(Subject) Should Censorship be Sometimes Justified? The question of censorship – the control of information and ideas by the government or its agencies - has vexed generations of Americans since the founding of the United States…
Download file to see previous pages...
The government must have powers to censor sensitive security information, such as the military strategy, deployment of forces, and placement of key weapons systems in times of conflicts and wars. Some people, mainly libertarians who see little or no role for government, argue that the United States has no room for censorship citing the First Amendment to the US Constitution that prohibits restrictions, among other things, on the freedom of speech and the press. However, protecting the United States and American people becomes more important than preserving the freedom of speech in times of conflicts and wars, because giving away sensitive security information could help domestic quislings and external enemies to harm the country and hurt the people. Recognizing this imperative, Congress has enacted several laws, including the Smith Act, Communist Control Act and Atomic Energy Act, which give the US government the powers to impose censorship. Even the criticism of the government’s recent request to withhold the details of the experiment that produced deadly H5N1 influenza virus, which could be used by terrorist, has been made only on a narrow ground that someone had already shared that information at a conference in Malta (Markel). Censorship also becomes necessary to prevent hate speech that destroys social harmony and leads to violence in a country characterized by enormous racial and cultural diversity. Opponents of censorship argue that individuals can make their own judgment and apply self-censorship, and US courts have sometimes put the freedom of speech above the need to control hate speech, such as by upholding the right of the Ku Klux Klan to carry out anti-minority marches. However, personal judgment and self-censorship alone are not enough to prevent hate speech that could disrupt communal harmony and lead people to harm each other due to enmity, bigotry or other narrow interests. The rant against Muslims in public places and in the media in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001 led to violence against Muslims and turbaned Sikhs across the country, which could have been avoided by censorship. Although Congress has already outlawed slander, libel, incitement to riot and obscenity, government should have broad censorship powers to control hate speech and promote social harmony (Stork), a proposition with which I agree. Likewise, the government must have powers to impose censorship to protect the rights, dignity and innocence of children who cannot do it themselves. Those who advocate absolute freedom of speech hold the view that individuals and the media are capable of using their discretion to withhold indecent and obscene information that could harm children. However, there is no shortage of pedophiles, rapists, rogue journalists and other criminals eager to exploit children’s vulnerability and innocence, and the government has obligation to protect children from them, if necessary, by imposing censorship. I shudder with the fear that my own brothers, sisters and relatives could become victims of such criminals, lured by indecency and obscenity in the media and public places. Recognizing the need for censorship to protect children, Congress has made several laws, including the Communications Decency Act of 1966, that classify films
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
It also involves the surveillance, supervision and control of information or ideas that are promulgated in the society. Censorship has always been a hot topic of debate all over the world. It has remained a topic of heated discussions over the course of history.
It was not until 1966 that the book was finally released to the public as its content was determined to be irrelevant and unsurprising. Since the banning of Cleland’s novel, censorship has been used to protect people from improper media according to the standards of the government and smaller organizations that focus on censorship, though this has sparked the issue of how much censorship is too much censorship.
Name Course Tutor Date Argumentative Essay Wolf Daniel argues that censorship was not all bad because nowadays, even though restraints on speech have been abolished, we live in a new age of social control where at one moment stupidity, ugliness, insensitivity, and offence are celebrated but the opposition from a respectable opinion is wrongly perceived.
hip is far more complicated than one person refusing to let another read or watch or listen to something. The sad, sorry history of the protests against the making and the release of The Last Temptation of Christ should stand as a shining example of how attempts at censorship almost always result in the opposite of the intended effect in the short run, though in the long run the intentions of those who desired to suppress the expression of free speech ultimately were realized.
ve topics, harmful behaviors or inconvenient practices in which these practices are not allowed by the government, media outlet or any controlling body composed of the influential people in a community such as church leaders, advocates or non-government organizations. It
Organizations that can impose censorship or can limit the exposure of a particular expression to the common public includes media agencies, government and agencies that are recognized as controlling bodies. The act of censorship can be applied in various contexts such as expressions in novels, music, books, news, movies and internet.
Both are always vital and beneficial given the circumstances that inform their imposition. Despite the fact that the public has the right to information, some information may have adverse effects on the peace and stability in the society. As such,
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Should censorship be sometimes justified for FREE!