Justification of Censorship: the Safeguard of Freedom - Essay Example

Justification of Censorship: the Safeguard of Freedom Introduction As far as the question of freedom of a human being confronts the definition of censorship, it’s sole inspiration is determined by the fact what and how much freedom of a human being can be asserted as the effective individual freedom. At the core of the philosophical annotation, one’s freedom often appears to be self-consuming and destroys itself by hauling harmful confinements and restrictions for others. Also one’s freedom often poses danger for one to such an extent that freedom appears to be destructive anarchy. So censorship is to be sketched as the safeguard of freedom. Consequently within its own definition, censorship is no perfect adversary of freedom. Censorship in Relative Contexts But freedom-choking-censorships are often so eluding that it is difficult to trace them which lies under the guises of religious and contextual endorsements. As Ian Inglis asserts in “The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties,” obviously “it is important to recognize that censorship takes many forms and springs from many sources” (559). But it is also true that censorships valid in one context may prove invalid and be seen as suffocation of freedom. Later again Inglis asserts that censorship is to be interpreted and understood as, --A process in which two critical factors are related. First, it is imperative to explore the contexts in which censorship occurs—the general context in which the imposition of restrictions is seen as permissible, and the particular context surrounding the individual event. Secondly it is equally important to investigate the consequences of such censorship— for the censors and for the censored. (565) The Paradox of Censorship and Freedom Indeed the paradoxical problem of freedom with the safeguard of censorship is not solved yet, as censorship also often is to be imposed to such an extent that it appears to suffocate freedom. It is true that censorship is designated to make one’s freedom meaningful, but it always ironically ay for one to abuse it to slack down other’s freedom. Now the question is whether there exists any universal and all-embracing definition of censorship. In reality a dynamic definition of censorship is more effective to embrace necessary facts of freedom than an abstract and static one. As human life appears to be full of paradoxes and relativities, freedom is also relative and to be exercised in terms of existing context such cultural, social, geographical, etc. It appears to be righteous when Inglis claims, “it is imperative to explore the contexts in which censorship occurs - the general context in which the imposition of restrictions is seen as permissible, and the particular context surrounding the individual event” (565). An All-embracing Definition of Censorship What an acceptable definition of censorship is and at the same time should be is: Censorship is a fabrication of the people of responsibility and power, which is used to protect the minors and the vulnerable from the materials or actions or other things that are supposed and proved to be harmful to them in any way or others because of their vulnerability of age, body and mind; however, when there is also the possibility for censorship of being abused by the people who seeks to impose their own morality or agenda upon others, it becomes a barrier to the fundamental rights of human beings. Censorship as the Safeguard of Freedom: How So when it is told that censorship is the safeguard of freedom, it is no more exaggeration unless any change in the context attempts to invalidate it or it is abused by others. Indeed censorship is to make one’s freedom meaningful. As it is told previously, freedom without limit is not freedom; rather it paves the way to anarchy. In a similar thread censorship without proper justification is the suffocation of freedom that is acceptable. What the proper justification of censorship should be that the definition of censorship will include the condition to put itself within the lock when such suffocation of the freedom of expression occurs and when such censorship will fail to keep faith in the ability of the individuals to judge and justify what is good for them. Indeed such disbelief in the ability of individuals to differ between the right and the wrong is the severe violation of the sanctity of censorship. It is because censorship is imposed to allow the steady and stable flourish and growth of the individual to face the hazard of the censored object and if individuals are not trusted with, the aim of censorship is meaningless. Justification of censorship often evokes the emotional barrier that may obstruct the way of a logical and reason-based justification. Keeping the cultural and religious bias aside the sole aim of censorship should be to attain the contextual good of individual. But if censorship obstructs the way of long term excellence in exchange with the contextual good for individual, it should be withered. Censorship Including the Condition of Withdrawal Necessarily my definition of censorship as “the safeguard of freedom”, if confronted with the question of justified freedom of individuals, includes the conditions of its own withdrawal. Any law like censorship should keep faith in the individual. Consequently the implication of my definition of censorship can be applied to censor the show of aggressive and offending materials that provokes children to be aggressive to the values and morality of other cultures. But if the individual is matured enough to take the responsibility of judging the right or wrong for him, the materials should not be censored. Again my definition implicates that if there is any ill intension such as moneymaking, cultural rigidity, etc. censorship should be imposed. I will give an example to prove the validity of my definition. In the US society, the neoconservative section of people nurture a value that children should not be allowed to watch horror movies. Their perspective is valid enough to censor the movies for children but so far as they apply the value to censor the horror elements of all the movies, such censor ship should not be allowed because they violate the sanctity of definition of censorship by doing so. Obviously I agree with DEntremont that "the American tradition that sanctifies abstract principles of free expression is often at war with its cultural biases in favour of repression" (34). Conclusion Indeed the definition of censorship is quite able to face any change in the context. It includes uncompromisingly the condition for human welfare and the trust in human being that prevents its abuse. "Rocknroll has ... been described as dangerous ... to racists, demagogues and the self-appointed moral guardians of the status quo" (Palmer, Rock & Roll 11). But the reason behind characterizing rock’n’roll is vague and this generalizations were manipulated to force censorship on it, though they do not “illuminate the specific grounds on which censorship is introduced—sexual content, swearing, blasphemy, drug references, political content, and violence; nor do they sit easily with the frankly conservative or sentimental ideology of much of the last five decades popular music” (Inglis 565). As a result of this vagueness, these abuses of censorship ironically exert the opposite effects as Inglis says, “one consequence of the censorship suffered by all three per­formers was that their positions were unequivocally enhanced” (Inglish 571). Works Cited DEntremont, Jim. "The Devils Disciples." Index On Censorship 27.6 (1998): 32-39- Inglis, Ian. “The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties”. The Journal of Popular Culture. 39 (4). Blackwell Publishing. 2006 Palmer. Rock and Roll. Cited in Inglis, Ian. “The Ed Sullivan Show and the (Censored) Sounds of the Sixties”. The Journal of Popular Culture. 39 (4). Blackwell Publishing. 2006 Read More