers and the struggles that they face, particularly, those that eventually lead them to suicide, might seem as controversial at first, yet, on second glance, it becomes incredibly compelling. The lack of dialogue on the subject matter due to the perpetuated stigma associated with suicide, in general, and suicide in teenagers, in particular, has made it nearly impossible to discuss the problem openly. In turn, the author of “13 Reasons Why” brings the issue back into the limelight, allowing the audience to recognize the existence of a problem and, thus, create strategies for tackling it. The book resonates with numerous teenagers on a personal level since a number of teens, myself included, suffer from trauma. Therefore, providing a therapeutic relief, “13 Reasons Why” becomes an opportunity to manage the trauma, which is why the book mu8tst not be banned.

Serving as a cautionary tale for young adults and teaching them important life lessons, “13 Reasons Why” must not be banned despite its risqué content and controversial material. Portraying the exact results of what might happen when one follows others blindly without recognizing the negative impact that people in question may produce, the book is based on a profound message and a well-meaning idea, which is why it must remain available to students. Therefore, banning the book should eb deemed as highly inappropriate and even harmful since the novel in question is unique in its ability to explain the subject manner in such aa raw and uninhibited manner.

References

Asher, J. (2007). 13 reasons why. RazorBill.

Chesin, M., Cascardi, M., Rosselli, M., Tsang, W., & Jeglic, E. L. (2020). Knowledge of suicide risk factors, but not suicide ideation severity, is greater among college students who viewed ‘13 Reasons Why.’ Journal of American College Health, 68(6), 644-649.

Introduction

Censorship refers to the act of controlling the flow of information, opinions, and ideas in the society. This is mainly achieved through the suppression of speech, books, films, music, and other forms of public communication, which are considered harmful, objectionable, and problematic. Censorship is construed in this paper as infringement into civil liberties. The concept of civil liberties can be defined as certain privileges that are given to the citizens in order to exercise of their freedoms and rights.

Various states have a varying composition of what entails the civil liberties (Curtis 51). In the United States, human rights are commonly referred to as civil liberties, in reference to known political rights and freedoms that those eligible to participate in political process enjoy. In the US, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression; it is one of the main democratic rights and freedoms.

However, freedom of expression is not absolute in most countries because it is normally subjected to limitations, which prohibit individuals from expressing sedition, obscenity, slander, and libel. For example, conveying information that incites ethnic hatred is prohibited in most countries despite the existence of freedom of expression (Zeno-Zencovich 302).

The UN declaration of human rights under article 19 recognizes freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. In some instances, freedom of expression has been legally limited whenever it is found to bring religious offenses. For example, in Britain, the Racial, and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 limits expressions that is defamatory on racial and religious lines (Zeno-Zencovich 302). This paper will thus, compare censorship in the modern society and several years ago. This will entail exploring the civil liberties in various countries.

Censorship in the Historic Times and Censorship in the Modern Society

Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy that allows it to work, and enable members of the public to participate in decision-making. Without freedom of expression, citizens can never exercise their right to participate in decision-making processes, as well as vote if they cannot access information and ideas, as they are not given the freedom to express their views (Zeno-Zencovich 160).

If freedom of expression is violated, mostly likely other freedoms like freedom of assembly and association will also be violated. In the US, the First Amendment that protects the freedom of expression is not only limited to speech, rallies, newspaper, and books, but it also protects symbolic speech like non-verbal expressions that have intent of communicating ideas (Zeno-Zencovic 303).

Civil liberties faced varied pressure during the Civil War, the Quasi-War, World War I, World War II, and the current War on Terror.

For example, during the Quasi–war with France, the repression of civil liberties targeted mainly foreigners and natives who engaged in acts that were perceived to demonstrate criticism of the president and his government. The Alien and Sedition Act was passed in order to effect this; the powers of the president incarcerate, criminalize speech, and deport aliens was dramatically increased, which curtailed the freedom of expression and equality (Curtis 56).

During civil war, the civil liberties were suppressed in the name of protecting the states security, any act that is seen as to jeopardize or act against the national security is dealt with full force. During the American civil war, Limbdin Milligan and the other four were prosecuted in a military tribunal for attempting to steal and use union weapons for that sake of launching an armed campaign against the union (Stone 56).

However, they were hanged in 1865, a decision that was backed by the Supreme Court, which argued that suspending the habeas corpus was lawful in order to prosecute the two at the military tribunal. This is an illustration that the state can infringe on the civil liberties in order to further her own course of action (Curtis 168).

The First World War saw the employment of the Sedition and Espionage Acts to suppress critics of the government. Critics of Woodrow Wilson’s regime were persecuted using these two acts, and civil liberties heavily violated in the name of protecting the government (Schlesinger 130). They were denied civil liberties by the inhuman action of the government under the cover of enhancing countrywide security and peace.

In addition, the Patriot Act has given the government express access to people’s private life in the name of fighting terrorism. This is quite different what was experienced during the First World War and Civil War in the United States. The Patriot Act is simply a legislation that has bred a new form of repressing civil liberties in a more developed digital and more democratic era (Stone 58). The government uses it to curtail freedom of privacy, expression, and association.

The war on terror ushered in a new dawn of the USA government’s infringement on the civil liberties (Curtis 169). Freedom of expression and equality before law has been infringed on in order to allow the government security agencies to quell the terror threats that may arise from within the United States.

Review of Literature

According to Richard and Moon (197), there are several arguments that defend the protection of freedom of expression. However, all these arguments are based on three values, which include individual autonomy, democracy, and truth. Freedom of expression should be safeguarded because it enables the public to recognize the truth, as well as increase their knowledgebase.

In addition, freedom of expression is what enable democratic governments to operate, and encourages individual autonomy. Freedom of expression is a concept that can be traced to historic documents that dealt with human rights. For example, the 1689 English Bill of Rights protected free speech in parliament, while the 1789 Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen stated that freedom of expression was an immutable privilege.

Governments have the ability to restrict the freedom of expression by implementing place, manner, and time limitations. However, a permit is not supposed to be denied or withheld based on the content of the speech to be delivered during rallies or demonstrations because it amounts to view point discrimination; this is unconstitutional (Kretzmer 80).

In the event people participating in a rally or demonstrating move from expressing their views through speech and symbol to action, then the government is can engage in aggressive interventions. For example, people engaged in a political protest have the right to chant, debate, picket, and distribute literature, but they do not have the right to block roads or entrance to certain buildings (Kretzmer 82).

China is known to be a country that mostly restricts freedom of expression all over the world. Before the emergence of the internet, the Chinese government succeeded in prohibiting freedom of expression in all spheres of life (Magee 28). The repression of freedom of expression in China has been attributed to the communist ideology. In communist societies, societal interest takes precedence over individual rights, and curtailing individual freedom of expression is seen as beneficial to the society (Magee 35).

Most countries in Africa have constitutions that legally protect the freedom of expression. However, curtailment of freedom expression still exists in some African countries like Eritrea. In this country, cases of imprisonment of journalists are rampant. In some African countries, governments of the day censor broadcast of information to the public (Magee 32).

South Africa is considered an African country that has allowed freedom of expression, but owing to the history of apartheid, its constitution prohibits the expression of hate speech contents (Magee 32).

According to Feldman (206), in the American history, members of the Congress, presidents, and judges of the Supreme Court have often supported suppression of the freedom of expression, especially for literatures and speeches that are considered political. The US Supreme Court recognizes the fact that the government has the right to maintain high levels of secrecy, especially on information related to national security, such as deployment of the army during war.

However, the US Supreme Court has never prohibited free speech on the grounds of national security. The amount of speech that can be prohibited due to national security is quite limited; however, the government has often used the excuse of national security to protect itself from public criticisms and prevent public debates on certain decisions and policies.

The conflict between free speech and national security in the US was witnessed in 1971 when the New York Times published the “Pentagon Papers,” which were leaked security documents. The data stipulated how the US government was involved in Vietnam.

The New York Times disregarded the demand from the government not to publish the documents, and the issue was referred to the Supreme Court (Kretzmer 83). The government did not prove that if the information were published, it would harm the nation. At the time, the public was allowed to have access to information on an issue that was extremely important to the nation (Kretzmer 83).

Scholars have also stated that the concept of freedom of expression is intricately linked to democracy, and if freedom of expression is limited, public debates cannot proceed even in times of emergency (Kretzmer 84).

Alexander Meiklejohn in his fight for democracy and freedom of speech argued that in order for a democratic government to work, there must be a constant flow of ideas and information within the political system. Democracy will not stand for its ideals if the individuals are manipulating the citizens by preventing the flow of information and avoiding criticisms (Kretzmer 84).

Defending freedom of expression on democratic principle has been upheld as the most likeable theory of free speech in Western democracies. A study conducted by the World Bank indicated that freedom of expression and the accountability associated with censorship significantly impacted the quality of a government in a country.

The history of America is characterized by various advancements in freedom of expression, with the most outstanding one being the inclusion of the First Amendment in the constitution (Magee 35). However, it has been observed that records of secrecy and censorship also exist. The research revealed that the government is the most notable censor of freedom of expression. In so doing, the Congress has been able to censor the internet and media on information broadcast (Magee 35).

The US government has been interfering with the freedom of expression of its citizens and immigrants during social upheavals or wars. During such times, governments have been able to censor people with unpopular political views, and send them to jail in some instances. For example, during the World War I, a person could be sent to prison for issuing leaflets that were against the war (Alexander 96). However, the US remains the country that mostly safeguards the freedom of expression in the entire globe.

Attaining freedom of expression in the US was not an easy task as it took approximately 200 years for full adoption. The implementation barred the government from punishing people for seditious speech. The struggle for freedom of expression in the US is seen in Eugene versus Debs’ case, who was given a ten year jail term for addressing a rally of peaceful workers; he told them that their skills were above what they were doing (Alexander 96).

In Canada, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) was passed in 2001; it gave more authority to intelligence organization and the CSE (Communication Security Establishment). This act enabled the CSE to intercept domestic and foreign communications made to Canada. On its part, the UK passed the Regulatory of Investigatory Power (RIPA) in 2000 (Stoddart 5).

This act gave authority to the Home Secretary to give warrants for communication interception and stipulated communication service providers to implement a reasonable interception capability that will enable surveillance during national security investigation (Stoddart, 2009).

In a France, the LSQ (Loi pour la sécurité quotidienne) bill was introduced in 2001, and subsequently passed in 2003. This act contained anti-terrorism policy that required retention of data. This bill stipulates that the ISPs should retain log files on internet users up to a maximum period of one year (Stoddart 6). Clearly, this reveals information censorship in the European nation.

The US Patriot Act

The US Patriot Act was enacted to provide the right tools that can enable the government to intercept and stop terrorism. The act was developed after the September 11^th attacks. The act was also enacted to punish terrorists both in the United States and globally. It was developed to enhance investigatory tools. The act is a modern day censorship tool.

Information Sharing

Section 203 (b) and (d) of the Patriot Act allows information on criminal probes to be shared among different intelligence agencies. The same information can also be shared with different parts of the government including the Judiciary and the office of the president. This is a move that can enable different agencies in the United States to work together efficiently in order to eliminate any threat or apprehend a criminal before he/she achieves the intended mission.

For example, this section has allowed information to be shared between the FBI, CIA, and different police department. As such, security agencies are able to use information available to them to catch up with criminals. Criminal activities have become very sophisticated.

For instance, criminals are coming up with new ways through which they can carry out their activities. With this case, security agencies need to work together to deal with criminals effectively. This can only be achieved through sharing information concerning suspects and criminals (Colliver 70).

Roving Wiretaps

The Patriot Act also allows security agencies to place wiretaps on a number of electronic devices owned by those suspected of criminal activities. This is a provision under Section 206 of the Act. This section allows one wiretap like the Blackberry mobile phones, personal computers, and cell phones among others to be operational.

The recent years have seen massive technological advancements. Terrorists are becoming smarter on a daily basis. They are using the advancements to their advantage to ensure they are not caught. For instance, they are developing new and more sophisticated technologies to cover their tracks or cover carry out their criminal activities undetected. There is no way security agencies can be able to deal with such today’s criminals without employing even drastic measure from the technological field (Phelan 46).

Access to Records

The Patriot Act enable security agencies track down the activities of terrorists in other countries since they can view numerous data on international intelligence. With this situation, they can stop terrorist threats posed through information censorship. Security agencies will be able to counter any foreign attack before it actually occurs.

Moreover, most of the attacks in the United States have been foreign attacks. This implies that the government has to take extreme measures to prevent any internal attacks in the future. One way through which this can be achieved is accessing records (Stefoff 67). This security concern brings forth the need for information censorship.

Sneak & Peak Search Warrants

The Act has allowed security authorities to search businesses or homes of a suspected criminal without any prior notification; this is provided under Section 213 of the Patriot Act. This Act allows investigators to get criminals off guard. This strategy has actually enabled security agencies to stop terrorist attacks or drug dealers before they can do anything harmful to the society.

As such, the United States has been a better place in terms of overall security. In the past, security agencies had to get search warrants from courts and present them to the suspects before they could do any search. This gave the terrorists a head start to tamper with the evidence or flee the country. As such, it becomes very difficult to stop some attacks (Stefoff 67).

Material Support

Initially, the United States had banned offering material support to terrorists. This implies that any individual who is found offering such support stands prosecution at the court of law. Section 805 of the Patriot law has expanded the law to include expert assistance or advice. According to this section, no individual should offer any expertise assistance to criminals and in this regard, anyone found offering the same can be judged in accordance to the law (Stefoff 67).

This section has enabled security agencies to cut criminal networks, hence making it hard to achieve their ill motives. As mentioned earlier, terrorists have become more sophisticated in the strategies they employ to be able to execute their plans unnoticed.

This requires that they have access to a large network that can provide them with the required expertise in different fields especially information technology and engineering. Cutting their access to such a network cripples them, as they will not be able to accomplish their missions. The United States needs to achieve this to deal with terrorists effectively (Herman 203).

Discussion and Assessment

Freedom of expression has been declared a basic human right by the UN, and denying citizens their right to freedom of expression amounts to violation of human rights. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression, and it is not only limited to speech and text, but also other forms of expression like artistic expression.

In most countries, the constitution guarantees the freedom of expression through the bill of rights. Freedom of expression is a crucial right because its violation also leads to the violation of other rights. Besides, countries that curtail freedom of expression like China also have a record of violating other human rights.

One of the disadvantages of freedom of expression is that it allows people to utter or write anything about others, which sometimes can be lies, derogatory and hurtful comments. In some cases inflammatory content can be printed or written in the internet courtesy of free speech. Another disadvantage of freedom of speech is that it can undermine security in a country (Alexander 98).

For example, the WikiLeaks website, which publishes information that is politically sensitive because of freedom of expression, can put many people in danger. Political rallies and demonstrations that are organized on the ground of free speech sometimes turn violent because hijack possibilities by extremist individuals (Alexander 102).

Freedom of expression has also been seen as disadvantageous because it may promote defamatory acts in society such as racism. However, some scholars have argued that what amounts to racism or discrimination is purely subjective. Freedom of expression has also led to the appearance of racist websites that encourage hatred and deeply divide the society along racial, religious, or ethnic lines (Alexander 102).

For example, websites such “Her Race” represents the views of extremist women who spread intolerance and white supremacy. Anti-Semites have also turned to the internet to spread their hatred messages. Additionally, anti-gay groups have also followed suits, while anti-government groups have promoted violence online by providing other extremists with information on how to design bombs and grenades (Alexander 120).

Defending freedom of expression on democratic principle has been upheld as the most likeable theory of free speech in Western democracies. A World Bank study indicated that freedom of expression and the accountability associated with it significantly relies on the quality of a government in a country. The history of America is characterized by various advancements in freedom of expression, with the most outstanding one being the inclusion of the First Amendment in the constitution.

Conclusion

Civil liberties are an important element of democracy, and should be upheld by all governments. Governments that still practice censorship like China should be pressurized to grant this basic human right to their citizens. The US has the largest space when it comes to freedom of expression, but recently there has been criticism that the government is enacting laws that limits the freedom of expression in the name of upholding national security.

Oppression and violation of human rights are rampant in countries that curtail freedom of expression. This is because citizens can never freely express their violations to the international human rights organization and the international community. Freedom of expression should also be guaranteed because it is crucial for development. This is because it enables exchange of ideas and opinions between policymakers and the citizens.

Works Cited

Alexander, Larry. Is there a right of freedom of expression? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

Allen, David S., and Robert Jensen. Freeing the First Amendment: critical perspectives on freedom of expression. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Print.

Coliver, Sandra. Secrecy and liberty: national security, freedom of expression, and access to information. The Hague: M. Nijhoff Publishers, 1999. Print.

Curtis, Michael Kent. Free speech, “the people’s darling privilege”: struggles for freedom of expression in American history. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2000. Print.

Emerson, Thomas I. The system of freedom of expression. New York: Random House, 1970. Print.

Feldman, Stephen M. Free expression and democracy in America a history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Print. Cole, George F.. The American system of criminal justice. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1975. Print.

Herman, Susan N.. Taking liberties: the war on terror and the erosion of American democracy. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

Jones, Thomas David. Human rights: group defamation, freedom of expression, and the law of nations. The Hague: M. Nijhoff Publishers ;, 1998. Print.

Kretzmer, David. Freedom of speech and incitement against democracy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000. Print.

Magee, James J.. Freedom of expression. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2002. Print.

Moon, Richard. The constitutional protection of freedom of expression. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Print.

Phelan, James. Patriot Act. Sydney: Hachette Livre Australia, 2007. Print.

Rehnquist, William H.. All the laws but one: civil liberties in wartime. New York: Knopf, 1998. Print.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. The imperial Presidency. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Print.

Stefoff, Rebecca. The Patriot Act. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2011. Print.

Stone, Geoffrey R.. War and liberty: an American dilemma : 1790 to the present. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. Print.

Stoddart, Jennifer. Surveillance, Search or Seizure Powers Extended by Recent Legislation in Canada, Britain, France and the United States. Ontario: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2009. Print.

Zencovich, Vincenzo. Freedom of expression: a critical and comparative analysis. Abingdon, Oxon [England: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008. Print.

Censorship is the suppression of any form of public communication which may be regarded as objectionable, harmful, or insensitive (Burress 13). This is as decided by the state, media companies or any other regulatory bodies. The constitutions of most countries provide protection from censorship but this security is in no way absolute.

In some circumstances, it is hard to tell apart what to censor from what not to. This paper seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of censorship with the aim of determining the extent to which content on broadcast (television and radio) media can be censored. To this end, a brief rationale for censorship shall be provided with exemplification from reported situations. Later, a conclusion will be drawn from the rationale assessment.

There are a number of reasons for censorship. These reasons are divided into five key categories: moral, military, political, religious and corporate (Hoffman 5). The five strata are explained in detail below:

Moral censorship. This is the limitation of the publishing or broadcasting of material that is obscene and goes against established conventions of morality. A good example of a situation in which moral censorship is prescribed is in the case of child pornography.

Any material that can be classified as child pornography is illegal in most jurisdictions in the world and, therefore, its publication and/or broadcast is usually subject to censorship rules and legislations. Usage of filthy words on air is also not allowed in most traditionalist societies (Wittern-Keller 23).

A good example of the implementation of moral censorship is in a 1978 case pitting comedian George Carlin and the Pacifica Foundation. Carlin had a radio show dubbed Filthy Words, which mainly discussed the dirty words which should not be aired (Jay 208).

A man was driving in his car when his son heard the radio discussion. The man went on to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC issued a sanction against the radio station for airing indecent material. Later, the Pacifica foundation filed a case with the supreme court to have the ruling upheld but the court decided instead to allow the FCC accord and remove sanctions depending on how it regarded aired material.

Military censorship. In most countries, information pertaining to military intelligence is usually considered top-secret. This is in an effort to prevent surprise attacks on its facilities. Because of this, access to such information is normally permitted to a handful of individuals (Wittern-Keller 23). Any unauthorized broadcast of such content, by persons not expressly permitted to do so is considered illegal and any media that broadcasts any such material is prone to censorship attempts by the state.

Political censorship. Every government usually has a set of information which it keeps away from the public for the sake of stability. This is especially in times of economic turmoil, where the release of such information could cause the situation to worsen (Wittern-Keller 78).

By holding back such information from citizens, the government ultimately prevents rebellion. With knowledge that the broadcast of such information might put the state in bad light with the citizens, regulatory measures are implemented in the form of censorship.

Religious censorship. Religion is one of the dominant forces that determine how individuals relate with each other. In every country in the world, there is a religious following that is considered superior to the others. In order to maintain its dominance, this group can choose to force limitations on the less influential ones (Hoffman 28).

In addition, one religious group may decide to go against another if they believe their teachings are not similar. Nowadays, there are television and radio stations dedicated to particular religions and any attempt to try and impose the teachings of another religion are not taken politely. For instance, it is highly unlikely that Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) will broadcast a show focusing on Islamic values (Mathiesen 2008).

Corporate censorship. Most television and radio stations are owned by individuals who, in turn, have business partners. In this regard, whenever there is information that portrays the establishment or its owners in bad light, editors shun it or tweak it to suit their interests (Mathiessen 33).

For instance, the hip hop artiste Ice-T once released a song titled Cop Killer which spoke negatively of the police. The lyrics of the son were fiery and resulted in Time Warner, a company he was working with, to compel him to change the lyrics of the song after pressure from various religious and advocacy groups.

This essay has set out to provide an explanation of the various forms of censorship with focus being on broadcast (television and radio) media. A number of examples were used to offer further explanation on a number of listed categories. By the elastic nature of censorship, it can only be agreed that governments and other regulatory institutions apply it depending on already laid down regulation and structures.

However, there should be situations where censorship should be regarded as an absolute. For instance, in the case of child pornography, there should be no room for discussion and any media that distributes such content should face outright sanctions.

Works Cited

Burress, Lee. Battle of the Books, Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1989. Print.

Hoffman, Frank. Intellectual Freedom and Censorship, Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1989. Print.

Jay, Timothy. Why We Curse: A Neuro-psycho-social Theory of Speech, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000. Print.

Mathiesen, Kay. Censorship and Access to Information, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2008. Print.

Wittern-Keller, Laura. Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 1915-1981, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Print.

Media control and censorship of programs shown on TV has been a common practice in the recent days. Media control simply means censorship of the information and ideas that are spread to the public through media outlets. Some of the ways through which media control is exercised include barring the display of obscene images and the use of obscene language.

Media control is exercised in almost every country to prevent these obscenities. It is the responsibility of governments with the help of selected bodies to exercise media control. This essay will discuss the types of controls imposed on the media and the parties involved in exercising the controls.

The first type of control imposed over the media is control of sexual content, content depicting violence, and content encouraging use of drugs. This is an important type of control that ensures children and families are not exposed to obscene material. Control of pornography material to avoid it being shown on TV is important because the material can be easily accessed through the internet.

It is important for control over display of such material to be exercised because it is harmful to children. Unless display of obscene content and other questionable material is controlled, children and families will be affected negatively by the content (O’Shaughnessy and Stadler 156).

The second type of control imposed on the media is the control of information that may put the security of a country at risk. Control of military information is used to guard information which should only be possessed by the military. The media may be used by politicians and other powerful personalities fighting the government to spread information which poses a threat to the security of a country.

For instance, cases have been witnessed where the media is used to spread information causing citizens to start fighting. It is important to have media control over spread of information that may put the security of a country at risk.

The third type of control imposed over the media is religious control. In most countries there are different religious groups who subscribe to different faiths. It is therefore important for all religious groups in a country to be respected. Religious control refers to the control of any information that is considered offensive to particular religious groups.

For example, cases may arise where the dominant religious groups start interfering with the freedom of minority religions. It is important to exercise media control to ensure that there is no spread of information that might cause religious animosity (Gaddy 289).

The controls that are imposed on the media are in the form of laws enacted by the government. Most governments control the content to be spread through the media by enacting laws that regulate it. The ministry of information and communication is then held responsible to ensure that media outlets adhere to the laws that have been enacted. The ministry issues broadcasting guidelines that should be followed by all media outlets. Media outlets that violate the set laws regarding the content they should broadcast risk losing their licenses.

Media control is also exercised through special bodies that are set by the government to regulate the content being spread through media outlets. Some of these bodies are commissions mandated to ensure that all regulations are followed by the media outlets. The commissions are also responsible for monitoring media outlets to ensure that they do not release questionable content. By so doing, the information spread through the media is controlled to ensure that only information suitable to the public is released.

Works Cited

Gaddy, Gary. The Power of the Religious Media: Religious Broadcast Use and the Role of Religious Organizations in Public Affairs.n.d . Web.

O’Shaughnessy, Michael and Stadler,Jane. Media and Society: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2008.Print

Introduction

Background of the study

The mass media influences the social world in many ways through its outlets such as films, news, movies, internet sites, books, and newspaper articles. The media is perceived to represent the social world because it forms the basis of the values and beliefs held by many people as the social norms (Croteau and Hoynes 157).

Apart from influencing the social world, the mass media can also influence the political world in diverse ways. This is because most people depend on the mass media for fundamental information concerning their governments, the corporate world, and politics in general.

Over the last few decades, it has been the sole role of the mass media to shed light on the major political events in the United States and other parts of the world. Events such as the McCarthy hearing of the 1950s, the Vietnam War (1960s), and the Clinton impeachment (1990s) are part of the numerous political events that have since been highlighted by the mass media through the visual media technology (Croteau and Hoynes 231).

Looking at these cases, it is noticeable that the mass media plays a fundamental role in displaying courtrooms’ realities, government organizations and also in battlefields. In order for media organizations to achieve their fundamental functions as stated above, there should be free flow of information between the mass media organizations and the consumers. This forms the basis of democracy within the media organizations and the society in general.

On the other hand, research indicates that the mass media experiences a variety of constraints particularly those associated with political pressures, economic and legal implications. In order to avoid the negative implications concerning their products and actions, most media organizations opt to censor some or parts of their products (Goldberg, Verhulst & Prosser 270).

This forms the basis of self-censorship, which is defined as the act undertaken by a mass media organization with the aim of expurgating its work due to fear or the need to respect other peoples’ interests without the involvement of any regulatory authority.

On the other hand, the government, economic, and political organizations can control the kind of information that the mass media presents to the society. This is a phenomenon known as censorship. Censorship includes suppression of the media contents and products which are perceived to be sensitive, damaging, objectionable, and inappropriate to the general public as ordered by the government or other regulatory agencies (Goldberg, et al. 270).

In a democratic society, both censorship and self-censorship have positive and negative implications on the independency of mass media. In this research paper, the key aspects of censorship versus self-censorship are analyzed in relation to how they undermine democracy in the news industry.

Additionally, the paper assesses the differences between the impact of censorship designed by the government and self-censorship as controlled by a corporate news organization on the democracy of news media. This is achieved through analyzing the concepts of censorship and self-censorship relative to a number of theoretical models and the issues presented by the Project Censored group.

Impact of self-censorship in undermining Democracy within the News Media

The impacts of censorship and self-censorship on democracy within the media industry can be looked at by analyzing media content and products and how independent the journalists are in events coverage. As mentioned above, mass media plays the fundamental role of shaping behaviors and attitudes in the social world through its content and products, which also defines and reflect the conditions prevailing in today’s world.

In this case, the content and products of media can be designed to represent the roles of men and women in the society, the good and the bad in the social set-ups in addition to other social disorders. Assessment of the appropriateness of the mass media in discharging the above-named duties forms the basis of the ideological analysis of the news media (Croteau and Hoynes 235).

In censorship, the government, political and economic organizations utilize the Marxist viewpoint of media ideology. Media ideology as used by these instruments refers to a system of values and beliefs, which justify the actions of authorities upon their subjects.

This undermines democracy within the news media by manipulating media products to serve the interests of a few individuals (Croteau and Hoynes 239). In this case, the free flow of information is hindered either by self-censorship, which aims at safeguarding the interests of the corporate organization, owning it as a business venture or for the purposes of censorship.

Censorship is mainly controlled by the government and the political elite with the intention of protecting their interests (Philips, Huff & Jamail 16).Before embarking on the act of censoring the content of a corporate news organization, the government or the political organization must analyze the ideological basis of the content.

Besides undermining democracy, this action is disadvantageous and inappropriate because it entails assessing the message contained in the news rather than the long-term implications of the message. The same is also true with self-censorship, which is also based on ideological analysis of the media content. Through these actions, information is produced which not to benefit the public but distortion of information to hinder public awareness (Philips et al. 16).

Additionally, censorship deprives the media of its freedom in social and political coverage. According to recent research, self-censorship of news organizations has been in use over a couple of years as a tool for normalization (Croteau and Hoynes 241). In this case, the media ideology is designed to represent the social norm and defiance.

Further more, such kind of news organizations tend to concentrate on issues that will attract less political and social objection. Therefore, it is normal for a television station to broadcast what is perceived to be socially, politically and economically normal rather than displaying social, political, and economic abnormalities that otherwise influence change.

Matters to do with squatters, homosexuality, cross-dressing and stripping are concealed by the political and social societies in order to avoid protestation (Goldberg et al. 270). Contrary to this, it is upon the media to display such social and political outcasts in order to allow the society to assess the extent to which its members are compliant with the norms and the possible weaknesses that need change (Croteau and Hoynes 241).

Recent studies have identified economic reason as a major contributing factor of self-censorship in the news industry. It is worth noting that most corporate news organizations are business ventures of corporate investors who are also the key players in the economic sector. Self-censorship comes in when media products are slant in order to serve the interests of the investors rather than the public.

These actions undermine democracy in the corporate news organizations in a variety of ways. Despite that many media organizations have got a section meant to address the economic issues in a given country, it is almost impossible to read about how economic trends affect people sharing varied economic interests.

Most of these business sections are concerned with the stock market and major investments (Croteau and Hoynes 244).According to these scholars, business news that dare cover the news concerning the working conditions, experiences and importance of the workers may be regarded as being anti-business and may lead to such news organization experiencing major economic implications.

Furthermore, self-censorship undermines the free flow of information by distorting the information contained in the advertisements (Philips et al. 23). The ultimate goal of the corporate organizations and their advertisements is to have many people consuming their products and to increase their profitability. As for the business news discussed earlier, advertisements do not take the consumer interests into consideration.

Moreover, the ideology of consumerism is encouraged through designing ads that present false promises to customers who are engaged in continuous consumption. The ads can be found almost anywhere and they are usually dependent on the act of distorting the reality in order to ensure that the goods are consumed in large quantities while the consumers derive minimal benefits from them (Croteau and Hoynes 245).

Censorship versus Self-censorship in Undermining Democracy in news media

As indicate above, ideology in the media industry entails a set of values, beliefs, and meanings that are attached to the real meaning of the world and the conditions prevailing therein. In addition, it is notable that self-censorship influences democracy in the social, capitalism, materialism and economic environments.

On the other hand, censorship plays a major role in distorting the reality and democracy under the political, nationalism and governance milieu. However, a variety of interdependencies are notable between the two concepts in that self-censorship is dependent on censorship in one way or another (Philips et al. 33).

Self censorship in the media industry can result into distortion of news content so as to serve the interests of political elites in the society; who are also the main advertisers. For instance, during campaign periods, the news media is charged with the responsibility of building the image of certain candidates while scantly covering others. In this case, censorship unlike self-censorship plays a major role in replacing the reality with mediated images.

In this case, the political elites take full control of their campaign commercials and ads besides ensuring that the images are manipulated to match the expectations of the voters while negative images are edited or scraped all together. Another important aspect of media involvement in political campaigns entails negative attacks of rival candidates through the campaign commercials. All these actions hinder the free flow of information to the voters besides influencing their voting patterns (Philips et al. 38).

Furthermore, the main objective of self-censorship is to benefit some few individuals while disregarding the interests of the majority. On the other hand, censorship, which is influenced by those in authority aims at preventing the occurrence of events perceived to be dangerous or harmful to the image of the authorities.

For the last one decade, Project Censored has uncovered a variety of stories, which had been ignored by the news media either intentionally or under the influence of those in authority. According to Philips et al. (11), a rational news media should produce real news that uncovers the vices in the society and serves to awaken the society to take note of the prevailing conditions. Additionally, the news produced should be in a position to provide checks and balances in governance and politics.

Real news should provide all citizens with the opportunity of identifying the negative implications of terrorism, wars, toxic wastes, abusive political leaders, and environmental degradation among other issues. In this way, news serves the function of fostering positive social change and activism.

This also depicts the kind of news that is people-centered and has an aim of influencing them to join hands with other individuals sharing common goals and objectives. The above functions of real news cannot be realized in the presence of censorship or self-censorship in production of news. It should be noted that real news reinforces democracy and the freedom of expression, social activism, and resistance of the influence of the top leadership and management on their subjects (Philips et al. 44).

Conclusions

This research paper explores the key aspects of censorship versus self-censorship in the news media. This is achieved through considering the implications of self-censorship on democracy within the news media industry. Furthermore, the varied implications of censorship and self-censorship are also considered in this paper. In the news media industry, democracy is defined as the free flow of information from one party to another.

In addition, censorship refers to the act of censoring a section or some of the media products, which are perceived to be harmful, damaging, or objectionable by the general public as provided for by the government or other regulatory authorities. On the other hand, self-censorship entails restraint of the media contents by a corporate news organization due to fear or the need to safeguard the interests of others in the society without the direct contribution of any external influence.

As indicated in the discussions above, self-censorship undermines democracy within the news media industry in a variety of ways. In most cases, this act is committed in the economic, capitalism, social, and the materialism sectors whereby its main objective is to increase the material benefits of a few individuals.

On the other hand, censorship influences democracy within the governance, political, and the nationalism environments. In addition, despite the fact that self-censorship and censorship differ in a variety of ways; interdependencies are notable particularly in the political environment whereby self-censorship is influenced by top authority.

Works Cited

Croteau, David and Hoynes, William. Media society: industries, images, and audiences. California: Pine Forge Press, 2003. Print.

Philips, Peter; Huff, Mickey and Jamail Dahr, (ed.7). Censored 2010: the Top 25 censored stories of 2008-09. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2009. Print.

Goldberg, David; Verhulst G. Stefaan and Prosser Tony. Regulating the Changing Media: A Comparative Study. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

Introduction

Social networks have become powerful tools in the lives of many people in third world countries. Social media sites are where people go to acquire knowledge and ideas from other individuals. People use them as platforms through which they communicate with their relatives and friends.

Social media sites are relatively cheap means of communication in third world countries. However, the question has been the extents to which one can exercise freedom via the sites. Freedom of social media sites is only possible in democratic countries.

Censorship of social media sites is the control of information that is available to users. In many cases, governments control the activities of social media sites. However, other people and institutions can also censor social media sites (Rangwala 2011, pp. 1).

This is paper discusses the censorship of social media sites in third world countries. It also determines reasons for the implementation of censorship policies in the third world countries.

Background

Social networks make it easy for people to obtain and distribute information rapidly. However, dictatorial regimes cannot tolerate the idea of free flow of information. Many dictatorial regimes are in third world countries. Such regimes have noted the impacts that social media sites have on human societies.

In Tunisia, the actions of a fruit vendor sparked protests in the entire country. The death of the vendor sparked protests in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iran. The protests spread to other countries through information passed via social media sites (Diamond & Plattner 2012, pp.132).

Last year, Britain experienced civil unrest and protests. People posted images of riots in social network sites. Plans used in the execution of the riots were also passed through the sites. This made some politicians call for the shutdown of social media to limit the flow of information and awareness.

The communist party that rules China also views freedom of the sites as a threat to the authority (McMillan 2012, pp. 1). These show that developed countries also feel that social media sites should be censored.

Arguments

Arguments that oppose censorship of the social media are based on the belief that the sites are a platform through which individuals exercise their rights. Opponents of censorship argue that every person has a right to express himself freely (Telba 2010, pp. 1).

People should express their ideas, receive, and disseminate information freely. Moreover, social media is currently used in execution of business deals that are beneficial. Nonetheless, education on utilization of the sites is essential. Users must be educated on how to use the sites to avoid conflict with the dictatorial regimes.

Proponents of censorship of social network sites normally argue that it is necessary for maintenance of peace within a country. They have noted the impacts that the sites have on human actions (Hardy 2011, pp. 1).

Some regimes feel that social sites can be used to leak information that can lead to the imposition of sanctions. Usually, they provide political reasons for censorship of the sites. They propose that censorship is necessary to control activities of people who oppose the regime in power (Vij-Aurora 2011, pp. 1).

Other reasons for censorship are based on religious and social life issues. Governments may censor the sites to control religious activities of the citizens.

This is common in third world countries in Asia where Islam is practiced. For example, approximately 400,000 websites were censored in Saudi Arabia to control religious and women’s activities (Greengard 2010, pp. 17).

Hence, in third world countries, censorship is implemented to control activities of political and religious organizations. It is also implemented to suppress activities of minority and terrorist groups. Governments use various methods to censor the sites.

One method is the employment of spies who monitor posts that citizens make. The spies identify posts that are likely to undermine the authority of the government. Another type of censorship is the use of civil society to monitor social sites. This method was practiced in Tunisia.

The civil society in Tunisia monitored people who used technology to pass information in the country. Finally, the other type of censorship is media blackout. In this case, the interface of the social media website used by an individual does not appear (Hansen, Schneiderman & Smith 2011, pp. 6).

Hence, the individual cannot perform any activity via the site when there is a media blackout.

Nevertheless, the internet has various implications on censorship of social media sites. Advances in technology make it difficult for governments of third world countries to censor the sites.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to discuss censorship of social media sites in third world countries. It has determined the impact of social media and the arguments for and against censorship. Finally, it has noted three types of censorship employed by governments of third world countries.

List of References

Diamond, J. & Plattner, F. 2012, Liberation technology: social media and the struggle for democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Greengard, S. 2010, “Censored!”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 53 no. 7, pp. 16-18.

Hansen, L., Schneiderman, B., & Smith, A. 2011. Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: insights from a connected world, Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington.

Hardy, M. 2011, Silencing social media: Censorship or maintaining order? Web.

McMillan, G. 2012, China censors social media, Internet to squelch Tiananmen Square anniversary. Web.

Rangwala, F. 2011, Should social networking websites be censored? Web.

Telba, E. 2010, Social networking websites: Between censorship and freedom. Web.

Vij-Aurora, B. 2011, Scissorhands Sibal: Is government’s attempt to censor social media justified? Web.

Introduction

Wikileaks has faced a dilemma whether it should be censored or not since the very first day of the website appearance. Scholars, authorities and simple people offer their visions of the situation, provide their arguments, and try to prove that their facts are the most relevant and convincing. Since the first day of official launch of the website in 2007, Wikileaks stays under thorough supervision.

Trying to understand a difference between Wikileaks and other sources of news the website is to be considered. It is important to understand the level of Wikileaks’ affect on society and how having Australian Communications and Media Authority organization people still have access to the files which may harm them.

According to the wikileaks.com it is a non-for-profit organization which provides “an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information” to its journalists and publishes “original source material alongside [its] news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth” (Wikileaks 2012).

Australian government as well as governments of other countries tries to understand how this source of information may affect people. There are two ways out, either to censorship Wikileaks, or to supports the idea of freedom of speech. Having conducted a research, this paper aims to present relevant and convincing facts supporting both for and against arguments of censoring Wikileaks concluding with argumentative opinion in favor of stopping to pursue Wikileaks in Australia and to allow it operate online without censorship.

Wikileaks Must Be Censored

Wikileaks is a source of information which stresses on its uniqueness and true data presentation. Since the time of the website creation many scholars tried to suspect it in failures and incorrect information. Others wanted to find harmful information presented by the website and in 2010 such people had an opportunity to do it. Remembering the third leakage of information in 2010, the largest and the most dangerous one, each person can check 251,287 United States embassy cables.

Figure 1: Visualization of the State Department cables (Scola 2010).

These documents contain many secret facts which create problems for any government making it unprotected. It shows that media is much more powerful that it may seem from the first sight. According to the research conducted by Scola (2010) state department cables affected the US security and the embassies of such places as Ankara, Baghdad, Tokyo, Amman, Paris, Kuwait, Madrid, Moscow, Colombo, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Khartoum, Jakarta, Delhi, Abuja, Hague, Kabul, Bangkok, Rome, Caro, Kinshasa, and Abu Dhabi (See Figure 2).

Mass media has shown that there is nothing which can be hidden from it, having shown its power and magnificence. However, looking at the possible outcome of the leaked information it becomes obvious that mass media may be harmful.

A reveal of such information as “China’s privately communicated stances on North Korea and Iran, American spats with Russia and Turkey, requests by Arab leaders for intensified U.S. pressure on Iran, and American diplomats’ opinions of world leaders, including Robert Mugabe and Moammar Gadhafi” (Charnoff 2010) can affect not only international security.

Figure 2: The Wikileaks cables (‘U.S. Warns of Likely Harm from Wikileaks Release’ 2010)

Having an opportunity to access these documents, no one knows what information the website can offer and how it can be presented in case top security data is revealed. At wars, the situations are different and the decisions made while war operations may shock people who live during the peace period. The death of several people may protect the whole operation at the war time, and when people see such acts, they make incorrect conclusions.

Mass media has an opportunity to present the information in the way it is interested at. Remembering that case, it is important to state that it is one of the main reasons why Wikileaks must be censored. People are to be protected and Wikileaks offers them information which may carry danger (Beckett, & Ball 2012). Much data must be secured in favor of world peace and order. The disclosure of this information may bring many conflicts, chaos, and may lead even to weapon collisions.

In 2010, Wikileaks disclosed many documents about war in Afghanistan which showed that governments of several counties which were involved in the war covered many acts of deaths of innocent citizens. This information may be allowed for reading. However, at the same time, the website revealed the names of community informants. This data is private and it may affect the country’s security greatly (Dumas 2012).

Australian mass media sources must understand it. The information presented on Wikileaks is protected by government due to many reasons and the country’s security is one of them. At the same time, Iraq and Afghanistan, the countries which are the focus of two first leaks of information on Wikileaks, may also be negatively affected because of this data disclosure (Leigh, & Harding 2011).

Disclosure of the information is shown as the freedom of speech. But many civil rights organizations also turned back from Wikileaks after a disclosure of the information about Afghanistan and Iraq wars having convicted it in illegal actions and in “revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan and making them vulnerable for further violence” (Dumas 2012).

Trying to speak about numbers, it is better to look at figure 4. It shows the correlation between the dead coalition forces, Iraqi forces, insurgents and civilians. Presenting this information, mass media shows its power, it wants to rule human vision of the situation. Showing it as a freedom of speech, Wikileaks wants to create public opinion.

Figure 3: Wikileaks documents deaths in the Iraq war (‘Wikileaks and the Iraq war’ 2010)

There are many Australians who are against this unnecessary, as they call it, war. Having seen these numbers, those people are assured in their belief. Therefore, their consciousness is assured in the negative effect of the war refusing some positive aspects which may exist. Supporting the idea of Wikileaks censorship, governments of different countries turn to any possible support.

Even though that Wikileaks is an online site which is supported by many other Internet companies, Amazon expressed its position in favor of censoring Wikileaks due to the website violation of its rules. Being deleted from a list of its websites, Wikileaks was convicted in presenting harmful information which was a reason for Amazon to insist on Wikileaks censoring.

One of the representatives of Amazon leadership reported that “it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that Wikileaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy” (Sifry 2011, p. 176). The information Wikileaks presents affect human opinion about the events, but no one can assure that the data presented by the website is credible.

One more reason to censor Wikileaks is to convince it in distribution of harmful information. Official sources managed to prove that Wikileaks could not be allowed to a wide range of readers due to its failure to verify the information (Greenberg 2012). As for Australia, the information revealed by this website resulted in citizens’ disapproval of the war which had been lasting for many years.

Just one release of information and Wikileaks managed to affect the opinions of the whole country (Pilger 2010). But whether people were unaware of the war? No, they were not. Were people aware of many deaths? Yes, they were. The release of the information by mass media made people change their opinion and act its favor. It is the occupation of human mind, therefore, the website with such affect is to be rejected, or at least censored.

Wikileaks Must Operate as a Free Source of Information

According to the 1^st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Amendment I n.d).

This is the main argument in refusing from Wikileaks censoring and the main weapon against those who insist on it. Freedom of information and speech is a constitutional right of people, and they may use it. Wikileaks continues to be the focus of debate. Different countries look critically at this website. US government is a leader in imposing censorship on this website in the whole world.

Considering the situation in China, it should be stated that 13% of all the data presented online is censored. Chinese people know it, but they can do nothing. Chinese government reports that such measures are imposed with a purpose “to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power” (‘Monitoring the monitors’ 2012). As for Australia, there is the Australian Communications and Media Authority department which censors some specific Internet sites.

Hence, isn’t it an attempt to control people? Yes, it is. The USA wants to provide the same, but people are free in their actions, therefore, they have a right to act as they want if it is not forbidden by the law. People can express their personal vision in press. The information Wikileaks presents is true, therefore, the website cannot be convicted in calumniation.

So, what are the reasons for Wikileaks censorship? They are absent. After the release of those United States embassy cables in 2010, government began to convince Wikileaks in created tension between US and some countries (MacAskill, & Halliday 2010).

However, looking at the situation objectively, is Wikileaks really guilty? Was Wikileaks unfair in some international relationships? Was it Wikileaks which acted irresponsibly in relation to some countries? Was it Wikileaks which tried to hide some important information from other countries-partners? Is there something to blame Wikileaks for? A responsible reader is going to answer ‘no’ to each of these questions.

Therefore, another aspect is to be considered, why should Wikileaks stop its activities? Living in the democratic country, mass media may have an opportunity to express personal opinion. Information is to be presented in public. People are to know the facts. Why should government prevent people from being aware of the facts they have a right to know? Speaking about various countries and their attitude to freedom of speech, China, North Korea and the Middle East are the most severe countries in relation to censorship.

All the data which is released in these countries is checked and sorted. Even not all Google search items are available for people in these countries. UK expressed its dissatisfaction with such state of affairs having referred to the countries where Wikileaks is censored (Biagi 2011). It is illegal in relation to journalists who have a right to deliver credible information and to simple people who have the right to read that information.

According to W.W (2010b), people fail to see the wood for the trees. Seeking for separate facts, trying to consider hidden information on the website, both government and people fail to see contribution Wikileaks makes to Australia and a whole world. Protected information does not make an opportunity for many scholars to draw appropriate conclusions.

As a result, it may lead to failure in historic cause and effect relations. For example, the information presented about the war in Iraq showed the real danger Saddam Hussein represented to whole society (W.W 2010a). Only the documents given by Wikileaks revealed the information about a real possession of the destroying weapon he had.

Figure 4: Opinion of Wikileaks (Press Summary 2010).

According to the research conducted by Barometer of the ELCANO Royal Institute in Madrid in 2010, the vast majority of respondents see positive affect from the release of the diplomatic cables Wikileaks offers. It says that people understand the necessity of free information distribution. According to the same research, Julian Assange, a founder of Wikileaks, is the third popular person in the world after Angela Merkel and Barack Obama.

Therefore, the information is read on the website and the data is correctly presented as people think. Being a nonprofit organization, Wikileaks operates on the basis of donations, however, Bank of America, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union, the most spread online paying facilities, blocked Wikileaks accounts. Thanks to bitcoin, the organization manages to overcome the US demand for block and continues receiving donations.

Having referred to the UK, the only country which supports Wikileaks as a free organization which has an opportunity to express its vision of the world, Wikileaks strives for its rights on free access to banking accounting. Looking at this situation, it is important to state that such behavior of US government is unacceptable. Providing such actions, USA proves that it has much to hide from society.

Such conclusions make Wikileaks the only website which offers really true information. This is one more reason why it has to be protected and censorship is not what the website needs. People should have an opportunity to know the truth and Wikileaks offers such an option (Matonis 2012). Australia is a country remote from others, therefore, the main source of information is the Internet and other types of mass media.

Mass media affects people greatly as they have to trust everything they are offered. Most of information on TV and online is aimed at creating public opinion while Wikileaks offers the documents and people have the right to draw personal conclusions.

Conclusion

Therefore, it may be concluded that arguments presented in this research show that Wikileaks cannot be censored due to the laws and ethical issues. Wikileaks offers true information. The conviction of the website in creating dangerous situation for a whole world is absurd. Wikileaks just offers the information which is to be available for people.

People have the right to know all the data concerning national and international politics living in free democratic society. The information Wikileaks reveals is important for society for understanding the actions of the government and conclusions it draws. Still, it is the government which makes decisions and acts. It is the government which should be responsible for danger information creates.

The release of some of the data threatens US in tension from the side of some countries and this is only the fault of the government. Government should act in favor of its citizens, but it should be fair before itself and before the whole world. The failure to be fair leads to such situations when the leakage of some data may cause problems with other counties.

Of course, no one knows which data may be released tomorrow, but to be calm government should act in accordance with the laws. Therefore, it should not fear that society gets to know the truth. Information is not just a source of knowledge it is the way to control the world. World society and specifically authorities understand that Wikileaks possesses much information and therefore, it can have much control.

Reference List

Amendment I, Bill of Rights. Web.

Beckett, C., & Ball, J. 2012, WikiLeaks, Polity, New York.

Biagi, 2011, Media Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media, Cengage Learning, Stamford.

Charnoff, D. 2010, ‘Wikileaks floodgate should be closed’, Daily Trojan. Web.

Dumas, B. M. 2012, Information Technology and Society, Routledge, London.

Greenberg, A. 2012, ‘How WikiLeaks‘ New York Times Hoax Diluted Truth-Telling with Trolling’, Forbes. Web.

Leigh, D., & Harding, L. 2011, Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, PublicAffairs, New York.

MacAskill, E., & Halliday, J. 2010, ‘Wikileaks shutdown calls spark censorship row’, The Guardian. Web.

Matonis, J. 2012, ‘Wikileaks Bypasses Financial Blockade with Bitcoin’, Forbes. Web.

‘Monitoring the monitors’, 2012, The Economist. Web.

Pilger, J. 2010, ‘Why WikiLeaks must be protected’, The Statesman, 19 August.

Press Summary: Barometer of the ELCANO Royal Institute (BRIE) 2011. Web.

Scola, N. 2010, ‘Lieberman Strikes Again Against Wikileaks‘ Web’, TechPresident. Web.

Sifry, M. L. 2011, Wikileaks and the Age of Transparency, OR Books, London.

‘U.S. Warns of Likely Harm from Wikileaks Release’ 2010, CBS News. Web.

Wikileaks 2012. Web.

‘Wikileaks and the Iraq war: Data dumping’ 2010, The Economist.

W.W 2010a, ‘In defence of Wikileaks’. The Economist.

W.W 2010b, ‘Missing the point of Wikileaks’, The Economist. Web.