Considiring censorship - Essay Example

Considering Censorship Censorship is a wide topic which controls the spreading of harmful materials and public speeches in the society. Topics such as pornography, violence and aggressive speeches which boosts terrorism and fundamentalism are normally censored by most the governments. Though nobody questions the relevance of censorship, in some cases governments utilize this powerful tool for their own interest. However censorship can move beyond the remit of governments and into the hands of those whole control media channels. It is therefore necessary to consider censorship as something which moves beyond simply the remit of protecting people from harm and offence and into the realm of a tool for control. By claiming to protect people from offence, media channels can in fact use censorship to maintain the status quo and censorship can thus be considered a tool of control, not just of protection. One of the definitions of the Oxford English Dictionary for a censor is ‘an official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive’. Censorship is often associated with the establishment and those in a position of power which have the power to take decisions over matters of morality and offensiveness. Censorship in this case takes place in order to avoid undue offence, often to minority groups and prevent the diffusion of views which are considered dangerous and corrupting. This is, naturally, from the point of view of those in power. Extremist Muslim clerics may be censored because they pose a security risk, but only to that particular power for example the US government. In Iran such a cleric would not be censored because he does not threaten the government but rather supports the status quo. This aspect of censorship – the defence of the status quo – is infact an essential part of its definition. The censoring of Muslim clerics may superficially appear to be an attempt to protect the morality of the country and prevent the expression of offensive ideas. However, this form of censorship is also useful to a government in terms of generating feelings of nationalism and therefore more support. Censoring so-called extremist Muslims is acceptable as part of a tapestry built on the idea defence of American freedoms against a perceived foreign enemy. Censoring African-Americans in the same way would not be acceptable since they are not preceived as an enemy. The American government took a similar line during the cold war, censoring Communist sentiments as a security threat. Censorship therefore, although traditionally seen as a repressive tool, can in fact help a government to generate support if it is used against the right groups of people. However censorship is not always the tool of choice for governments, given the opposing force of freedom of speech and subsequently some governments distance themselves from such a role. Such an issue occured when the Danish paper Jyllands–Posten published cartoons of the prophet Muhammed. The cartoons prompted protests across the Muslim world and accusations that they were offensive to minority Muslim groups in Denmark. The Danish government refused to censor the newspaper, arguing that it was not within the government’s remit to impose such a restriction of freedom of speech. Subsequent legal actions brought against the newspaper also failed. In this example of lack of censorship where it might have been expected, it is clear that it is a tool that governments do not always use. However, censorship cana also have a broader meaning. By examining Inglis’ article and considering censorship in the world of media, rather than just politics, these meanings emerge. In her article ‘The Ed Sullivan Show and the (censored) Sounds of the Sixties’, Inglis examines the role of censorship in pop music in the 1960s. She takes the Ed Sullivan show as a basis to make a comparison of the reaction of three sets of musicians, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and The Doors, to censorship placed on them over the lyrical content of their songs. The Rolling Stones agreed to change their lyrics, Dylan refused top play while The Doors claimed they would change their lyrics but when the show went out live they sang the original lyrics, flaunting the show’s censoring of them. Inglis takes this a basis for a discussion of the role of censorship in this period. Her argument is that the emerging brand of pop music, initiated by Elvis and his gyrating hips, represented too much of a challenge to the public idea of decency at this time. There was uproar about the explicit reference to sex, drugs and violence in this new brand of music by the youth and for the youth and parents in particular worried about the effect this music would have on the moral development of their children. As shows such as the Ed Sullivan Show went out to middle-aged Middle America it was in the best interests of the TV corporations to try to restrict the lyrical content of the music in order to avoid alienating their bread and butter market. Censorship of pop music therefore became a power struggle between the so-called degenerate youth and the established institutions. The main point of Inglis’ article is to move the definition of censorship away from being a device of the state and expand its definition to include any kind of process in which a restriction is placed on information or the exchange of ideas. She therefore cites ‘record companies, retailers, radio and television’, as the ones who impose censorship on popular music, rather than the government (Inglis: 559). She then states that this censorship ‘may be targeted at [music’s] production, distribution, performance, or consumption’ (559 ). Inglis argues that little has been written about censorship in the music industry and that this type of censorship is born of a need to maintain the status quo in order to maximise profits. It is not censorship based on a need to protect vulnerable groups or maintain the moral fabric of society, but rather censorship aimed at courting the respect and support of the key consumers of the industry. It is therefore necessary to include the sometimes financial interests involved in a definition of censorship. However censorship is not necessary imposed from without. Self censorship must enter into the definition since it is so wide spread and manifests itself in various ways. On the one hand, self censorship can occur as a result of external pressure such as when a director chooses not to include what could be considered a pornographic scene in his film in order to avoid future censorship. This can have a more sinister manifestation in news reports where certain facts are omitted in order to avoid potential future prosecution by repressive state censors. However self censorship can also be a deliberate choice. In fact it is part of daily life. The social mores of society dictate that people self censor in their social interactions. A person may choose to avoid certain statements in particular moments. If I have a good friend who is a devout Christian, I avoid voicing my arguments for atheism as strongly as I would with other atheists. There is no law preventing me from discussing this matter and no financial incentive for me to avoid it. I simply choose to limit my comments in order not to offend. It is clear that it is not possible to voice all ones opinions all the time and maintain meaningful relationships. This is a social skill which is learned early in life and where such a skill is not learned, such as in autistic people, it is considered a disability. Censorship is, therefore, a highly complex concept. In the first instance it is about preventing the diffusion of material offensive to the society in which it takes place, whether this is imposed by a personal sense of right and wrong or a governing body of some form. However it is clear that censorship can also come about as a result of a need to maintain a particular power balance or to defend financial interests. In this case the censorship is not necessarily about judging something to be morally objectionable but rather a calculation that a ban will generate a greater benefit than allowing it to go ahead. Read More