Category: Censorship

Introduction

Censorship, in any form, poses a threat to the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. While some argue that censorship is necessary to protect society from harmful or offensive content, it is essential to recognize that such measures often infringe upon individual liberties, impede intellectual growth, and undermine the core tenets of a democratic society. This essay presents an argument against censorship, emphasizing the importance of preserving the right to freedom of expression.

Preservation of Individual Liberties

One of the strongest arguments against censorship is the preservation of individual liberties. The right to freely express thoughts, opinions, and ideas is a fundamental human right. Censorship restricts this right, limiting the diversity of voices and perspectives that contribute to a vibrant and democratic society. By granting authorities the power to control and suppress certain forms of expression, we risk creating an environment where conformity prevails and dissent is silenced.

Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking

Censorship inhibits intellectual growth and critical thinking. A society that values the pursuit of knowledge and the exploration of diverse viewpoints encourages open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas. By censoring content deemed controversial or offensive, we impede the development of critical thinking skills and hinder the intellectual progress of individuals and society as a whole. The ability to engage with different perspectives and challenge established norms is essential for societal growth and innovation.

Protection Against Authoritarianism

Censorship, often implemented by authoritarian regimes, is a powerful tool used to maintain control over the population. By controlling the information citizens can access, governments can manipulate public opinion, suppress dissent, and consolidate their power. Allowing censorship to take hold opens the door to further abuses of power, undermining the principles of democracy and creating a climate of fear and conformity. Safeguarding freedom of expression acts as a necessary check against the encroachment of authoritarianism.

Promotion of Tolerance and Diversity

A society that embraces freedom of expression fosters tolerance and diversity. By allowing diverse voices and perspectives to be heard, we create an environment where individuals feel comfortable expressing their identities and beliefs. This encourages dialogue, empathy, and understanding among different communities and helps to break down barriers and stereotypes. Censorship, on the other hand, stifles diversity, reinforces prejudices, and perpetuates divisions within society.

Importance of Artistic and Creative Expression

Artistic and creative expression flourish in an environment free from censorship. Artists often use their work to challenge societal norms, provoke thought, and inspire change. Censorship limits their ability to convey important messages and stifles artistic freedom. By allowing artists to express themselves freely, we encourage the exploration of new ideas, push boundaries, and contribute to the cultural richness of society.

Conclusion

Censorship, in any form, threatens the core principles of freedom of expression, intellectual growth, and democratic values. It limits individual liberties, impedes critical thinking, and creates a fertile ground for authoritarianism. Embracing freedom of expression is essential for the development of a diverse, tolerant, and innovative society. Instead of resorting to censorship, we should focus on promoting open dialogue, educating individuals on media literacy, and fostering an environment where different perspectives can be shared and debated. By championing the right to express ourselves freely, we uphold the values that underpin a democratic society.

It is no exaggeration to say that social media has taken over the 21st century. There are nearly 3.5 billion active social media users in the world and the average person has seven different social media accounts (Smith). Each social media site has its terms of the agreement, which formally addresses its content and media posting policies. Overall, these policies are established to provide a safe and entertaining environment for its users. However, over the years, the policies have been ever-changing and becoming more restrictive. While some changes are deemed reasonable, such as limiting the amount of data that websites can use from our profiles, other changes, such as implementing algorithms to flag and/or terminate posts due to what are deemed ‘censored’ terms, have most certainly caused controversy among users. Circumstances like these lead users to question their parameters of expression. How are politicians able to express their views to the other side if algorithms on Twitter are preventing that from happening? How are companies supposed to promote their products to target audiences on Instagram when age-based restrictions are applied to their ads? Censorship in social media has taken a conservative turn due to views on the infringement of free speech, the lack of exposure to opposing views, and robotic posts pushing products based on algorithms and restrictions.

While there are many different aspects to censorship, the main one that has arisen is the infringement of free speech, especially in the realm of social media. Seen as a place for freedom and expression, social media platforms are cracking down on what they are allowing on their sites and what they think needs to be changed. One of the main problems users are having with social media sites is posts being censored due to a word that triggers the post to be flagged for further evaluation. Freedom of speech only goes as far as the policies on a social media platform will allow. For example, Facebook bans hate speech but “does allow humor, satire, or social commentary related to these topics” (Nott). While Facebook states its ban for these conditions, other sites like YouTube simply state that talk of hate, discrimination, and/or violence is not supported (Nott).

One point that needs to be made is who can and can’t censor. Privatized companies can censor users on their social media platforms, but they are unable to censor outside of their website premises. The government is allowed to, however. Ari Waldman, who was a speaker in front of the House Judiciary hearing on Filtering Practice Hearings of Social Media stated, “We don’t have a First Amendment right to Facebook’s amplification of our words” (Crews Jr.). It was during this hearing that senators pointed out that if Facebook was involved in political speech, they would fail to be exempt from specific restricted immunities of the Communications Decency Act. While people are allowed to own up to their right to free speech, social media platforms don’t have to provide you with that right (Crews Jr.).

Many politicians believe that their posts are being censored. Many sources suggest many things. Culture in the technology industry has come up. Silicon Valley, the tech capital of America, is largely liberal (French). Therefore, it is not surprising that a study surveying Facebook users found that conservatives felt “their voices were being suppressed” which paralleled the fact that “64 percent of Republicans surveyed said social media sites favored liberal voices” (Dellinger). Despite the Republicans feeling censored, they continue to stay on social media. In the past year, a website called Safe Space 1776, had been created as a safe space for conservatives who feel as if their freedom of speech is being compromised (Rodgers).

Though these politicians feel like they are being censored, there have been instances in which politicians have been accused of filtering and censoring their posts or what they can read. President Trump recently stuck his hand in this jar with his involvement in social media filtering. In May of 2018, a district court in New York filed a case against President Trump and three additional members of his staff for violating the First Amendment via “discrimination against other viewpoints (mostly critics) and preventing them from participating in the debate on his Twitter page” via blocking them (Fischer). The case has since been appealed but it started a trend, in which two other courts have filed similar cases against governmental social media pages. Another prominent case happened in 2013 in Indiana, with then-governor, Mike Pence. Pence attracted much attention when he voiced his disappointment with a Supreme Court decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. He posted on Facebook his disagreement with the decision. As comments started accumulating on his Facebook post, Pence’s staff took to his page and started to remove comments that didn’t align with Pence’s or that were offensive to his stance. Users noticed immediately and within a day, Pence released a statement explaining how comments were taken down over the use of vulgar language and such, even though many were simply disagreements with Pence’s stance (Taylor).

Though many want answers to the problems of censorship in social media, there are few resolutions. Reforms for social media censorship have little chance of happening on the federal level. Tyler Grant, who is employed as an attorney outlines two ways that reform can happen on a state level. One option includes charging social media companies to sell data from banned users and reaping a profit from it. Another option is that states could set up a payout for users who are barred from website use in consideration of privacy. Reforms of these sorts would have a direct impact on the case of Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, and his website, InfoWars, all of which have been banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other social media platforms. Jones was barred from these websites due to a violation of policies, which failed to be clearly defined. Jones’s defense held us that he was a conspiracy theorist, all of what he was saying was as such (Murphy). If reforms like the ones stated above, were to be implemented, Jones would have to be compensated or have his privacy bought out.

Many politicians have been affected by social media, especially in the realm of their displayed viewpoints. The lack of exposure that politicians can portray to the opposing parties is prominent now more than ever. The phenomenon of echo chambers is a direct cause of why this occurs. Echo chambers refer to a sounding area in which ideas and opinions are similar or ideal to one’s beliefs, therefore not accessing outside opinions or ideals that are different. This phenomenon is seen on social media sites with ties that are made between users. Stronger ties are more likely to share content between users that is agreeable. Weaker ties are more likely to share views that are not within the user’s normal realm of exposure. That is what a small echo chamber is about. However, it comes to an issue when this echo chamber that has been created is preventing the views of others from seeing due to algorithms making it harder to access. That is what Facebook was being accused of in the first part of this decade (Aldhous).

Facebook came under fire for continual accusations of being an echo chamber. Facebook combatted these accusations by conducting a study done by Facebook itself in 2012. The internal study led by Facebook’s data expert, Eytan Bakshy, concluded that Facebook was not an echo chamber. His reasonings encompassed the fact that most users have more weak ties than strong ties. Weaker ties lead to more exposure to what they call “novel information”, while stronger ties allow more exposure to alike ideologies and views (Manjoo). For example, if one has many friends that are associated with a Trump campaign following but their few close friends are associated with a Sanders campaign, the user will ultimately see both. However, due to the greater number of ties with the Trump campaign, the user will see more about his campaign as opposed to Sanders’ campaign. Though it makes sense, it may not be the same case as this day in age.

Since Facebook released its statement denying being an echo chamber in 2012, much has changed. Some of the changes come with newer algorithms in place that filter a timeline to a person’s ideals, more or less. Bringing this topic back to politics, a study performed in 2015 found that of 10.1 million Facebook users newsfeed’s, found that “only 24 percent of news stories shared by liberal’s friends were cross-cutting and about 35 percent of stories shared by conservatives’ friends were cross-cutting” (Hosanagar). This newsfeed algorithm utilized by Facebook essentially hand-picks the stories that we are exposed to based on a user’s interaction with other users on the site. While the study recognizes aspects of political exposure due to engagements made by the users, there is some fault in the newsfeed algorithms Facebook uses to keep users trapped in their idealistic surroundings: an echo chamber (Hosanagar).

Over the past years, the advertising community has found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with social media. The newest platforms of social media are a seamless stand for promoting products and services of all varieties. Instagram has had great success with product exposure and promotion since its start in November of 2013 after Facebook bought the up-and-coming social media giant in 2012. Though few advertisements were present on Instagram in 2013 and 2014, 2015 brought change when Instagram announced that advertisements would be open to all who are looking to get product and service exposure (Goel & Ember). However, it wouldn’t be ideal to have an advertisement for a grocery store in Alaska come onto one’s feed if they live in Florida. Somehow, Instagram managed to have relevant and related advertisements show up on one’s feed. The mystery behind what advertisements get promoted on a user’s timeline or feed comes from algorithms that are developed by social media platforms. Instagram’s algorithm allows for the display of advertisements on your feed based on three main factors: interest, relationship, and timeliness. The more posts that one interreacts with that contain specific words are noted by the algorithm displaying more posts including those words. The same ideology goes for interactions with people. If one follows many people who also follow a certain person, Instagram will try to expose you to that certain person’s post due to association. Timeliness encompasses when a post was uploaded, in which the newer the posts will have a higher likelihood of being shown on a feed before older posts (Bond). All of this is confirmed by what Instagram states on its business page for users and advertisers (Instagram).

The algorithms used to show related content is also the same algorithm used to promote products and services, which is utterly important to brands that have large followings on social media. The more content that one interacts with, the more products that relate to that will be shown on one’s feed. Consequently, the more exposure that a brand has, the better chance the company will attract customers (Bond). Not only does the brand have the opportunity to make money, but Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, cashe in at their expense. By the end of 2019, Instagram is predicted to make over $14 billion from advertisement revenue alone due to trends that were set back in 2017. If this trend were to continue, Instagram would make around $22.2 billion in 2020 (Wagner & Molla). However, there have been new forces that may impact the numbers. The most recent news that has come from advertisements on social media encompasses the parameters of product and service promotion on Instagram. In September 2019, Instagram set a new policy in place that prevented users identified under the age of 18 from being exposed to advertisements that promote products or services that are along the lines of weight loss and cosmetic surgeries. This was set in place, as described by Instagram’s public policy manager, Emma Collins, to “reduce the pressure that people can sometimes feel as a result of social media” (Alexander).

With sites such as Instagram and Facebook implementing age-restricted ad blocking, age-based targeting has been affected by slowing product revenue that comes directly from product promotion on these social media sites. Instagram, having what many see as the best platform for product promotion, has an endless amount of companies that rely on age-based targeting to increase their exposure and revenue. Of those companies that are at the forefront of using this tactic, many fall under the beauty and health industries. As stated before, Instagram will now have age-restricted advertisements for companies promoting weight loss products and cosmetic surgeries. This new policy set in place has a direct impact on influencers, who are primary supporters of products that are being censored. In some cases, the posts made by influencers have the possibility of being completely removed if they “make a miraculous claim about certain diet or weight loss products, and are linked to a commercial offer such as a discount code” (Alexander). Instagram also claims that its original advertising guidelines and policies were not meant to permit this form of advertisement and promotion. Since the rise of social media influencers, the culture has since changed, pressuring Instagram to make further regulations on this issue. With algorithms being used for product promotion as well, there will be some fallback in what can be promoted and what influencers are allowed to promote on their pages. Not all products that are aimed towards targeted audiences will be able to see them. For example, a 16-year-old may not be able to see all of Kylie Jenner’s posts because they contain products that address weight loss or cosmetic procedures. That censorship will affect Instagram’s advertisement revenue, the company’s revenue, and the targeted audience. Celebrities such as Jameela Jamil, who has struggled with an eating disorder since a young age, have praised Instagram for allowing the change, saying it is a “huge win for our ongoing fight against the diet/detox industry” (Lewis).

Social media has undoubtedly changed the way the world works. It is a source of news, entertainment, mass communication, and much more. These platforms, reaching billions of users around the globe, each have their regulations, like most websites do. However, in recent years, the crackdown on what is acceptable content to post has been nothing short of a blurred line. Ever-changing policies and politically-driven agendas lead to what is being seen as the rise of social media censorship. The effects of this are seen by its users and affect anyone who takes part in social media activity. Censorship in social media has taken a conservative turn due to views on the infringement of free speech, the lack of exposure to opposing views, and robotic posts pushing products based on algorithms and restrictions.

Works Cited

1. Aldhous, Peter. “Is Facebook More than Just an Online ‘Echo Chamber’?” New Scientist, 18 Jan. 2012, www.newscientist.com/article/dn21365-is-facebook-more-than-just-an-online-echo-chamber/.
2. Alexander, Julia. “Instagram Will Restrict Who Can See Posts about Cosmetic Procedures, Weight Loss Products.” The Verge, 18 Sept. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/9/18/20872711/instagram-weight-loss-cosmetic-procedures-restrictions-policy-wellness-influencer-marketing.
3. Bond, Conor. “The Secrets of the Instagram Algorithm – Revealed!” WordStream, 19 Aug. 2019, www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2018/06/13/instagram-algorithm.
4. Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne. “Social Media Filtering Is Not Censorship.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 Apr. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/04/26/social-media-filtering-is-not-censorship/#43ed768c438d.
5. Dellinger, AJ. “Majority of Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints.” Gizmodo, 29 June 2018, www.gizmodo.com/majority-of-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-p-1827226244.
6. Fischer, Camille. “Courts to Government Officials: Stop Censoring on Social Media.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 14 May 2019, www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/courts-government-officials-stop-censoring-social-media.
7. French, David. “Social-Media Censorship Is the Product of Culture and Commerce.” National Review, National Review, 6 June 2019, www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/social-media-censorship-is-the-product-of-culture-and-commerce/.
8. Goel, Vindu, and Ember, Sydney. “Instagram to Open Its Photo Feed to Ads.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 June 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/technology/instagram-to-announce-plans-to-expand-advertising.html.
9. Grant, Tyler. “These Two Legal Reforms Could End Social Media Censorship for Good.” Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, 29 July 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/these-two-legal-reforms-could-end-social-media-censorship-for-good.
10. Hosanagar, Kartik. “Blame the Echo Chamber on Facebook. But Blame Yourself, Too.” Wired, 3 June 2017, www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-echo-chamber/.
11. Instagram. “Advertising on Instagram: Instagram Business.” Instagram, https://business.instagram.com/advertising/.
12. Lewis, Sophie. “Instagram Posts That Promote Weight Loss Will Be Hidden from Users under 18.” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2019, www.cbsnews.com/news/instagram-posts-that-promote-weight-loss-will-be-hidden-from-users-under-18/.
13. Manjoo, Farhad. “The End of the Echo Chamber.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 17 Jan. 2012, www.slate.com/technology/2012/01/online-echo-chambers-a-study-of-250-million-facebook-users-reveals-the-web-isnt-as-polarized-as-we-thought.html.
14. Murphy, James. “The Censorship Battle of Alex Jones and Why It Affects Us All.” Gale in Context, 2019, https://go-gale-com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Viewpoints&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CQISQQH316315396&docType=Viewpoint%2Bessay&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXAY-MOD1&prodId=OVIC&contentSet=GALE%7CQISQQH316315396&searchId=R1&userGroupName=omah52829&inPS=true.
15. Nott, Lata. “Free Expression on Social Media.” Freedom Forum Institute, 2019, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/free-expression-on-social-media/.
16. Rodgers, James. “New Social Media Platform Aims to Combat Conservative Censorship.” PR Newswire US, 20 June 2019. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=0b54d5a8-55dd-464a-8180-6122dfdb892a%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=201906201026PR.NEWS.USPR.PH90835&db=n5h
17. Smith, Kit. “126 Amazing Social Media Statistics and Facts.” Brandwatch, 13 June 2019, www.brandwatch.com/blog/amazing-social-media-statistics-and-facts/.
18. Taylor, Paul W. “The Blurred Lines Between Social Media and Censorship.” Governing, Sept. 2013, www.governing.com/columns/dispatch/col-blurred-lines-between-social-media-censorship.html.
19. Wagner, Kurt & Molla, Rani. “Facebook Will Soon Rely on Instagram for the Majority of Its Ad Revenue Growth.” Vox, 9 Oct. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/10/9/17938356/facebook-instagram-future-revenue-growth-kevin-systrom.

The article entitled ‘Was Napoleonic France a Police State or Land of Liberty?’ interacts with the wider historical debate and reflects several prominent arguments. This is evident as both the article and historians discuss aspects such as censorship, surveillance, the function of the police force and reparations to provide a detailed analysis of the formation and execution of a police state. The aim of the article primarily is to illustrate these topics to contribute to the somewhat overstated conclusion that Napoleonic France was a police state. A police state is a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises its citizens. Many historians have provided their insight into this discussion and have created various conclusions. From Dwyer, who focuses largely on the police state as a defining attribute of Napoleonic France, to Brown who aims to abandon this terminology in favor of something more placid such as a security state. While these two historians have certified their stances, other historians such as Rose and Coffin have provided in-depth discussions on specific attributes of a proposed police state, which can be used to both support and degrade the overall conclusion of Napoleonic France’s reputation as a police state. The Project outlines the key attributes of this debate and should be discussed within its historical context.

The Article submitted is inspired by examples of the Napoleonic press, which is arguably a central topic of the wider debate surrounding the question of whether Napoleonic France was a police state or a free state exercising limited control over its citizens. Moreover, the article is aimed at people between the ages of 18 and 25. This is a suitable article for such an age range as the topics it discusses are arguably timeless. For example, censorship is of constant importance as people learn to use free speech and discuss their distaste with those around them, therefore interacting with the Napoleonic solution of surveillance. Furthermore, the undercurrent of the article is evident that dissatisfaction with the government was a problem for Napoleonic France. This is relevant as within modern-day society it is often believed that it is those of the younger generation, often students that see problems with authoritative institutions such as the government. This article is suitable for the audience as it limits the use of jargon and signposts the debate simply and effectively.

Firstly, the article illustrates the redaction of certain aspects of literature, which would be seen to be inappropriate for the press. This relates to the historical debate of censorship, as Napoleon used this to validate his place as head of state while restricting the damage of bad press to his regime. Press censorship in Napoleonic France was evident through tighter restrictions on the media including the closure of numerous press outlets. There are several examples to support this however, the most prominent example is of Parisian press. In Paris alone, the number of press publications dropped dramatically from 73 to just 17. This alone demonstrates the reduction in popular media but does not provide the answer to whether Napoleon was the leader of a police state. However, Ellis illustrates that those 17 that remained had undergone a major shift, in terms of what they published. He goes on to prove that such publications became the ‘mouthpieces of Napoleon’ printing what he wanted France to know. This therefore demonstrates that French citizens were being provided with propaganda rather than information. In terms of a police state, this would support the claims of a totalitarian state, as Napoleon had successfully internalized the media, ensuring little to no outside influence intercepted French minds, which could result in a meaningful rebellion. This line of argument is supported by Bergeron. Bergeron identifies the mood of Napoleon when discussing the media quoting Napoleon stating “The newspapers are always ready to grab at anything that can damage the public peace” which he pairs with the introduction of censor-attached media. From this, it is therefore clear, that Napoleon objected to the free press, and in turn internalized it to maintain control of the public image within France. Therefore, with both Ellis and Bergeron coming to a consensus, it is evident that for many the censorship and internalization of popular media, is a strong alliance with the role of a police state in Napoleonic France.

However, this only accounts for half of the censorship argument, which could be giving too much credit to Napoleon. Coffin for example, while providing support to the argument of censorship, provides a different insight claiming that it was of importance only to Paris, which successfully correlates with the data but undermines the overall character of a nationwide police state. When considering the work of Coffin, would It be more suitable that Paris was under the influence of tighter control due to its influence as a popular media outlet rather than creating an image of an oppressive nation under the control of Napoleon? Therefore, the two conflicting arguments surrounding censorship of the media suggest that while the majority would agree to place this within a police state, some technicalities limit its accuracy. However, through the arguments of such prominent historians, it is a common and somewhat accurate conclusion that Napoleon used the limited press to manipulate his power and validate himself as sole leader confirming the ideals of a police state in Napoleonic France.

A topic, closely associated with censorship, that is also present within the newspaper is that of surveillance, especially of public opinion. This is evident as the article discusses the daily bulletins, which was a document Napoleon had received each day that reported on each province noting the mood of the people and in some cases examples of opposition. Historiographically, this has been a topic with a somewhat consensus of conclusions. In this way, it means that many historians have all agreed on the presence of surveillance, and its use to keep up to date with revolutionaries and slanderous citizens. While discussing the role of surveillance in Napoleonic France, Brown has outlined that surveillance was a way for Napoleon to ride out the old regime, by limiting the memory of pre-revolutionary France to stabilize the new settlement, while validating his authority amongst the new. This work therefore recognizes that surveillance was a key aspect of Napoleon’s control, and contributed to the wider image of a police state. Moreover, the role of surveillance had a wider impact which can be identified through primary data. As outlined earlier, the role of surveillance was used to suppress opposition to the new regime, meaning that public displays against Napoleon were often reported. Emsley provides a document that records the holding of a French citizen after being arrested for opposition to the regime. Such an arrest came after she was commenting on the failings of Napoleon as a leader. Within the document, it is evident that the matter was in public therefore identifying the presence of surveillance within Napoleonic France. Therefore, using the primary data, and the work of numerous historians, it is evident that Napoleon successfully implemented state surveillance across France and used it to validate and maintain his place as head of state. In terms of the police state connotation, when looking at the definition, it would be an oversight not to attribute this method of control to such an accurate term. For this topic, at least, it is evident that Napoleon was the head of a totalitarian state.

Consequently, through the role of surveillance, it is evident that reparations were enforced in Napoleonic France to strengthen and validate Napoleon’s power. This is identified within the article as it outlines the use of detention without trial, through to extreme reprimands such as exile. Exile, while one of the rarest and harshest forms of suppression was used skilfully by Napoleon, as identified by Bergeron. Bergeron claims that Napoleon often exiled the leader of what he deemed to be a revolution to suppress following attempts at rebellion. This, therefore, demonstrates a serious threat of terror in some people’s minds which is a notable connotation of what is deemed to be a police state. From such work, it is possible to argue that Napoleon, while avoiding physical means, did instill terror into his regime as a means of suppression. Also, while this is one of the more major consequences of slander or an anti-regime act, it arguably defines the Napoleonic era. Emsley outlines the role of suppression while discussing the move for ‘preventative detention’ in which he outlines those that would be impacted by it. He outlines that such reprimands were applied to those in religious, political, and even republican conspirators who had the opportunity to initiate a rebellion which would be damaging for Napoleon as head of state. Therefore, the threat of consequence, while mainly legal, can be attributed to a police state. This is evident as while Napoleon refused to use physical threats to coerce society into obedience, he used the threat of incarceration or exile, which was arguably more successful.

Additionally, while opposition to the regime directly was an issue within Napoleonic France, it can be argued that somewhat unrelated crimes, such as banditry and opposition to conscription, played a role in the formation of a police state as an example of crime could be argued to undermine Napoleon’s authority. This is made evident within the article, as it outlines the functions of the different police departments mainly focusing on the Gendarmerie and the Secret agents. Within the wider debate, various historians have provided insight into the functions of these forces and provided clear inferences as to what this meant for Napoleonic France. Broers for example, outlines the functions of the Gendarmerie, clearly identifying their place amongst society, used to suppress crime while enforcing taxation and conscription. This illustrates that the Gendarmerie, arguably the public police, used to enforce the changes of the new regime. In terms of the argument of a police state, it could be argued that due to exerted control over taxation and conscription liberty was limited within France, giving strength to the argument that Napoleon did run an efficient police state. Another historian who supports Broers is Brown as he supports the role of legislative bodies by identifying that Napoleon used legal institutions to enforce taxation and conscription because left to freedom of choice it would lead to a break to public peace. Therefore Brown is suggesting that for Napoleon, opposition to taxation and conscription were a direct threat to his regime as citizens undermined his requests which could be interpreted as citizens questioning his authority. Therefore, it is evident that while the Gendarmerie functioned as a standard police force, there were still undertones of a police state and governmental control in civic life.

Collectively, the article has successfully contributed to the historical debate as it has signposted the argument for Napoleonic France to be labeled a police state. The role of censorship so evidentially portrayed, is a key topic of the debate as it eludes to the oppression of French citizens and the deprival of their knowledge, giving Napoleon sole control of French affairs. Furthermore, it identifies the centralization of faculties, which ultimately supports the title of a totalitarian leader. Moving on from this the article moved to the discussion of surveillance, with the mentioning of sections of authority such as the Gendarmerie, which efficiently silenced opposition to the regime making it somewhat unlikely that a rebellion would be likely never mind successful. Finally, the article signposts the threat of consequence, linked evidentially to surveillance. This contributes to the debate because it demonstrates that Napoleon used a passive accent of terror to bend the nation to his will giving him full validity as leader, with little if any viable opposition. Both the article and the relevant historiographical debates in correspondence agree to the conclusion that through his skillful leadership, and fearless approach Napoleon had successfully formed and ran a police state in France. 

Introduction

Censorship, in any form, poses a threat to the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. While some argue that censorship is necessary to protect society from harmful or offensive content, it is essential to recognize that such measures often infringe upon individual liberties, impede intellectual growth, and undermine the core tenets of a democratic society. This essay presents an argument against censorship, emphasizing the importance of preserving the right to freedom of expression.

Preservation of Individual Liberties

One of the strongest arguments against censorship is the preservation of individual liberties. The right to freely express thoughts, opinions, and ideas is a fundamental human right. Censorship restricts this right, limiting the diversity of voices and perspectives that contribute to a vibrant and democratic society. By granting authorities the power to control and suppress certain forms of expression, we risk creating an environment where conformity prevails and dissent is silenced.

Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking

Censorship inhibits intellectual growth and critical thinking. A society that values the pursuit of knowledge and the exploration of diverse viewpoints encourages open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas. By censoring content deemed controversial or offensive, we impede the development of critical thinking skills and hinder the intellectual progress of individuals and society as a whole. The ability to engage with different perspectives and challenge established norms is essential for societal growth and innovation.

Protection Against Authoritarianism

Censorship, often implemented by authoritarian regimes, is a powerful tool used to maintain control over the population. By controlling the information citizens can access, governments can manipulate public opinion, suppress dissent, and consolidate their power. Allowing censorship to take hold opens the door to further abuses of power, undermining the principles of democracy and creating a climate of fear and conformity. Safeguarding freedom of expression acts as a necessary check against the encroachment of authoritarianism.

Promotion of Tolerance and Diversity

A society that embraces freedom of expression fosters tolerance and diversity. By allowing diverse voices and perspectives to be heard, we create an environment where individuals feel comfortable expressing their identities and beliefs. This encourages dialogue, empathy, and understanding among different communities and helps to break down barriers and stereotypes. Censorship, on the other hand, stifles diversity, reinforces prejudices, and perpetuates divisions within society.

Importance of Artistic and Creative Expression

Artistic and creative expression flourish in an environment free from censorship. Artists often use their work to challenge societal norms, provoke thought, and inspire change. Censorship limits their ability to convey important messages and stifles artistic freedom. By allowing artists to express themselves freely, we encourage the exploration of new ideas, push boundaries, and contribute to the cultural richness of society.

Conclusion

Censorship, in any form, threatens the core principles of freedom of expression, intellectual growth, and democratic values. It limits individual liberties, impedes critical thinking, and creates a fertile ground for authoritarianism. Embracing freedom of expression is essential for the development of a diverse, tolerant, and innovative society. Instead of resorting to censorship, we should focus on promoting open dialogue, educating individuals on media literacy, and fostering an environment where different perspectives can be shared and debated. By championing the right to express ourselves freely, we uphold the values that underpin a democratic society.

It is no exaggeration to say that social media has taken over the 21st century. There are nearly 3.5 billion active social media users in the world and the average person has seven different social media accounts (Smith). Each social media site has its terms of the agreement, which formally addresses its content and media posting policies. Overall, these policies are established to provide a safe and entertaining environment for its users. However, over the years, the policies have been ever-changing and becoming more restrictive. While some changes are deemed reasonable, such as limiting the amount of data that websites can use from our profiles, other changes, such as implementing algorithms to flag and/or terminate posts due to what are deemed ‘censored’ terms, have most certainly caused controversy among users. Circumstances like these lead users to question their parameters of expression. How are politicians able to express their views to the other side if algorithms on Twitter are preventing that from happening? How are companies supposed to promote their products to target audiences on Instagram when age-based restrictions are applied to their ads? Censorship in social media has taken a conservative turn due to views on the infringement of free speech, the lack of exposure to opposing views, and robotic posts pushing products based on algorithms and restrictions.

While there are many different aspects to censorship, the main one that has arisen is the infringement of free speech, especially in the realm of social media. Seen as a place for freedom and expression, social media platforms are cracking down on what they are allowing on their sites and what they think needs to be changed. One of the main problems users are having with social media sites is posts being censored due to a word that triggers the post to be flagged for further evaluation. Freedom of speech only goes as far as the policies on a social media platform will allow. For example, Facebook bans hate speech but “does allow humor, satire, or social commentary related to these topics” (Nott). While Facebook states its ban for these conditions, other sites like YouTube simply state that talk of hate, discrimination, and/or violence is not supported (Nott).

One point that needs to be made is who can and can’t censor. Privatized companies can censor users on their social media platforms, but they are unable to censor outside of their website premises. The government is allowed to, however. Ari Waldman, who was a speaker in front of the House Judiciary hearing on Filtering Practice Hearings of Social Media stated, “We don’t have a First Amendment right to Facebook’s amplification of our words” (Crews Jr.). It was during this hearing that senators pointed out that if Facebook was involved in political speech, they would fail to be exempt from specific restricted immunities of the Communications Decency Act. While people are allowed to own up to their right to free speech, social media platforms don’t have to provide you with that right (Crews Jr.).

Many politicians believe that their posts are being censored. Many sources suggest many things. Culture in the technology industry has come up. Silicon Valley, the tech capital of America, is largely liberal (French). Therefore, it is not surprising that a study surveying Facebook users found that conservatives felt “their voices were being suppressed” which paralleled the fact that “64 percent of Republicans surveyed said social media sites favored liberal voices” (Dellinger). Despite the Republicans feeling censored, they continue to stay on social media. In the past year, a website called Safe Space 1776, had been created as a safe space for conservatives who feel as if their freedom of speech is being compromised (Rodgers).

Though these politicians feel like they are being censored, there have been instances in which politicians have been accused of filtering and censoring their posts or what they can read. President Trump recently stuck his hand in this jar with his involvement in social media filtering. In May of 2018, a district court in New York filed a case against President Trump and three additional members of his staff for violating the First Amendment via “discrimination against other viewpoints (mostly critics) and preventing them from participating in the debate on his Twitter page” via blocking them (Fischer). The case has since been appealed but it started a trend, in which two other courts have filed similar cases against governmental social media pages. Another prominent case happened in 2013 in Indiana, with then-governor, Mike Pence. Pence attracted much attention when he voiced his disappointment with a Supreme Court decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. He posted on Facebook his disagreement with the decision. As comments started accumulating on his Facebook post, Pence’s staff took to his page and started to remove comments that didn’t align with Pence’s or that were offensive to his stance. Users noticed immediately and within a day, Pence released a statement explaining how comments were taken down over the use of vulgar language and such, even though many were simply disagreements with Pence’s stance (Taylor).

Though many want answers to the problems of censorship in social media, there are few resolutions. Reforms for social media censorship have little chance of happening on the federal level. Tyler Grant, who is employed as an attorney outlines two ways that reform can happen on a state level. One option includes charging social media companies to sell data from banned users and reaping a profit from it. Another option is that states could set up a payout for users who are barred from website use in consideration of privacy. Reforms of these sorts would have a direct impact on the case of Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist, and his website, InfoWars, all of which have been banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other social media platforms. Jones was barred from these websites due to a violation of policies, which failed to be clearly defined. Jones’s defense held us that he was a conspiracy theorist, all of what he was saying was as such (Murphy). If reforms like the ones stated above, were to be implemented, Jones would have to be compensated or have his privacy bought out.

Many politicians have been affected by social media, especially in the realm of their displayed viewpoints. The lack of exposure that politicians can portray to the opposing parties is prominent now more than ever. The phenomenon of echo chambers is a direct cause of why this occurs. Echo chambers refer to a sounding area in which ideas and opinions are similar or ideal to one’s beliefs, therefore not accessing outside opinions or ideals that are different. This phenomenon is seen on social media sites with ties that are made between users. Stronger ties are more likely to share content between users that is agreeable. Weaker ties are more likely to share views that are not within the user’s normal realm of exposure. That is what a small echo chamber is about. However, it comes to an issue when this echo chamber that has been created is preventing the views of others from seeing due to algorithms making it harder to access. That is what Facebook was being accused of in the first part of this decade (Aldhous).

Facebook came under fire for continual accusations of being an echo chamber. Facebook combatted these accusations by conducting a study done by Facebook itself in 2012. The internal study led by Facebook’s data expert, Eytan Bakshy, concluded that Facebook was not an echo chamber. His reasonings encompassed the fact that most users have more weak ties than strong ties. Weaker ties lead to more exposure to what they call “novel information”, while stronger ties allow more exposure to alike ideologies and views (Manjoo). For example, if one has many friends that are associated with a Trump campaign following but their few close friends are associated with a Sanders campaign, the user will ultimately see both. However, due to the greater number of ties with the Trump campaign, the user will see more about his campaign as opposed to Sanders’ campaign. Though it makes sense, it may not be the same case as this day in age.

Since Facebook released its statement denying being an echo chamber in 2012, much has changed. Some of the changes come with newer algorithms in place that filter a timeline to a person’s ideals, more or less. Bringing this topic back to politics, a study performed in 2015 found that of 10.1 million Facebook users newsfeed’s, found that “only 24 percent of news stories shared by liberal’s friends were cross-cutting and about 35 percent of stories shared by conservatives’ friends were cross-cutting” (Hosanagar). This newsfeed algorithm utilized by Facebook essentially hand-picks the stories that we are exposed to based on a user’s interaction with other users on the site. While the study recognizes aspects of political exposure due to engagements made by the users, there is some fault in the newsfeed algorithms Facebook uses to keep users trapped in their idealistic surroundings: an echo chamber (Hosanagar).

Over the past years, the advertising community has found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with social media. The newest platforms of social media are a seamless stand for promoting products and services of all varieties. Instagram has had great success with product exposure and promotion since its start in November of 2013 after Facebook bought the up-and-coming social media giant in 2012. Though few advertisements were present on Instagram in 2013 and 2014, 2015 brought change when Instagram announced that advertisements would be open to all who are looking to get product and service exposure (Goel & Ember). However, it wouldn’t be ideal to have an advertisement for a grocery store in Alaska come onto one’s feed if they live in Florida. Somehow, Instagram managed to have relevant and related advertisements show up on one’s feed. The mystery behind what advertisements get promoted on a user’s timeline or feed comes from algorithms that are developed by social media platforms. Instagram’s algorithm allows for the display of advertisements on your feed based on three main factors: interest, relationship, and timeliness. The more posts that one interreacts with that contain specific words are noted by the algorithm displaying more posts including those words. The same ideology goes for interactions with people. If one follows many people who also follow a certain person, Instagram will try to expose you to that certain person’s post due to association. Timeliness encompasses when a post was uploaded, in which the newer the posts will have a higher likelihood of being shown on a feed before older posts (Bond). All of this is confirmed by what Instagram states on its business page for users and advertisers (Instagram).

The algorithms used to show related content is also the same algorithm used to promote products and services, which is utterly important to brands that have large followings on social media. The more content that one interacts with, the more products that relate to that will be shown on one’s feed. Consequently, the more exposure that a brand has, the better chance the company will attract customers (Bond). Not only does the brand have the opportunity to make money, but Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, cashe in at their expense. By the end of 2019, Instagram is predicted to make over $14 billion from advertisement revenue alone due to trends that were set back in 2017. If this trend were to continue, Instagram would make around $22.2 billion in 2020 (Wagner & Molla). However, there have been new forces that may impact the numbers. The most recent news that has come from advertisements on social media encompasses the parameters of product and service promotion on Instagram. In September 2019, Instagram set a new policy in place that prevented users identified under the age of 18 from being exposed to advertisements that promote products or services that are along the lines of weight loss and cosmetic surgeries. This was set in place, as described by Instagram’s public policy manager, Emma Collins, to “reduce the pressure that people can sometimes feel as a result of social media” (Alexander).

With sites such as Instagram and Facebook implementing age-restricted ad blocking, age-based targeting has been affected by slowing product revenue that comes directly from product promotion on these social media sites. Instagram, having what many see as the best platform for product promotion, has an endless amount of companies that rely on age-based targeting to increase their exposure and revenue. Of those companies that are at the forefront of using this tactic, many fall under the beauty and health industries. As stated before, Instagram will now have age-restricted advertisements for companies promoting weight loss products and cosmetic surgeries. This new policy set in place has a direct impact on influencers, who are primary supporters of products that are being censored. In some cases, the posts made by influencers have the possibility of being completely removed if they “make a miraculous claim about certain diet or weight loss products, and are linked to a commercial offer such as a discount code” (Alexander). Instagram also claims that its original advertising guidelines and policies were not meant to permit this form of advertisement and promotion. Since the rise of social media influencers, the culture has since changed, pressuring Instagram to make further regulations on this issue. With algorithms being used for product promotion as well, there will be some fallback in what can be promoted and what influencers are allowed to promote on their pages. Not all products that are aimed towards targeted audiences will be able to see them. For example, a 16-year-old may not be able to see all of Kylie Jenner’s posts because they contain products that address weight loss or cosmetic procedures. That censorship will affect Instagram’s advertisement revenue, the company’s revenue, and the targeted audience. Celebrities such as Jameela Jamil, who has struggled with an eating disorder since a young age, have praised Instagram for allowing the change, saying it is a “huge win for our ongoing fight against the diet/detox industry” (Lewis).

Social media has undoubtedly changed the way the world works. It is a source of news, entertainment, mass communication, and much more. These platforms, reaching billions of users around the globe, each have their regulations, like most websites do. However, in recent years, the crackdown on what is acceptable content to post has been nothing short of a blurred line. Ever-changing policies and politically-driven agendas lead to what is being seen as the rise of social media censorship. The effects of this are seen by its users and affect anyone who takes part in social media activity. Censorship in social media has taken a conservative turn due to views on the infringement of free speech, the lack of exposure to opposing views, and robotic posts pushing products based on algorithms and restrictions.

Works Cited

1. Aldhous, Peter. “Is Facebook More than Just an Online ‘Echo Chamber’?” New Scientist, 18 Jan. 2012, www.newscientist.com/article/dn21365-is-facebook-more-than-just-an-online-echo-chamber/.
2. Alexander, Julia. “Instagram Will Restrict Who Can See Posts about Cosmetic Procedures, Weight Loss Products.” The Verge, 18 Sept. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/9/18/20872711/instagram-weight-loss-cosmetic-procedures-restrictions-policy-wellness-influencer-marketing.
3. Bond, Conor. “The Secrets of the Instagram Algorithm – Revealed!” WordStream, 19 Aug. 2019, www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2018/06/13/instagram-algorithm.
4. Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne. “Social Media Filtering Is Not Censorship.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 Apr. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/04/26/social-media-filtering-is-not-censorship/#43ed768c438d.
5. Dellinger, AJ. “Majority of Americans Think Social Media Sites Censor Political Viewpoints.” Gizmodo, 29 June 2018, www.gizmodo.com/majority-of-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-p-1827226244.
6. Fischer, Camille. “Courts to Government Officials: Stop Censoring on Social Media.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 14 May 2019, www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/courts-government-officials-stop-censoring-social-media.
7. French, David. “Social-Media Censorship Is the Product of Culture and Commerce.” National Review, National Review, 6 June 2019, www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/social-media-censorship-is-the-product-of-culture-and-commerce/.
8. Goel, Vindu, and Ember, Sydney. “Instagram to Open Its Photo Feed to Ads.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 June 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/technology/instagram-to-announce-plans-to-expand-advertising.html.
9. Grant, Tyler. “These Two Legal Reforms Could End Social Media Censorship for Good.” Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, 29 July 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/these-two-legal-reforms-could-end-social-media-censorship-for-good.
10. Hosanagar, Kartik. “Blame the Echo Chamber on Facebook. But Blame Yourself, Too.” Wired, 3 June 2017, www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-echo-chamber/.
11. Instagram. “Advertising on Instagram: Instagram Business.” Instagram, https://business.instagram.com/advertising/.
12. Lewis, Sophie. “Instagram Posts That Promote Weight Loss Will Be Hidden from Users under 18.” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2019, www.cbsnews.com/news/instagram-posts-that-promote-weight-loss-will-be-hidden-from-users-under-18/.
13. Manjoo, Farhad. “The End of the Echo Chamber.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 17 Jan. 2012, www.slate.com/technology/2012/01/online-echo-chambers-a-study-of-250-million-facebook-users-reveals-the-web-isnt-as-polarized-as-we-thought.html.
14. Murphy, James. “The Censorship Battle of Alex Jones and Why It Affects Us All.” Gale in Context, 2019, https://go-gale-com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=Viewpoints&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=MultiTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CQISQQH316315396&docType=Viewpoint%2Bessay&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZXAY-MOD1&prodId=OVIC&contentSet=GALE%7CQISQQH316315396&searchId=R1&userGroupName=omah52829&inPS=true.
15. Nott, Lata. “Free Expression on Social Media.” Freedom Forum Institute, 2019, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/free-expression-on-social-media/.
16. Rodgers, James. “New Social Media Platform Aims to Combat Conservative Censorship.” PR Newswire US, 20 June 2019. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=0b54d5a8-55dd-464a-8180-6122dfdb892a%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=201906201026PR.NEWS.USPR.PH90835&db=n5h
17. Smith, Kit. “126 Amazing Social Media Statistics and Facts.” Brandwatch, 13 June 2019, www.brandwatch.com/blog/amazing-social-media-statistics-and-facts/.
18. Taylor, Paul W. “The Blurred Lines Between Social Media and Censorship.” Governing, Sept. 2013, www.governing.com/columns/dispatch/col-blurred-lines-between-social-media-censorship.html.
19. Wagner, Kurt & Molla, Rani. “Facebook Will Soon Rely on Instagram for the Majority of Its Ad Revenue Growth.” Vox, 9 Oct. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/10/9/17938356/facebook-instagram-future-revenue-growth-kevin-systrom.

The article entitled ‘Was Napoleonic France a Police State or Land of Liberty?’ interacts with the wider historical debate and reflects several prominent arguments. This is evident as both the article and historians discuss aspects such as censorship, surveillance, the function of the police force and reparations to provide a detailed analysis of the formation and execution of a police state. The aim of the article primarily is to illustrate these topics to contribute to the somewhat overstated conclusion that Napoleonic France was a police state. A police state is a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises its citizens. Many historians have provided their insight into this discussion and have created various conclusions. From Dwyer, who focuses largely on the police state as a defining attribute of Napoleonic France, to Brown who aims to abandon this terminology in favor of something more placid such as a security state. While these two historians have certified their stances, other historians such as Rose and Coffin have provided in-depth discussions on specific attributes of a proposed police state, which can be used to both support and degrade the overall conclusion of Napoleonic France’s reputation as a police state. The Project outlines the key attributes of this debate and should be discussed within its historical context.

The Article submitted is inspired by examples of the Napoleonic press, which is arguably a central topic of the wider debate surrounding the question of whether Napoleonic France was a police state or a free state exercising limited control over its citizens. Moreover, the article is aimed at people between the ages of 18 and 25. This is a suitable article for such an age range as the topics it discusses are arguably timeless. For example, censorship is of constant importance as people learn to use free speech and discuss their distaste with those around them, therefore interacting with the Napoleonic solution of surveillance. Furthermore, the undercurrent of the article is evident that dissatisfaction with the government was a problem for Napoleonic France. This is relevant as within modern-day society it is often believed that it is those of the younger generation, often students that see problems with authoritative institutions such as the government. This article is suitable for the audience as it limits the use of jargon and signposts the debate simply and effectively.

Firstly, the article illustrates the redaction of certain aspects of literature, which would be seen to be inappropriate for the press. This relates to the historical debate of censorship, as Napoleon used this to validate his place as head of state while restricting the damage of bad press to his regime. Press censorship in Napoleonic France was evident through tighter restrictions on the media including the closure of numerous press outlets. There are several examples to support this however, the most prominent example is of Parisian press. In Paris alone, the number of press publications dropped dramatically from 73 to just 17. This alone demonstrates the reduction in popular media but does not provide the answer to whether Napoleon was the leader of a police state. However, Ellis illustrates that those 17 that remained had undergone a major shift, in terms of what they published. He goes on to prove that such publications became the ‘mouthpieces of Napoleon’ printing what he wanted France to know. This therefore demonstrates that French citizens were being provided with propaganda rather than information. In terms of a police state, this would support the claims of a totalitarian state, as Napoleon had successfully internalized the media, ensuring little to no outside influence intercepted French minds, which could result in a meaningful rebellion. This line of argument is supported by Bergeron. Bergeron identifies the mood of Napoleon when discussing the media quoting Napoleon stating “The newspapers are always ready to grab at anything that can damage the public peace” which he pairs with the introduction of censor-attached media. From this, it is therefore clear, that Napoleon objected to the free press, and in turn internalized it to maintain control of the public image within France. Therefore, with both Ellis and Bergeron coming to a consensus, it is evident that for many the censorship and internalization of popular media, is a strong alliance with the role of a police state in Napoleonic France.

However, this only accounts for half of the censorship argument, which could be giving too much credit to Napoleon. Coffin for example, while providing support to the argument of censorship, provides a different insight claiming that it was of importance only to Paris, which successfully correlates with the data but undermines the overall character of a nationwide police state. When considering the work of Coffin, would It be more suitable that Paris was under the influence of tighter control due to its influence as a popular media outlet rather than creating an image of an oppressive nation under the control of Napoleon? Therefore, the two conflicting arguments surrounding censorship of the media suggest that while the majority would agree to place this within a police state, some technicalities limit its accuracy. However, through the arguments of such prominent historians, it is a common and somewhat accurate conclusion that Napoleon used the limited press to manipulate his power and validate himself as sole leader confirming the ideals of a police state in Napoleonic France.

A topic, closely associated with censorship, that is also present within the newspaper is that of surveillance, especially of public opinion. This is evident as the article discusses the daily bulletins, which was a document Napoleon had received each day that reported on each province noting the mood of the people and in some cases examples of opposition. Historiographically, this has been a topic with a somewhat consensus of conclusions. In this way, it means that many historians have all agreed on the presence of surveillance, and its use to keep up to date with revolutionaries and slanderous citizens. While discussing the role of surveillance in Napoleonic France, Brown has outlined that surveillance was a way for Napoleon to ride out the old regime, by limiting the memory of pre-revolutionary France to stabilize the new settlement, while validating his authority amongst the new. This work therefore recognizes that surveillance was a key aspect of Napoleon’s control, and contributed to the wider image of a police state. Moreover, the role of surveillance had a wider impact which can be identified through primary data. As outlined earlier, the role of surveillance was used to suppress opposition to the new regime, meaning that public displays against Napoleon were often reported. Emsley provides a document that records the holding of a French citizen after being arrested for opposition to the regime. Such an arrest came after she was commenting on the failings of Napoleon as a leader. Within the document, it is evident that the matter was in public therefore identifying the presence of surveillance within Napoleonic France. Therefore, using the primary data, and the work of numerous historians, it is evident that Napoleon successfully implemented state surveillance across France and used it to validate and maintain his place as head of state. In terms of the police state connotation, when looking at the definition, it would be an oversight not to attribute this method of control to such an accurate term. For this topic, at least, it is evident that Napoleon was the head of a totalitarian state.

Consequently, through the role of surveillance, it is evident that reparations were enforced in Napoleonic France to strengthen and validate Napoleon’s power. This is identified within the article as it outlines the use of detention without trial, through to extreme reprimands such as exile. Exile, while one of the rarest and harshest forms of suppression was used skilfully by Napoleon, as identified by Bergeron. Bergeron claims that Napoleon often exiled the leader of what he deemed to be a revolution to suppress following attempts at rebellion. This, therefore, demonstrates a serious threat of terror in some people’s minds which is a notable connotation of what is deemed to be a police state. From such work, it is possible to argue that Napoleon, while avoiding physical means, did instill terror into his regime as a means of suppression. Also, while this is one of the more major consequences of slander or an anti-regime act, it arguably defines the Napoleonic era. Emsley outlines the role of suppression while discussing the move for ‘preventative detention’ in which he outlines those that would be impacted by it. He outlines that such reprimands were applied to those in religious, political, and even republican conspirators who had the opportunity to initiate a rebellion which would be damaging for Napoleon as head of state. Therefore, the threat of consequence, while mainly legal, can be attributed to a police state. This is evident as while Napoleon refused to use physical threats to coerce society into obedience, he used the threat of incarceration or exile, which was arguably more successful.

Additionally, while opposition to the regime directly was an issue within Napoleonic France, it can be argued that somewhat unrelated crimes, such as banditry and opposition to conscription, played a role in the formation of a police state as an example of crime could be argued to undermine Napoleon’s authority. This is made evident within the article, as it outlines the functions of the different police departments mainly focusing on the Gendarmerie and the Secret agents. Within the wider debate, various historians have provided insight into the functions of these forces and provided clear inferences as to what this meant for Napoleonic France. Broers for example, outlines the functions of the Gendarmerie, clearly identifying their place amongst society, used to suppress crime while enforcing taxation and conscription. This illustrates that the Gendarmerie, arguably the public police, used to enforce the changes of the new regime. In terms of the argument of a police state, it could be argued that due to exerted control over taxation and conscription liberty was limited within France, giving strength to the argument that Napoleon did run an efficient police state. Another historian who supports Broers is Brown as he supports the role of legislative bodies by identifying that Napoleon used legal institutions to enforce taxation and conscription because left to freedom of choice it would lead to a break to public peace. Therefore Brown is suggesting that for Napoleon, opposition to taxation and conscription were a direct threat to his regime as citizens undermined his requests which could be interpreted as citizens questioning his authority. Therefore, it is evident that while the Gendarmerie functioned as a standard police force, there were still undertones of a police state and governmental control in civic life.

Collectively, the article has successfully contributed to the historical debate as it has signposted the argument for Napoleonic France to be labeled a police state. The role of censorship so evidentially portrayed, is a key topic of the debate as it eludes to the oppression of French citizens and the deprival of their knowledge, giving Napoleon sole control of French affairs. Furthermore, it identifies the centralization of faculties, which ultimately supports the title of a totalitarian leader. Moving on from this the article moved to the discussion of surveillance, with the mentioning of sections of authority such as the Gendarmerie, which efficiently silenced opposition to the regime making it somewhat unlikely that a rebellion would be likely never mind successful. Finally, the article signposts the threat of consequence, linked evidentially to surveillance. This contributes to the debate because it demonstrates that Napoleon used a passive accent of terror to bend the nation to his will giving him full validity as leader, with little if any viable opposition. Both the article and the relevant historiographical debates in correspondence agree to the conclusion that through his skillful leadership, and fearless approach Napoleon had successfully formed and ran a police state in France. 

A government’s success is intrinsically linked to its ability to control its citizens. In the case of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, the central government, Ingsoc, violates freedom of speech and its civilians’ privacy in order to root out dissenting ideas about leadership. Through similar practices, the Chinese government also violates its civilians’ rights in order to maintain its power. These practices involve propaganda about the government, surveillance of their citizens and censorship of expression by the government. These practices are essential to the government’s success and effectiveness. Through propaganda, surveillance and censorship the Chinese government and Ingsoc are able to oppress their civilians and maintain political stability and power.

Through propaganda, a government is able to control and mold its civilians into believing or doing anything they want. It is an extremely effective tool to a government because it can get their desired message or ideology across to its people through visuals and words. This is especially true when examining Ingsoc and its use of the “Two Minutes Hate” where civilians are gathered to watch a propaganda film that reminds them of the sworn enemy of the party and denounces anti-party ideals and actions. The playing of this film to the people is used to reinforce and direct the fear and hate of the people to a distinguishable face that represents revolutionary ideas. Orwell writes, “The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically” (Orwell 17). This fear and hate that the citizens are conditioned to have toward Goldstein, the main enemy of the party, helps Ingsoc in multiple ways. It gives its citizens a visual enemy to unify against through their shared hate and fear. This also fills the people with patriotic love for their government that they believe is protecting them from the threat of Goldstein. This shared love for the government and fear of the enemy ensures that the masses of people will not revolt or become unhappy with the party, giving it stability and power. This way of condemning the enemy to gain the support of its people is similar to communist China’s propaganda. Communist China produced many posters condemning the “Gang of Four” which was a group of four communist leaders in China which were labeled as enemies for having counter revolutionary ideas. The leader of communist China, Mao Zedong, issued a cultural revolution in 1966 which called for the purging of capitalist ideas and “bourgeois thinking” establishing communist ideas as law. During this cultural revolution anything or anyone displaying anti-communist ideas were destroyed. The “Gang of Four” were labeled as fostering these anti-revolutionary ideas against Mau and were condemned on posters. One poster depicting workers and soldiers holding up their arms triumphantly with the caption, “Angrily condemn the crime of the ‘Gang of Four’ anti-Party clique’s plot to usurp Party power!”. This message is used to reaffirm the people in the party’s goal of condemning the actions of the enemy. This allows the party to maintain its power and install its values into its people. Through this propaganda utilized by Ingsoc and communist China they are effectively able to maintain power and support of their citizens.

Surveillance is another extremely effective way that Ingsoc and China maintain control over its people. In the novel, 1984, everyone’s home is equipped with a “telescreen” which can be used by the Party to listen in on the people in the house. The telescreen also can not be turned off, only dimmed so that everything can be seen and heard at all times. This constant monitoring is done by the “Thought Police” which enforced the party’s ability to control its citizens and their actions inside their homes. Orwell writes, “You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard…” (Orwell 5). Due to Ingsoc being able to monitor its citizens through their telescreens allows Ingsoc to have an even tighter grip on what is being said and done even in people’s houses. Giving them no possible opportunity to do something that is against the party’s values. The ability to monitor its citizens’ private lives gives Ingsoc almost complete power and stability over its citizens. Similarly, China has started using an advanced form of surveillance to track its citizens. China’s surveillance combines phone information and facial recognition technology to identify someone and access all their personal information. The New York Times writes, “Once combined and fully operational, the tools can help police grab the identities of people as they walk down the street…” (Mozur). This type of tracking and monitoring allows police to watch everything that is going on and identify anyone. This allows for no privacy at any time to its citizens personal information and business and increases China’s power over its people.

Censorship is the third way that Ingsoc and China are able to control their people and maintain their political control. Censorship of freedom of speech allows governments to silence discussion of ideas that go against or criticize the party’s agenda or ideals. Ingsoc censors its public with the Thought Police which capture people who have committed thought crimes against the Party. If someone commits a thought crime against the Party the Thought Police will come arrest them in the night and they will disappear without a trace as if they never existed. Orwell writes, “Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten…” (Orwell 24). With this threat of being kidnapped as well as being erased from every record and memory looming over people’s heads like a cloud, nobody is likely to speak out against the Party. This is an extreme form of censorship which proved to be effective in instilling fear in its people. Allowing Ingsoc to maintain complete power over its citizens every action, even their thoughts. In a similar but not so extreme vein, China censors what its populous can view and discuss on the internet. China has some of the harshest and most extreme internet restrictions around the globe. The Chinese government is known to monitor the cell phone calls and other internet conversations of its citizens looking out for anything that might be critical of their leadership. If they see something they perceive as a threat they will shut down that person’s internet access and if they find it necessary, will arrest and imprison the person. Leigh Hartman, a writer for ShareAmerica, writes, “The Chinese government censors the internet to block dissent and to maintain its control over its population” (Hartman). Controlling and censoring what Chinese citizens are allowed to talk about and view over the internet is essential to the government’s continued power because of how fast and effectively information can spread on the internet. Through heavy censorship the Chinese government is able to maintain its control over controversial ideas of its people.

In conclusion, in order for a government to be stable and effective, it must have control of its citizens. Through propaganda, surveillance and censorship Ingsoc and the Chinese government share similarities in the way they maintain control over their citizens and their personal lives. By scrutinizing and monitoring what their people are able to discuss, view and express, Ingsoc and the Chinese government are able to maintain their power and influence even in their citizen’s private lives. Without using these tools of controlling the public, neither governments would be able to maintain stability and power.

Censorship has been around throughout the ages of history. It can be seen in the earliest time from the ancient Romans and Greeks. Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of speech or deletion of communicative material. That includes books, films, and news. Individuals censor things because they feel that it is obscene, politically unacceptable, objectionable, harmful, or a threat to security. There are four main types of censorship. Political, Ethical and Social, Religious, and Military. These are used in different countries and in different societies. Even in libraries and schools.

Political Censorship

Political censorship occurs when the government holds back information from its citizens. They could do this by concealing, falsifying, or distort information that its citizens receive by crowding out political news that the public receives. The government is able to do this because they have access to the army and secret police. They use their power to enforce the compliance of journalists. They spread that stories that the ruling authorities want people to believe. This often includes bribery, imprisonment, defamation and even assasination. Political parties do this to prevent the panic, uproar or possible revolution of citizens. Because of the power the government possesses, Government tv censorship bans political publication through legislation and executive power.

Moral Censorship

Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are regarded to be obscene or otherwise questionable. This type of censoring can be used in homes all around the world. For example if a parent is trying to protect their children from exposure to crude humor, sexual content, drug references, etc. they would censor their devices or limit their privileges. Another example of moral censorship is pornography. It is censored and is only allowed for those 18 years of age or alder. Child pornography is especially censored with the most jurisdiction in the world. “Moral or social censorship’s to be attributed for ethical or social well-fear”.

Religious Censorship

Religious Censorship occurs when any material objectionable to a certain faith or religion is removed. Freedom of expression is controlled using religious authority. This often involves a dominant religion in a country that is forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. This form of censorship has had a long history and have been used in many societies and by many religions. Religious censorship can take form in the destruction of monuments, and text that contradict with the dominating faith. An oppressor can also shun the work of a certain religion because the content to not appropriate to its faith. Religion is a very sensitive matter. A product, book, film, or statue can offend or insult a certain groups beliefs and can be removed.

Military Censorship

Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential. It is used to keep information away from an enemy or threat. Military administration is the highest authority to protect the supreme power of a country. Everything that is published that has to do with the military are all censored for the defense and security of the country. That includes: letters, pamphlets, and reports. Often, the military will try to suppress politically inconvenient information that has no actual intelligence value.

Censorship throughout history

Censorship dates all the way back to the ancient Romans and Greeks and is still used in present day with the advancements of technology. During ancient times emperors tried to subjugate and control everyone around them. They had the perception that they were either sent from God or that they were Gods. An example of ancient censorship occured between 270 and 275 AD. Back then the majority of people could not read or write but there was still a major city on the shores of egypt called Alexandria that had a vast majority of books. The library was repeatedly destroyed. The Saint Theophilus of Alexandria ordered the destruction of all pagan temples and articles. He was trying to block out everything that had to do with a religion that he did not believe in. Destruction was the form of censorship in ancient times.

The censorship of the Romans emperors was widespread throughout their time of power. So widespread that they had an office in the government dedicated to censoring what was going on in the republic. Their purpose was to take a census of citizens in the empire every five years. They would record each citizen’s names, age, and the amount of property they owned. It was their way of keeping track of how many people were under their control and a way to group them for taxation purposes.

Another Censorship incident occurred in 1497 when the followers of an Italian priest, Girolamo Savonarola, burned items such as pornography, pagan books, and other things that were deemed to be sinful including cosmetics. The focus of that destruction was on objects that could tempt someone to sin. Some were things people used or wore everyday such as mirrors, fine dresses, cosmetics, and musical instruments. They also destroyed immoral books, manuscripts of non religious songs and pictures. That act became known as the Bonfire of the Vanities. They wanted to control the things that people were reading and to direct their beliefs towards a certain religion. Censorship did not stop there. It had a heavy influence in the life of Italians under the Fascist regime from 1922 to 1944. To control what the people believed the Government ordered the deletion of any content that could allow opposition, suspicions or doubts of Fascism. There was censorship of public and private communication, press, and military. They tried to control all aspects of life and shift the ideology of the people to agree with Fascism.

The Nazis also had their own way of censoring what people around them saw and the books that they read. Nazi censorship was extreme and strictly enforced by the governing Nazi party. They controlled all forms of mass communication. That included newspapers, music, literature, radio and films. In 1933 the Nazis burned thousands of books that were written by jewish authors or authors that had different ideals because they were “un-German”. They were against anything that had to do with Jewish people. An estimated 100 thousand books were burned. The Nazis produced and spread their own literature that was solely devoted ideas and myths.

In modern times there is still censorship taking place even in a democratic country like the United States. An example of something that still being censored today is the Internet. The internet is the modern source of communication worldwide and a public domain but the government still tries to put limitations on how it is used. Because the internet lets anyone have public access from anywhere they go with instant gratification it is harder for the government to patrol. There are many social networking groups that make keeping track of every single post impossible. Some targeted censored sites are YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook, Google, and Pornographic sites. Another example of another thing that is censored is the Television industry. The Television industry is more controllable than the internet. Movies and Television show ratings are according to how graphic they are. They do this so people can get weeded out of the group if they are not of age for the content. Companies make great efforts to censor bad words and limit language shown on Television programs so it is suitable for all ages.

Crime and Censorship

Controlling what is viewed on Television is the responsibility of the government. It keeps society safe and respectable. It also gives children a better chance of developing in a healthier way, it lowers crime rates, helps to reform hardened criminals, and preserves moral and social order. When these points are taken into account we can see that censorship is a necessity.

One culprit of criminal behavior is Television violence. It has a negative impact on violence prone individuals and even children going through a vulnerable stage in their development. A typical child watches eight thousand murders and one hundred thousand acts of violence before completing elementary school. When people are often exposed to violence it is only natural for that person to become desensitized to criminal acts. They lose their proper sense of right and wrong after repeatedly seeing horrific things happen in false reality and become immune to the feeling of disgust towards the atrocious deed. Adult violent offenders tend to show the same personality features as those children. One of them being that they tended to have viewed violence on Television.

The evidence that shows that censorship has a positive effect is found in the minds of criminals. Statistics show that eighty-one percent of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist Mary Anne Layden said, in an interview with Abigail Biggs from Josh McDowell Ministry, “I had been doing this work for more than 10 years before I realized that I had not treated one case of sexual violence that did not include pornography”. Criminals take adult pornography and child pornography as a sign of permission to commit those acts themselves. “Adult pornography is Permission-Giving as well: for adult rape, for combining sex with violence, for the message that when women say no they mean yes, for male sexual entitlement to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, for the message that male sexuality is viciously narcissistic, predatory and out of control and that female sexuality is insatiable and indiscriminant”. Adult pornography send the message that there is no need for consent, and that men are dominating and are entitled to sex anywhere and with anyone they choose. It also portrays that sex is not intimate and is supposed to be vicious with a preditor adn prey mentality. Pornography is mis-education about sexuality. Criminals start to believe that this acceptable. Some even believe that their victims actually enjoy it just as much as they do.

It applies to child pornography as well. In the interview Laden said “Child rapists tell me they know that kids like to have sex with adults because they have seen their smiling faces in the child pornography they access on the Internet”. What these people see on the internet shift their morals and what they believe. Censoring what people have access to and what they see could lower crime rates. No one will mimic what they saw in a pornographic video if they do not have access to the video to begin with. Taking away pornography from criminals allows their minds to focus on other things and could prove to be an impotant tool in the reform of hardened criminals. It is no coincidence that when an adult bookstore is shut down the crime rate in the surrounding areas falls significantly.

The media has been proven the main source of violence and aggressive behavior shown by children in modern culture. Censorship programs have been used to determine the effect of children’s exposure to violent films and messages. The following is an argument on the role of the media and television in the social life of an individual irrespective of age, gender, sex, or religion. In order to discuss the validity of cultural censorship in children, two programs were selected. These are the Sesame Street and The Best of Families. The most significant theory used in this discussion is the cognitive theory which describes the behavior of people when exposed to certain situations.

Censorship refers to the suppression of a speech that may be considered harmful, sensitive, or socially incorrect when determined by a media outlet or a government. Governments, private organizations, or individuals who engage in self-censorship conduct censorship programs. Although many countries provide a restriction against censorship, it is important to strike a balance of conflicting rights in order to determine things that can be censored and those that cannot.

This discussion will argue that the media and television play a great role in the social life of an individual irrespective of age, gender, sex, or religion. Censorship programs have been used to determine the effect of children’s exposure to violent films and messages. Censorship programs have the ability to influence children positively or negatively. In order to discuss the validity of cultural censorship in children, two programs were selected. These are the Sesame Street and The Best of Families.

Text 1: This is about the “Sesame Street” children’s censorship program

Introduction

The following discussion focuses on a research-driven children’s censorship program, Sesame Street, with a focus on encouraging children to learn through media. The main issue of the importance of this program in shaping the future lives of children in America. Censorship was done in order to research the validity of cultural censorship in children’s media.

Argument

Point

I totally agree with censorship campaigners on Petley’s text in the fact that such violent cases shown on television have little effect on older people because they bear the capacity to sustain such disturbing images. The Sesame Street program made children aware of all the ill effects associated with some of the messages portrayed in the media and gives suggestions to parents on how to take care of their children. On the other hand, children are at a greater risk of facing the consequences of irresponsible social behavior caused by media ignorance.

Critique

This argument is signified by the fact that cultural censorship in children’s media studies is supposed to provide children and their parents with advice on how to avoid irresponsible social behaviors caused by the nature of advertisements and programs shown in the media. The introduction of children television in America was aimed at providing them with the necessary education knowledge and skills. The Sesame Street program never used violent films to censor children because Petley understood the negative effect of introducing children to horror films. People chose what they want to watch and what they believe in, but the media has neglected this issue. In addition, the level of socialization depicted by an individual and what they pass through influences their actions and eventually, reflects into someone’s mind after getting the consequences.

Example

For example, Barker and Petley argue that the media plays a significant role in conducting campaigns about the need to protect children. The only critical issue is that the same media who are so much concerned about children’s protection needs are the same people who end up airing such violent films and videos (Barker and Petley 1997; 95-99). In this program, it is argued that even if children use media and technology, they are not in a better position to distinguish between evil and good messages. Children require a set of programs that will enable them to ask essential questions about what is acceptable to see, listen to, and read in the media.

Explaining the Sesame Street censorship

The following support this argument. Firstly, every individual must possess conscious awareness and reasoning about the prevailing situations. Horror movies characters are terrifying and violent signifying that a person viewing such a film is carried away psychologically and thinks in the same manner as movie actors. In some instances, a child develops much anger and hurt his friends due to his aggressive nature learned from watching violent films. These reactions emerge from assaults and sufferings a person goes through while thinking of the others suffering in the movie (Nevid 2011). The experience prepares a child for his future tasks related to terrifying and inhuman acts such as warfare, torture, and assassinations. In addition, the behavior portrayed in movies make psychologists term such individuals as mentally challenged. Their physical look totally matches the menacing behavior forcing other children to fear them (Barker and Petley 1997; 113).

The above example supports my point on the importance of introducing the Sesame Street program. Firstly, mass media plays a significant role in shaping people’s lives in modern culture. People irrespective of age and sex are disturbed constantly by messages from media sources including television, magazines, radio, and other media sources. These messages have the capability of promoting not only the product but also introducing some ill effects to viewers (Barker and Petley 1997). Young people, especially those in their teenage stages, are in a critical translation period in relation to civic and political socialization. Children’s participation in various activities such as playing games, watching movies, and listening to certain media programs stimulate their long-term engagement where family and education experience contributes to the social process. The influences received from such media facilities act as a building block of social capital, which includes an individual’s participation in social activities (the University of Maryland Libraries 2001).

In addition, the media houses are to blame because they do not take into consideration the negative effects such films have on children. Cultural censorship discussed in the class indicated that the effect of watching violent and horror films also creates mixed reactions in children who come from backgrounds where they are highly protected. The question of violence in the media and its ill effects on children is the most widely researched area. Studies dating back to the 1970s show that media violence has the capacity of increasing the risk of aggressive behavior in children. Other dangerous effects include desensitization to the pain and suffering of others making them fear the world. Cline, Croft, and Courrier however, contradict with this arguing that desensitization of children takes place when a child is exposed to violent and horror films for a long time (1973; 363).

The Sesame Street program also provides a prove that media has changed the behavior and reactions of children toward their parents, teachers, and colleagues. Children learn a lot from watching films on the television depending on the amount of time they stays watching per day. The study conducted concerning the Ill Effects led to a number of behaviors portrayed by children, which are possibly learned from the media. A medium that is supposed to be teaching children how to behave well in school is the same that exposes them to films that make them disrespect their elders (Barker and Petley 1997).

The perspective given in the cultural censorship program on the ill effect of media claims that all behaviors are learned and there stands a chance of modifying them through a system of reward and punishment. Children in the class expressed certain behaviors that made teachers term them as carefree persons who never minded about their own welfare. On the cultural censorship in children’s media studies, some measures of aggression were used that make it acceptable that media has a stake in the character of children.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in this argument, the validity of cultural censorship in children’s media studies in the classroom depends on the nature and type of censorship program. Sesame Street forms one of the programs that play a role in shaping the behavior of children. Even though media violence introduces children to arrogant behaviors, the ignorance of parents and the society in taming their children by preventing them from accessing films and videos with acts of violence and the responsibility of the media in conveying certain messages that changes the attitude of viewers. From the above discussion, it is clear that a lot of debate comes along with the role of media concerning the violence and aggressive behavior found in children.

Text 2: This is about the “Best of Families” children’s censorship program

Introduction

This discussion will focus on the Best of Families children censorship program and its negative effects on the life of children. The program was thought to have a huge impact on children’s behavior because it portrayed how long-term television viewers end up changing their behavior. The program was chosen in relation to the effect of the amount of time a child spends watching films with violent acts on desensitization. Victor Cline, Roger Croft, and Steven Courier from the University of Utah carried out the research to evaluate the effect of time spent by children on television on their behavior.

Argument

Point

Based on the cognitive perspective on human behavior, it does not matter how many violence-based films a child has watched because the results are the same. The Best of Families program exposes children to many violent acts and does not provide any moral support. The media is to blame because they never care about the negative effects this program brings to children.

Critique

Censorship campaigners argue a lot about who is at great risk when such cases of television violence occur in media facilities. Children suffer the most because what they see might end up changing their behavior toward their peers or family members. The opinions given on this program are not true and worth noting.

Example

The situations shown on this program are a bad expression to children. The program uses a story of divorced parents who ended up portraying violent behaviors to their children making them develop fear and arrogance towards their friends.

Explanation

Irrespective of the type of age group exposed to violence, whether children or adults, media contributes to all these evils. The courts of criminal justice have many debates involving the responsibilities of media ranging from videos, books, and disturbing advertisements. Media has even gone a step ahead to disregard the bible teachings on the effect of disturbing images and actions on the mind of a viewer. The Best of Families censorship program should face a ban or make it more presentable to children.

There have been various domains of influence associated with media content shown on television, which have negative effects on children. These include aggressive behavior, body image, self-esteem, and violence (American Psychological Association 2002). The actions portrayed in films are not generally a representation of an individual’s behavior and the media should educate children on how to avoid such unacceptable behaviors. Television representatives should include a brief history of the film before showing it to restrain children from assuming certain characters. A good example is the World Wide Entertainment (WWE) which always warns viewers from trying anything seen on the screen at home, school, or anywhere else (Cline, Croft, and Courrier 1973).

The Human Centipede 2 film presents an example of the negative effect of social isolation. Social interaction between children provides sensory stimulators that result in short and long-term memories. The type of film used in this film created a sense of fear in viewers. The entire movie coverage takes place in the darkness leading to the curiosity and tension of viewers. If at all adults fear watching this movie, what about children whose level of sustaining certain memories is low? Memories are essential in child development because it gives a child a chance to share with others, a factor that the Best of Families program fails to address. Too much isolation and exposure to violent television programs result in a child having evil minds and having a desire to behave in the same manner as what she saw on television (University of Maryland Libraries 2001).

The research on the desensitization of children to television violence shows the effect children have on exposure to long-term or short-term exposure to violent films. The study outcomes showed that children who are heavy television watchers might end up desensitized to violence. The study used the films The Bank Dick and The Champion which depicted the violent acts of actors. The producers of such movies always dictate the age limit of people supposed to watch the movies, but the ignorance of parents and the media contributes to the exposure of such films to children. In the real world, experience provides a valuable resource that assists in developing an informed citizen. The public affairs media has the power to enable people to work together in building the nation. However, not all media facilities influence people positively. Television is one of the media facilities that have the capacity of inducing negative effects on viewers (Cline, Croft, and Courrier 1973).

There has been a controversy among legislatures, media executives, education officials, parents, and sociologists on the role of media in determining the social behavior of people. Different people have varying opinions depending on the type of level of influence, but the bottom line is that all parties agree that media forms a permanent part of modern culture. Such programs like Best of Families should not be used to censor children because they make them more arrogant and violent.

Conclusion

As this paper has demonstrated, the Best of Families Children censorship program does not deserve to be used to mentor children. This can be seen from the fact that because children demonstrated irresponsible behavior and become more aggressive following the actions shown in the program. In addition, children’s isolation from their peers can be seen as one of the major causes of change in behavior. Secondly, the responsibility of parents towards their parents might affect their behavior. A child could be watching violent movies for a long time but with correct guidance, it creates no effect on their behavior.

We wanted to shed light regarding on one of the most controversial and sensitive issues in education which is censorship of children’s books. Censorship in schools is a complex issue since there are so many elements that may influence how children learn and how schools educate them. We all know that a school is a place where you are taught, shaped, and prepared to become the person you were born to be. You will be exposed to different experiences and learn about a variety of topics. It’s where you’ll discover and develop your abilities, intelligence, and skills. It’s a place where you may let your imagination run wild. Some people, however, believe that schools should not have too much leeway in terms of what they teach kids. Certain subjects, literature, and instructional materials, they feel, should be restricted. This problem has been in schools for a long time, and there have been numerous instances where specific literary masterpieces or historical materials have been removed because they were deemed too ‘controversial.’ Some parents go to great lengths to shield their children from potentially dangerous information on the internet and on television at home. However, parents aren’t really in charge at school, therefore censorship will highly ensure that the materials and subjects their children study at school don’t include any hazardous content. Also, censorship enables teachers to make better-informed decisions about what to include in a curriculum. As certain books and materials are restricted, educators will have a guide to help them narrow down what they discuss and utilize in their lectures. Censorship enables parents to be more involved in their children’s education. It allows parents to express their concerns about the education their children are receiving. If students think that particular themes or materials in the lesson plan are hurtful, discriminatory, or insulting to their race, culture, religion, or values, they can request that they be withdrawn. This will allow them to plan their curriculum more quickly. In schools, censorship generally takes the form of removing or manipulating resources or learning processes. These materials might vary from teaching issues that some find offensive, such as evolution against creationism, to those that officials and parents have generally determined are unsuitable for our children, such as nudity. The majority of censorship in American schools focuses on social and religious concerns, with many contentious texts being challenged. According to Reichman (1988), it has already been established for millennia as a practice, it is the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic, or educational material like images, ideas, and information on the grounds that they are morally or otherwise objectionable. Every justification under the sun has been provided to keep some books out of the hands of pupils, from the protection of youth to moral concerns with the author or the work itself. The reasons for censorship attempts range from differing political ideas to religious and cultural expression, this is according to Ally Bush of Reading Partners. Some books that are banned contain racist remarks that may encourage the readers to have a racial perspective. Not only that, reasons may also be due to religious affiliations which may be related to satanic or witchcraft themes or unpopular religious opinions that may cause confusion to readers. It can also be because of themes that are somehow encouraging damaging lifestyles where characters are depicting life choices that are considered dangerous and are not accepted by many which may cause negative perspective that may encourage the readers to actually do these acts. All of these cultures’ censors appear to believe that children’s minds may be changed by what they read and that children are innocent and should be protected. When a book is censored, the information contained inside it is restricted, and kids are not permitted to read it. When an individual or a group opposes a book, it is considered censorship of children’s literature. When an individual or a group believes that the content of a novel or book is improper for children, it may be disputed. When a book is taken from a booklist, a school, or a library, it is labeled banned.

Scholarly Discussion of the Issue

The notion that all speech is equal is very questionable, some people use certain phrases in an attempt to silence the right of others to speak. Because of the prevalence of hate speech, it took over a century for minorities and women to achieve a semblance of equal rights. It doesn’t matter if it’s dressed up in ideals like religious liberty, state rights, or patriotism; it’s still what it is to others. Censorship allows us to halt the spread of hatred before it ever begins. We are already constrained by education, family, entertainment, commerce, and other factors. As a result of this restricting process, additional chances for equality arise. Most importantly, Censorship has the potential to alleviate societal strife. The purpose of censorship isn’t to prevent people from accessing information that they might find objectionable. If it were the case, we wouldn’t be able to use books and the Internet. We may use this method to restrict access to material that may have a negative influence on the culture of our homes, towns, or countries for our own safety. West (2003) stated that the majority of discussions of the relationship between censorship and children’s literature center on attempts to prohibit contentious children’s books from libraries, although this is only one part of a much bigger story. There are numerous ways to filter a children’s book, a book might be subjected to censorship constraints even before it is published. Before approving the book for publication, a cautious editor may request that potentially contentious portions be removed. Once a book is published, it may be attempted to limit children’s access to it. These measures can include prohibiting it from being used in libraries, but there are also other limits that can be applied. A concerned librarian may refuse to let children check it out without parental consent if a parent organization pressures their local bookstore not to sell it. A school administrator might forbid teachers from utilizing it in the classroom, or a religious organization might prohibit parents from allowing their children to read it. In schools, censorship frequently takes the form of removing or manipulating resources or learning processes. These items could range from teaching subjects that some find objectionable, such as evolution against creationism, to materials that officials and parents have generally concluded are improper for our children, such as nudity. Censorship can protect children from unhealthy content. In today’s society, parents have a lot to do to protect their children from harmful influences on health. There is literature everywhere, including stories that escape parental controls and apps for children that could lead to malicious encounters in the future. Children are less concerned with talking to strangers online than adults, primarily due to the way children view the world. They are more innocent, more curious, and can even be shy and lonely. To the extent that literature is negatively defined, according to Moore (2016), censorship assumed a decisive place in its old constitution. Current scholars emphasize the dynamic interplay between literary expression and types of cultural regulation, recognizing its mockingly efficient potential to generate in addition to suppress that means. at the identical time, accounting for censorship’s position within the history of the arena’s literature means coming to grips with the often-brutal repression, prohibition, and persecution of writing, writers, performance, and cultural manufacturers by way of sovereign strength underwritten by means of violence. In 1988, Sue Curry Jansen described censorship as “the knot that binds power and expertise,” and this binding has remained, loosely or tightly, at the coronary heart of the dynamic between censorship and literature. Censorship has been a factor of social conversation for as long as societies have conceived of the latter as a public accuracy, and in the way that, thru Jansen’s knot, they had been collectively determining, censorship and literature were coeval. Censorship defines the literary by outlawing that which it isn’t allowed to be; literature shapes censorship with the aid of exploring and contesting its limits. As seen in the statistics reports for challenges by reason, initiator, and institution conducted by Butlers University for 1990-1999 and 2000-2009, expose the factors in each challenge. As for the reasons, out of 24 factors including unsuited for age group, offensive language, violence, homosexuality, cultural sensitivity, occult or satanism, anti-ethnic, racism, sexism, anti-family, nudity, other offensive items, abortion, drug alcohol smoking, gambling, gangs, suicide, sex education, political viewpoint, technical errors, and other objections, the highest factor is sexually explicit. The initiators are board members, administrators, teachers, pressure groups, religious organizations, politicians elected officials, government bodies, patrons, clergy, other initiators, other organizations, and its major initiator which is the parents. For the institution, there are 16 factors namely school library, public library, academic library, special library, prison library, museums or galleries, college or university, student group, community group, theater, newspaper publisher, other publisher, government facility, other business, other non-profit business, the highest is the school institution.

SideTake about the Issue

We agree on promoting censorship in Children’s literature. This aids children to grow into well-being and to live in a safer environment. Children’s literature is very significant in a child’s life. Books help him to explore the world he’s living in, yet we cannot deny that some of this literature may cause distraction and can poison children’s minds. Many people believed that children are brought to life as innocents thus they are not yet mentally ready to be exposed to harmful and sensitive information. It is indeed necessary to prohibit children from reading books that contain objectionable, harmful, and offensive words, images, or information. There are many factors that parents should consider in introducing literature to their children. Parents, together with society should protect their innocence. Censorship assists in removing the appearance of sexuality, extreme violence, swearing, and other inappropriate gestures. Literature would be unsuitable for our young readers if parents and society would allow them to read such books. This is one of the ways also that children will not engage in misdeed acts, think inappropriately, and just do everything they want because that is what they have read in a certain book. If books that contain inappropriate information are available in libraries that can be accessed by young readers, they can be exposed to these kinds of books, they might misinterpret some ideas and think of something very irrelevant to what knowledge they already have. Censorship is necessary because even if a certain child doesn’t read a book that needs to be censored, this idea will still not protect him. He is still enclosed to other children who are already vulnerable with these books. We all know there are different issues and genres of books which have themes that are only appropriate for adult readers thus children aren’t ready to experience or encounter. Issues such as LGBTQ, political affairs, sexually explicit, profanity and drug use, and other content for mature readers. Censorship would allow children to avoid reading such books and to get away from negative psychological effects. Again, their intellectual capacity to comprehend and appreciate these themes is not sufficient for them to be exposed to this literature. As we also observed children in this generation, put into action what they have seen on television, the same goes for what they have read in books. This has already a big impact on the part of the children by making them very conscious of their actions, they became aggressive especially if literature is exposed to violence and sensitive content. In censoring children’s literature, this is not just a matter of protecting kids, it is as well a matter of assisting them towards what is right and best.

Scholarly Discussion of Our Critical Stance

Childhood is a crucial time in a person’s growth. Values, principles, and habits formed during this time remain with a person for the rest of their lives. According to Socrates, “It’s at that time that it is most malleable and takes on any pattern one wishes to impress on it.” A child’s moral sense isn’t fully formed, and he or she can’t always tell what’s good from what’s harmful. And as he suggests, ‘Then we must, first of all, it seems, supervise the storytellers. We’ll select their stories whenever they are fine or beautiful and reject them when they aren’t.’ You don’t work with people who have already developed their values and beliefs to rid the world of evil; instead, you engage with children who are still building theirs. Every child would be educated in an environment that encourages justice and goodness, and the world would be a much better place. PABBIS (Parents Against Bad Books in Schools) is one of a number of parent organizations around the country that are questioning the use of children’s and young adult books in classrooms, as well as in school and public libraries. These parents aim to restrict access to certain books for other parents’ children in one of two ways: either by having one or more books removed from library shelves or by having access to the books restricted in some way. Lombardo (2016) stated that censorship limits children’s exposure to violent, sexual, and other harmful subjects. Some parents do their best to protect their children from harmful content on the Internet and on TV at home. However, they are not the ones in control of the school, so moderation helps ensure that the material and topics their children will learn in school are also free from harmful content. It also allows teachers to decide more quickly what to include in a curriculum. Since there are certain books and materials that are censored, teachers will have a guide for narrowing down what to discuss and use in their lessons. This can make their curriculum planning a quicker task. It allows parents to have a more active role in what their kids learn. Censorship gives parents a chance to express their concerns about what their children are being taught. They can request to have certain topics and materials removed from the lesson plan if they believe it can be harmful, discriminating, or offensive to their race, culture, religion, or values. Censoring children’s literature may additionally serve the cause of regulating what a child may be introduced to, however, it additionally diminishes a child’s intellectual, spiritual, and emotional connection to the book or its characters without proper reason. To elaborate, imagine a child who has suffered from a sexual attack and reveals intellectual and emotional solitude while reading one of his or her favorite books. The censorship banning of certain books helps protect children from the sensitive issues and situations of the world that they should only see at an older and more mature age. Books with cruel language and mature thoughts and circumstances should only be read by teens or young adults. As the ages mature, students are more likely to understand the content of the book. Also, students are less likely to be frightened by language and rough text activities than younger children. Young children can be influenced and these types of books can leave behind uncomfortable thoughts and influence children’s behavior today and in the future.

Conclusion

It is definitely a difficult decision to make because the life of the children depends on this doing. In reading books, you are able to explore various parts of life. But some books are just really inappropriate for them to read at a young age. It can affect their perspectives in life which they will bring with them until they grow old. With bad perspectives, they might hurt other people and also hurt themselves. In the scholarly discussion of the issue, it is stated that children’s books are subjected to censorship constraints even before it is published. This is to prevent spreading potentially contentious portions in the books, once these portions are spread it may cause misconceptions and misunderstanding about the important details in the book. The statistics are also shown in this part of the paper which states that censoring books have various challenges such as its reasons, initiators, and institution. All of these aspects are huge challenges that books are facing even before their publication. It was actually surprising for us that the most common reason is sexually explicit which only shows how important it really is to preserve the child’s purity against books that depicts sexual and inappropriate actions or dialogues. As stated in the clear statement of our stance, children’s innocence must be well-protected, as peers, we have the responsibility to assist and guide them away from books that contain violence, inappropriate gestures, harmful, offensive words, and sexual behavior. If they are exposed to these acts at a young age, they will be confused and curious as to what these acts really mean. So, it is much better to keep them away from books that are inappropriate for them. They should stick to books that have good moral lessons which will make them better citizens of our country. As the late Michael Jackson said, ‘In their innocence, very young children know themselves to be light and love. If we will allow them, they can teach us to see ourselves the same way.”

Citations

1. Bush, Ally. “The little-known history of banned books in the United States”. Published under Reading Partners on September 28, 2020, https: reading partners. orgbloghistory-banned-books-week
2. Butler University, “Banned Books: Reasons Books are Challenged” Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License in September 2017, https:libguides.butler.edubannedbooks?p=217686
3. Kennedy, Elizabeth. ‘Kids’ Book Censorship: The Who and Why.’ ThoughtCo, Aug. 27, 2020, https:www.thoughtco.comchildrens-book-censorship-overview-626315
4. https: oxford.comliteratureview10.1093acrefore9780190201098.001.0001acrefore-9780190201098-e-71?mediaType=Article
5. https:www.123helpme.comessayAdvantages-And-Disadvantages-Of-Censorship-Of-Childrens-528926