Persuasive Essay On Censorship In Government

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

What is free speech? Does the term ‘free speech’ cover offensive words? Painful ones? Words that disrespect others? What about objectionable, or even wrong beliefs? When is speech illegal? What is exactly meant by free speech? According to Rampell, the term ‘free speech’ includes ‘hate speech’, and is therefore protected by the first amendment (np). This means that even messages we don’t like, agree with, feel uncomfortable about, or even are disgusted by, are legal. Unfortunately, many college students consider harmful words an assault, and some students believe that such verbal attacks can and should be met with violence (French np). Students and speakers today are discriminated against in classrooms and other scenes where free speech and debate should be especially cherished.

However, the amount of censorship on arts and media has been recently declining, “it’s ben glacial, but it’s happening” (Sterngold 8). Individuals who disagreed with the amount of censorship and the ideas or values being censored stood up and spoke what they believed. With the years of struggle, the pressure groups and individuals eventually won, resulting in less censorship in media. With less censorship, it allows people to speak what they believe, without fearing how society will react.

Censorship is very important in maintaining government authority which helps in stabilizing the society. The society enjoys freedoms, rights and privileges due to the stability of the ruling body. Without this stability, the society would lapse in to a condition of scenery where the lives would be solitary, poor, and brutal and short as put by Thomas Hobbes (Merryman & Elsen 564). The stability of the government and society is always assumed to exist without understanding the causes of this stability. The exposure of the social upheavals poses a great threat to destabilizing the government through free speeches from the opposition and parties. Since the criminalization of homosexuality in some African states, there have been free speeches that have posed threats to the individual government from the west that require to be concealed before being released to the public because they may spark hatred and distrust. Some of the expressions which are offensive attack the traditional values of the society and are considered harmful (Caso 13). Censorship helps to protect these values from attack.

As the late Frank Herbert once said, “Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Federal electronic wiretapping and supervision dates to the Wiretap Act of 1968, and has only increased in the following decades. Organizations such as the National Security Agency have been empowered by FISA (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts) to bypass the authority of the Supreme Court in determining constitutional validity on searches. Government Surveillance is unjustified because it infringes upon personal freedoms, does not guarantee safety, and is not a vital necessity.

The functionality and success of the American democracy is dictated by the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution. These rights have been utilized by American citizens on numerous occasions throughout the centuries when advocating for these critical rights. However, questions started to arise when high school students started exercising these rights in their high schools, specifically their right to free speech and expression. The right of high school students to freedom of speech became an issue when their speech began to disrupt the school day and, as a result, teachers began to restrict it. Tinker vs. Des Moines, the landmark case advocating for students’ right to free speech, as well as Bethel vs. Fraser, the case ruling that students don’t have the same first amendment rights as adults, have been instrumental in dictating the outcome of future court cases regarding the right to freedom of speech of high school students. The exchange of information and exposure to new and different ideas is critical to students’ education and should be protected. However, if the freedom of speech infringes upon the need to maintain a safe learning environment, should it be protected? In my opinion, interpretations of Tinker have proved to be too restrictive on the First Amendment rights of students. The right to freedom of speech is a core right of the American

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

Censorship within the United States is not only an immoral and "big-brotherly" practice, but also an insult to each and every one of those who call themselves US citizens. Every day, censors attempt to sanitize TV, radio, music, print, and even the Internet. In their infinite wisdom, they deem what should and should not be viewed by John Q. Public. Censors succeed in suppressing our free spirits and restraining our thoughts in virtually every medium.

“Research on the Censorship of ‘Brave New World”” Although being a subject of controversy for many decades, the novel Brave New World has survived the test of time and is even considered a classic. With that in mind, this novel is still continued to be challenged as it ranked number 7 in ALA’s “Frequently Challenged Books for the 21st Century” for 2011 (“Frequently Challenged Books for the 21st Century”). This list is composed of books that people don’t believe are suitable for the public to view. Another name for this, when the books are actually banned, is called censorship. However, should people actually be able to infringe on other people’s right to read books based on their narrow moral or religious views?

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

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

The question arises of the relevance of such a topic in today’s society. I would argue that it is more relevant than ever. The question of government control is ever so present today, especially through the modes of technological monitoring and online censorship. Although Ray Bradbury argues that his novel is not meant to be a focus on censorship, it is a connection that can be drawn, and is very much in connection with the world of today. With greater advancements in technology than when this book

Freedom of speech in America is defined by the right to express any opinions without any censorship or restraint. But it isn’t just defined by the words people speak aloud. It’s the actions they take part in to support the words they express. The writing of books and essays, creating artwork, giving speeches to grand crowds, voting, protesting. But do all people have the right to speak their mind? Should people be able to speak freely, to express opinions and thoughts, as promised in the United States constitution? A controversial topic, with many different opinions weighing in from around the world.

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.

Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.