Prompt:
Censorship
Almost since human beings began sharing ideas, the issue of censorship (officially suppressing ideas or writing) has been debated. Proponents of censorship argue, for example, that offensive material might morally corrupt children or that governments have the right to protect their national secrets. Opponents argue that censorship infringes on individual freedom and hinders progress. Censorship has long been an issue regarding books and papers; now, it has become a critical issue concerning the great amount of information on the Internet. Given the continued impact of censorship on various aspects of our lives, it is an issue worth examining.
Read and carefully consider these perspectives. Each suggests a particular way of thinking about the impact of censorship.
Perspective One
Selective censorship prevents children from being exposed to offensive material. It allows parents and caretakers to determine what material children are ready for and when they are ready based on their maturity level.
Perspective Two
Censorship intrudes upon freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Individuals have the right to learn about their world, both its positive and negative aspects, and express their ideas on it.
Perspective Three
Censorship should not be condoned because it places too much power in the hands of a few: no government or leadership system should be allowed to decide what information should reach the public.
There has always been much controversy about censorship, the act of suppressing free writing or speaking. While some say censoring is crucial for the protection of our children, others feel that their freedom is threatened.
Although censorship has its positive aspects, its consequences are detrimental.
Censorship can be something positive when it is used to protect our scions. Recently, the picture of a dead refugee’s child’s body, washed ashore in Europe, made headlines on every newspaper. Not everybody can handle such a picture and it may be triggering for a child or somebody who had recently experienced the loss of a child. Moreover, the effect of such a triggering picture can leave a traumatic impression on a child’s mind. If somebody would have censored all the newspapers, no harm would have been done. This is in agreement with Perspective One, which claims that censorship can contribute to protecting children from offensive material.
On the other hand, censorship does more harm than good: it is a form of intrusion upon our freedom. If the newspapers don’t write about the current world affairs anymore, how are we supposed to know what’s going on? If the newspaper hadn’t printed the shocking picture of the dead baby, which was washed up on the beach, how would we have known that the problem with the fugitives in Europe has become so dire? This picture gave the public the chance to think about the refugees and the European countries’ governments, and to mold their own opinions about the problem. If we see it like that, censorship takes away our right to think and form opinion from ourselves. Adolf Hitler is the perfect example to illustrate the drawbacks of censorship: He used the power of censorship during World War II to strengthen his sway and influence the thinking of all Germans. He took control of every newspaper and every television channel, thus, all the information provided to the people was bigoted. If the Germans had the chance to read unbiased newspapers and bad stories about their leader, they would have seen the big picture and probably had done things differently This is in agreement with Perspective Two, which states that due to censorship it’s impossible to learn about the world and the current affairs.
Furthermore, Hitler, one person, decided what should be printed. It was only one person who decided what millions of people should read. How can we justify that one person should determine what information could reach the public? This is in agreement with Perspective Three, which states that censorship places too much weight in the hand of only a few.
Besides the fact that selectively censoring offensive material is a good thing, the consequences of censorship overall are detrimental: not only does censorship hinder us from thinking critically, it also lets a minority of people decide what the majority should know.