Assignment: What is your view of the claim that censorship isn’t always bad?
(Most quotes are from the excerpt-- which said, in part “Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.”)
Essay:
The question of censorship and freedom of speech is one that is at the core of any society founded on the enlightenment ideals of the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith. While many claim that the suppression of free speech may be necessary, for the “greater good”, such a blind, utilitarian approach ignores the way in which speech (and its freedom) has been one of the major forces for change since its existence.
Take the example of Thomas Paine, famed revolutionary and publisher of Common Sense, a pamphlet on why Americans must espouse the revolution. Prior to its publication, many viewed the revolution as quixotic, yet Pain rallied the masses. His speech allowed him to change society in a fundamental way, yet if it had been suppressed, perhaps we would be living in the same stagnant society that Paine found himself in.
Such an example is further exemplified by more recent events, such as the NSA debacle. Despite the federal governments attempts to silence him, Edward Snowden strove to reveal the mendacious nature of the government and its covert surveillance programs. Censorship was utilized to try to keep pertinent knowledge from the public, and only Snowden's circumvention in the name of free speech allowed him to prevail.
Finally, the recent events in France regarding Charlie Hebdo have further proven the downsides of censorship. Although Charlie Hebdo was known to be an antagonistic, albeit satirical, magazine, its publication played a critical role in society. By poking fun at dominant power structures such as the government or "political correctness", Charlie Hebdo may have ruffled some feathers, but it also opened society to self-reflexively interrogate itself. Yet in a society that valued censorship, such a critical function would never be performed, where publications such as Charlie Hebdo would be banned by conservative reactionary elites.
In conclusion, it is clear that while censorship in the abstract may sound effective in preventing ideas from "getting confused", paradoxically it is those very voices that one would love to censor, that are critical to actually affecting societal change. It is key to remember that in a society structured around censorship, dominant elites are the ones censoring, and radical ideas dangerous to a stagnant society are the ones being censored.
Organization: 6. Five paragraphs and good transitions.
Thesis: 5. You haven’t actually stated a solid thesis, although it is implied. You need to add on a so what to your last sentence of intro.
Supporting Details: 4 You haven’t specified, in any of your examples, how lack of censorship has helped society. How did Paine change society? Why does the fact that Snowden was able to reveal knowledge to the public a good thing? (Note: you just need to say something like: “this allows citizens to make decisions with full knowledge.”)
Grammar: 5
Diction: 5
i think it is really good i would give it a 4-5 just because u dont really have a thesis where you include your examples… with a good thesis i think you can easily get 11
I would give you a 4/6, or around an 8/12 overall.
Your essay is very well written and shows good knowledge of history and current events. However, the lack of an explicit thesis really hurt you.
In any essay, it is imperative to really show how your examples circle back and support your thesis. Otherwise, you’re not defending your argument, you’re just stating random facts. Here, having no thesis hurts your score because you have nothing to link back to at the end of your body paragraphs.
There are also a few grammatical mistakes in your essay, but they probably wouldn’t stand out since graders read so fast.
You have some strange points, like what you wrote in your conclusion about “dominant elites”. Maybe because of the lack of a thesis, I don’t see why it’s there, and I don’t see how it links back to your examples. The presence of a dominant elite censoring information is only explicitly stated in the Snowden passage.
Also, while high-brow vocabulary is almost a requirement for a good SAT Essay score, don’t abuse it. It’s a 25-minute essay; you’re not supposed to be verbose, you’re supposed to be clear. Don’t muddle the grader in extremely complex sentences. In the Essay, you’re essentially asked to write a newspaper Op-Ed. If you pick up the New York Times and go to the Opinion page, none of the articles are complex or hard to read. What they all do though, no matter what they talk about, is convey their point effectively and with purpose.
So, I can’t give you over an 8/12 because of the lack of a thesis and the way it hurt your body paragraphs and conclusion (which must link back to said thesis). I also feel like your writing loses its purpose in its complexity.
In terms of my thesis-- I had intended for this sentence: ‘While many claim that the suppression of free speech may be necessary, for the “greater good”, such a blind, utilitarian approach ignores the way in which speech (and its freedom) has been one of the major forces for change since its existence’ to function as my thesis. Perhaps this would have been less “implicit” if I had substituted the “suppression of free speech” with “censorship”? I think while writing the essay the two got a bit muddled in my mind.
Thanks!
Ninja-edit: @oronen-- I was not aware that I had to include my examples in my thesis-- in fact I had been told that doing so was an elementary style of writing! Looking at my SAT prep book, none of the examples seem to do that either.
I’m wondering what y’all would consider the bright-line for what an “explicit” thesis is-- yes, I don’t explicitly use the word censorship, but many of the essays I’ve seen don’t parrot the wording of the prompt.