Category: Censorship

Whether it’s w/ required animal testing in the food and beauty industry, or with the major concern of pollution in the ever-growing world population, China and the States never seem to be on the right foot. The film industry and the various ways to regulate and manipulate it seems to just be another ground for disagreement between both countries. China sees the States’ film censorship and rating system as a way to promote capitalist and anti-China propaganda and subliminally control its citizens into thinking like one hive mind; on the other hand, the amount of censorship and film regulations in China is seen by the States as a country that force-feeds communist propaganda down its citizens throats to uphold its totalitarian regime and discourage anarchist ideas and/or movements.

In the States, films were once regulated heavily and censored at a higher rate. In the 1900s, federal censorship boards such as the Production Code, headed by Joseph Breen in 1934, and the Catholic Legion of Decency kept a high vigilance over the content and motifs of films that directors wanted to put out to the public. Movies such as Scarlet Street (1945) and The Moon is Blue (1953) were banned for violating the rules and regulations created by the groups the prohibited specific themes and/or the inclusion of controversial issues. Films with themes such as developed mental illness due trauma from past experiences of rape and violence by the main character in The Streetcar Named Desire (1951) or excessive amounts of mafia violence and killing in Scarface (1932) were a cause for censorship for tackling taboo topics and/or glorified immoral acts.

With Breen’s retirement in 1954 though, the Production Code dissolved and the Catholic Legion of Decency lost much of its leverage over the film industry. Although, even with the increased amount of freedom given to film directors and producers and the increase involvement of the States film market in the importation of foreign films, the MPAA, now back in control, a new rating system was needed to ensure another party similar to the Production Code would not step in and take the power away from the film directors and producers under them. It was in 1968, that Jack Valenti created a rating system for the MPAA to classify films and their targeted audiences.

The ratings: ‘G,’ ‘M,’ ‘R,’ and ‘X’ originally stood for as follows: ‘G’ was for general audiences including children, ‘M’ for mature audiences such as teenagers, ‘R’ for those older than 16, and ‘X’ 17 and older. This rating system was utilized to judge movies on their sexual, violent, language, and thematic content. Into the 1990s, ratings like ‘PG,’ ‘PG-13,’ ‘R,’ and ‘NC-17’ replaced original ratings like ‘M’ and ‘X.’ Today, the rating system has continued to adapt with film content, with few films released with an ‘R’ or ‘NC-17’ rating, since directors have chosen to exploit the rating ‘PG-13’ for mature content in order to make the most revenue.

Whereas the States heavily promotes the development of content in the film industry due to its contribution to the national GDP and its global influence, China heavily restricts and regulates the release of films that contain varied content that could be detrimental to its citizens, in fear of losing the control and support of its people. The different types of content that China regulates include but are not limited to: violence, political issues, racial issues, mental illness, and specific types of both sexual and romantic relationships, especially concerning the inclusion of LGBT representation. Great movies such as, The Life of Wu Xun (1950), Beijing Bastards (1993), and Seven Years into Tibet (1997) were banned in China without possibility for release with censorship for years, until the Chinese government faced backlash when they gained praise at international film festivals or from international leaders.

With the globalization of the world and the influence of the internet, China had initially banned interaction of film industries in Chinese provinces in the importation of foreign films until 1978, and still not opening up all of its borders to outside influence until as late as 2013. Many of the movies in China are pushed by film directors through Chinese allowed government apps that replace YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook as follows: YŌUKÙ TǓDÒU, WĒIBÓ, and RÉN RÉN, thus allowing for the further control of what was Chinese citizens could interact with online, gain information about, and participate in.

China’s rating system also depends solely on the heavy censorship present in China, or films are classified otherwise as ‘banned’ by the official representatives of the Chinese government.

For example, in movies that tend to be LGBT focused or have a significant part of the plot that focuses on an LGBT relationship, China mandates by law, that unless the predominantly LGBT relationship dissolves or one and/or both lovers die by the end of the movie, the movie will not see release. This has led to films such as Happy Together (1997), Hold You Tight (1998), and Irresistible Love (2016) being forced to change their endings upon release or become banned.

The various ways the States and China’s governments regulate the film industry are more similar than different. Even with the States and China’s constant battles over morality and freedom of expression, both depend heavily on each other’s film industry to support their political and economic strategies. Whether it’s through ratings systems, condemnation, or banishment of films, both countries have used heavy censorship in their own way to meet their own goals.

INTRODUCTION

On September 14th, 1987 the first email was sent from The People’s Republic of China to a prestige university in Germany, it was an enormous step forward to technology and international communications, this event marked the start of a new era of innovations within internet, but currently this advance was stopped and restrained on China. Internet since its beginnings until now is an outstanding tool, while having a connection to internet you can find a vast variety of activities to do, find entertainment, learn new things, interact with people all around the world or express yourself through social media, among others. Internet can be great to execute the mentioned actions but, many internet users also have a bad usage of this facility and observing the danger this mean could induce to China’s population Chinese government decided to apply a censorship policy on the internet. Nowadays in all China’s internet population, that is approximately 560 million users, only few percentage have a full access to the internet, consequence of the China’s internet censorship. This report’s goal is to explain briefly the cause of the implementation, the effects on the population, what does the policy censor and how does it work.

WHY CHINA IMPLEMENTS THE CENSORSHIP POLICY

China’s internet censorship policy was founded by the Chinese Communist Party and it had two main purposes, ban any opposition or criticism to communism among Chinese on internet and avoid the use of tools made by West, who represent capitalism and its ideologies.

Communist ideologies are the basis of this policy, and this ideology totally rejects West and its capitalism, regarding this, China is against using any western related tool. In this country most of the western, more known, research and social media platforms are banned. Taking this in advantage, China creates own social media platforms and research pages. They do not only avoid capitalism by creating this tools, but also Chinese government is able to have total control over the platforms, gaining the ability to censor any post that violate the purpose of the policy, that is to remove the criticism toward communist party ideas or governmental management.

WHAT DOES THE POLICY CENSOR

The policy states that the circulation of information that contains content that could corrupt the power of the state or infringe a lack of respect to the nation or the communist party is prohibit, and any web site, blog or post on social media that seem to infringe the rule would be instantly blocked.

But lately, studies have shown that the government censors more the humane expression than the negative comments toward the state. The program is being accused for aiming to limit the collective actions by blocking the posts that encourage social movements, regardless the content. These accusations resemble a threat to the government’s program, because the project is not being used for the purposes that had been predetermined and as such, seems to expose the government’s intent of having controlled and with a monotone thinking the society. So in consequence of this, there is no clarity to know what does the government censures or not.

HOW DOES THE CENSORSHIP WORK

Chinese government has implemented a unique way of censoring the web: the Great Firewall of China officially named the Golden Shield project. This internet barrier is considered the largest, more developed and most advanced Internet censorship regime in the world. It is a system that is constructed to limit access to foreign websites that violate the conditions stablished by the government. “This barrier controls the Internet gateways where traffic travels between China and the rest of the web by a combination of firewalls and proxy servers.” Taken from https://www.howtogeek.com/162092/htg-explains-how-the-great-firewall-of-china-works/

HOW DOES THE POLICY AFECT THE USERS

There are many problems within the policy and the users; this includes the violation of some human rights and the excluding of China’s population from the rest of the world, among others.

In the Chinese constitution is stated that people of China have the freedom of speech and the expression of ideas, but with the censorship the government has the authority to silence anything that could potentially damage the country. So if you want to say something the government doesn’t approve others can’t hear it, especially in the network. This resumes that in China you are free to speak only about what the government says is correct to speak. Censorship also makes people believe the wrong facts, sheltering people from the reality. If the government does not want the society know something they can just simply censor it, and no one would know what could happen.

CONCLUSION

Chinese government’s intention with the Golden Shield Project is unknown, but its society has the commitment of following the rules, even if the community is against, their opinion won’t be so valid for the government and the only possible action they could do is censor the comment. So, although censorship will help the society in some way, it will also lead society to a wrong way.

Intro

“As studies of various forms of self-censorship show, the constraints applied to taboo material are creative in their effect rather than simply cancelling out the desire they tone it to take new desires”. In this essay I will be looking into how censorship laws affected German cinema and filmmaking during the Inter-War years of 1919 to 1932. In my opinion censorship laws affected all aspects of cinema as the filmmakers, actors and production companies were affected.

The beginnings of censorship in cinema

The concept of censorship began to emerge in line with the growing fear around how influential cinema was becoming during the 1920’s. The argument against the medium of cinema came from a very narrow minded point of view post world war one. People were still reeling in the trauma of war and I believe they looked to activities such as the cinema as forms of escapism. Cinema was seen by many as a waste of time and harmful. In a response to an article titled “Against a cinema that makes women stupid” (1913) the anonymous author highlights how cinema is demeaning the working class when they should be bettering themselves with education. The author continues on to say how dangerous the medium of cinema is as it “lures the voyeuristic masses to the cinemas every day and leave them staring, with lust and excitement, at the white screen”. It was believed that “The cinema’s trash has a far more penetrating and dangerous effect since the viewer does not have to imagine the ugly sights but sees everything played out more vividly and realistically before his eyes”

In 1920, two years on from the ending of World War 1, the Reich German Government awareness of the influence of cinema was growing. The Government believed “That undesirable consequences may result if everyone is permitted unrestricted access to all that is available to be seen, read or heard”.

“Abolished by the Rat der Volksbeauftragten (Council of the People’s Deputies) on November 12, 1918, censorship was reintroduced in Germany with the Reichslichtspielgesetz (Reich Motion Picture Law), which was passed on May 12, 1920. According to this law, every film needed to be approved by a state censorship board (located in Berlin and Munich) prior to its exhibition.” The Reichslichtspielgesetz board was made up of representatives elected by the German government. The representatives themselves felt more pressure from the government to not let anything derogatory slip by them and in turn often enforced stricter laws. For a film to pass the Reich Motion Picture Law it had to not “endanger public safety.. endanger the German reputation or German relations with Foreign nations”. There was another set of restrictions for younger audiences as the Reichslichtspielgesetz “ Censorship is stricter for children under eighteen years of age who are forbidden to see any film that gives use for concern over negative effects on moral, spiritual or hygienic development or overexcites the fantasy of young people.” The censorship board had the complete right to cut parts of a film out and leave the rest, as can be seen with the film ‘Kuhle Wampe’

Censorship in action – ‘Kuhle Wampe’ (1932)

‘Kuhle Wampe’ or ‘To Whom does the World belong?’ Is a 1932 German feature film written by Bertolt Brecht. The film was banned in March 1932 before opening, with cuts having been made, in Berlin on May 30th 1932. The film begins during the great depression where unemployment is high in Germany. The monotony of interwar Germany and the hopelessness of society is evident in Kuhle Wampe. As the film begins we are hit with the facts of the great depressions through newspaper headlines with 2.7 million seeking jobs in June. I feel as though the film is quite experimental for the time as it frequently leaves the viewer analysing subtext of the scene. Unemployment in the film is represented by masses of people on bikes with the camera’s point of view focused on the spinning wheels through the streets. Unemployed people are seen scrambling to read the newspaper as well as an unemployed man stopping to listen to a musician in the street. ‘Everyday the same fight’ was the workers experience of being without work. These scenes depict a version of Germany that’s unsuccessful and quite depressing.

The film also contains themes such as suicide and eviction. The son in the German family is consistently being told that he is lazy and that it’s not good enough to be unemployed. The parents seem to be in a dire financial situation as they sit around the table for dinner. The young man is then seen removing his watch (which is of worth to his family) and ending his own life. The scene cuts back to his bike hanging from the ceiling as we are reminded that the root of the events having just occurred is unemployment. The subtitles on screen hit quite hard in my opinion as they show how difficult the times were for people during the Inter-War years. “One unemployed worker less” condenses the end of the young mans life. The film was cut under the Reichslichtspielgesetz from eighty minutes to seventy six minutes after being banned for three months. The film itself became an ideal for political cinema in the 1960’s.

UFA

The Universum-Film AG was a German film board that was founded in 1917. The aim of the UFA was to produce films that could compete against other productions from Hollywood at the time. Introducing the film business into Germany post the devastation of world war one was no easy feat. The UFA was set up as a company under the German government at the time. The financial risk involved in going into film production was so great that there was no other choice but for the government to be involved. This meant that politics now had a foot in the door of the German film industry. Politicians were undoubtedly afraid of the power of the medium of cinema to the masses during such a fragile time in Germany. The control that the UFA now granted the German government was immense. They had direct access to millions of people. The founding of the UFA was questioned “as the propaganda arm of the German Military or as a belated none the less far-sighted business venture?”

Surviving as an Actor under censorship

German actors such as Reinhold Schunzel were affected by censorship during the Inter-War years. During the lead up to world war one and 1920 Schunzel was known to play “diabolical figures – seducers, homosexual extortionists and swindlers”. These characters under Reich Motion Picture Law would not be permitted on screen and would have ended Schunzels career.

To continue acting he had to develop a different character for the screen. “Schunzel developed an alternative persona, essentially comic, the Berlin street-wise good for nothing”. In my opinion adapting to become a character that continues to make films without attract the governments attention during this time was a very positive choice for any actor during the Inter-War years. Filmmakers, writers and directors had to deal with censorship differently as they could write roles to fit these characters. In this case Reinhold Schunzel turned his new persona “local character into a nationally recognised type”. The actor himself went onto make anti-nazi films post World War 2.

Expressionist Cinema – Fritz Lang

Fritz Lang was a German expressionist film maker during the Inter-War years. Expressionist filmmaking was an artistic style of filmmaking that focused on distorting the viewers emotions. As it was not the first form of expressionism it had principles to begin with. In expressionist film “emotional distortion is key… these films opt for dramatically expressive interpretations so the films mood is a literal tangible presence”. I believe Fritz Lang outwitted German censorship laws in his filmmaking by utilising different cinematic techniques. His use of political allegories in his filmmaking have carried into classic films such as George Orwell’s 1984. Filmmakers such as Fritz Lang had to self censor their films. This is where the cinematic techniques are used as the filmmakers still included topics such as relationships, unemployment, political viewpoints without showing the viewer on screen in a literal way. In my opinion censorship during the Inter-War years pushed filmmakers to utilise cinematic techniques that allowed taboo topics to be self realised by the viewer in the subtext of a film and gave more meaning to film.

Metropolis (1927) mirroring and projecting

Metropolis (1927) was a film collaboration between Fritz Lang and UFA and went on record to be the most refined and costly film that came from the German film industry at the time. Metropolis is a silent German expressionist film that centres around a dystopian society where there is a social divide and revolt between the working class and authority. The film mirrors the political landscape of Germany during the Inter-War years where people were beginning to question authority. The film also signals to a future where totalitarianism takes over.

The film was of course censored and almost a quarter of the film was removed. Subsequently “whole subplots (such as the worker 11811’s trip to Yoshiwara, the pleasure quarter) were cut and characters eliminated (Desertus the monk, head of the sect of Gothics)”. The removal of these specific parts demonstrate how fearful the censorship board was for German people to be skewed towards subcultures and rebellion. The scene where ‘worker 11811’ swaps lives with Freder (son of the master of Metropolis) was cut from the film as the former subservient worker runs off to a life of excess and pleasure, rather than following his orders. The cutting of this storyline again reflects the Censorship board’s ideas that activities that aren’t work or bettering the society are foolish. There are clear themes of revolt against authority and the concept of who controls society to be the way it is. There is a scene between Joh Fredersen and his son Freder where Freder begins to find out about the working class that his father controls. He poses the question “What if one day those in the depths rise up against you?” again proposing the concept of impending revolution.

Fritz Lang utilises set design, costume design, character makeup and camera techniques to play into the subtext of his films. The sets of Metropolis plays into looking towards a dystopian future with the use of angular streamlined buildings and futuristic roads in the sky in the city above ground. They also look to a regressive past with the dark dreary design of the ‘depths’ in the workers catacombs.

The cameras point of view further develops the subtext of Metropolis. A scene at the beginning of the film shows the workers going deep below to the catacombs to begin their shifts. The point of view of the back of the workers heads takes away their identity, that they are being controlled and used to run the whole city under one man’s orders. The cameras point of view and use of light is also very effective during a chase seen between Maria and Rotwang in the catacombs. A spotlight is used to give us Rotwang’s point of view while chasing Maria without showing him being violent. The fear and awareness of violence is still felt by the viewer without being literal.

The idea of Joh Fredersen controlling the city reflects on the view of politics at the time and Facism. Throughout the film he questions his advisors as he realises they are keeping information about Metropolis from him. When he witnesses Maria speaking to the workers in the catacombs he sees her as a threat to his power when he exclaims “ I shall saw discord between them and her! I shall destroy their belief in this woman—“ just as the concept of propaganda wanted to control people’s beliefs. I believe Metropolis culminates how filmmaking in Germany during the Inter-War years flourished under the constraints of censorship. Even though a quarter of the film was cut under Reich Motion Picture Law, it still told the story through set design, camera techniques, lighting and costume design.

Conclusion

After my research I believe that Censorship was a plan from the German government to control what their citizens believed and also how the world saw Germany during the Inter-War years. They believed through law enforcement they could control the industry and in turn the people in their favour. The government didn’t understand the creative industry of filmmaking as the Reich Motion Picture Law only improved German filmmaking. In my opinion limitations and constraints harbour creativity and provided more meaning in expressionist filmmaking. The censorship laws of the 1920’s called filmmakers to action when it came to censored topics rather than silencing them. The use of allegories and subtext to self censor changed cinema for the better.

Bibliography

1. Brody, Stephen. Screen Violence and Film Censorship – a review of research. London her majesty’s Stationary Office. 1977
2. Elsaesser, Thomas. Weimar Cinema and after: Germany’s Historical Imaginary. Routledge, 2000
3. Gunning, Tom. The Films of Fritz Lang: Allegories of Vision and Modernity. British Film Institute, 2000
4. Kaes, A., Baer, N., & Cowan, M. The promise of cinema : German film theory, 1907-1933.(Eds.). (2016) Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com, Accessed 4/04/2019

Introduction

I chose this topic because as a teenager myself, I’ve grown up in a world that has invariably revolved around social media, leading to feeling anxious or nervous on a daily basis. Nowadays, our society is facing a variety of issues that cause controversies, such as, religion, moralities, human rights or economic crisis. Social media feels like a burden sometimes. This generation relies on the internet and somehow, we are all connected by the internet. Millions of people brought together on to one platform. Though the internet is a free place, I believe that the restrictions held for us are extremely important and prevent us from ruining our lives. This topic is something I have always been interested in as I’ve always been a teenager whose life revolves around social media. One of the most talked about on-going issues in our society is “Is censorship necessary,” hence my interest in this topic.

Communicating with the internet has changed our entire generation. Nowadays, phones are useless if they do not have applications such as “Snapchat” or “Instagram,” used by 71% of teenagers around the world.[footnoteRef:0] These applications let us communicate through different ways. Teenagers go on these applications to be updated daily on what their friends are doing and update their profiles. Teenagers find the need to post about everything they do, from eating to studying. There is no privacy left in their lives anymore with social media on their phones and laptops. [0: ]

Though social media has its benefits, such as, whenever teenagers may not know the definition or something or do not understand a particular topic in their syllabus, they can always refer to the internet and find more straightforward explanations. The internet can be used for academic purposes, however, social media has caused a lot of issues in teenagers lives. Issues such as cyberbullying, privacy and fake news arise from such platforms.

How do we find balance with social media? As bad is it already is, imagine having the internet operate with absolutely no restrictions at all.

National Perspective

In China, the government spends a huge amount of money on internet restrictions as it is one of the most extensive in the world due to the laws made and administrative regulations. A huge amount of more than 60 internet restrictions has been implemented in China.[footnoteRef:1] The government authorities don’t just block website contents, but they also monitor internet access of every individual and are able to see what everyone is doing and monitor their activity. Social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat (applications used by almost every teenager) has been restricted in China. These precautions have created the name, “The Great Firewall of China.” [1:]

If we lived in a country where every single thing was monitored, it is pretty evident that the citizens would be aware and conscious of what they type and search for on the internet. As teenagers, we are exceptionally socially active in our lives and love to communicate in every way we can. In other countries, communicating via social media is nothing new; however, in China, it is nearly impossible for teenagers to communicate unless being face to face.

Letting the internet operate without any restrictions in China may not be as bad as allowing it to operate in Indonesia as Indonesia is a free country and not many restrictions are applied. In China, teenagers may not even know what social media is. They are not exposed to the same community other teenagers are. Their perspective and mindset may be entirely different and unique without social media.

Possible Scenarios

Letting the internet operate with no restrictions at all gives teenagers the freedom to do whatever they want, it may even lead to them doing something illegal. When we are given too much freedom, we certainly will take advantage of it, which may not be the best thing. Teenagers may not realize it, but one small mistake has the capability of ruining their entire future. When you post something on social media, it doesn’t go away. A teenagers priority should be getting into universities; however, it is tough to get into good universities, and something as small as an inappropriate post could jeopardize their entire future. Teenagers could also be exposed to inappropriate content, and since they are still immature and unaware of certain things, they may take it in the wrong way, and it could change their perspective on certain things. If they see something they’re not meant to be seeing; it could leave them traumatized as they have not entirely lost their innocence yet. Another huge consequence is the invasion of privacy, and the internet has access to every little detail about us, imagine if that information was leaked. Teenagers could have people stalking them and tracking their every move which may lead to depression or anxiety. Teenagers need their privacy more than anyone as they need to build skills such as independence and confidence. When we make mistakes while we’re alone, we don’t care as much because there are no traces, however, when someone is monitoring another’s life 24/7, every single thing may be documented when witnessed.

Personal Perspective

In my perspective, as a 16-year-old teenager living in Indonesia, where the internet operates with barely any restrictions, I feel like social media does take over a massive part of my life. In my school, the internet is used for a lot of school projects and assignments. I do a lot of research on the internet for academic purposes, and in that perspective, the internet indeed is more convenient and useful. If I do not know or understand something, my first instinct is to do some research and find information regarding the topic. The internet is not always safe as sometimes I unintentionally encounter things that are not appropriate and it may even change my perspective on certain things. I have almost every single social media application downloaded on my phone, and I certainly do not think social media is healthy in a teenagers life; however, it is a great way to communicate with my friends and family. I believe that restrictions are reasonable and the internet should not be completely free as there are sensitive and controversial topics. In my opinion, yes, the internet is a big platform and sometimes it is understandable when we encounter things that we should not be seeing, however, this can be prevented by imposing censorship on these sites.

The controversial TV show, 13 Reasons Why is banned in several countries; however, I had the privilege to watch it due to the lack of restrictions in Indonesia. The show brings to light many vital undiscussed issues like rape, bullying, how teenagers change as they grow older and, of course, depression and suicide. The show is about a teenager named Hannah Baker, who is just like any other teenager; however, she gets bullied and raped, causing her to commit suicide. One of the huge causes is cyberbullying. Someone posted inappropriate content of her, leading to depression. She felt as though she had no one and the more she tried to ignore it, the more the truth came back, haunting her. Another vast cause is stalkerism, due to the lack of restrictions in the US, her address and personal information was easily accessed and private pictures of her were leaked through a stalker, prompting her to commit suicide. This TV show revolves around an American teenagers life. In America, the internet censorship is not as strict as it is in China, as described above, the consequences of letting the internet operate with no restrictions are significant and should not be taken for granted. [footnoteRef:2] [2:]

Global Perspectives

The report research about censorship has stated that Syria, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, and Uzbekistan go with Iran in terms of internet freedom. Iceland was ranked first as the nation with the most internet freedom in terms of censorship. In May 2014, six Iranian teenagers were arrested for recording a parody video of them dancing to the viral song, “Happy” by Pharell Williams, which got a ton of views and went viral. 97% of households are connected to the internet. Estonia, Canada, Australia, Germany, and the United States made it to the list, after Iceland. They were also arrested for practicing a religion, Sufism, online. A study has shown that 39% of people around the world believe that internet access is critical and crucial. Websites such as “Facebook” and “Twitter” are considered politically sensitive, resulting in them being blocked in Iran. The citizens are not given enough opportunities and platforms to achieve more than they already do. Sometimes, academic work could be better and improved when platforms like these are used for research purposes. [footnoteRef:3] [3: ]

Possible Solutions

I believe that some solutions and measures should be taken to prevent this from happening. The government should take censorship seriously, however, there should be limits on the number of sites or things blocked on the internet. If we have barely any freedom, like teenagers in several countries where almost everything is censored, this would be a waste of the enormous platform, that is, the internet. The internet certainly has its withdrawals, but it can be used effectively to reach milestones. High school students should get the opportunity to do better, achieve higher grades and discover new things through the internet. The government should block websites that are not appropriate for sure, but social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat should not be blocked as it is a great way for teenagers to communicate and communication is a skill they will need in their daily lives, when given the opportunity to work on that, they could achieve more. I believe that specific measures should be applied; however, not too much. Teenagers should have some freedom but not too much. This way, they will become independent and gain self-confidence from the work they do. When they are given the opportunity to explore websites without that much restriction, they are free and think about the consequences of their actions.

Conclusion

Through my research and perspective, I can conclude by saying that the internet is a beneficial platform if it is used for the right things; however, this platform also has its drawbacks and content that should not be accessible, hence, I believe that censorship is undoubtedly required to an extent. Students can use the internet to clarify their doubts, however, the internet can cause issues such as cyberbullying, anxiety and privacy issues. As mentioned above, the example of the TV show “13 Reasons Why” is an example of the drawbacks of the internet and how an undemanding platform such as the internet can cause someone to lose their life. I believe that countries should have a good balance between censorship and blocking certain sites. By doing so, we will be able to get the benefits of the internet without having to face the unwanted drawbacks. As said by Zoe Saldana, “Our censorship has sort of gotten a little too far. Too much censorship is just as bad as having none at all. Children need to be exposed to things, because if they don’t see it, eventually, it’s not like it’s not going to happen, but it’s just that there needs to be a balance.”[footnoteRef:4] [4: ]

Sources

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China
2. https://www.simplilearn.com/real-impact-social-media-article
3. https://www.cram.com/essay/internet-censorship-is-it-really-necessary/FK8DW42SC
4. https://thenetmonitor.org/research/2017-global-internet-censorship
5. https://mashable.com/2014/12/17/internet-freedom-countries/#0GWjpPsnbmqt
6. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-teens-think-thirteen-reasons-why

Pornography can be defined as “sexually explicit material intended to cause sexual arousal” (Macionis, 2018). Pornography is extremely popular in the United States and throughout the world, and thanks to the internet it is more readily available than ever before. Sexually explicit videos, movies, and magazines, telephone “sex lines,” are now supplemented by an estimated 800 million pages of pornographic material on the internet, and the popular website PornHub reports 100 million visitors each day (Macionis,2018).

Pornography is a topic that has been divisive among feminist groups for a long time. Most notably, they can be divided into two polarizing perspectives, the anti-pornography feminist perspective and the anti-censorship feminist perspective. Anti-pornography feminists claim that pornography “reifies the traditional gender order and causes harm to women”, and that pornography is “a concrete, discriminatory social practice that institutionalizes the inferiority and subordination of women to men” (Wyatt & Bunton, 2009). Central to the anti-pornography feminist perspective is the belief that pornography is a “male discourse that helps naturalize hegemony, which is characteristic of women’s oppression” (Wyatt & Bunton, 2009). They view women as victims of pornography, and the “the “objects” of a cycle of abuse that has pornography at its center”. They see pornography as a misogynistic system of sexual exploitation. Central to a majority of the anti-pornography feminist arguments are that pornography is a proponent of violence against women. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, two of the largest figures in the anti-pornography feminist movement maintained that “somehow pornography itself is discrimination and violence against women; that its mere existence hurts women, even if it cannot be shown to cause some tangible harm” (Strossen, 2000).

Not all feminists agreed with the anti-pornography perspectives, and a seed for the anti-censorship feminism movement was planted. Anti-censorship feminist have ultimately developed views and opinions concerning pornography that are virtually polar opposite of the anti-pornography feminist perspective. Anti-censorship feminist believe pornography is not the problem; in fact, they believe that censoring sexual expression would actually do more damage than good in the fight for women’s rights and safety. They “adamantly oppose any effort to restrict sexual speech not only because it would violate our cherished First Amendment freedoms-our freedoms to read, think, speak, sing, write, paint, dance, dream, photograph, film, and fantasize as we wish-but also because it would undermine our equality, our status, our dignity, and our autonomy” (Strossen, 2000). Anti-censorship feminists believe that women should not have to choose between freedom of expression and safety, between speech and equality, or between dignity and sexuality. They feel that women’s rights are “far more endangered by censoring sexual images than they are by the sexual images themselves” (Strossen, 2000). Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, has gone so far as to suggest that “feminists have a special obligation to reject censorship of pornography” (Wyatt & Bunton, 2009). Anti-censorship feminists also directly refute the claims of anti-porngraphy feminists that pornography not only perpetuates violence/ sexual violence against women, it in and of itself is violence against women. On the contrary, according to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Over the past two decades, as pornography has become much more easily accessible over the Internet, the rate of rape and sexual assault has declined by about 60 percent” (Bailey, 2013).

The problem is that sexually expressive women have come to be seen as victims of male propaganda and male violence. If women enjoy sex – and they don’t hide it – they are viewed as expressing men’s sexuality. Anti-censorship feminists are, therefore, fighting for women’s freedom of sexual investigation and expression. What’s more, anti-censorship feminists argue, simply removing words and images does nothing to change the larger culture. Questions ought to be asked about the roots of a culture that is so hostile to women. How, for example, did men achieve their symbolic power over women, and how can this be changed? (Wyatt & Bunton, 2009).

Simply put, Porn is not the problem. For anti-censorship feminists, pornography is not violence and does not perpetuate violence; instead, that violence is a symptom rather than a source of women’s oppression. Censorship can be seen as a metaphorical band-aid, attempting to shield sexually expressive words and images, instead of examining the root of a culture that is so hostile to women. Until we are all willing to peel back the curtains and dissect the root causes of violence against women, as well as examine how men achieved their symbolic power over women and how that can be changed, this argument will likely never be settled, among feminists and society as a whole.

References

1. Bailey, R. (2013, August-September). Seven surprising truths about the world: a lot of the bad news you think you know is wrong. Reason, 45(4), 36+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A336602137/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=6185307a
2. McElroy, W. (1997). A feminist defense of pornography. FREE INQUIRY-BUFFALO THEN AMHERST-, 17, 14-17.
3. Macionis, J. J. (2018). Society. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134733401/
4. Strossen, N. (2000). Defending pornography: Free speech, sex, and the fight for women’s rights. NYU Press.
5. Wyatt, W. N., & Bunton, K. (2009). Perspectives on Pornography Demand Ethical Critique. The Routledge Handbook of Mass Media Ethics, 221.

Although living in a society that wasn’t much advanced in technology at the time, Bradbury did an astonishing job in predicting modern society and culture. Although it doesn’t seem very apparent to us, there are many key similarities between what Bradbury wrote about in Fahrenheit 451 and the “free” society we think we live in. Particularly relevant are the topics of censorship, isolation, and government control.

Nowadays it is common conception that we have freedom of press and of speech, but can we really say that, when a French cartoonist makes use of these rights, but gets killed along with his colleagues? This recent case of slaughter because of something different being exploited is equivalent to what happened in Bradbury’s society. People that were “different”, meaning that they were trying to exploit the truth, were considered a threat to society. If let free, they would stimulate the thoughts of the people, and possibly make them unhappy. Here we see the hypocrisy of the human race. From the early Greek philosophers, humans have always been in search of the truth, but now they are suddenly denying denying it because it could hurt them.

Isolation is another big issue of our society. It seems that technological development is inversely proportional to the density of human relationships. Especially the internet has become a double-edged sword. While it is certainly useful for the amount of information one can find, it all depends on how the information is used. The phenomena of social networks makes people think that they’re connected, while they’re actually alone. They sit behind a screen, trying to boost their virtual reputation by posting some quotes whose meanings they probably don’t even understand. Sadly, this was also predicted by Bradbury, especially referring to Mildred. In fact, she is so isolated to think of the people airing on the TV as her family, and to not even remember where she met her husband.

In life, we often have to choose between A and B, but do we always ask ourselves where these options come from? The answer is no, and it affects our lives without us noticing it. Today, the governments have the power to hide or modify information, creating the illusion of living in a happy world, whereas there are many issues that the average citizen doesn’t even take into account daily, mostly because this lack of information itself. Analogously, the government in Fahrenheit 451 forbids books, endless wells of information, with pretest that they would make people unhappy. The fact that in the book some characters admit that they are actually happy mustn’t deceive us: it’s the information of what happiness really is that’s missing.

Bradbury has had the intuition of the society we’re currently experiencing, but hasn’t abandoned hope. In fact, he creates characters that are willing to change things, like Montag, Clarisse, and the People of the Books. Nowadays, he would probably think that we would need the People of the Truth.

Introduction: The Dystopian World of Fahrenheit 451

A society filled with wide television screens, fast cars, and the complete banishment of literature is seen as ideal in this action-packed science fiction novel. Firemen switch their roles from being the extinguishers to the igniters of bonfires that ruin any book that they come across, watching in glee as the blaze incinerates its contents. A time where the government had complete control over a population by using their deadliest weapon: Using their authoritative power to inflict ignorance on their citizens. Fahrenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury, perfectly captures how censorship can drastically alter a society, and how one person can start a revolution with the use of knowledge.

Before diving into the details of this novel, looking for background information on the topics discussed and the author is crucial to understanding the novel. Without knowing the year the novel was published, many won’t realize how the topic displayed relates to the time period it was written in. Fahrenheit 451 was written in a time where technology was new, and censorship and ignorance ran rampant in the country. McCarthyism really highlights how America at the time dealt with conflict. They didn’t know much, so they pointed fingers at anyone and everyone that shown some sign of supporting communism. This is the same situation described in the novel, where the authoritative figures stop any sort of conflict by keeping the general population in the dark, and destroying anything that makes them think about the imperfections of their society.

Ray Bradbury: The Man Behind the Classic

Ray Bradbury was known for being a screenwriter and an author. He is known for writing Dark Carnival, which was his first published work, and The Martian Chronicles, his first major work. Bradbury’s best-known novel, Fahrenheit 451, was published in 1953. It became an instant classic in the McCarthyism era for its exploration of censorship and conformity. (“Ray Bradbury” 2019). Bradbury disputed that the main theme of Fahrenheit 451 was censorship, explaining that the book is a story about how television lessens interest in reading literature. He also wrote for several hours daily throughout his life, allowing him to publish close to 600 short stories, over 30 books, and numerous screenplays, poems and essays.

Technology’s Role in Societal Decay

In this novel, it seems that Bradbury detected what the future would be like when it comes to societal behavior in present-day America. He realized early on how technology would soon drastically displace any other activity in American society. Today, technology has caused many to suffer without anyone realizing until recently. Social Media skews what the average person looks like, and what is considered beautiful. Many websites have the power to spread false information to thousands of people. Today, technology has become dangerous to the developing brains of children and adolescents, which can cause mental illness. Even back in the 1950’s, technology changed many things, and Bradbury saw how it can build up over time to do even more damage than what it did in his time.

Plot Structure: The Anatomy of a Classic

An interesting plot is an essential when writing a novel. Every classic novel known to man has a distinguishable plot that makes sure that the needed information is laid out at the beginning, and the action in the novel keeps the reader engaged in the story. A plot must consist of these 5 key stages: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. The exposition gives the reader background information on the setting and the characters in the story. The rising action starts when a conflict arises, and this is the stage that leads up to the most intense part of the story, also known as the climax. Once the conflict is resolved, the falling action takes place, which helps lead into the resolution of the story. Fahrenheit 451 uses all of the needed elements of plot, and it orchestrates an amazing classic novel.

Characters: The Catalysts of Change

In this dystopian society, firemen aren’t the ones to distinguish fires. These individuals have the job of destroying any form of literature they come across.. Guy Montag is a thirty year old firemen under the command of Officer Beatty. When he first joined, he found the task exhilarating, but over time his satisfaction disintegrated. He realized that his life was turning into something bleak. An unknown dread settled over him, and he didn’t know the reason why until he met a sixteen year old girl named Clarisse. What she brought up about how she sees the world made him assess what was really the cause of his constant dread. “’Bet I know something else you don’t. There’s dew on the grass in the morning.’ He suddenly couldn’t remember if he had known this or not, and it made him quite irritable. ‘And if you look’—she nodded at the sky—’there’s a man in the moon.’ He hadn’t looked for a long time.” (Hearth; 50-3). Clarisse sparks a realization in Montag by inviting him to think instead of being told what to think, which makes Montag question the life he is living.

A few days after his encounter with Clarisse, he finds Mildred, his wife, unconscious in their home by taking too many sleeping pills, and later responds to a peculiar and eye-opening encounter at an older woman’s house due to books being found in her home. When he arrived at the old woman’s house, she wanted to be burned with them. ‘’You weren’t there, you didn’t see,’ he said. ‘There must be something in books, things we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.’’ (Hearth; 46). This incident has a major impact on Montag, making him take books from the fires and hiding them away in order to find a solution to his dissatisfaction with life. When Montag doesn’t show up to work the next day, Officer Beatty heads over to Montag’s place to explain to him how it is normal to go through a phase of what books have to offer in a dizzying monologue describing how literature was forbidden in the first place. According to Beatty, certain groups were offended by opinions stated in certain books. Soon after this incident, many books seemed the same due to many authors avoiding opinionated works that will upset the population. In the end, the government decided to get rid of all literature due to this. He then leaves Montag to decide what he thinks, leaving him to read as many books as he can in a 24-hour time period.

Feeling overwhelmed by the grueling task, he looks to his wife to support him and help him out, but she prefers to watch television. She doesn’t understand why Montag would want to take such a risk by reading books. He then remembers of an old professor he met, and realizes that he could help him understand what he read. He pays a visit to Faber, which helps him understand that Montag doesn’t just need the books themselves, he also needs time to immerse himself in them and have the freedom to act upon their ideas. “‘It’s not the books you need, it’s some of the things that once were in books. The same things could be in the parlor families today. The same infinite detail and awareness could be projected through the radios and televisors, but are not.’” (Sieve; 79). Montag and Faber then make a plan to change their society for the better. Faber plans on contacting a printer to begin printing out novels, and Montag has the job of going into firemen’s homes and hiding the books. They theorize that this will make people rethink why firemen destroy literature when they have it themselves, therefore discrediting the profession. Faber gives Montag an earpiece, referenced as the “green bullet”, so Montag can communicate with Faber while the plan is in action.

After receiving the green bullet from Faber, Montag heads back home. Soon after he arrives, two of his wife’s friends come over to watch television together. They begin to talk about the war and their families. The way they converse in a superficial manner angers Montag, which prompts him to take a book of poetry from his stash and read “Dover Beach” by Matthew Arnold. This disturbs the women, and Faber uses the green bullet to tell Montag to stop. After Montag finishes, Mildred starts to explain how poetry is used by firemen to prove the uselessness of literature. “‘Take my word for it, I’ve had to read a few in my time, to know what I was about, and the books say nothing! Nothing you can teach or believe. They’re about non-existent people, figments of imagination, if they’re fiction. And if they’re non-fiction, it’s worse, one professor calling another an idiot, one philosopher screaming down another’s gullet.” (Sieve; 86) The women then leave to file a complaint to the firemen.

After this incident, Montag heads down to the fire station and hands Beatty one of his hidden books. Beatty then confuses Montag by citing contradictory quotes from famous works. He then explains how the contradictions show how literature can be dangerous and morbid, therefore it should be destroyed. ‘’What traitors books can be! You think they’re backing you up, and then they turn on you. Others can use them, too, and there you are, lost in the middle of the moor, in a great welter of nouns and verbs and adjectives.’’ (Sieve; 94). They were then interrupted by an alarm signaling that there’s another household containing books, and Montag realizes that the alarm was at his own home.

When he arrives, he sees his wife running out of the house with a suitcase. This makes him realize that his own wife had betrayed him. Beatty forces Montag to burn his house down, and that a hound is present incase he tries to escape. He then informs Montag that he’ll be under arrest once he’s done. Montag starts to burn down his home, but when Beatty continues to berate him, Montag points the flamethrower at him and incinerates him. ‘’You always said, don’t face a problem, burn it. Well, now I’ve done both. Good-bye, Captain.’’ (Sieve; 103). He knocks out the other two firemen and incinerates the hound. He flees the scene and takes some books to put in another home to cause a distraction while he heads to Faber’s house. He learns that another hound, along with a helicopter and a television crew, are after him. Faber plans to head to St. Louis to start printing the books, prompting Montag to give him some money. He then talls Faber how to remove his scent so the hound won’t come. He grabs some of Faber’s clothes and heads off to a river. He drifts along until he spots a railroad track to follow, which leads him to an important group. This group comprises intellectuals who call themselves “The Book People”. This group is lead by a man named Granger. These people are part of an international network of book lovers who intend to memorize as much literature as possible. This organization hopes their knowledge will help the aftermath of the war just declared. Montag is told to memorize the Book of Ecclesiastes. The group looks up and sees enemy jets fly past and begin to obliterate their city with bombs. The Book People take Montag with them in order to gather survivors and plan to rebuild a new civilization.

In any novel you pick up, characters are present to shape the story. There are many different ways a character can be made. An essential to any novel is a protagonist for the reader to follow throughout the plot. A protagonist is usually considered the “good force”, and the one that the reader supports. Another necessary character to add is an antagonist to go against the protagonist and cause the conflict needed to create an engaging story. Even though these two characters are the main focus, secondary characters are needed to add more interaction. There tends to be a “sidekick” that sticks by the protagonist’s and antagonist’s side. Background characters are also important, due to the fact that they can offer insight when it comes to the main characters and their personalities. Overall, every character added into a novel impacts the plot.

Guy Montag is described as having “a fiery face, and a blue-steel shaved yet unshaved look” (Hearth; 33). He is a third-generation fireman who realizes how empty he feels about his life, and starts to search for meaning in the objects that he is meant to destroy. He tends to act rash and has a hard time thinking for himself, yet he is determined to break away from an ignorant and oppressed society. He also forms strong attachments at an unusually fast rate with anyone who seems to want a genuine conversation, due to the fact he doesn’t have that kind of connection in his everyday life. He regrets not trying hard enough to connect with his wife while he still could, and this carries on throughout the novel.

Beatty is the captain of Montag’s fire department. This character in particular is fairly complex, and full of contradictions. He is a fireman that knows a lot about literature. This point is made obvious, due to him reciting bible references throughout the novel. “Give a man a few lines of verse and he thinks he’s the Lord of all Creation. You think you can walk on water with your books. Well, the world can get by just fine without them.” (Burning; 118). It is also important to mention how Beatty’s speech to Montag describing the history of firemen was strangely ambivalent and slightly poetic. He calls them dangerous weapons, yet he uses his knowledge on literature to manipulate the main Guy Montag. On the other hand, Beatty describes how he has tried to understand the world and how it can make people feel lonely and bestial. He quickly explains how he prefers the life he has now, but it’s easy to realize his true feelings towards literature. His role in the story is complicated by the fact that he is used to do explain the background of the novel. His pessimistic outlook of the world and his lack of attempt to stop Montag from killing him make him seem too sympathetic to function as a pure antagonist.

Fahrenheit 451 heavily revolves around the idea of censorship and knowledge versus ignorance. The novel describes how the population lives in darkness while surrounded by large screens and radios that are constantly blaring in their ears. The government declared that all forms of literature are considered subversive, as it makes the population aware of the unpleasant aspects of their own society. If the population was kept in the dark about these aspects, the authoritative figures have more power to influence them. Montag’s conversion to literature suddenly basks his world in light rather than the rest of society that’s shrouded in darkness. “Do you know why? I don’t, that’s sure! Maybe the books can get us half out of the cave. They just might stop us from making the same damn insane mistakes!’ (Sieve; 17). It helps set him free from the oppression and the uncertainty he once had about his life, and made him realize how important knowledge really is in a world of ignorance. Fahrenheit 451’s direct message is that reading can give people knowledge about the imperfections in their society and give them ideas that are deemed threatening to authority. Even thought ignorance is bliss, knowledge is powerful (Censorship).

Conclusion: The Power of Knowledge vs. Ignorance

In conclusion, Fahrenheit 451 shows how easily censorship can shape a society. It highlights a controversial topic that is relevant in today’s society; The battle between knowledge and ignorance, and the use of censorship by government officials to herd a country. Montag is a perfect example of what some people want to do in their life. They see something wrong, and they want to do whatever it takes to make the world change for the better. Everyone else in this story is what many individuals are in a society controlled by censorship. They follow what they are told, and never question anything that they do. At the end of Fahrenheit 451, it finally describes what a perfect civilization should be: full of truth, and most importantly, the power of knowledge.

Intro

In a society of book burners it is hard to not be ignorant and censored. These people are being censored by not the government or television but themselves. This article will cover the issues and themes of the book and the people.

Ray Bradbury’s book Fahrenheit 451 surounds a society where books are not valued and technology is valued more than people. Our protagonist Guy Montag is conflicted on whether he’s doing the right thing. The theme being covered in this article is the theme that we are confined by our own censorship. Everyone censors themselves in some way, shape, or form. Montag’s estranged wife Mildred is an example of self-censorship. Mildred after 10 years of only using technology has caused her to become cold toward Montag. She is a prime example because she spends her hours watching TV clowns and talking to her “Family” that she barely has time to think.

Another example is when Montag tries to ask about his intriguing friend Clarisse she shrugs it off trying to listen to her shells. Clarisse is 17-year-old girl who after talking to for a while has sparked Montag’s curiosity and turned off Montag’s own censoring.

Another point of self-censorship is within Captain Beatty’s speech, “…White people do not like Uncle Tom’s Cabin burn it, Colored people do not like Little Black Sam Burn it…” this is basically saying these people if they like something they read they burn it which means they censor other people who have not read it from those books. As mentioned earlier everyone censors themselves in some way shape or form, for instance Montag he was unknowingly censoring himself. Pretending to be happy, going about his daily dues until Clarisse pops into his life to switch everything up. This unusual girl made Montag think and realize that he is unhappy about his life, his job, and his decisions.

Another theme that is being covered and is strongly conveyed in the story is that we rely too much on technology and it can get out of hand if we let it. This society is very robotic to say the least, everything is ran on technology. One example of this is their “police dog” or “the hound” an eight-legged mechanical dog that polices a community. It was just for hunting someone down but it has been tinkered with so much it is now made to hunt and kill whosever DNA is filed into. It uses a need filled with morphine that shoots out of its nose to kill its criminal or “prey”. Another example in the novel is when in the chase after Montag has burnt his ex-Captain Beatty. After he throws the hound off his trail and meets 3 old men they show him that the “chase” is still going on, but not after him someone who was just on file and who’s DNA is conveniently needed at that moment. They rely so much on technology for entertainment they need an innocent man to die.

As the hound pounced on the man they noticed that the man’s face was blurred just enough so that even your best friend wouldn’t know if that was him. The people in this society watch TV so much and rely on technology so much for entertainment they have “the family”, the 4 walls where the wall is replaced with a gigantic TV that they can’t even hold a conversation or talk to their family at that. For instance, in the novel the girls come over to watch the white clown on the 3 walls. After Montag pulled the plug on the wall and said he wanted to only talk the 4 “anxious women” looked back and forth at the “mud colored walls”. Another point that is trying to be made is that the people of this community focus more their technology then their own family members. In this world they have babies to populate the world and that’s it not because they genuinely want any. They could care less when they returned, how they returned, or if they returned at all, they care more about the big screen walls and shells in their ear; these women barely care about their husband in the war.

Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 the themes that we are confined by our own self-censorship and that we rely too much on technology that it can get out of control if we let it. This is shown by Montag’s estranged wife being censored to think books are bad and to only think about technology. Montag himself is another reason of one of these claims, he censored himself unknowingly by saying he’s happy and not thinking about things critically. This society that is ran by the morphine shooting “hound” no longer values books as knowledge but things with lies and nonsensical meaning. This robotic-like society either censors themselves or each other by burning books and watching TV hours on end.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these themes are strongly conveyed in the novel. This book burning society is being censored by themselves the government and maybe others as shown through Montag, his estranged wife Mildred, her girlfriends and just the community in general. Clarisse helped spark the curiosity back into Montag making him question his decisions. These themes help understand the whole novel better as a whole, how and why they do things. To be concluded these themes are what is strongly conveyed in the novel.

Censorship of satire (Meme; funny videos or pictures) not only violates our right to freedom of speech and freedom of press, but it affects the way we socialize with people. We use satire every day to make connections with people that have different cultural backgrounds around the globe. If you can laugh with someone, you are able to tap into their humanity and get to know them on a core level that is way deeper than politics, religion, and class. Real physiological studies show that using humor as a coping method helps us put our worries to ease, lowers our blood pressure, and decreases stress. In today’s generation, humor is an effective way we can share our new ideas, that are more on the sensitive side to your peers. Satire is a really good way to cope with real-world problems. Article “Only joking: how online humor brings us together” by author, Chelsea Larson, contributes, “Anna Akana is a comedian tackling tough subjects in funny ways on her youtube channel.

After the suicide of her younger sister, due to bullying… she tells viewers, “try to make them and yourself laugh…”, (Larson). Humor has its own ways to water down serious situations filled with tension. Without political satire, the younger generation won’t be able to keep up with politics and real-world situations. According to a book by the Penn State researchers, “…Satire performs a vital function in a democratic society by using humor to broach taboo subjects, especially in times of crisis”, (Penn State researchers). Satire comes in many forms, but political satire is what we need. It informs us of how our world and people are being treated and what rights are being given or taken away. We live in a world were diversity in race, sexuality, and religion still lives, and the only way we can cope with it is through satire.

Political satire is dedicated to exposing the difference between appearance and reality in public life, and how it affects politics. Scholars claim that satire has a unique way of reaching a non-convincing audience. Other people argue that it approves of already existing ideas, which makes traditional forms of political participation less likely to occur. The interesting commons to both sides is that satire does have very little effect in shaping or influencing political opinions. An online experiment conducted in 2012 that included the effects of satire on the evolution of political debates and candidates, was held in the U.S.A and the UK.

The experiment was designed for the selecting nature of satire’s audiences, and satires educational effects. Results, soon indicated that audiences who were picky with their humor, all publicity would be good, in terms of the evaluation check, in comparison, to getting a grip of a certain group that depends on non-political satire. The effect of satire does not do any major impact upon one’s candidate evolution, especially from the exposure of negative news coverage, however, suggesting results due to objectified information rather than the unique effect of satire itself. This experimental design not only raised several eye-opening challenges but it did design issues for future audience opinion studies into satires reception. Our political system is viewed as a form of entertainment, and it has been for a long time.

Most people that claim to run the country for the benefit of their people, thus obviously pulling skepticism from all kinds of people, which is a good thing for the most part. The tendency to mock the people that run for our country is pretty healthy. Satire obviously had gotten a little more viscous and consistent over the years. There was even a time when political satirist tended to make fun of the process politics used to go through. Political folly is still as much with us except for the fact that political satire gains more popularity today than it ever has. The justification for political mockery goes back to Aristotle, “Laugh folly out of existence, Syllogistically” (Aristotle).

When one is drawn away from life’s realities, by censorship, doubts begin to be made on one’s true purpose in the world. Many examples of Censorship such as books, artifacts, past life etc. In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Douglas Bradbury, a National Institute of Arts and Letters Award winner for contributions to American Literature demonstrates the protagonist, Guy Montag a thirty year old fireman experiencing an intellectual awakening, who burns books for a living in order to protect the comfort and sanity of the society in which he lives in. Revealing the authority of Censorship, and how one can be controlled by it, and in this case the characterization of Montag depicts the symbolism of a hero and the epiphany of his true self worth, and sudden realizations and behavior in his society.

Fahrenheit 451 shows the importance of following what is right and not what is unjust. As for Books, they were highly censored by the government because they wanted to control the people in the society that weren’t as knowledgeable. Bradbury hints this in Fahrenheit 451 as being a dystopian society for a tyrannical overthrow of the government in attempts to keep people from gaining too much knowledge. As it reflects throughout, ‘That’s sad,’ said Montag, quietly, ‘because all we put into it is hunting and finding and killing. What a shame if that’s all it can ever know’ (Bradbury 25). In this, Montag refers to the robot dog who captures those who illegally read or hide unauthorized books from the government. He feels sorrow for the dog because he feels as if he is being used, but in reality they’re whole society they live in is being manipulated into thinking they are doing what is right by the government.

And someday we’ll remember so much that we’ll build the biggest goddamn steamshovel in history and dig the biggest grave of all time and shove war in and cover it up. Come on now, we’re going to go build a mirror factory first and put out nothing but mirrors for the next year and take a long look in them. (157)

Furthermore, Censorship was a big problem in the society, as where Montag a fireman didn’t realize his actions were wrong in cases because of what he had learned and had been taught to do by society. Montag was soon caught and confronted by Beatty one of Montag’s fireman partners, saying “I hope you‘ll be staying with us, now that your fever is done and your sickness over” (101). Beatty demonstrates that he is disappointed that Montag is one of those who are against the government, reading books and going against the law. In actuality, Beatty was a Fireman just like Montag reading books himself, but instead trying to also control Montag, in making him think that being a Fireman is what he was destined to be. Beatty would do this in order to distract Montag from the real world and allow for books to be burned because Beatty did not want society to succeed and have the same feeling he had while reading books for himself. Montag wasn’t given the right to freedom of thought because the society they lived in had censored many things in a way that made it seem like they weren’t because books carried knowledge and if they didn’t have books and only had technology to control them with they wouldn’t retaliate as much as they would if they knew their past and how they were actually being controlled and used.

Furthermore, many seek the expression of happiness in a world where perfection is a struggle and sought as non-existent. Occasionally, those who don’t have the self restraint into wanting to make things perfect, especially in a society where perfection is nearly impossible. One may take excessive extreme routes to pursue a world without problems, perfection, and equality demonstrated in some cases, in government where they may turn to Censorship believing it will resolve issues in society, and gain some over powering ability. Montag, the protagonist begins to think about his role in the world, beginning to realize that the society he lives in is manipulating them to think they are living a perfect lifestyle, and doubts himself about what good as firemen they are actually doing in the society. As Montag recognizes, the problem is, “we never burned right…”, he perceives that as fireman they weren’t realizing why they were burning books instead of stopping fires. Giving Montag a reason to turn away from society and how they see things and going on with his own views now being more knowledgeable than the others, with the following realization, “He saw a great juggernaut of stars form in the sky and threaten to roll over and crush him” (p. 124). This demonstrates how Montag was finally able to see truths in his society and self worth, instead of being blinded by the fire being a fireman burning books for no real reason. Montag had grown up believing that what he as a fireman was doing what was right and correct in order to help society grow and be better but he hadn’t realized that the government had manipulating him and everyone else into thinking they were living in a happy society where books wouldn’t need to interfere because they were made illegal. This was because they believed that books made people realize stuff that the government didn’t want them to know so they made it seem as if the books were boring and bad for you and could ruin ur happiness because they weren’t entertaining. And in Fahrenheit 451, a futuristic society was highly idealised and looked up but they felt as if books would interfere with the growth and expansion of their future. And if books revealed things from the past would make people not want to look forward to future innovation, so they felt that way. And also so that the government could easily find numerous excuses and ways to have control over them but terrifyingly creating a tyrannical government in doing so.

Ray Bradbury draws in some key elements in Fahrenheit 451 and Fire and the Burning of Books was highly expressed based on what they would do in order to preserve the law of no unauthorized books being read in society. Montag’s main role model Beatty had gone in a brawl over illegally hiding and reading books where Montag is caught but then turns on Beatty and burns him to death, “In the middle of crying Montag knew it for the truth. Beatty had wanted to die. He had just stood there, not really trying to save himself…” ( 116). Montag had burned Beatty and thought to himself that maybe Beatty had wanted to die, because he may have wanted to die as a symbolic symbol towards the people who don’t read books and the future making people who read books seem horrible by burning someone who was supposedly innocent in the eyes of the people in the society. Montag had decided to place books in other firemen’s homes so that they would be accused of reading books also and so that it wouldn’t make him look as bad,“He heard the fire sirens start up and run, and the Salamanders coming, coming to burn Mr.Blacks house…” (130) . Montag justifies his actions because he says that Mrs. Blacks husband had destroyed many people’s lives over the years by setting their homes on fire. And Montag had wanted to place books in their home so that they could see how it felt to have their house burnt down and so Montag could get revenge on them for not realizing that what they were doing in society was wrong and brutal. Another key element in Fahrenheit 451 was the initial add, of meaningful metaphorical use such as, ‘Maybe the books can get us half out of the cave’ (34). In this, Ray Bradbury shows Montag using a metaphor during a conversation with his wife basically meaning that maybe the books can get them out of being part of all the censorship. And so that they could escape from the lies they were living. “… and his hands were the hands of some amazing conductor playing all the symphonies of blazing and burning…” (Bradbury 3). Montag is comparing himself to a conductor directing a symphony of burning fire on books. This shows that Montag was proud of being a Fireman and what he was doing in his job as a Fireman until soon on later doubts himself and realizes that he was living in a world of lies and tyranny.

All in all, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 depicts the dangerous possibility of being controlled by and living in a dystopian society. And how one can be easily manipulated into Censorship and drawn away from their belief and purpose in the world. And many who may disagree on terms where Censorship is reliable in some cases of government authority, but leads to further failure in the future of their society.