Category: Censorship

To censor or not to censor? This has been a popular topic of conversation, particularly amongst the younger generations (whose lives essentially revolve around social media). The question is, how much can be deemed too much when it comes to government involvement in their citizens’ online affairs? Several concerns have arisen regarding the matter of whether or not the government should have access to and control over what one chooses to view and publish online. Some governments are less restrictive, while others condone full-fledged censorship. In short, the line distinguishing a safe amount of censorship of social media by authoritative figures and an ultimate infringement of privacy in some countries has become increasingly blurry (the most extreme cases exhibited in the Eastern world).

Firstly, context as to what’s been occurring when it comes to internet censorship in Eastern countries is important. For background, more and more eastern governments (more often than not, authoritarian governments) have been implementing strict internet censorship regimes. This occurs for several reasons, one of which includes preventing citizens from talking poorly about the government and its decisions. Erik C. Nisbet, Olga Kamenchuk, and Aysenur Dal, researchers from Ohio State University, state that objective Authoritarian regimes commonly justify Internet censorship by framing the Internet as a threat to their citizens that must be tightly controlled for their own protection. This threat would then, in turn, support government censorship and creates a ‘psychological firewall’ driving public support for a censored Internet. News of this spreads, and soon enough, there are entire governments replicating Russian national TV news predicted greater Internet threat perceptions, and in turn these threat perceptions significantly increased support for online political censorship. Conclusion Approval of the Putin government further amplified the impact of these threat perceptions on support for censorship (Dal, Kamenchuk, and Nisbet, 2012).

Secondly, one should note the sentiments that may arise with the implementation of censorship. Researchers from the University of Sun Yat-sen in China Jiayin Lu, who specializes in Communication Law, Political Communication, and Communication and Media, and Yupei Zhao, whose research focuses on new media, political communication, and international communication, examined the impact of Internet censorship on young adults’ political expression and protest through DAILR and DPPIC. DAILR stands for the Degree of Internet Laws and Regulations, and DPPIC is the Degree of Psychological Perception of Internet Censorship (Lu and Zhao, 2018). They based their research upon the assumptions that censorship may bring about anti-censorship sentiments (such as anxiousness, anger, or curiosity), and that censorship will therefore be rendered useless as these sentiments cam fuel the need for citizens to actively seek out posts that have been deleted by censors (Lu and Zhao, 2018). This illustrates the idea that censorship may instill negative sentiments within citizens, and can oftentimes have the opposite effect of what is desired by the government. In observing the effects of the two dimensions of Internet censorship, it was found that DAILR can contribute to young adults’ political protest directly or accelerate their political protest through political expression, whereas DPPIC can directly weaken political protest or indirectly limit it by reducing young adults’ political expression. Therefore, Internet censorship acts as a symbolic means of control when it is involved in an individual’s routine life. However, it cannot fully forbid young adults’ free speech and overall actions. This only differs when Internet censorship acts as a perceived threat – that is when it can it directly limit young adults’ political protest. Not every reaction to government censorship in the East is negative, though. According to researchers from Hong Kong Baptist University Steve Guo & Guangchao Feng, stances on internet censorship and whether or not it should be strict depends on one’s personal upbringing and ultimate personal beliefs. Where support for censorship is concerned, individuals that harbor authoritarian views would be more likely to prioritize synching with those in authority despite any personal losses that might occur. Whether this is done willingly or unwillingly is beside the point for domination. There exists an authoritarian personality scale in which several studies have shown that approval of censorship is significantly predicted by a person’s score on it (Guo and Feng, 2011).

Finally, it is important to look at different solutions that may arise concerning the ethics of internet censorship. Two solutions, presented by Eric Fish, a Federal Public Defender who has obtained a Ph.D. from Yale Law School, illustrates how the citizens themselves can help bring about change in their governments’ regimes. In his research, Fish observed the ethics of executing severe internet censorship regime within countries otherwise considered “democracies”. The first involves utilizing different social media platforms to publicize censorship as a means of embarrassing those who implement it. An issue that comes about with this solution, however, is that while it aims to help bring about change in countries with authoritarian governments (examples being China and Iran), it is more likely to have an impact in countries that are largely democratic. The second solution would involve providing citizens with tools that they can use to spread information online without having to go through the censors. Governments such as South Korea have a hole in their ability to control foreign websites, of which activists can and have exploited to spread information and criticism without needing to use their own names, or having to worry about their commentary being taken down. This has been evident when YouTube, for example, became a major resource for South Koreans in 2007 when it came to criticizing Lee Myung-bak during the election. Creating discussion boards, video hosting sites, and internet blogs that are connected to the Korean Internet public sphere could then be deemed an immensely effective way to help people get by government filters (Fish, 2009).

To censor or not to censor? Is it appropriate to deem how certain governments interfere with their citizens’ online affairs unethical? Several concerns have arisen regarding the matter of whether or not the government should have access to and control over what one chooses to view and publish online. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the country has been accustomed to the severe regime. Those who are used to having been controlled in such a manner tend to have less of a problem with being controlled than those who are not used to being controlled.

Imagine living in a society where it was first established that freedom of speech and freedom of press will be protected, now imagine people stripping that away because they don’t agree with what was said or posted, it seems a bit contradicting, right? Many authors and publishers experience this when their material such as books or websites become censored because parents or libraries disagreeing with it and have the intention of protecting their children or students. Many of the material that influences this disapproval are profanity, violence, sexual encounters, and offensive language. Censorship of books and technology in schools limits the knowledge students can learn as well as the comfort they can provide.

A book is banned when someone “challenges” it (ALA). The American Library Association explains a challenge can be defined as “an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group.” If the challenge is successful, it will result in a ban meaning the books are removed or not placed in schools, public libraries, or universities. Censorship can go either unnoticed or obvious, but to ALA, still harmful. Typically, libraries across the United States and parents report hundreds of challenges annually. Pressures that come from them had reinforced censorship which leads to self-censoring meaning students may not voice their opinion in the fear of offending someone or the students will be ignorant of certain things. Usually, teachers have felt the obligation to choose books that are appropriate to the school’s standards to avoid any complication. The American Library Association tracks the challenges placed on books to libraries, schools, and universities and the books that are banned because of it. In 2018, 483 books were recorded banned by the ALA’s office for intellectual freedom. This event means that there were at least 483 books banned from schools recorded. Many times, of why a book is banned is to protect the children from reasons such as “offensive” language, “sexually explicit’ and “unsuited to any age group” content (ALA). While these are credible reasons, Noam Chomsky, argues, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expressions for people we despise, we don’t believe in it all.” This event illustrates that everyone has an opinion or in this case books and that opinion or book should not be thrown away because it is not agreeable to some.

John Mill Stuart expresses the words against censorship, “… silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race… if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit,..”. Meaning, if the majority opposes the minority’s opinion, they should not shut them down but learn and interpret it. Students can learn from different points of view in books that allow them to understand the character’s actions and feelings. 451 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of the ignition of paper, turned into a novel by Ray Bradbury, “Fahrenheit 451” that was challenged and banned in 1987. Bay County, School Board in Florida had given the book a third-tier status, meaning it was too vulgar and banned for religious purposes for the controversial events in the novel. The book is set in a dystopian future where knowledge is perceived as dangerous and ironically books are burned to prevent spreading knowledge as if it was a disease. In the book, Faber, a character in the novel, said, “We do need knowledge. And perhaps in a thousand years, we might pick smaller cliffs to jump off. The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are.” (Bradbury 40). This event shows Faber believes in preserving the knowledge to help humans learn from their mistakes. Without the knowledge from books, humans will repeat history and make mankind suffer. Banning this book seems to discourage the marketplace of ideas. The limiting of the marketplace of ideas is counterproductive to maintain the marketplace itself and limiting students from learning about the danger of totalitarian rule.

Banning Fahrenheit 451 is not the only book that limits students from retaining knowledge or lessons that the book has to offer. Books are a gateway for many children into another world. Banning books limits diversity and many books can also be relatable, understandable, and even supportive of students. According to Regan McMahan, “There is more to a book than the swear words in it.” Meaning, banning books for profanity is wrong because the language adds realism to the story and the book, in general, has a deeper meaning. Banned books oftentimes provide up to date or topical content where many young readers can find a character whom they can relate which can provide a strong reading experience and help the reader cope or sort through issues such as depression, sexuality, torment, and sexual assault. The banned book, “The Outsiders”, portrayed the struggles of a pair of brothers surviving in a lower-class neighborhood, while it was banned for having “mature” content, many students claim it was that book that turned them into a reader (McMahan). Many controversial books such as, Hear My Cry, which is a book about an African American family living through racism in the 1930s, can give students the potential to explore topics about sexuality, violence, abuse, and racism through the storyline. This virtual reality lets students examine morality and build empathy for the characters and can apply that in reality.

Parents and libraries may argue that students should not be exposed to any explicit content, whether it be sex, violence, drug use, or profanity. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics found that exposure to these can impact the child by making them more aggressive and insensitive to violence. Although the exposure to these things can alter a child’s behavior, Robe Harries, an author frequently challenged for her books, states, “I think these books look at the topics, the concerns, the worry, the fascination that kids have today… It’s the world in which they’re living.” Many books such as, “The Great Gatsby”, “To Kill a Mockingbird”, and “Their Eyes were Watching God”, are considered required reading to become educated on literature and American history. Banning these books would mean the opportunity for students to learn cultural and historical knowledge and understand different points of view would be taken away. Also, according to a study by the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, the Harry Potter series, which was challenged multiple times because of the appearance of witchcraft, taught students the importance of having knowledge, friendships and to not give up because of your background.

Parents and libraries also claim that keeping the books with explicit content out of schools and public libraries protects the child and while they argue that banning books will stop students from looking into the material, evidence counteracts this. Students often look into things they are told not to and things that are considered prohibited because of curiosity: “When schools censor ideas, students become increasingly interested in such subjects and typically discover some clandestine means to gain access to these taboo ideas.” (Petress 246). If students are left to interpret these ideas alone, they are left alone to establish what is allowable in society and what is not, which is not the ideal thing to do because as students they may lack the ability and judgment to understand these ideas, and most of the times lead to poor results. Nevertheless, if teachers teach the material, they can guide the students by ‘contextualizing, prioritizing, or explaining what the student has secured’ without having that worry (Petress 248). This event shows that students can learn the importance of books in the right way with proper guidance.

Book banning is not the only form of censorship schools have, in our era of technology that has raised it is more common for students to be on it to complete an assignment but may reach to a stop when they are researching a topic or wanting to watch a video on YouTube if they didn’t understand the material from their teacher. A form of blocking websites is called “Blacklisting” (Henry Francis), which blocks the website from the school server meaning students are no longer able to access it. Another form of detaining websites is called “Whitelisting”, while blacklisting is when schools block certain websites, whitelisting is when the school creates a list of websites picked for the students to be able to get on. The reason for blocking is relatively the same for banning books, schools, and teachers may have concerns for the students regarding cyberbullying, violent pictures, pornography, and racist content. According to the American Association of School Libraries, 98% of schools in America use censor filtering to block off certain websites that students are no longer able to access. While schools may block websites for the protection of students, schools are also persuaded by the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), because the schools can receive federal allowance if they agree to censor online content that disagrees with CIPA standards. CIPA determined in federal law, “… all schools and public libraries must protect minors from viewing obscene or harmful images when using the internet.” (CIPA). This means that under federal law it is required for students under 17 must be on censored software. Though CIPA and schools want students protected from certain content they are also restricting web information that may be beneficial for their curriculum. A study by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Online Policy Group (OPG), showed that the blocking software from CIPA miscalculate up to 78% – 85% of the website information that did not need to be. They were able to measure this by testing millions of websites and found that for each website blocked, more would be incorrectly blocked. This shows that websites could be able to help students with their research, homework, or understanding of something are shut off and kept away from them by miscalculation. Also, CIPA critics point out that students are already exposed to unfiltered access outside from schools or students are able to use proxies to give them access (Monica Fulgei). A way to protect students from experiencing this alone is to educate them from the potential harm online websites have to offer and expand their media literacy strengths.

“Books are a health food for your brain and dessert for your soul”, (Pat Williams). Books have the ability to fill student’s minds with knowledge and according to research, it can be more beneficial than harmful if books are not censored. Although parents, libraries, and other organizations believe it is in the child’s best interest to keep them away from “explicit” content they fail to realize that as the children grow up, they will face the reality of society and all of the “explicit” content with it. Students should be able to grow intellectually and be guided to avoid ignorance. Teachers, parents, facility, can teach students the different views, dangers, and ideas books and websites have to offer without limitation.

Reference

1. Ediaz. “Banned Book FAQ.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, American Library Association, 30 July 2019, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/banned-books-qa.
2. Conger, Cristen. “How Book Banning Works.” HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 12 May 2008, https://people.howstuffworks.com/book-banning.htm.
3. Leighton, Mara. “10 Books That Were Banned or Challenged Heavily around the US Last Year, According to the American Library Association.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 27 Sept. 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/banned-books.
4. Mussey, Gretchen. “Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.” Enotes.com, Enotes.com, https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-some-quotes-from-fahrenheit-451-that-shows-1563118.
5. McMahon, Regan. “Why Your Kid Should Read Banned Books.” Common Sense Media: Ratings, Reviews, and Advice, Common Sense Media, 28 Aug. 2019, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/why-your-kid-should-read-banned-books.
6. Procon.org. “Banned Books – Top 3 Pros and Cons.” ProConorg Headlines, 23 Sept. 2019, https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005365.
7. “Internet Blocking in Public Schools.” Onlinepolicy.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Online Policy Group, 26 June 2003, http://www.onlinepolicy.org/access/blocking/net_block_report/net_block_report.pdf.
8. Francis, Henry. “How Do Schools Block Websites?” Synonym, 4 Apr. 2017, https://classroom.synonym.com/do-schools-block-websites-7982604.html.
9. “Books.” National Coalition Against Censorship, 6 Mar. 2019, https://ncac.org/issue/books.

Potter Stewart once said, “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself”(Brainyquote.com). Ray Bradbury wrote a book called Fahrenheit 451. In Fahrenheit 451, the government has banned books, making those that live in this society ignorant of the ways of the world. Books and knowledge are looked at as things that just cause more confusion and distress; therefore, they should not exist. The main character Guy Montag is a fireman who’s job is to burn the censored books. Later on, in Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag starts noticing how unhappy life is and tries to stop the censorship that is occurring. Ray Bradbury employs the use of literary devices and figurative language to develop his theme that censorship causes more harm than good.

To start, Bradbury shows that censorship causes more harm than good by his use of metaphors. In Guy Montag’s society censorship is the main source of control. The government has control because it censors anything that can give people more knowledge. After a call, where a woman chooses to burn to death with her books, Guy Montag gets a visit from the Chief of the Fire Department. Fire Chief Beatty tells Guy Montag about the history of the Fire Department. As Chief Beatty talks to Guy Montag he says,“‘So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man’s mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man”’ (Bradbury 56). Bradbury employs the use of a metaphor to help support the idea of censorship and its ability to cause harm. By comparing a book to a loaded gun, he makes the book look like a dangerous weapon. Once society took the “weapon” away from the public, it brought a false sense of control and happiness to the civilian population. Therefore, demonstrating that censorship can cause more harm than good. As Guy Montag and Chief Beatty continue to talk, Guy brings up his old neighbor Clarice McClellan. Guy Montag has been wondering why Clarice was not like the other teens her age. Chief Beatty tells Guy Montag about some of the rebellious people that the government can not stop from reading books. In the text, Chief Beatty says, “You can’t rid yourselves of all the odd ducks in just a few years”(Bradbury 57). Bradbury uses a metaphor to show censorship and its ability to cause harm. By comparing the smart people and the people who read to be odd ducks. When society takes the “odd ducks” away, it made every single person the same and no one is unique. This metaphor makes these people seem like the outcast of what the government wants in its society. These two examples help Bradbury explain that censorship can cause more harm than good. It can make people think that knowledge is bad and can make people outcast each other.

Also, Bradbury shows censorship can cause more harm than good by his use of similes. The government in Guy Montag’s society likes to be in control of everyone and everything including people’s emotions. By taking control of people’s emotions the government can gain control of everything. At the beginning of the book, Guy Montag is walking home from a shift when he meets Clarice McClellan. As he continues to walk home he starts talking to Clarice. While talking to Clarice she makes Guy Montag starts to question the government and his happiness. As Clarice goes back to her house she leaves Guy Montag thinking. In the text, it shows what Guy Montag was thinking, “He wore his happiness like a mask and the girl had run off across the lawn with the mask and there was no way of going to knock on her door and ask for it back”(Bradbury 9). Bradbury uses a simile to show censorship and its ability to cause harm. By comparing Guy Montag’s happiness to a mask. Bradbury shows that society is not truly happy and the government is providing false happiness. This simile shows that censorship is causing more harm than good if people are not truly happy. Later when Guy Montag gets back home he notices an empty bottle and his wife unresponsive on her bed. In a hurry, he calls the emergency hospital. Two men show up with two machines to work on his wife. In the text it explains what the machines do, “One of them slid down into your stomach like a black cobra down an echoing well looking for all the cold water and the old-time gathered there … This machine pumped all of the blood from the body and replaced it with fresh blood and serum”(Bradbury 12). Bradbury uses a simile to support the idea of censorship and its ability to cause harm. By comparing the machine to a black cobra Ray Bradbury shows that the government is a gross, sneaky, and slimy snake. The machine that looks like a black cobra dispenses a serum that makes people forget what has happened. This gives the government more control by making people think everything is normal. Therefore, demonstrating that censorship can cause more harm than good if they are trying to overdose and attempt suicide. These two examples help Bradbury explain that censorship causes more harm than good. These similes help advance the theme of censorship and how much it has brainwashed the whole community to think that it is okay not to have self-thought.

To review, Ray Bradbury uses metaphors and similes to show that censorship causes more harm than good. By using metaphors and similes Bradbury can get his message across that the government censors the people. Bradbury used metaphors to show censorship by comparing books to “loaded guns” and rebellious people to “odd ducks”. By comparing the two items together it shows that the government wants control over people’s knowledge. Bradbury then used similies to show censorship by comparing a machine to a “black cobra” and happiness to a “mask”. By comparing the machine to a “black cobra” it shows that the government can not be trusted because they will stab you in the back like a snake. Also, by comparing an emotion like happiness to a “mask” shows that the government does not truly care about how the citizens feel. Overall Ray Bradbury was practically predicting the future because every single person in that society follows what someone tells them to do they can not be unique or smarter than the government and if you are you get punished for it. Every single person listens to what the government tells them or they stare at screens all day long as Mildred does. The government censored every single person’s ability to be different, unique, and smart just because it could mess with the power the government has over the people, and all this shows is that censorship causes more harm than good.

Works Cited

1. Bradbury, Ray, and Neil Gaiman. Fahrenheit 451. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2013.
2. “Potter Stewart Quotes.” BrainyQuote, Xplore, https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/potter-stewart-quotes.

I think we can all agree that heavy censorship as in Fahrenheit 451 is bad and not a society we want to live in. We see that when most individuals are limited in this way it brings not just themselves down, but the whole society and culture. This novel makes it fairly obvious what is happening. What is less obvious is that in today’s Google Search dominated world, and a world where everyone is staring at their phone, we are self-imposing another type of censorship. Censorship, whether by a government or self-imposed, is still censorship but by a different name, and lowers a person’s capacity to live fully and therefore lowers a society.

Limitations and book banning is what we usually think of as censorship. Directing thoughts toward other things like constant entertainment is another method which the government uses for thought control and propaganda. Censorship and persuading people’s mind and soul are necessary steps if you want to control a population and in Communist societies, we see it all the time. What better way for an evil empire to dumb down its population than put a constant entertainment tool in every hand. Oh wait, we are doing that to ourselves!

Self-censorship means we are choosing it. We wouldn’t call it such a scary name. Data and information and games is what we call it. It is harder to see that it has been pre-chosen for us. Who decides what games get to market? Who decides what pops up in Google Search? Forming content, algorithms, editing out ‘hate speech’ is already done for us. The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” calls Mountain View, CA the “high church” and says that it has made “information a kind of commodity…to be mined.” The article even leans toward Google Search future as nearing Artificial Intelligence. A uni-source leads to a uni-vision. From there one can imagine that we are somewhat blindly following the high priest into the cult, never knowing we are even in a cult. We are doing it to ourselves and censorship can mean the limits of the technology or the humans running them, and also the limits we are under when using it.

Necessarily biased information comes from and where mindless preoccupying entertainment occurs. Just like Mildred in Fahrenheit 451, she does not have time or space in her life to think about deeper issues. It makes her and people like her easier to control. Maybe we start out selecting this method of learning, but after a while, it selects us. Through shrinking brain capacity, it is all we have the tolerance for and then later, maybe all we have the capacity for. It is a form of evolution, circular influencing. In his article “Is Google making us Stupid?” Nic Carr, The Atlantic July, 2008) says that our attention span muscles are weakening and we are using just the stuff of thought, but missing the process of thought.” “… the Net seems to be chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation … Once I was a scuba diver … now I … jet ski.”

Mildred, the complicit character in the government’s censorship in Fahrenheit 451, is complicit by a combination of self-imposed censorship and outside-imposed censorship and indoctrination or propaganda. The book shows that she chants the slogans and feels very safe within those rules, yet it also shows that free thought, represented as books, is also possible in characters Montag and Jane. If living today, I imagine she would be all-in in the tech gadgets. Google-glasses and iPad, counting her steps with a pedometer as she plays Candy Crush while power walking. She is a warning tale of shallowness that becomes those that will not go deeper into themselves and their culture. In “You’re Not Happy, You are Distracted” author Amy Chan explains that happiness depends on the next high and is largely dependent on outside things. Good things, even. Family and friends, belonging, busyness. She says that joy is what she had to cultivate when she lost her happy things. She moves from “chasing pleasure… to build(ing) joy.” Joy does not depend on others and has a lasting presence. She asks us if you were to lose it all, your health, wealth, beauty, family, would you still have a baseline of joy inside you?

We know we are missing out. Imagine someone’s head burrowed into their phone. They are at the beach, and behind him a whale breaches the surface, twists, and slams back into the ocean. It is something people wait for years to see. More sadly, it may be something he has waited to see and maybe that is why he is even at the beach. He looks up only when people around him gasp. This one example shows us that there is no substitute for being in the moment, original ‘content’ and shared camaraderie with others on that beach who witnessed a beautiful thing. Montag sees Jane as authentic and wonders what he has been missing and starts to need change.

The book Fahrenheit 451 wants us to ask ourselves whom do we want to be and whom do we want others around us to be? Do we want to live in a culture full of Mildreds and Beattys and that guy at the beach? Democracy depends upon educated, involved, virtuous citizenry. “Free to be Happy” article explains how Thomas Jefferson formed the Declaration of Independence using Greek ideals. Happiness is “not private smiley faces, self-esteem, or even feelings” but rather it is about creating the ultimate good, the public good.

Every time there has been a new invention, people worry it may harm them or society. Either way, we are going to have to deal with pervasive technology now because there is no putting it back. Adaptation is normal and necessary and that is why we are glad our brains are plastic. The change, and now the challenge, is endless breadth but greatly decreased depth. It is each one of ours decision if we are going to look up before or after the whale breaches.

In the world of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury the government is in complete control over information and news. Books have been banned and firemen once used to protect the public by putting out fires now serve to censure the information by burning books. Instead of water meant to put out fire and to save people. The firemen now possess flame throwers that destroy books The government exercises far to much control over information and regularly lies to the public. Furthermore the government has no problem in the killing of innocents as long as it furthers their motives. The government on Fahrenheit 451 represents a government that has ceased to protect the people and has turned into a harmful force that censors information and actively works against the general public. In the world of Fahrenheit 451 the people have been made stupid by the government’s control of information. Further more people are slaves to technology and blindly trust the government because of the censorship of information. The reason it is so important to know about censorship is because when our own government is censoring information we can know about this and stop them. Fahrenheit 451 is a good look into what can happen when a government goes too far. It should not be banned from school libraries.

As I have said in Fahrenheit 451 talks about government censorship. This is a very valuable tool that I think that kids should learn about. The government burns books so that the populus can remain ignorant to things that might hurt the government’s control over them. The denial of knowledge that the government commits is made even worse by the fact that they call everyone that speaks out against them crazy. “With schools turning out more runners, jumpers, racers tinkerers, grabbers, snachers, flyers, swimmers,fliers insesd of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators intellectual became the swear word it is.” This quote means that people are getting dumber due to the censorship of information and that people are getting physically stronger but people are getting stupider because of the censorship of information. Fahrenheit 451 has a very important message about censorship and what happens when a government gets to much power.

The government in Fahrenheit 451 also lies to the populous about many things. These lies are another example of how the government can go to far. They say that books are bad and sent the firemen to go burn them. The government also lies about if they go Montag on the chase. Montag jumped in the river but the government didn’t want to look like they haven’t found him. They said they had got him by having the mechanical hound attack an innocent man. The government in fahrenheit 451 is a good example of how the a government will lie.

In Fahrenheit 451 the government while not at first obvious is very brutal. This government has really abused their power. A good example of this is the firemen. In the beginning of the book they go to a house with books and when they find it they cover it with gasoline. There is a woman inside and she refuses to leave. The firemen don´t care and burn down the house with her inside. This shows the nature of the firemen as a cold and unfeeling organisation. Another good example is when Montag is being chased by the firemen he escaped into the river. Instead of eather calling of the search or doing a drawn out search that the public would lose interest in they have the hound attack of a random man that is out for a walk.This senseless and unnecessary act of violence shows how far the government is willing to go to maintain their image.

Fahrenheit 451 has been banned for a few reasons. In this paragraph I will argue why these bans are completely ludicrous. Fahrenheit was banned because of the use of profane language. The grounds to this bann don’t really make sense. In a middle school almost all of the kids swear. So banning a book like Fahrenheit 451 doesn’t make sense. The swearing is very minimal and does not have the grounds to ban it. One of the other reasons that Fahrenheit 451 was banned is because of the burning of bibles that offended some people. Banning a book just because a small thing in a book offended a select amount of people is stupid. If they don’t like it they don’t have to read it. The burning of a book as important to people as the bible in Fahrenheit 451 has shown how far the government has gone in there effort to destroy books. In conclusion the banns on fahrenheit 451 have been for bad reason that where highly flawed.

In conclusion Fahrenheit 451 should not be banned. Even though there is violence and language if it were to be taken out it would lessen the impact of some scenes and make others pointless. The book teaches us important lessons about how bad a government can get if the population is ignorant. It also teaches us about censorship. This is a valuable lesson because when we see censorship in real life we can speak out against it. Fahrenheit 451 should not be banned because it can teach us about what happens when a government has too much power.

Living in a world with censorship all around you is dreadful. Censorship is the suppression of ideas in a society. This is often if not all the time caused by the government. The government often does this to hide the truth from the public, so they can remain in power of the society. In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, censorship and the suppression of ideas cause a lack of happiness in people, a loss in knowledge and creates a government controlled society. Primarily, censorship causes a lack of happiness in people. In the book Fahrenheit 451, people suppress sadness by taking pills.

At the beginning of the novel, Mildred takes too many pills and almost dies, when operators come to flush her blood they say “we get these cases nine or ten a night. Got so many starting a few years ago, we had these special machines built.” (Bradbury 15). This quote shows that if people were really happy in the society, they would not take pills to suppress sadness. Next, people feel empty which causes them to be unhappy. In the novel, when Montag realizes he would not cry if Mildred his wife died, he said “death, a silly empty man near a silly empty woman.” (Bradbury 44). Here, we see that the strongest love which is of a married couple is not there, they feel empty and this leads to them feeling sad. Furthermore, people don’t realize their actions cause sadness.

In the novel, when Faber asks Montag, why he was so concerned about books all of a sudden, Montag said, “I don’t know. We have everything we need to be happy, but we aren’t happy. Somethings missing. I looked around. The only thing I positively knew was gone was books I’d burned in ten or twelve years.” (Bradbury 82). This quote shows that by Montag burning books he became unhappy, however, he did not realize until they were gone. Thus, censorship not only causes unhappiness, but a loss of knowledge in people as well. Secondly, censorship and the suppression of ideas, create a loss in a society’s knowledge. In the novel, firemen burning books create a loss of knowledge. In the scene where Captain Beatty was explaining why books are bad, he said, “So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it.” (Bradbury 28). Here we see that people perceive books as evil and bad, so they burn all the knowledge which is hidden inside of it. Moreover, the fear of making mistakes creates a loss of knowledge. In the novel where Faber tries to make Montag understand it is ok to make mistakes, he said, “you’re afraid of making mistakes. Don’t be. Mistakes can be profited by…if no one will hit you…you will never learn.” (Bradbury 104). Here we see that people are scared to make mistakes, but if you never make mistakes you will never learn and if you don’t learn, you lose/miss-out on knowledge.

Therefore, censorship not only causes a loss of knowledge, but creates a government controlled society. Lastly, censorship and the suppression of ideas, create a government controlled society. In Fahrenheit 451, the interference with privacy creates a society controlled by its government. In the scene where Mildred was getting her blood flushed, Montag said “It had an eye. The impersonal operator of the machine could, by wearing a special optical helmet, gaze into the soul of the person whom he was pumping out.” (Bradbury 15). This quote shows that the government can look into an individual’s personal information this displays no privacy and a totally controlled society. Moreover, interference with life creates a government controlled society. In the novel, where Montag on the train/bus said, “an hour of TV class, an hour of basketball or baseball or running, another hour of transcription history or painting pictures and more sports, but do you know, we never ask questions, or at least most don’t; they just run the answers at you bing, bing, bing, and us sitting there for four more hours of film teacher.” (Bradbury 35). Here we can see that interference with the society’s schedule, ability to think and ask questions, ability to be creative and interference with education and life creates a controlled society.

Furthermore, interference with peoples’ rights creates a government controlled society. In the scene, where Beatty explains to Montag aspects about giving people choice, he said, “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none…peace Montag. (Bradbury 61). This quote shows interference with the right to be informed about things and interference with a person’s judgement and rights create a controlled society.

Thus, censorship creates a society controlled by the government. In conclusion, the lack of happiness, the loss of knowledge and a government controlled society are caused by censorship and the suppression of ideas. When people talk and have a social life where they feel safe, they will be happy. When people learn to preserve the truth and not be in fear to make mistakes, knowledge will be preserved. Lastly, when people have rights and are not controlled in every aspect of their lives, there will be happiness, knowledge and will create an uncontrolled society. Therefore, would you want to live in a world with censorship and the suppression of ideas?

AudioVisual Translation (AVT) is the term used to refer to the transfer from one language to another of the verbal components contained in audivisual works or products.“ AVT is the means through which not only information but also the views, the assumptions and the values of a society are filtered” (De Marco 2012, 68). Among the vast array of AV products available and that require translation there are : feature films, tv programs theatrical plays, musicals,…etc. Dubbing and subtitling are the most common forms of AVT. When talking about subtitles which are added as translated text to the original version of the film or series, usually there are some restrictions imposed on subtitling such as Censorship. So what does it mean ? What are the reasons for censorship in avt ?

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news.. etc, that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. According to the Cambridge International Dictionary of English censorship is « the practise of examining books, films,etc, and removing anything considered to be offensive, morally harmful, or politically dangerous. »

Throughout history, censorship has been imposed on all means of communication: from books to newspapers, radio, TV, cinema, etc The process of translation always is affected by many beliefs. Thus, in the case of censorship, many internal and external forces can affect the process of translation. There are many reasons why a movie or a tv program..etc may be censored, among these reasons : politics, when a government want to hide some information or the way of thinking of other culture from it people, to rule and control them.

In addition there is relegion reasons for exemple in some movies when there is a scene of drinking whisky some relegious countries replace it by milk because alcohol is forbidden by relegion. Also there another reason which is self-censorship, it means that the translator decides by himself to make some changes on something he did not find it appropriate.

Censorship in avt has many benefits, for instance it can reduce the impact of hate speech in society, and protect children from unhealthy ccontent. Additionally, Censorship can reduce the amount of conflict that is in society, and it may provide another level of security to a country’s .

Should Literature be Political?

Defining Political Literature:

To fully answer this question, it is important to establish the definition of literature. While literature is often taken to mean any written work, in this context, I have chosen to define literature as works of the creative imagination, including fiction, poetry, and drama. I also aim to clarify the definition of politics, and what it means to modern civilians. People’s impression of ‘politics’ tends to be of partisan politics, divisiveness, and smear campaigns in an attempt to ‘win points’ over others in a convoluted system that is foreign and inaccessible to modern voters. However, politics in its original form describes the art of governance, through which our lives are inevitably shaped. As such, political literature is simply the exploration of how we as people are governed, the effects that politics has on society, and people as individuals. In Orwell’s 1984, a totalitarian government numbs individuals to human emotions, transforming them into merely a cog in the political machine. In H.P. Lovecraft’s many short stories, an uncaring government and the scientific advances it sponsors create fear and destruction. Political literature often directly criticizes a current society or government by creating an alternate reality, where current political issues are pushed to an extreme.

Why People Write Political Literature:

Political literature itself even addresses this question, with Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 set in a society that burns books in order to control dangerous ideas and painful concepts. However, in this dystopian society, it is the people themselves who choose to burn books and the government that agrees with the whims of the populace to further its own agenda. Despite this, the government is arguably presented as even more insidious, as it gives the people what they want even at the cost of critical thought, therefore creating a blind population that agrees with the government even at the cost of their own lives, exemplified by the nuclear Armageddon at the end of the novel. In comparison to Orwell’s Big Brother, it’s like being given a choice between murder and suicide.

The aim of all of these works of political literature is to explore how politics and government can be and warn against the issues highlighted in these books. Orwell’s 1984 warns about the dangers of official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of recorded history by totalitarian governments. Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 warns about government censorship, and blindly trusting authority over our own critical thinking skills. In these books, authors write in the hope that their fears will be listened to, and their dystopian future will be avoided.

Origins of Political Literature:

Political literature has been around since literature and society itself. Some of the earliest examples are of the Greek playwright Aristophanes’ political satire, written in 424 BC. Many of these plays contain criticism of powerful Athenian generals, suggesting that as long as a government exists, criticism (and by extension political literature) will too. A slightly more recent example would be Shakespeare’s work. Although Shakespeare never explicitly stated his political opinions, his impassioned speeches from characters such as Hamlet or Macbeth arguably speak for him. Many political themes repeatedly occur in his plays, and most of his plays have a clear political aspect. King Lear focuses on the politics of space. The Tempest raises questions concerning colonialism. Macbeth questions the legitimacy of rulers, and women’s place in society. Shakespeare managed to question the political order of his day while evading the extreme censorship present during the Elizabethan and Jacobean age.

His understanding of politics was so clear that Enoch Powell, a particularly famous Conservative politician, did not believe that Shakespeare himself wrote them, instead ‘I believe the plays were court productions written by courtiers, the modern word is ‘politicians’’. His reason was he believed ‘they’re written by someone who has lived the life, who has been part of a life of politics and power, who knows what people feel when they are near to the center of power, near to the heat of the kitchen. It’s not something that can be transferred, it’s not something on which an author, just an author, can be briefed: “Oh, this is how it happened”; it comes straight out of the experience — straight out of personal observation — straight out of personal feeling.’ This is the wrong conclusion. Shakespeare’s awareness of politics stems from his understanding of man, and as man is a political animal, Shakespeare understood politics. This is further proof that literature is political because humans themselves are political. We are all part of politics because we are all citizens of somewhere, and we can therefore not escape how political decisions have shaped our lives and ourselves. Acknowledging the place of politics in our lives is part of accepting the responsibility of being human and of being a citizen. All literature is political in the way that it reflects the assumptions and opinions of a worldview.

Shakespeare’s reasons for writing are detailed in Hamlet when he instructs the players on how best to expose his father’s murderer: ‘Suit the action to the word, the word to the action with this special observance that you overstep not the modesty of nature. For anything so overdone is quite from the purpose of playing whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.’ A writer’s primary source of inspiration is the entire world that we live in; a world that continuously shapes us as we in turn shape it, through our poetry or fiction. The writer has no choice but to be engaged with society, which means political engagement.

Why ask if literature should be political:

This question implies that literature is somehow lessened if it contains political beliefs, and is something that needs protecting from those politically minded writers. I would argue the reason people advocate for what is essentially censorship is that the authors of political literature often advocate change. Typically, those stating that literature should not be political argue that literature should be personal, however, author Jose Donoso argues that ‘all personal pain had to have at least a political subtext’. Robert Stone also wrote in his essay “The Reason for Stories: Toward a Moral Fiction,” published in Harper’s in 1988, ‘I believe that political pathology is necessarily more ‘important’ than private suffering. During times of political upheaval, the relationship between external reality and the individual’s interior world is destabilized.’ These authors argue that personal pain and political issues are inextricable, and correlated. How politics and governance are carried out affects us all, whether it is the price of food, how much tax you pay, or what you learn at school to bigger issues such as international conflict. Often personal pain is rooted, or exacerbated by these political decisions. Therefore literature is political because we as people are always affected by literature, even unconsciously. In the debate of political literature vs more personal literature, literature must be able to reflect the whole, the totality, of who we are.

Others argue that literature should not have political influences as it runs the risk of becoming offensive or outdated, such as H.P Lovecraft’s work, which has often been described as a thinly veiled call for segregation and white supremacy. For example, H.P. Lovecraft’s descriptions of various supernatural entities match closely with descriptions of racial minorities that were prevalent at the time. For example, in The Horror at Red Hook, a 1925 short story in which a white detective’s investigation takes him to a Brooklyn neighborhood full of dark-skinned monsters that perform satanic rituals. His inspiration is clearly detailed in a letter to fellow writer Clark Ashton Smith: ‘The idea that black magic exists in secret today, or that hellish antique rites still exist in obscurity, is one that I have used and shall use again. When you see my new tale ‘The Horror at Red Hook’, you will see what use I make of the idea in connexion with the gangs of young loafers & herds of evil-looking foreigners that one sees everywhere in New York.’ Lovecraft was obviously uncomfortable with the changing political climate of his era, and this is clearly felt in his extreme conservatism (‘I really am a relic left over from Queen Anne’s age’). This manifests in his writing. Often set in Lovecraft’s contemporary New England, his stories detailed innocent, western areas being invaded by unknown, dark forces/aliens that irrevocably change and destroy the society they join. Lovecraft’s fear of the unknown that presides over his work manifested in strong racist views, with his work often including crude stereotypes and slurs.

Despite this, Lovecraft’s work is more popular than ever, and the genre he practically created can be seen in all forms of art. I would argue that this is because scholars have historically been able to study and appreciate a work without agreeing with the sentiments described within said work. Banning or shunning literature like Lovecraft’s only ignores the fact that his descriptions of minorities were frequently used at the time. Discrimination and blatant racism did occur. Just because some literature is uncomfortable for modern readers, that does not necessarily mean it is bad or should be banned. Sometimes being uncomfortable is a good thing. It means that we are recognizing an issue, in this case, the racism that pervaded early 20th-century society. Edgar Lawrence Doctorow, the American novelist, argued that ‘the ultimate responsibility of the writer is to witness’. Therefore, to ban or censor political literature is to remove witnesses from history, even those on the wrong side of history. It would be unjust to forget the suffering of people of the past because the subject seems inappropriate. The world can be a painful place, full of hate of suffering, but it is still a reality.

Another argument offered is that literature should be escapism, free from political bias, but writers must take into account the current political climate to create literature that is both real and persuasive. I would argue that the real reason some argue that literature should not be political is elitism, the idea that literature is precious and should be kept separate from the ‘mob’ who promote revolution.

Why censorship is wrong:

The title of this discussion – ‘Should literature be political’ – exemplifies the problem with asking this question. The prescriptive ‘should’ create the impression that it is okay to dictate the subject matter of literature, therefore erasing any literature that does not fit those standards. The word ‘should’ is incompatible with literature, or art in general.

A great example of a political work of literature being subject to censorship is Ernest Hemingway’s A Call to Arms, published in 1929, only eleven years after the armistice that ended the First World War on the 11th of November 1918. Hemingway served in World War One as an ambulance driver with the American Red Cross. In June 1918, he was wounded by Austrian fire. While recuperating for six months in a Milan hospital, Hemingway fell in love with Agnes von Kurowsky, an American Red Cross nurse. His story bears a striking resemblance to A Call to Arms, which serves as further proof that literature is political because it is based on our lives and the political choices we make. As an American, Hemingway was not drafted but rather volunteered because of his political opinions. Hemingway once asserted “No subject is terrible if the story is true, if the prose is clean and honest”. If writers excluded their political experiences and opinions from their work, it would be lying, even by omission.

Who would not want to escape into a book filled with magic, drama, dangerous quests, and teen rebellion? Having a little bit of everything from disobedient teen wizardry to teen love, the Harry Potter series written by J.K Rowling has been challenged for many reasons in America since the publication of the first book in 1997. Challenged mainly by American schools and public libraries the series has been the top contender on the American Library Association’s Top 100 Most Challenged Books for the last decade (Top 100 Banned). Looking into what censorship is and how it is connected to the Harry Potter books, three main objections to the series became apparent. First, many pro-censorship fanatics argue that the American Education System is founded on the separation of church and state and that these books teach a form of occult religion. However, in reality, the wizardry in the series expands a child’s creative and imaginative abilities. Second, the series is seen as being too dark for children, dealing a lot with death, hate, and evil. However, it is true that these books do discuss heavy material, they can be used as a gateway to talk about topics that many parents are too afraid to talk to their children about. Thirdly, the Harry Potter series have to do a great deal with the idea of going against the grain, breaking rules, and being rebellious which many see as setting a bad example for children who read them. Yet this disobedience can be seen as teaching kids how to stand up for what they believe in and follow their own morally right paths. Taking a look into a specific case of challenging the series, Dakota Count versus Cedarville School District provides a real-life example of why censoring the collection is irrelevant. Therefore, censoring the Harry Potter series is more dangerous to children than them reading the magic-filled series themselves.

What is censorship? According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of censor means to look over something and delete anything found offensive (Definition of CENSOR). Censorship is a difficult topic to talk about because everyone has different viewpoints on what is considered objectionable, especially when it comes to what children should be exposed to. According to author Lorretta Caravette in her article “Censorship: An Unnecessary Evil”, “censorship seems to be an adult user answer to the growing problem of how to care and watch over our children” (n.p.). Relating censorship more towards children Caravette provides a definition of censorship that can be used to explain why some try to censor the Harry Potter series. The problem with this is that censoring information that is meant to be looked at as a whole is as Allyson Casares puts it in her article, “The Effect of Book Banning on Child Culture: A Close Look at the Harry Potter Series”, is that it is essentially “robbing children of stimulating lessons of life” (n.p.). The robbing of experiences and knowledge from children by censoring can make them small-minded and dull. Although censoring of the books is the main concern of this paper, censorship is prevalent within the series itself. For example in the book Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, written by J.K Rowling in 1999, the adult characters try to censor the information of Black’s escape from Azkaban from Harry Potter. Harry finds out anyways and is not afraid like the adults would have predicted; instead “the thing that bothered Harry most was the fact that his chances of visiting Hogsmeade now looked like zero” (Rowling 68). This shows that even though adults who wish to censor information from children normally have the best intentions at heart, they often have no clue how a child will react. Now that we have established what censorship is let us look more into the reasoning behind why people have tried to censor the Harry Potter series from children.

Censoring the Harry Potter series on the basis of it teaching or promoting witchcraft to children is truly just limiting a child’s imagination. The problem with censoring Harry Potter for children on the basis of it teaching them occult religion is that no one is able to tell what a child will get out of the books except the child. It is up to a child to decipher reality from fantasy, censor supporters are concerned that children who read the books will start to believe in a fantasy world of witchcraft and wizardry. However, this concern is put to rest by Casares’s article because “there has been no evidence that suggests that reading of the Harry Potter series will affect a child’s ability to distinguish fantasy from reality” (n.p.). Rowling herself includes her disbelief in magic by using Professor Snape and his beliefs on science over magic; “There will be no foolish wand-waving or silly incantations… I don’t expect many of you to appreciate the subtle science and exact art that is potion-making” (Rowling Sorcerer’s #). Therefore the series as a whole is more about improving a child’s ability to critical think than teaching them the ways of witchcraft. Casares’s article reinforces that the main goal of a fantasy book is to “[allow] students to think beyond the constraints of their culture and to think more abstractly and theoretically” (n.p.). Thinking more abstractly while reading expands the imagination of children who have read the books. In addition to expanding their imagination, the series also according to Caravette’s article “[brings] kids, especially boys, back to books” (n.p.). These books help stir up reading in a society taken over by video games and movies. Therefore the series as a whole is more about improving the creativity and imagination in children rather than teaching them the ways of witchcraft.

The Harry Potter series is also seen as being too dark for children, incorporating death, hate, and evil. Although it is true that these books do cover such heavy material it is often missed that it provides an outlet for parents to talk to their children about dark real-life issues. With each book in the series progressively getting more deep in context it is reasonable to say that each reader should be looked at individually to see if it is appropriate for them or not. No matter the age of the child, it is always important for parents to discuss the heavy topics covered in the books. As Caravette puts it “only in discussing and sharing comments and concerns is their growth and understanding” (n.p.). Caravette is making the point that the series should be read and discussed rather than censored and ignored. Many who try to censor the Harry Potter series on the basis of them being too dark are often parents trying to protect their children from the horrors of the world. According to Casares’s article “if parents try to “protect” their children, they might disturb their natural emotional development” therefore, censorship is more harmful for children then the books themselves (n.p.). Another thing people often miss while trying to sensor these books on being too dark are the messages behind the darkness. For example, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone written by J.K Rowling in 1997, most see the moment Harry looks into the Mirror of Erised and sees his dead parents as morbid forgetting that the mirror shows “the deepest, most desperate desire if our hearts” (Rowling 213). This crucial but often forgotten information about the mirror makes the moment portray the message that every child needs and wants their parents. Using dark topics as hidden messages and a means to break the ice between children and their parents, the Harry Potter series is much more than just a dark story that needs to be hidden from children.

Accused of misleading children the Harry Potter series is often seen as teaching children to be disobedient while missing the author’s point of teaching children to follow their own moral paths. The series as a whole teaches children that expressing their moral beliefs is ok to do. According to Drew Chappell’s article “Sneaking Out After Dark: Resistance, Agency, and the Postmodern Child in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter Series”, “the child characters must decide what “rightness” means to them and when and how to bend rules in order to pursue it” (285 ). What does that mean exactly? It means that children need to have the freedom to act upon their own moral codes. For example, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry and Hermione must choose whether or not to break the rules to save Black and Buckbeak. Harry and Hermione use their own moral codes and decide that saving two lives is worth breaking the rules. The series also teaches children that your actions come with consequences. For example, when Neville Longbottom let a list of the passwords to get into Gryffindor tower get into Black’s hands his privileges to go to Hogsmeade was taken away (Rowling Sorcerer’s #). As Chappel states “Dumbledore does nothing to stop the resistant behavior–in fact, he encourages and supports it” (286). Dumbledore does this for he knows that testing the limits is essential in a child’s development. Censoring the Harry Potter series because they teach kids to be disobedient is on a false basis for it truly teaches kids to stand up for what they believe in and do what is morally right to them.

Looking at why Arkansas’s Cedarville School District had put a restriction on the Harry Potter series they had missed the points behind the novel, as most challenges of the series do. According to Todd DeMitchell and John Carney’s article, “Harry Potter and the Public School Library”, some Cedarville school board members saw the series as a literal teaching of witchcraft, which violated separation of church and state, along with the stories promoting disobedience (163-164). These two arguments proved to be non-substantial as the parent of Dakota Count took the challenge to court on the basis of it violating their child’s first amendment (Demitchell 164). The school district may have lost from a legal standpoint but from an optimistic viewpoint, both sides can be seen as winners. Dakota Count and the rest of the students in the Cedarville School District now have the freedom to read books that will improve their creativity, critical thinking, and moral making judgment skills. By keeping the books permission free the school district itself has a way to provide heavy topic subjects to children without scaring them off. As Demitchell puts it at the end of his article the Harry Potter series is honestly just a nonreligious children’s story involving magic, moral adolescents, and a battle against good versus evil (165). Being one of many legal cases Dakota Count’s case adds an example to reasoning as to why censoring this series is irrelevant.

Rowling admits to “‘[having] a real issue with anyone trying to protect children from their own imaginations’” and so do I (Lattie). I strongly believe that the true danger to children comes from censoring the Harry Potter series not by reading them. When children read the books, they are exposed to new concepts that can help flourish their creative thinking. Therefore by taking them away, you could say that you are also taking a piece of the child’s imagination along with it. In addition, forbidding a child from reading the books is only making future conversations harder. Reading the novels children are brought to the realization that the world is not all gumdrops and lollipops. The books introduce real-life issues in a kid sensitive manner. Being able to experience dark issues through reading the books instead of personally experiencing them provides an easier way for parents and children to talk about such heavy topics. Forgoing, saying that the series teaches kids to be disobedient is like saying a speed limit sign is just a white sign painted with black numbers, you are missing the point. Rowling uses the series to teach kids to weigh options on a moral scale, that rule-breaking can be ok if it is morally justifiable. Therefore I think censoring does nothing but harm a child, but it is ultimately left up to you. Is censoring the Harry Potter series really protecting children?

Censorship was introduced in the 1800s but was abolished half a century later in 1905. Some forms of censorship were still legal but were finally abrogated on April 27, 1917. But in October 1917 the decrees were lifted and censorship was fully installed back into media and is still in place to this very day. Censorship, what is it really? Is it necessary? Censorship is described as censors that regulate what people can see and what people can view within the media. Censorship is the subduing of speech or other communication towards the public. It can be considered offensive, detrimental, sensitive, or inappropriate as determined by the government, media outlet, or controlling body. Censorship ranges from muting offensive words to completely removing segments of a show or stream. Censorship has many pros, as well as cons (both have supporting facts), and reasons why it could be associated with dictatorship.

Censorship has benefited the media and the people throughout history. Minors across the country have benefited from the system that’s has been put into place. When a minor commits a crime, their identity is concealed so they still have the opportunity to get into college and receive jobs. Also, rape victims have their names concealed so they do not have to be further traumatized from humiliation by the public. United States anti-government groups want to pop the lid with the amount of secrecy the government has. For one instance, in 1971 The New York Times released these articles, formerly called the Pentagon Papers. These papers described the controversial topic of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The government has a very difficult relationship with the media, regulating what they can and can not show. Censoring inappropriate content and even creating a completely different search engine has benefited cautious parents. This background has provided ample information as to the means of censorship and how it benefits the eye of the beholder.

Censorship, evidently, has had some faults as to the system it follows. Censorship has concealed secrets that have covered up major scandals. There is a term that describes the accidental spike of attention towards something or someone by trying to conceal it. The masses have called it “The Streisand Effect,” named after famous entertainer Barbara Streisand. Other examples include the president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, who had a book written about the corruption that he fornicated in South Africa. The government set a ban in 24 hours to ban the book across the country, inadvertently the book’s sales spiked. Those events made the book a national bestseller and led to multiple rewrites. Even with the censorship, there are many loopholes in the system. Many primary sources from traumatic events believe the actual footage should be aired instead of the censored videos. Innovations in technology have given hackers more resources to hack and find non-censored videos to publish to the public.

Activists against censorship believe that it is pro-dictatorship. In times of civil unrest, dictators can use this tool to wreak havoc on the people. There have been times in the past where dictators censor shows talking about issues of the government and politics. People who slander their leader are censored and can’t have their voice expelled for everyone to hear. When the Nazis successfully orchestrated the fall of democracy in Germany, they enacted a huge propaganda campaign to win the hearts of Germans. After they had a grip on entertainment, media, and communication they suffocated and blocked anything that threatened the Nazi beliefs. These events that happened in history have led some parts of modern audiences to believe specific things are shown to promote different messages or to damage someone’s reputation. According to Donald Trump, there are fake news outlets that portray different parts of his speeches to make him sound hateful and racist. These censorship skills have been proven to ruin careers and bend the word of certain people, regardless of status.

Censorship is a powerful tool that can benefit or harm society and people. It can be beneficial in some ways but can also be potentially harmful if used improperly. It can either result to spread balanced information or conceal the truth about controversies people deserve to know. Now, the burden lies on the shoulders of the people associated with its implementation. What is paramount is for members from both sides of the line, supporters and skeptics, to continue debating on the issue to achieve a kind of censorship that will work for the majority. Censorship is a common tool that can be utilized by the common person, no matter the situation.

Works Cited:

1. Coetzee, J. M. ‘Emerging from Censorship.’ Contemporary Literary Criticism, edited by Jeffrey W. Hunter, vol. 194, Gale, 2005. Literature Resource Center, http:// link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/H1100060610/GLS? u=ft58823&sid=GLS&xid=71a0e153. Accessed 5 Dec. 2018. Originally published in Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship, University of Chicago Press, 1996, pp. 34-47;
2. Olmsted, William. ‘Apostasy Apostasized: the effects of censorship and self-censorship on Baudelaire’s ‘Le Reniement de saint Pierre’.’ Nineteenth-Century French Studies, vol. 36, no. 1-2, 2007, p. 109+. Literature Resource Center, http:// link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A172777332/GLS? u=ft58823&sid=GLS&xid=12ea7706. Accessed 5 Dec. 2018;
3. Olmsted, William. ‘Emma versus the proprieties: censorship, self-censorship, and revision in Madame Bovary.’ The Romanic Review, vol. 101, no. 4, 2010, p. 765+. Literature Resource Center, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A289119886/GLS? u=ft58823&sid=GLS&xid=903eef88. Accessed 4 Dec. 2018.