Government, Media, Censorship and Terrorism – Perhaps We Can’t Handle the Truth

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

Although we, as citizens of this country, are guaranteed freedom of speech and press by the first amendment, we are encouraged to “watch what we say”. In order to avoid unnecessary violence and to keep people from being offended, it is recommended the certain things be censored. While many may look at this censorship as a well-needed percussion it can reversely be seen as going against one's first amendment rights, in itself causing controversy.

The Vietnam War proved to governments all over the world that, in order to have a successful military campaign, some form of censorship needs to take place. The Washington Post has reported that due to the effects of the media in Vietnam, “every U.S. military engagement since… has featured attempts to control the media” (Hajela 2006, para. 13) which demonstrates how, since Vietnam, governments have been trying to avoid a similar reaction. Journalists who also reported in Vietnam recall interviewing generals with media handlers present in later conflicts, and mention, in relation to the censorship in Vietnam that, “[they] don't think that in our lifetimes we will ever see that kind of freedom again.” (Hajela 2006, para. 14) The Vietnam War not only made people aware of the need for censorship, but also the power the media holds, which was made clear in the changing attitudes of the media. This is made clear through public reactions and the timing of which they began to support withdrawals from Vietnam. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs, of the Australian government, highlights the power of the media, stating that, “opposition to the war, as the ALP had learnt to its cost in 1966, was not a vote winner… [however in] 1969… it was electorally popular to oppose the war,” (Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2015, para. 2) This emphasises the power of the

One 's surroundings ultimately impact their thought process and decisions. In order to spread ideas, people often look to the media. However, individuals ideas can only spread as long as freedom of expression is present and the element of fear is not. When individuals do not have this freedom or they have a fear of sharing their opinions, they filter or censor their work. The idea of censorship is a prominent element of today’s society and is apparent throughout history. Examples of censorship include the banning of books, movie ratings, music lyrics and governmental attempts to control the press and the media. Governments often use censorship with the goal of controlling the

In order to gain a better knowledge of this subject, I searched the internet to read about others sides of the issue. I typed the keywords “government censorship” and “stances” and found a number of articles. The first article that caught my eye was written about the rights to freedom of speech. I opened the article, took a few minutes to read it, and realized that censorship may not be the right answer. By censoring television, the First Amendment of the United States

Imagine a society in which its citizens have forfeited all personal liberties for government protection and stability; Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, explores a civilization in which this hypothetical has become reality. The inevitable trade-off of citizens’ freedoms for government protection traditionally follows periods of war and terror. The voluntary degradation of the citizens’ rights begins with small, benign steps to full, totalitarian control. Major methods for government control and censorship are political, religious, economic, and moral avenues. Huxley’s Brave New World provides a prophetic glimpse of government censorship and control through technology; the citizens of the World State mimic those of the real world by trading

The history of the world has undoubtedly been dominated by an endless struggle for power. However, after a brief glimpse into the pages of history it should not take long to realize that the trick to maintaining power lies in the control of information. Even the most fearsome military generals of the past acknowledge the power of the mind and ideas over lethal force. Former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once said “… [Ideas] are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, then why should we let them have ideas.” Stalin’s quote personifies the main concept of this literature review which will be discussing the history of government censorship and its effects that are

The media could be determined a tremendous and powerful weapon. If used properly, it can provide society with great benefits, but if used in negative ways, it can destroy. In a modern world where information can spread as fast as wildfires, a reason to monitor or limit types of media appear rational, but along with that, irrational cases still exist. This argument has circled in the United States for a while and a decision needs to be made. Parents and citizens around the United States think concerningly about what our eyes witness on the news, in stores, on billboards, etc. When the government determines what appears in the media, it not only belittles citizens, but it denies the First Amendment, which states the basic rights of an American. Censorship of the media, as displayed in 1984, clearly exhibits the violation of the First Amendment, rightfully given to the citizens of the United States, by the founding fathers of this country.

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.

V For Vendetta is a 2009 dystopian film that takes place in London, year 2027. London is under the chancellors full control thanks to the total compliance of London’s citizens. The basis of the film depicts a country in which mass surveillance, and practically no basic freedoms offered to people in the real world are the new norm, this includes censorship, discrimination against religion and discrimination against homosexuality. V, the main protagonist, in a way represents everything a dystopian country like the one depicted in the movie would despise. He’s an eccentric, outspoken person, who believes that basic freedoms are far more than basic.

What would life be like without censorship? Though there might be upsides to it, such as more freedom of speech, it could also cause some problems. Not only would we be exposing children to many horrors of the world, we also would be doing nothing to prevent offensive and oppressive content in the media. Therefore, some censorship is necessary for all people; however, in most cases, we should be allowed access to most information in society.

Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." This quote by A.J. Liebling illustrates the reality of where the media stands in today's society. Over the past twenty years there has been an increase in power throughout the media with regard to politics. The media's original purpose was to inform the public of the relevant events that occurred around the world. The job of the media is to search out the truth and relay that news to the people. The media has the power to inform the people but often times the stories given to the public are distorted for one reason or another. Using slant and sensationalism, the media has begun to shape our views in society and the process by which

“A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth” – Joseph Goebbels, German Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. This is the exact words of Nazis most famous propagandist in using media as a mass weapon of propaganda and mind control. Could you imagine Germany in 1930s, without Television channel, without the Internet, without every mobile device in your palm, what channel of information will you get? Of course, newspapers, flies, images, celebrities were used as tools for propaganda purposes, designed to provoke a reaction, and ultimately, a form of control over their citizen. Nowadays, with all the advanced of technologies, information can reach everyone in every corner of the Earth, the message is delivered in the subtlest ways, without people’s conscious, has shaped everyone’s decision, or at least shape their behavior toward the decision that the orchestrator want the audience to perceive. With the booming of internet, information sharing seamlessly, we must ask ourselves, the role of media in conveying, shaping the society that we are living in. Let look at few examples of U.S propaganda machine, and later, the particular case of fish sauce in Viet Nam back in October 2016.

The parameters of the term censorship have been changed and manipulated very much over the years. Television and movie ratings have become more lenient against violence and indiscretion because these things are now seen as entertainment. Is this appropriate for our youth? Should children be exposed to these images so early on? How does censorship in the media affect adolescents? Children are the future of our society and need to have some understanding of real world occurrences. Ultimately, censorship can only be determined by the parents. The media cannot filter every bit of controversial images. What rights does the media have in this situation? How are their First Amendment rights applied here? As an aspiring political science