Category: Censorship

Introduction

In this paper, I will be discussing the internet and how we can effectively control and censor the content on the web, in particular, the problems arising due to censorship. Definitely, Internet Censorship is definitely a hot topic all around the world, with all the big changes happening right now it’s no wonder people will be talking about that, one example is the Net Neutrality Repeal in the US. As I said in this paper I’ll be discussing the obstacles that need to be overcome to build a perfect filter that censors only the unwanted and unnecessary content from the Internet that everyone can agree on.

The Problem’s

1. Implementing internet censorship brings various issues and problems that would make everyone’s lives much harder. One of those problems is the unintentional censorship of useful/important information from various fields across the entirety of the internet. This hinders people’s lives and stops them from gaining knowledge.
2. Another problem would be that the entire concept of internet censorship is against the freedom of speech and it violates human rights. The internet is an important platform for people all around the world to come together and share their ideas, opinions, thoughts, and anything they think they want to talk about or share anonymously without worrying about society’s acceptance.
3. Also, information on the web can be manipulated, by making it almost impossible for any person to see. For example, a government official knows that he controls the information on the web and can thus engage in illegal activities without being worried about being found out. Many politicians have used it for destructive purposes and have victimized many individuals in the process.

Causes of the Problem

Something like this happening is expected since internet censors aren’t exactly precise in their work and operate on extremely wide areas covering the entire web. Web filters scan websites for references or keywords that, if found on the website at all, that site would have to be blocked. As stated here, this type of web filtering is called keyword blocking and it is by far the most unreliable of the filters, even if a single one of the restricted words has been mentioned anywhere on the website, it will be blocked, and nothing can be done about it unless someone contacts the internet provider and manually asks them to remove the filter from the website that was accidentally blocked.

Just like with accidental censoring, sometimes people may speak about controversial topics, expressing their views and opinions on it, it could be due to the same reasons as mentioned in my explanation of the cause of my last problem, however, it could also be due to the government officials not liking their opinions and views on such topics and for these kinds of conversations to be stopped, they may intentionally block access to such websites.

Sometimes high-ranking officials may abuse their power and contribute to illegal activities, and since it is very easy for them to hide their acts over the internet, they easily block this information from the public.

As said in this source, a Canadian human rights group revealed that research showed that several Us-made Internet Surveillance technologies can be used for content censorship as well as tracking citizens. This group, Citizen Lab labeled their report ‘Planet Blue Coat: Mapping Global Censorship and Surveillance Tools, ‘ which found that technology used for blocking content and tracking is currently used on government or public networks and identified “11 ProxySG and 50 PacketShaper devices on public or government networks in countries with a history of concerns over human rights, surveillance, and censorship. ”ProxySG and PacketShaper are network technologies manufactured by Blue Coat [corporate website] which could be used for censorship or surveillance. According to the author of the report, the findings indicate a need for:

National and international careful examination of Blue Coat implementations in the countries we have identified, and a closer look at the global rapid growth of “dual-use” information and communication technologies. Internet service providers responsible for these deployments should consider publicly clarifying their function and hope that Blue Coat will take this report as an opportunity to explain their due diligence process to ensure that their devices are not used in ways that violate human rights.

Consequences

1. When something like this happens, many health sites offering vital information for teens or anyone generally, tend to get blocked. This bars people from being able to learn or understand things about themselves or anyone, thus leaving them wondering all about themselves.
2. A consequence of this would be that a lot of people wouldn’t be able to properly express themselves in any way possible and not be blocked or restricted from doing so.
3. These high-ranking officials will be able to get away with doing crimes and offenses that are prohibited to the public, but not the ones in power. They could do whatever they please, corruption, selling information to other countries, basically whatever they want.

Current Scenario

At this moment, many events are happening throughout the world that just might change the Internet forever. In the US the Federal Communications Commission, directed by Ajit Pai, has passed the vote to end Net Neutrality in the US. Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. According to FCC Chairman and Director, Net Neutrality is the number-one reason why rural Americans lack broadband access.

Something worth noticing about Ajit Pai, before becoming the Chairman and Director of The FCC under President Trump, Ajit Pai was serving as the Associate General Counsel for Verizon Communications Inc., Another reason mentioned by the FCC is that Net Neutrality is discouraging investments by Internet Providers (such as Verizon) and because of this, America has lost out on billions of dollars.

The current FCC administration has suggested there was a decline of about 5% in capital expenditure by broadband providers after the Ordeal took effect. However, analysts say that this decline was planned ahead of time and that overall investment in this field is up. Executives of telecommunications companies have said on record that Net Neutrality won’t be affecting their investments at all. If it was affecting them, they probably would have spoken on such a topic due to this being helpful in the fight to change their classification. I believe that Ajit Pai is secretly working with telecom companies like Verizon, to help them financially and be able to do whatever they like on the internet without anyone being able to notice and stop them including Ajit Pai and other government officials.

(Ajit Pai’s full speech against Net Neutrality on the day of the vote can be found here.

Perspectives

I think internet censorship can be good and bad at the same time. In certain areas such as gambling, drug trafficking, and other illegal activities should be banned and their access should be restricted from the public, however, in the way of achieving these admirable goals, quite a few problems would be created such as overclocking, violation of human rights, abuse of internet censorship and many more and I want to find a way in which most of these problems could be solved.

Turkish teacher’s view on internet censorship according to this source and its table comparisons, is such that teachers tip slightly more in favor of censorship (59.4%) rather than against it (40.6%). Some of their reasons for needing internet censorship are Unethical content, Inappropriate content, Sexually explicit websites, Pop-ups concerning sexual content, Encouraging immoral actions, Causes mental issues, etc, Reasons for not needing censorship: Freedom mustn’t be restricted, Prohibition attracts people, Personal Rights must be protected, Families can set up their filters, The decision is made by those in power, etc.

A different view on this would be from the perspective of Iran. As stated in the source, Iran is a country with really strict Internet Censorship Laws, since 2010 Iran’s government has placed restrictions on internet bandwidth by lowering the speed at which photos and videos are uploaded to the web. As well as that, they have also blocked mass communication using text messaging to mainly avoid protests, just like their decision to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. The government has also implemented constant surveillance over Internet Communications, in turn even arresting dissidents.

Most of the world hates web censorship, mainly because it is really hard to implement and most of the time someone does, it spirals out of control or makes the censorship system in their favor and against the public.

Possible Solution

A possible way to solve these problems is to use Blockchain technology. Blockchain technology is a decentralized platform for digital currencies (such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.) that acts as an intermediary and logs all financial transactions. Blockchain technology is an extremely secure way of transferring finances due to its decentralized nature since every time a transaction is being made every registry in the Blockchain is being updated.

The blockchain is an ideal version of the internet that was intended by its creators. Nothing is under the direct control of anything regardless of status or wealth but distributes control over to everyone granting everyone equal rights to it. This way if there was to be a dispute among the people over what’s on the internet, everyone together could decide if they wanted to remove it or not.

A positive advantage this could give internet censorship is since Blockchain is much, much simpler in securely storing data and accessing it, this information could be stored much more efficiently, and quickly and be amassed at a much larger scale, this would, in turn, make it a lot easier for them to correct mistakes if, for example, a wrong website was blocked, they could quickly find that website due to constant monitoring of the database and instantly unblock it.

Another way of possibly decreasing blockage of meaningful websites is instead of using “keyword” blocking which has a high rate of over-blocking, we can use “Site Blocking”. Instead of searching keywords across the site, this runs a web search across the internet for specific websites that were determined illegal by humans, this has a much lower rate of over-blocking, though this takes a lot more effort and time to complete since there are countless websites on the internet and people must do this by themselves.

Bibliography

1. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/the-advantages-of-internet-censorship-media-essay.php
2. https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/258/Plain%20Facts%20about%20Internet%20Filtering%20Software.pdf?sequence=76&isAllowed=y
3. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777626/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-speech
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323187023_Teacher_Perspective_on_Internet_Censorship_in_Turkey
5. https://www.ifla.org/publications/trends-in-transition-from-classical-censorship-to-intenet-censorship-selected-country-o
6. https://fee.org/articles/the-blockchain-can-solve-internet-censorship-and-copyright-issues/
7. https://medium.com/nauticus-blockchain/five-smart-uses-for-blockchain-technology-b1bc8630707b
8. https://futureofworking.com/8-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-internet-censorship/
9. https://www.jurist.org/news/2013/01/governments-abusing-internet-surveillance-and-censorship-technologies-report/
10. https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Planet-Blue-Coat.pdf

Introduction

Music has long been a powerful medium for self-expression, cultural reflection, and social commentary. However, in some cases, music censorship is imposed as a means of controlling the content and impact of songs. In this persuasive essay, we will explore the negative consequences of music censorship, arguing that it restricts artistic freedom, impedes social progress, and undermines the principles of free speech and expression.

Suppression of Artistic Freedom

Music censorship infringes upon the fundamental right to artistic freedom. Artists use music as a form of self-expression, exploring a range of themes and perspectives that may challenge societal norms or provoke critical thought. By censoring music, we limit the ability of artists to freely express their ideas, stifling creativity and innovation in the process. Artists should have the freedom to explore controversial topics, challenge existing power structures, and offer diverse perspectives without fear of censorship.

Restriction of Cultural Diversity

Censorship in music hampers cultural diversity and undermines the richness of our artistic landscape. Music reflects the cultural experiences, beliefs, and struggles of different communities and serves as a platform for their voices to be heard. By imposing censorship, we risk homogenizing music and denying marginalized communities the opportunity to share their unique stories and perspectives. Embracing a diverse range of musical expressions allows us to celebrate and appreciate the cultural tapestry that shapes our society.

Hinders Social Progress

Music has historically played a crucial role in driving social change and sparking important conversations. It has been a catalyst for social movements, raising awareness about injustice, inequality, and pressing social issues. Censoring music restricts the power of music to inspire, educate, and mobilize communities. By silencing dissenting voices and censoring socially conscious lyrics, we hinder the progress of important conversations and impede the potential for positive social change.

Interference with Personal Choice and Autonomy

Censorship of music encroaches upon individual freedom of choice and autonomy. Listeners should have the agency to make informed decisions about the music they consume, based on personal preferences, values, and beliefs. Imposing censorship limits this freedom and undermines the ability of individuals to engage with music on a personal and emotional level. It is not the role of authorities or regulatory bodies to determine what individuals can or cannot listen to; rather, it is a matter of personal choice and responsibility.

Ineffectiveness and Unintended Consequences

Music censorship often fails to achieve its intended goals. Instead of preventing the spread of controversial or explicit content, it may inadvertently generate more curiosity and interest in such music. Censorship can also create a sense of rebellion among artists and listeners, leading to the production and consumption of music that intentionally pushes boundaries. Moreover, it diverts attention and resources away from addressing the root causes of societal issues, such as inequality, violence, or discrimination.

Violation of Free Speech and Expression

Censorship of music directly violates the principles of free speech and expression. It undermines one of the fundamental pillars of democratic societies: the right to express and receive diverse ideas, even those that challenge prevailing norms or provoke discomfort. By censoring music, we set a dangerous precedent that can be used to justify further restrictions on artistic expression, media, and other forms of speech, potentially leading to a stifling of public discourse and a loss of individual liberties.

Conclusion

Music censorship poses significant drawbacks to society, impeding artistic freedom, cultural diversity, social progress, personal choice, and the principles of free speech and expression. By recognizing and embracing the power of music as a tool for reflection, education, and social change, we can foster an environment that encourages dialogue, understanding, and the celebration of diverse perspectives. Rather than suppressing music, let us engage in open and constructive conversations about its impact, while safeguarding the inherent rights of artists and listeners to freely express themselves through this vital art form.

The issue of banning books has been a highly debated topic since the 1800s. Librarians, schools, and parents frequently question whether some books are appropriate for young audiences. Publishers have a hard time identifying who their target audience is, the kids themselves or the Adult Gatekeepers. While some people think it is in the best interest of children to protect them from “inappropriate” books, others believe that banning books marginalizes children.

Paul Ringel discusses how banning books negatively affects the lives of children in his article, “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children.” The censorship of books, specifically books discussing diversity, has been rapidly increasing since 2008. Before the Civil War, debates over who the target audience of children’s books should be were rarely even discussed. When a book is claimed to be emotionally inappropriate, they are following the most conservative view which is to avoid all controversial topics. This tradition was established in the 19th century to serve the needs of white, wealthy protestant producers and consumers. Books concerning race and sexuality are more likely to be restricted than books regarding violence, making it harder for minority groups to get their books published. Censored books can transport young readers beyond their reality and allow them to vicariously experience feelings of empathy and humility for the characters in the stories. Banned books also allow readers to look back at history from a different perspective. For example, in the Diary of Ann Frank, we saw the perspective of the Jews in Germany during World War 2. Only telling picture-perfect stories to children further perpetuates the thought that all childhoods are perfect which is rarely the case. As Kate Messner, author of The Seventh Wish, said in response to an angry librarian, “We don’t serve only our children, we serve the children of the real world” (Ringel 4). It’s unfair for children to not be prepared for real-world diversity and challenges.

Ringel’s essay explored the topic of banning books in a quality way. He brings up valid points regarding why banning books is bad. Ringel says it’s unfair for children to be filtered to where they only see perfect families and outcomes without controversy. When a kid thinks everything is good in the world, they think that if they are not perfect like the people in the books then they are bad. This perception could lead to long-term stress and depression if children are not exposed to diverse content such as race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental illness, and disability. As stated by Kate Messner, “When we say ‘This book is inappropriate,’ we’re telling those children ‘your situation … your family … your life is inappropriate” (Ringel 4). Children need to understand that it’s okay to be different from the status quo. Banned books allow you to go back in time and see things from a different angle. For example, in To Kill a Mockingbird, the story takes the reader to a town in Alabama where it shows what it was like between the different races back in the 30s. This is another prime example of why books should not be banned as they teach young readers a valuable life lesson. Banned Books Week was created to shed light on books frequently deemed inappropriate by teachers, parents, and librarians. Some of the core values of the Banned Books Week include tolerance, compassion, and affirmation; these are grounded in respect for the young readers so they can have a chance to explore imaginary worlds and apply what lessons they learned in their own lives.

Banning books has no benefits to society. Books allow readers to vicariously explore the past, experience different worlds, and explore different cultures. While some advocates for banned books may say that protecting young readers from inappropriate topics will make for a stress-free childhood, the reality is that those sheltered children have an inappropriate perspective of the real world. It is harder for minority authors to get published because the structural biases benefit the status quo. Some of the banned books should be on a mandatory reading list because of their valuable life lessons. One of the main reasons authors write stories is so others can feel what they felt and experience what they experienced, controversial or not, its life.  

Do you know what is real? Can you actually believe everything you see or hear on the internet? Perhaps this is because of censorship which is a form of control because it controls and influences people’s thoughts and ideas as it only allows the specific group of people that fit into a categorised range to view the content. Without being able to view a wide variety of materials expressing a range of beliefs and ideas, our next generation will miss out on being able to judge ideas that could define what they believe in.

The government is considered to always be in control because they have the power and authority to keep secrets, and the government controls everything, e.g school, taxes, censoring texts! This should not be the case, the government should not be able to control everything, and they should not be able to influence people thoughts through censoring films and texts.

Censorship is portrayed in many, many films and texts. Steven Spielberg’s 1982 classic children’s movie, ET: the Extra Terrestrial, grabbed the audience’s attention. Spielberg’s story of a stranded alien that makes friends with a young boy, who then helps his return to his home planet was rated PG “some scenes may disturb small children,” and in Sweden it was given an 11+ rating, not because young viewers might be scared of some of ET’s wrinkly bits, but because the movie allegedly “portrays adults as enemies of children.”

This links to censorship as the government of Sweden have abused their power to censor these texts by making the people of Sweden believe that statement.

Elliot and ET are a united pair from the start and their bond is loyalty and friendship. In the beginning the boys show friendship and loyalty, but the government agents pursuing ET, and hunting the extra-terrestrial being down made the young boys beliefs crumble. The government agent’s faces are nowhere in sight, not in any scene.

Toward the end of the movie, ET goes missing and Michael, his brother, finds him dying in the forest and then brings him home to Elliot, who is also dying. Their mother becomes frightened when she discovers her son’s illness and ET sprawled on the floor. Their mother forces them to leave ET, but the government invades and quarantines the house with all of them in it. This shows that the government are trying to maintain power within the movie and that they have proper authority when it comes to censorship, they censored the fact that there was a sick alien within the community.

Season 1 of a supernatural thriller “stranger things” by the Duffer brothers, was a big hit for Netflix. Set in the fictional town of Hawkins, Indiana, it focuses on the investigation into the disappearance of Will Byers, and a few supernatural events that occurred around the small town. A supernatural being, in the form of a human appears, with psychic abilities who helps the missing boy’s friends in their search for him. In stranger things, the power is not directly held by the government, but by Hawkins Lab. Hawkins Lab is a privately run facility running on government funding. The lab is situated outside of the town, in the middle of nowhere so that the people of Hawkins weren’t aware of this lab and the secrets it holds. The government is withholding the existence of a portal to a whole new world, which unleashed a deadly, dangerous monster.

The officials of Hawkins Lab were experimenting on eleven in secret, because they saw what she could do. When eleven escapes the lab, she ends up at a restaurant where a kind chef helps her out. A ‘child protective service worker’ shows up, eleven starts running and the officials use force and violence in their pursuit of eleven. They go to extreme length in order to stop her, they fire guns and end up killing the chef. This is an example of coercive power as the government use threatening techniques and force to attempt to gain what they want.

The similarities between the two texts are uncanny, stranger things was inspired by Spielberg’s movie. The concept of government control within these two texts are similar, in ET the government are tracking ET plus always searching in the dark, and in Stranger Things the Lab officials seemed stressed and were in pursuit, which leaves the impression that they didn’t want anyone knowing about the supernatural being.

Not only is censorship portrayed through TV shows and movies, but it is also seen in the real world. A great example of this is the Pine Gap facility located in the centre of Australia. This facility is considered one of the country’s most secretive sites. The facility summons up images of secrecy and power, and has involved a few conspiracy theories. A well-known conspiracy at pine gap was when three men were returning home in 1989, when they noticed a hidden door in the surrounding terrain, within the door there laid a huge, metallic grey disc. It moved without a sound, hovering for a moment over the base, as the three shocked men continued looking the disc shot off at the speed of light (Lowth 2018). Pine Gap is said to be the Area 51 of Australia, but its officially stated purpose is to monitor the many satellites in space.

The government run facility uses coercive power as the Pine Gap is based on in-depth information and knowledge. The government is keeping information from Australians and people of the US, as no one really knows the truth of what actually happens within that facility. This is an example of political censorship, as the government attempts to withhold, conceal or fake information that the citizens of Australia have the right to know about. The Pine Gap relates to these texts because, it is run by the government and they aren’t letting the truth out, similar to Stranger things.

So what would having no censorship do to society? Censorship, which is a form of control, only allows certain people to access the information or secrets. If everyone were able to access this information children and adults would be getting the complete truth. I believe that rather than protecting us from obscene material, censorship is actually shutting down opposing opinions. Stranger things and ET are fictional texts that reflect government control in the real world through censorship. These texts are good to watch as they make communities aware of how government control and censorship is dangerous.

The vulnerability of children provides a potential warrant for censorship. Particularly given the development of internet access, both among home owners and educational institutions. Allowing for the risk of innocent children becoming exposed to ‘inappropriate’ content (Bremer & Rauch 1998). A risk that is amplified through the unknown, given the ambiguous nature of what the internet truly holds. These sentiments of concern have been prevalent among our society since the ‘moral panic’ of the 1990s, during which it was a common occurrence to see news headlines such as; ‘Pupils “at risk” of internet porn’ (Carvel 1998).

Given these characteristics it should come as no surprise that censorship quickly became a prominent strategy to limit children’s access to the interminable world-wide web. Through a collective effort; parents, schools and governments have worked in cohesion to cyber-patrol the internet. Commencing with parental guidance, giving rise to industry-sponsored projects such as the 1999 “GetNetWise”, which provided parental information in how to independently censor their children’s online experiences, through using filters to block and monitor offensive material. Additionally, we have seen an increase in shielding systems (Buckingham & Willett 2006), working to ensure all visitors to ‘explicit’ sites must be of a respectable age and maturity, through a screening process with the data they provide.

Such measures have further been supported with legislation, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (McCarthy 2005, p.83), signed by the U.S Congress in 2000, requiring schools and libraries that receive federal money for internet connections to adopt internet safety policies. Resulting in the installation of audit-tracking devices and safe sites to censor out any content with reference to specific trigger words. It is the extremity of these measures that convey the true level of fear that the internet evokes among adults. In terms of the consequences we are educated on but more importantly, the consequences that we are yet to discover. Therefore, suggesting that a child’s censored internet access is warranted as preventative measures to protect their safety and allow for seamless development.

Censoring a child’s experiences within an educational institution can in fact be hindering the potential enrichment of resources. As suggested by Kenway, the internet may be Utopian, given that ‘information wants to be free’ (Kenway 1996, p. 223), thus suggesting that the internet is a ‘liberating medium’ (Lawson & Comber 2000, p.274), deviating from the bureaucratic and centralised control we otherwise experience when formulating ideas, and communicating with others. However, it is a general practice for governments to use such a resource in a dystopian way, targeting its potential for control and surveillance.

As a consequence of its wide-ranging and diverse character of national discussion (Reichman 2001, p.2), there is an increasing fear that without adequate censorship, children will be exposed to new ideas that do not necessarily conform to what we know today. Therefore, resulting in a level of censorship that tends to single out one specific agenda, ultimately foreclosing potential debate and crippling the education system. The most important role of schools within our society is to instil within pupils, democratic values of tolerance and intellectual freedom, and yet through these censored learning materials, we undermine the whole argument. In effect, censorship is producing a ‘sterile conformity’ (Reichman 2001, p.4) of children, learning that suppression is an acceptable way of responding to controversial ideas and images.

Works Cited

1. Carvel, J 1998, ‘Pupils ‘at risk’ of Internet porn.’ The Guardian Online.
2. Comber, T & Comber, C 2000, ‘Censorship, The internet and Schools: a new moral panic?’, The Curriculum Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 273-285.
3. Bremer, J & Rauch, P 1998, ‘Children and Computers: Risks and Benefits’, Journal of the American Academy of Childa & Adolescent Pschiatry, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 559-560.
4. Kenway, J 1996, ‘The information Superhighway and Post-Modernity: The social promise and the social price’, Comparative Education, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 217-232.
5. McCarthy, M 2005, ‘The continuing saga of internet censorship: the Child Online Protection Act’, Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal , vol.1, no. 2, pp. 83-103.
6. Reichman, H 2001, Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools, Amer Library Assn Editions.
7. Buckingham, D & Willett, R 2006, Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New Jersey.

Censorship has been around dating back at least to Plato. It is an ever-occurring issue that can be swept under the rug temporarily but could never be completely resolved. While it is recognised that censorship was made to safeguard the public from harm, to what extent does it apply? Is hiding and silencing the masses a tool to overlap the “unwanted harm” deemed by those who exercise censorship?

The purpose of censorship is to limit freedom of speech to maintain the status quo where contents which are seen as sensitive are kept on the down-low. In Singapore under Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, specifically Article 14(1), guarantees to Singapore citizens the rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly without arms, and association. However, the enjoyment of these rights may be restricted by laws imposed by the Parliament of Singapore on the grounds stated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution. (Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association) Singapore boasts the freedom to speak the mind on grounds where such restrictions it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore, public order or morality would face the laws of the court. Censorship as we all know, is an overarching topic.

M1 Singapore Fringe Festival & Singapore International Festival of the Arts

Various notable festivals in Singapore have to go through censorship amendments as advised from National Arts Council (NAC) and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). Two performances from M1 Singapore Fringe Festival that sparked news headlines were a performance lecture Naked Ladies and interactive piece Undressing Room. It had superseded the R18 rating under the Arts Entertainment Classification Code (AECC). Therefore, both performances have to be revised and resubmitted for classification. The annual festival is famed for its boundary-pushing performances which invokes the thinking process. Arts Engage addressed this issue in response to IMDA’s decision by questioning IMDA’s standpoint on censoring the performances and expressed support for the festival organisers. It called the ratings denial ‘opaque, backroom censorship’ and an ‘unmerited and retrograde step which runs counter to the move towards a reasonable, open and fair regimen of arts regulation in Singapore’. (Nanda) IMDA responded by stating that it aims to strike the right balance between a performance’s artistic merits, and prevailing social norms where artistic expression should be on par with the consideration for social mores. It has led to question whether IMDA even understood the performances in general or the value it conveys to the masses behind each art work.

Similarly, with Singapore International Festival of the Arts (SIFA) a performance called Five Easy Pieces directed by Swiss director Milo Rau received the rating of R18+ in 2016. (Harmon) It is an onerous piece consisting of a convicted murderer-cum-paedophile, which features seven child performers aged eight to thirteen sharing the story themselves. A year prior, the films Tony Manero by Chilean director Pablo Larrain and A German Youth by French film-maker Jean-Gabriel Periot were also regulated. These regulations go against SIFA’s stand on intervention and creating a space for discussion in Singapore.

In a statement, organisers were notified that both films required a scene to be cut due to sexual and mature content respectively. Instead of screening a film with edits, the organisers have chosen to remove them “to respect the integrity of the directors’ vision and craft”. (Martin)

Censorship as we know enforces a halt in the progression for the arts community. It not only affects the artists in their works but also the community as a whole. In this instance, the arts community will see a decrease in a space for discussion and open-mindedness.

Artistic Merit, Vision & Integrity

Free speech should be an absolute right. Where artistic merit should be credited where is due, artistic vision and integrity too should be acknowledged. The artistic vision of every work being made is one of the integral processes of creation. Artistic vision is an artist’s way of seeing in their perspective, the style they use, images and story they aim to portray. Artists become part of their art as it reflects who they are, their beliefs, how they perceive the world and the people in it. They exude their own vision, their style of working and being able to communicate in a way that is uniquely theirs. This creates their voice, the means of communicating, through the execution of their work.

Artistic integrity as a conceptualization consists of our actions, values, methods, principles, expectations and outcome. It signifies honesty, having strong moral principles and a personal code of conduct with no exceptions. Arts funding has its pros and cons in an artist’s creative process. According to Singapore’s Cultural Statistics in 2016, one factor of Singapore’s economic success is the thriving arts scene, up to 85% of which is funded by the government. (Harmon) While some agree that it has benefitted a significant amount with its assistance, others argue that with money, it comes with strings attached. Grants applied with NAC will be regulated as it has the right to take back funds if the work produced is not within their guidelines. This too applies with IMDA; the regulatory body that issues licenses and audience restrictions before any performance, film or exhibition goes public.

In the process of an artist’s integrity, creativity and free speech, regulations conducted by these bodies will leave a threatening impact on the arts community. One must be free to express themselves in an open and civilised society. Ong Keng Sen, artistic director of TheatreWorks and festival director of SIFA from 2014 to 2017, expressed his opinions whereby these restrictions would have major consequences for the quality of art produced and its potential for critique. (Harmon) With arts funding, control is established. Their funding, or lack of funding within the regulations is now an effective means of blockage.

By amending the works Naked Ladies and Undressing Room from M1 Singapore Fringe Festival and Five Easy Pieces from SIFA, the artistic integrity of the entire process is affected. With the two foreign films that were pulled out due to its “sexual and mature conduct and nudity” which goes against societal norms due to censorship, withdrawing these performances would be a shame in the progression of a vibrant arts culture and community in Singapore.

Artists might prefer to showcase their art works elsewhere, where censorship regulations are not as rigid. This would then affect the arts scene in Singapore and the lack of intervention or dialogue raised from the works within the audience.

Audience Responsibility

With changes made on these pieces, one will not deny the impact it has left on both the artist and his/her craft per se. Executive director of Singapore International Film Festival (SGIFF) Wahyuni Hadi shares her two cents on censorship and the responsibility the audience have. She is the co-producer of award-winning Singapore film Ilo Ilo where a surge was seen from its box-office takings in Singapore, after it achieved international accolades. As for Five Easy Pieces mentioned, the only children allowed in were the child performers themselves. In an interview with 938LIVE in 2016, Wahyuni mentioned that children should be more aware of issues and the world they are in. There is no need in underestimating the audiences thus removing the layer of protectiveness is essential. She is certain that by doing so, “this will definitely increase support for local independent films too.” (Hadi) With far stricter regulations here, she believes that more artists will venture overseas. Part of the responsibility depends on the artist to push the boundaries to have that discussion with government agencies, but a major fraction lies with the audience. It is part of the audience’s responsibility, instead of relying on the government to exercise censorship. She concluded her opinions by encouraging and allowing the content to be made readily available, but to ultimately make our own decisions as part of the audience responsibility. There is a demand to re-evaluate censorship.

With SGIFF having a no-cut policy to further enhance the artistic integrity of the film, it ultimately leaves an underlying effect on censorship and how the society is “progressing” in retrograde motion. In the festival environment, it would be ideal to have the filmmaker present to share their story with aims to create that dialogue. This would create better understanding with the artist and their craft. With that, one of SGIFF’s roles as a film festival is to fight for the artists’ integrity.

Both Ong Keng Sen and Wahyuni Hadi share the same sentiments; that censorship paves a negative impact in the arts community. Questioning the government agencies who regulates censorship will spark a dialogue that would aid in the reshaping of the status quo. In the meantime, pulling out art works because of such censorship regulations will not only affect the vision of the artist but create a more conservative and backward society. The artistic integrity should be maintained to value the artist, but it should not be amended. Once it is altered, the entire creative process and integrity of the artist will be tainted. With no works being present to spark an intervention within the arts community, this would then generate a more controlled arts community with regulations to abide by.

Plato’s Philosophy on Arts Censorship

Plato was known for being the pivotal figure in the history of ancient Greek and Western philosophy, along with his teacher, Socrates, and his most prominent student, Aristotle. He was the innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms in philosophy. Whilst he conformed to his ideals of what arts should be, he had a notion that it was a conflicting issue. According to Plato, poetry was a form of falsehood as it appears to be an illusion. Thus, philosophy was far more ideal as it represents the truth. This would then lead to two theories made by Plato; 1. Art is an Imitation and 2. Art is Powerful; therefore, it can be dangerous. (Clowney)

The Republic; a Socratic dialogue by Plato, stated that art imitates the objects and events of everyday life. In theory, a work of art is a copy of a copy of a particular form. It is even more of an illusion than ordinary. Therefore, works of art are at best a form of entertainment, but at worst a menacing delusion.

Art forms of all kinds evoke a plethora of emotions. It boils down to one point, art moves people powerfully. Art has the influence to shape behaviour and character as a person. With that reason alone, Plato insisted that music along with poetry and drama and other art forms, should be part of the education of young citizens in his ideal republic with the strict regulations on highlighting only the ‘good.’

In the Republic, Plato makes a systematic case for the censorship of the arts. Two examples include: to have a good society, children must be exposed to good material and shielded from bad material and also, the State should allow only good art and suppress bad art [401b, 595a]. (Hicks) Thus, the modern-day act on censorship in the arts scene shows similar significance.

Plato’s philosophy of art suggested a vital purpose which was to highlight, instruct, and foster virtues where its misuse can destroy a culture. Without granting art total control, art serves a purpose, to illuminate values, including the warning of their destruction.

Certain types of visual image or literature have been definitively linked to crime. Excessive sex and violence in film and television have been shown, targeted from studies made in the USA, to contribute to a tendency towards similar behaviour in spectators. (Huesmann & Taylor) There is a causal link between such images and physical harm. Though, the link between sex and violence on screen in real-life is far from conclusive. To say that those who watch violent films are more likely to commit crime does not establish the causal role of the films; it is equally likely that those who opt to watch such materials already have such tendencies, which are manifested both in their choice of viewing and their behaviour. (Huesmann & Taylor) Such censorship might actually deteriorate their real-world behaviour, as they no longer have any form of release in the semblance of fantasy.

Conclusion

Ong Keng Sen worries if silence within the arts community is continued with the dismay of their funding being affected, the control on censorship that government bodies have will be much more effective. He stresses that, “one of the strengths of the arts community is openness. If we’re challenging the lack of transparency, we have to first and foremost be transparent to ourselves.” (Lee) He encourages artists to create more dialogues and be more self-critical. Wahyuni concurs that transparency is vital. She hopes to create that dialogue or have the opportunity to prove the agencies otherwise by forming an understanding and trying to balance what society wants and needs. Where there is a need for progression, the arts and culture play a significant role in the growth to create the sort of sophistication that the arts community pursue. Evidently, it is up to government bodies and participating agencies on the decision they make.

As for Plato’s ideologies, it applies to a varying extent. It is an apparent duty for parents to tailor activities for varieties of child personalities and ages, within limits. Which brings back to Wahyuni’s statement that it is the audience responsibility to decide for themselves. Shielding one from bad materials is key but what is considered ‘bad’ in this context? Plato continues the error of considering the community a collective, rather than an abstraction of each individual. He fails to acknowledge that people reason for themselves, evaluating both the good and bad ideas. They are not controlled by the art they encounter. It is not only the influence of artists which determines people’s character and beliefs, but their whole experience and intellectual integrations. Plato’s philosophy of art seems fittingly tailored to his inconclusive understanding of human nature.

Censorship has no place in a free society. Audience responsibility should be exercised instead of depending on censorship regulations made by government bodies and agencies who might not even comprehend the vision and value of the particular art work in the first place. Artistic integrity should be acknowledged; not just by removing or amending the art work which would alter the intended purpose, but to rethink if censorship is even necessary. Artists in Singapore are aware of the contributing impact censorship entails. With the benefits of arts funding in assisting such creative work, there is also a cloud looming over the artists’ heads; knowing that there are certain rules and regulations to follow or the entire work will be stripped off. While some artists give in to the idea of making such amendments to best suit the criteria, a majority prefer to keep the artistic integrity intact which then leads zero dialogue being stirred in the arts community. This might eventually lead to the downfall of the arts scene as a whole.

It would be hard to imagine the government censoring the data being fed to the public in a world of diversity and cultural differences. Bradbury uses the characters of Mildred and Montag, both mindless and common members of society, in this speculative fiction book, Fahrenheit 451, to reinforce his theme that creating a highly controlled society kills individuality and terminates or represses human emotions and individual thinking.

By creating a society that strives to be a perfect utopian city, the government must censor and forbid thoughts and certain information that could lead to conflicts among the citizens to create perfect harmony and happiness throughout the city. The firemen in this novel, instead of extinguishing fires, start the fires. They burn every book they find to shield the citizens from the knowledge of the past. As Captain Beatty states, ¨what is fire… its real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. A problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it… fire will lift you off my shoulders, clean, quick, sure; nothing to rot later¨(Bradbury, 109). He highlights how instead of facing problems head-on and dealing with the issue at hand, he rather takes the easy way out and burns the problem he is having. Thus preventing people from reading and learning more about the past and having an extremely different point of view on whether technology had a positive or negative effect on society.

The government must censor and forbid thoughts and certain knowledge that could lead to disputes among people to establish harmony, peace, and happiness in the city. In doing so they are establishing a society that aims to be a perfect utopian city. The firemen in this novel launch the fires instead of extinguishing the fires to protect people from the nastiness they call home so they destroy every book they find. As Faber provides and says, ‘So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless. We are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers, instead of growing on good rain and black loam. Even fireworks, for all their prettiness, come from the chemistry of the earth. Yet somehow we can grow, feeding on flowers and fireworks, without completing the cycle back to reality” (Bradbury 83). He explains how there is life present in books and how the books reveal blemishes in everyday life. Most people are uncomfortable with how truthful books can be and although the government or the firemen are the ones destroying the books, the hatred the citizens feel towards books makes censorship so easily incorporated into their lives.

No better than a dystopian society is a utopian society. Every resident of that city has a certain role to play and a certain way of thinking in a utopian society. Individuality is lost, everything will be done one way and everybody will think the same, and what makes everybody special from each other is lost. In their lives, they will be mindless zombies who are told what to do to preserve peace within the city. Book censorship would obstruct the right of people to freely learn or think. “If you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood. 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'(Bradbury 39). Bradbury is highlighting how, when men are given options, it is difficult for them to choose so instead they just tell them what to do. Instead of using their brains and solving problems, the government just tells them what to do so the citizens’ brain usage and capacity decreases over time with constantly being told what to do. The government and the firemen use censorship to control the citizens, they do this by burning information and or multiple perspectives on an issue, in other words they only prove the people with one option so they can only choose that option, not having to worry about two sides of a question will make people happier. People will only know what they are told by their televisions and what is being told to them by the government.

The society is developing a community of little to no advancement of learning due to the censored world which highlights further the dangers of censorship. Throughout the novel it can be seen that any books that illustrate intelligence and contrasting ideas are destroyed and burned. The only knowledge known by the people is the knowledge known by everyone else. This implies that after what is already learned, there is no available learning, significantly restricting the progression. As Captain Beatty explains, “They were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior; official censors, judges, and executors (Bradbury, 56). As Beatty explains that without books, a person can’t be more or less intelligent than another person, they are equal in knowledge and feel equivalent to everyone else. He claims this way of living provides people “peace of mind” that knowing you are equal to another in intelligence will make everyone satisfied thus not needing to compete with each other.

Having a society that is continually watched over and governed by the government, which seeks to construct a world of utopia, forces people to conform and suppress those emotions and thoughts that help to have individuality and diversity in a city. To stay uninformed and therefore calm, the firemen gained their greatest pleasure from burning books for humans. With this in mind, it is evident that the government of the United States has censored the content that the media airs. Also, individuals are addicted and believe what is being fed to them through the media, so Bradbury’s novel strikes as a warning of what culture might inevitably turn into with all the technological advances.

Kids pick up on every little thing, emotions, actions and most importantly words. Kids have no filter when it comes to talking and asking questions so when they come to watch tv should parents be worried about what’s on the channel.Tv censorship has been a long debate over if it’s too censored or not censored enough. Censoring tv has been a debate for awhile with parents arguing that some topics are not kid appropriate and writers arguing that tv should serve has a way to address topics. Tv should be less censored because censoring tv not only takes away from the writers freedom, but it also takes away from kids learning experience and their ability to feel open and ask questions about life.

Censoring Tv takes away from the shows writers by not allowing them to get the stories/plot lines that matter to them. According to writer-producer Carolina Paiz “We’re constantly censoring or told us to self censor,” this ultimately will take away the authenticity of characters and not be able to run a storyline about something controversial in real life. For example when a new show called Confederate got backlash before the first episode even premiered. The series goes through the idea of if slavery was still legal in the South of the U.S.. This got backlash because people thought that the show would cater some ideas to white supremacists but some of the writers felt that slavery will be something that the world will carry through out the rest of time. Not censoring writers can help bring up important subjects that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. When people are uneasy they tend to dance around talking about it or not even acknowledge that it’s happening. Bringing up subjects like this will create a more open world and start powerful conversations that could change the world. (CITE SOURCE).

Censorship not only affects tv but other media’s also such as books. According to Paul Ringel from the Atlantic, “when teachers reject works that maybe emotionally inappropriate, they’re to the traditional mad mostly prevailing view that children’s literature should avoid controversial topics,” this shows how censoring kids makes them feel like they should avoid certain subjects instead of making them feel comfortable with them. Censoring kids will also affect how open they are to their parents because if their parents are willing to discuss uncomfortable or mature subjects it will help make the kid feel like they can be open with their parents and not hide what’s going on in their life. It will also affect how they grow up because if kids grow clueless or sheltered to certain subjects it will have negative consequences.

I understand that some can people feel uncomfortable with exposing kids to certain topics as Julie Seedorf talks about a situation with her seven year old grandchild asking her about IUD problems, condoms or birth control. She goes on to say that “[She didn’t realize] the wide range of commercials during the daytime that should not be viewed by young people,” but these commercials are showing medical issues and promoting safe sex. These commercials are showing what real life is and keeping kids censored will just make them oblivious to certain things such as safe sex. She also talks about how “I [She] believe[s] our children need to be enlightened but by how much at what age,” I agree to a extent that children don’t need to be terrified by dead bodies or torn off limbs, but they should feel comfortable to ask about important topics such as medical issues.

All in all, censoring TV would help create a more open world and start a lot of conversations that would help change the world.Censoring tv only creates rifts where kids will have questions and instead of their parents answering they will avoid it, which then makes kids not want to be open. But censoring tv less will let parents have conversations with their kids about mature subjects. It will also provide more open conversations through out the world when writers are not censored and able to put out content that can capture some of reality. Kids will catch on to everything but without tv censoring you can have open conversations and watch tv shows that give a purpose.

The prohibition and purge against literature are interpreted in many different ways. The censorship of anything has its distinct level of significance to each individual. To some, the action of suppressing speech or writing is seen as a means for good or deemed as a violation of rights. The line between concealing certain works of literature is determined by how far an author expresses themselves according to their own beliefs. The censorship and destruction of books should not be allowed or taken lightly in the United States because it spires a growing population’s right to be constantly violated, the act of doing so limits citizens’ knowledge, and it incites a positive effect on those who read literature deemed controversial.

Over the past decades, the censorship and destruction of literature have been prevalent in the United States as well as the world since 399 B.C. The act of banning a work of literature ranging from nudity, profanity, racism, and controversial topics. The censure of art is a limit of freedom and self-expression. The precedent of censure that allows officials to legally ban books was put into effect in 1982 in the Islands Trees School District V Pico case. The case comes to a definite conclusion that school officials or libraries may remove a work of literature if seen as inappropriate by their eyes. The majority of the books taken out of public libraries are done so stealthy that no one will oppose or even be aware of its restriction.

The censure of books is mostly targeted in public libraries and whole districts. Parents are a major component and advocate against the books that they perceive as inadequate for their children. Working hard to prohibit content that alludes to controversy or topics that are important today. The American Library Association, ‘Each year, … records hundreds of attempts by individuals and groups to have books removed from libraries shelves and from classrooms.’ At some point, the classic works of literature praised today were once banned too. The Great Gatsby, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Lord of the Flies, 1984, Of Mice and Men, and Animal Farm are a few of the classics that were and are still challenged today. The act of prohibiting and censoring any kind of thing is technically against the First Amendment. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ ( Amendment 1). The First Amendment allows individuals the right to freely speak out, publish, view, and read as they wish, regarding any form of content. Simply because parents or adults condemn a piece of literature as unappealing to society does not mean it should be prohibited to everyone in the district.

The court case of Board of Education v Pico issued the problem of the First Amendment being violated in the censorship of books in local libraries in both junior and high school. The books that were banned were for the reasons of them being ‘anti-American, anti-Christian, and Anti-Sementic’ as stated by Oyez. The court’s final decision was in favor of the Board of Education. It deemed that the actions of censorship were against the Constitution and therefore a violation of the First Amendment. The court case landed upon the Supreme Court which stated its final word of removing books off school grounds was unconstitutional. Justice Brennan, an advocate against censorship stated ‘Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.’ (Freedom Forum Institute)

It is a dangerous thing to attempt to silence the words of millions. To hide and even prohibit the voices and feelings of the people is an extremely alarming thing to do. In the article ‘F.L.A Teens Write on the Dangers of Book Burning’ by the National Coalition Against Censorship it states that those who burn books ‘hoped to control the population through the destruction of their past.’ The destruction of books leaves a blind eye to the errors of the past. Literature is a foundation on how a new era is commenced and founded. It gives everyone an understanding and knowledge of how society was perceived and structured back then. It also explained that in doing so is an ‘attempt at shaping the public’. The power to control people is in knowledge. The destruction of books is and should therefore be seen as a danger to society.

The destruction and censorship of literary works have occurred over centuries and more often than one thinks. In the article ‘ A Brief History of Book Burning, From the Printing Press to Internet Archives’ Boissoneault explains that ‘books and libraries have been targeted by people of all backgrounds.’ In times of war, books, and knowledge have always been a means of destruction. The censure of books goes back as far as the Qin Dynasty in China to the Nazis in Germany. The first thing is controlled by dictators and corrupt regimes because of how much power knowledge holds. It explains the intention of regimes to ‘wipe out’ literature. The reasoning behind their motive abundantly clear over the years. The destruction and censorship of books should never be allowed in the first place.

The majority of the books that are challenged today deal with topics such as racism, police brutality, and the LGBT community. In the Texas District, recently the novel The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas was banned. The novel deals with the prevalent topic of police brutality against African Americans. The Texas District deemed it anti-cop and helped place the novel as one of the Top Ten Most Challenged Books 2018. Parents worry that these topics are too harsh and inadequate for children to read. Several studies have shown that when children read banned books they generally receive a more positive connotation than a negative one. People who read censored works of literature tend to be more perceptive and knowledgeable of controversy. They also are seen to become more advocates against injustices and have a standard position in the argument at hand.

Reading books that are censored has a positive effect on children rather than a negative effect. A book series that today is becoming more and more challenging is the Harry Potter series. It is being targeted for its mention of magic and its affiliation with the devil. Harsher topics such as prevalent topics that create controversy are being banned or even destroyed. Empathy is an emotion that should be gathered among everyone. With books and literature, both sides of the topic are heard and voiced. As Neil Gaiman, author of the frequently challenged novel Neverwhere, has stated, books ‘build empathy… You get to feel things and visit places and worlds you would never otherwise know. You learn that everyone else out there is me, as well. You’re being someone else, and when you return to your world, you’re going to be slightly changed. Empathy is a tool for building people into groups, for allowing us to function as more than self-obsessed individuals.’ Literature opens the doors inside the minds of individuals with different views and positions.

However, some might argue that the censorship of literature is necessary when in school districts and dealing with novels that expose sexual behavior. Sexual inappropriateness and crude language that is too raunchy to be placed in an educational environment. Many are concerned that it may promote or glorify the act of sexual behavior at a young age. However, many adults should recognize the importance of high schools having books that incorporate sexual activities. It helps educate young individuals about the importance of protection and pregnancy. The teens may be more informed about the fact that sex is normal. Many who are afraid or even embarrassed to ask about sexual activities or safety would be informed through literature that writes about it.

The publishing of this headline was based on a message sent to London at 11:30 the morning of the Somme’s opening, stating that “As far as can be ascertained our casualties have not been heavy” (1..). Whether intentionally fallacious, prematurely released, or genuinely mistaken, this message’s information was clearly incorrect, as the British alone suffered a loss of 60,00 men, 20,00 of whom met their final rest. Would the citizens of Britain have continued supporting the war if awoke to read of such staggering amounts of death? What if they had learned of the poorly executed artillery barrage that was surely the cause of many soldiers’ untimely deaths (2..)? While it was critical that publications show the public a positive twist, the only benefit that censorship appeared to provide was a delay of bad news; “It [censorship] was hit and miss. The good news comes first, but the bad news can’t be stopped” – Prof. Mark Connelly of University of Kent (1..). Headlines may have initially displayed vague or false news of progress by the British and French armies, but the posting of casualty lists, and delivery of death-notice telegrams could not be stemmed. In fact, the reporting on the Battle of the Somme could be considered “the First World War’s most notorious cover-up conspiracy in Britain, between the press on one side and the government and the generals on the other” (5..).

If the costly task of censoring correspondence served merely as a delayer of information on the status of the war, why did governments on both sides invest so heavily in restricting access to information? Most importantly, the morale of both soldiers and civilians at home was known to be essential (4..) for continuation of the war; its absence would be detrimental so long as the enemy’s morale remained. Additionally, censorship of material served as a defense against interception of intelligence by the enemy; any messages that gave away hint of weakness in position could be used to augment the enemy’s strategy.

This censorship was essential not only for the preservation of morale on the front and at home, but also for the preservation of British propriety at home. This propriety faded quickly amongst the forces on the front, who witnessed brutalities unwritten in any of their primary education’s history lessons; however, this decorum continued to serve as a vital source of pride and patriotism at home. The cultural shift away from classical British Imperial etiquette at home accelerated with the return of the soldiers, when the war had ended.

The Criticality of Support from Home

Support from home was essential for many reasons. During the mobilization for war, Britain’s conscription pool faced a unique challenge: belonging to the nation with the most widely established Imperial—and volunteer-based—army in the world had incubated a general lethargy towards military service. “There is no lack of patriotism, but the average Briton is accustomed to have his battles fought for him by a most excellent professional army far away from his own shores” (8..). This mindset of complacency would prove challenging in mobilizing via compulsory service; after the initial surge of glory-seekers flocked to the front during the onset of the war, the British government would have to turn to Canada and Australia to provide men, untrained as they might have been. Conscription was a taxing process for many nations during the war, but Britain’s fighting forces were significantly comprised of volunteers (9..). The volunteers that would arrive later in the war, perhaps as they came of age or accrued the required level of patriotism, needed to believe that the war still offered the prestige that was advertised; the horror that was ongoing in the trenches would certainly deter volunteerism, raising the marginal cost of acquiring each additional British soldier. Britain’s ability to combat with a modern enemy had been overestimated at the outset of the war: “Is it because a long period of pioneering without meeting any organized resistance has blinded them to the strength of the modern nations in arms, or has a long and unexampled prosperity sapped their bitality and rendered them unfit to maintain the world position which they now occupy?” (8..). This overconfidence created a fragility in the British spirit that would be quickly exposed at the publishing of the true brutalities of the front.

As the war continued, women shifted out of traditional home roles and into manufacturing work, food was rationed, industrial workers operated at max capacity producing munitions and war machines. The pressure on industrial forces was immense; the first application of “total war” required manufacturers of most countries to increase their labor forces drastically (7..). In Britain, however, the overall workforce initially suffered a decline due to conscription. The remaining workforce shifted almost entirely into war-related production; as the war continued, women became employed among all major industries, accounting for nearly 50% of the work force by the end of the war.

This major cultural shift was fueled almost explicitly by the demands of the war; if the illusion were shattered with transparent exhibition of the front, British civilians likely wouldn’t make the sacrifices that they did in their daily lives. In this strung out war of attrition, a discontent work force would have certainly ushered in Britain’s doom.

Methods of Censorship

In Britain, the Defence of the Realm Act gave the government extensive subjective power to punish any who shared written or spoken word deemed “likely to cause disaffection or alarm among any of His Majesty’s forces or among the civilian population” (5..). Similar acts were instilled by both the Italian and American governments. Government control was first established over major publishers and media outlets, then to correspondence between soldiers and home (6..). Censorship offices were established Berlin, Paris, London, and the United States before the end of the War’s first year. To allow journalists’ work to continue, the British press bureau provided instructions to reporters on how to avoid illegally publishing material; these instructions were not open to the public, displaying the type of covert relationship that was had between the press and the government during the outset of the War. All published material was subject to stringent review before reaching the public.

All communications from mainland Europe to the United Kingdom were censored by the government before arriving at their destination; about 1,000 lines of communication underwent censorship daily. /

At the front, field postcards were issued to allow soldiers to send some form of update to their families without including any additional details. This allowed commanding officers to scan correspondence much more efficiently than the reviewing of full letters. Soldiers appreciated the postcards for their speed and convenience; during the latter, more exhaustive half of the war,

To allow the soldiers more expression—within the bounds of predefined acceptability—and privacy, the honour envelope was introduced. The sender was required to sign an agreement that no sensitive information was contained within the envelope. The letter was then sent to England where it faced review by the postal division before arriving at its addressee (4..). This granted soldiers much desired privacy from their commanding officers in the trenches.

While the operation of dystopian censorship mills was very real during wartime, self-censorship appeared to serve an enormous role in the restriction of information from the front. Whether it was any remaining etiquette, guilt, or an obligation to protect their loved ones from such brutalities, soldiers took it upon themselves to strike the more savage details from their correspondence (4..). This initiative may have also been driven by the threat of arrest under violations of the Defence of the Realm Act; regardless of which of these motivations drove each individual soldier, morale at home was salvaged mostly by the efforts of the soldiers to protect their beloved civilians’ innocence.

Communication from the Front

Communication was both unreliable and untimely during World War I, with the delivery of messages from the front typically depending on a runner, or even animals such as dogs or pigeons. Much of the telephone and telegraph infrastructure of East France was constructed to provide communication to the Western Front; over 2,000 miles of lines and 134 telegraph offices were constructed (3..). Alas, this infrastructure proved to be weak to enemy artillery fire and required constant reconstruction and redesign. The inconvenience further fueled the use of recently introduced wireless radio technology.

The introduction of wireless radio allowed for much improved speed of communication, though there was almost no security against interception. The near instant communication was too valuable compared to the tax it posed security-wise.

Journalists on the Front

World War One provided a unique challenge to journalists in its sheer scale alone; coordination of journalists proved difficult, and their numbers were spread thin across the Western front. From the outset, reporters offered a degree of self-censorship that fell in line with the British government’s ideals; in the words of Arthur Thomas, “there is no failure in discipline, no panic, no throwing up of the sponge. Every one’s temper is sweet, and nerves do not show. The men are steady and cheerful…” (5..). Early in the war, journalists and their commanding editors had parallel objectives with the British Cabinet; the public excitement of the onset of war likely fueled sales of prints, so the fueling of public excitement via print could only lead to a profitable cycle for newspapers.

This positive alignment lead to the authorization of correspondents travel to the front. While still strictly monitored and censored, these six men were allowed the honorary rank of captain, and dressed in officers’ garb, wearing only a green armband to distinguish themselves as journalists (5..). During escalated events such as the Battle of the Somme, correspondents were confined to their living quarters away from the front line, receiving only indirect or incomplete information from the commanding officers. This restriction of information lead to the sending of generic messages, such as reports of casualties being ‘not heavy.’ A few weeks after the onset of the Battle of the Somme, the correspondents were permitted a better viewing of the battle field, witnessing thousands of dead and wounded being pulled away from the front. Still, in the face of such horrors, the reporters continued to send false reports of steady progress. Long after the war’s end, correspondent Beach Thomas wrote: “I was thoroughly and deeply ashamed of what I had written, for the very good reason that it was untrue” (5..). Another correspondent later wrote that “There was no need of censorship of our dispatches. We were our own censors.” Much like the soldiers’ letters, the reports of these journalists were kept pure to spare the morale of civilians at home.

The Publication at Home

To the great benefit of newspapers during World War One, Rotogravure printing became widely accessibly, allowing greater detail photo and illustration prints: “Publishers that could afford to invest in the new technology saw sharp increases in both readership and advertising revenue” (10..). In conjunction with this improved technology, editors at home had the incentive to publish material that civilians wanted to see. The civilian population required validation for the sacrifices they made through their laboring and rationing; news reports of valor and success provided exactly this. An effect existed where positive publications on the war lead to increased readership, and increased readership lead to greater revenues. This fortuitous opportunity, along with a shared sense of patriotism, incentivized news editors to facilitate censorship of the front in their publications. Censorship served as a crucial foundation for the publication of propaganda, especially the publication of staged photographs from the front (1..).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be shown that the temporary sacrifice of liberties of communication served a critical role in maintaining the essential motivation of civilians at home during the war. The intention of the government was neither wicked nor nefarious; it was to maximize the utility of a resource. The resource of morale on both sides of the English Channel was essential to the successful continuation through a draining war.