Arguments Against Censorship

Most who argue against censorship believe that it goes against a person’s right to freedom of speech. Within this argument, most people wonder “just when, and on what grounds, the state is justified in using its coercive powers to limit the freedom of individuals” (West). When thinking in this mindset, individuals tend to antagonize the government, because they come to believe that it suppresses their individuality and fail to consider the fact that it unites people who share its similar beliefs. As a result of the recent spike in technology and use of the Internet, the public must continually alter its definition of freedom of speech and expression. As the media offers more and more methods of communication, many of which are relatively self-regulated by users, more methods of expression develop, which may render other forms of expression obsolete, or even socially unacceptable (Qazi). Without understanding how much freedom of speech one is entitled to, one may never hope to defend that freedom if it ever comes under attack. Because technology develops so quickly that one definition will hardly suffice for a short period of time, people will find it increasingly difficult to understand how much right to expression they are allowed and will therefore fight for any and all that they may attain, never considering the benefits of censorship in the slightest. In America especially, people idealize the idea of democracy, the investigation of truth, and independence (Fieser). In

Censorship is a controversial topic argued about on an everyday basis. Censorship is all about perspective, one side argues that some materials should be censored while the other side argues it should not be censored. Censorship has subtypes of itself meaning it is separated into categories. The three categories are Moral Censorship, Political Censorship, and Book Censorship. Moral Censorship is the removal of materials that are thought to be obscene, to better the public view. Political Censorship is when the government partakes in blocking information from their citizens. Lastly, Book Censorship is banning novels by the nation or state, in some cases a school, if a community finds it to be inappropriate for the public to see. All 3 of these categories affect a country or nation and their citizens. Censorship can affect the internet, music, and films as well (The Spectator 1).

Censorship is defined by Caso as the suppression of speech or any other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive politically incorrect as determined by the government or any other control body (3). Censorship may be justified from the conservative view whereby the free speech can be maltreated where it undermines the customary principles and communal solidity as withheld by a particular community.

Censorship has been adopted in many societies as well as the governments of our world. As the history of the world expands we see many countries try to censor what their citizens see. When the countries do this they are not assisting the country, they are leading it into a self-destruction. A good example of this would be America in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. This nation is destroyed in a futuristic war that only lasts a couple of minutes, if not seconds. Other fitting examples include the Nazi regime and the Soviet Union, both governments censoring their population in what they could read, write, and see. As we know both of these governments did not succeed and ultimately were obliterated and the countries were punished. Government censorship not only wounds the ability for people to grow and expand in their thought process, but it eventually causes the ultimate self-destruction of the nation.

Censorship has been around for millions of years. Although censorship is still practised in some countries today, almost anyone would agree that censorship is never the right answer; as we have seen in the past, it has seldomly ever works out. Which is why it is so concerning that schools are starting to allow censorship in classrooms. As a result of this, the world is seeing an alarming amount of young millennials who are fresh into the workforce, expecting to always be catered to. More and more millennials are not being properly prepared for the real world due to censorship in schools; schools have been giving in and catering to students by allowing the censoring of books and microaggressions in the classroom, as a result the students are being taught that the world will cater to everyone, which is very inaccurate.

John Pilger said ‘’ the censorship is such on television in the u.s that films like mine don’t stand a chance’’. Censorship in the news helps, but leaves out details that are important. News articles can relate being blacked out on certain words and important facts.’’ the goal of socialism is communism’’ { Lenin} Censorship in phones is one problem because the government can listen to our phone calls and see our text messages. One, people don’t want anyone but the person they're talking listen to their calls or reading their texts. Censorship in games is about parents not wanting children to play games with violence because they think it can corrupt their minds and they might act it out in real life. Video games are bad for you just like rock n roll [Miyamoto]Censorship in internet is about the government trying to hide things from kids.When the government did that ,they mess up important charity sites and bank sites. Censorship helps us by keeping us safe censorship can stop war from happening. Kids can not be show dirty pic and videos with censorship. Censorship can let government get your name and information.In conclusion, censorship is unnecessary because it hides the truth from parents and

Imagine a scenario where Kanye West is in his Los Angeles home with his wife and daughter and the police knock on his door. They arrest him based on exposing the American population to vulgarity, indecency, racist and sexist comments that offend many people. The government does not want America to be subjected to this type of music and turn the American culture into something more bigoted than it already is. However, a situation like this would never occur in the present day American society. That does not mean it could not happen in the future. Many American citizens are promoting censorship to an extreme that it could possibly become a reality. The American citizens claim that censorship is needed to shelter America’s citizens, but

Censorship is definitely a thing in a lot of parts of America; however, it’s not all bad censorship. For example, anti-abortion groups protest at public and private colleges using large, noticeable, graphic signs which most either ignore or attempt to take them down by force, which, although it sounds like illegal censorship, is legal because the 1st amendment does not protect provocative speech. In the video, a private college was shown which limited certain groups’ flyers and posters to one corner of the whole campus; they are completely within their rights to do that because they do not receive state funding so the first amendment does not apply to them. Finally, when Charlie Hebdo was attacked, a writer held a “Draw Muhammed” contest in Dallas which led to a shooting and her disappearance. Many people believe the things they do can not be censored because they are protected by the first amendment, but they are not because they are either provoking, the place they are at is not state funded, and people they are intentionally offending are not going to leave them alone.

There are various reasons as to why censorship is used. They include: security purposes, prevent hate speech, to protect vulnerable communities and also to counter unethical religious and political views. Censorship is currently being used for both political and social purposes. Most of these reasons for censorship are not absolute because they hinder people’s freedom of expression and speech. This confirms my argument that censorship is bad in the modern world. Despite some aspects considering censorship to be good, there are several aspects that promote my argument that censorship is bad thus its advantageous nature.

Blume confirms the purpose of this piece with her question, “What is censorship?” (342). Knowing there are many different classifications of censorship depending on to whom the question is directed, she proceeds to share her own point of view of what censorship means for readers, writers and education (342). She sheds light on the harsh realities of censorship by affirming the difference between parents safely monitoring what their children are exposed to and pervasive censorship based upon fear of the unknown or the misunderstood (343). Blume’s choice to share personal childhood experiences and her own encounter with the pressure of censorship exhibit her vulnerability. Because her story is personal and relatable, she invokes a positive response from readers while offering a nonchalant invitation to unite in her quest for abolishing censorship.

Censorship has been a touchy topic over the past few years. Everyone has their own opinion on the topic, but the fact is censorship is way more damaging than people may notice. First off, the definition of censorship is to restrain, block, and censor ideas and information that some may find offensive. The basic definition of censorship completely violates the First Amendment. We, as Americans, have the right to Freedom of Speech. Censorship blocks that by blocking anything some may find offensive. It’s not fair because they’re blocking out how people feel/think just because someone found it “offensive” or wrong. It completely contradicts the First Amendment. People have the right to know about the world and what’s happening. Keeping the

Imagine a world where there was violence whenever you turned the corner. People swearing all over the streets, no matter who was standing next to them. A world where children grew up listening to 18+ music as they fell asleep. Soon, this will be close to what our world will be. Now, imagine a different world where there was little violence, less swearing, and a happier community. If you could choose between the two worlds, you would probably choose the second one, right? Even though the Freedom of Speech is in the First Amendment, the better option-that would be for the common good of our country is censorship. Censorship is needed in our lives because it helps prevent unneeded violence, makes better liked songs, and makes songs more appropriate

Censorship may be protection from inappropriate materials, but it also limits free speech. For the limitation of free speech, it is reasonable why people are emphatically against censorship. It is understood that there is a need to filter some of the materials released in today’s society, but too much is being done by people who have no right meddling with everyone’s rights. Civilization has always been plagued by a never ending battle being fought over what is deemed right and wrong. In today’s culture, censorship oppresses everything in the media. From movies and music to television and even news stories, most of the content viewed today has been filtered one way or another. Restrictions have been in place since early societies have been

The internet is the most important platform for ideas and thoughts to grow and spread, making it substantial. It’s important to keep it free and open for anyone without having to worry about being prioritized or shut out completely. The FCC has overstepped and has made it seem like safety is their main objective with the new ruling, but in reality its for control and sides with big businesses over the rest of society. The government should not interfere with the internet anymore then they are now, Anything more would give them too much control. Internet being regulated like a utility is bad business, Europeans who use internet being regulated is on average 30% slower than our current speeds. Not only will speeds be negatively affected but

In modern society, the issue of free speech vs. censorship often comes up. It is a hot topic among those interested in social issues, and represents two well meaning but very different arguments. The argument for freedom of speech says that communication and connectivity promotes progress, while the argument for censorship says that silence and isolation promotes security.