Censorship is Essential as a Way of Controlling Information In

8/14/2019 Censorship is Essential as a Way of Controlling Information In

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/censorship-is-essential-as-a-way-of-controlling-information-in 1/3

Censorship is essential as a way of controllinginformation in any civilized society

Censorship has been a global issue for hundreds of years, but the ideaof ''filtering'' information that reaches your subordinates has existed

for even longer. And yet for these hundrdeds of years there has nosolution that has been both ''Right'' and ''applicable''. Decade afterdecade, governments hide information such as gruesome incidentsand shameful facts, and the public demand access to all truth. I believethat the power to censor information is vital for any government, butthere are a lot of lines to be drawn and therefore each case of censorship must be taken in a unique approach. There can never be aset of laws that define exactly what will be censored and what won'tbe.

When the word ''Censorship'' is mentioned, many tend to think of films,pictures, and topics. But censorship is a much wider area. Anygovernment needs censorship to function adequately as otherwiseinformation such as government intelligence and military plans couldbe printed in newspapers with no repercussions to the editors. Imaginethat in World War II the local London newspaper printed an articleabout how Britain had acquired an Enigma machine, and the Germanmilitary found out. Or a much simpler case, if pictures of how a Britishabused a German soldier out of hatred appeared in the papers. But notonly during times of crisis can censorship be neccessary. A book or filmwhich is incredibly insensitive to its audience or discriminative to acertain part of society can cause unneeded and avoidable uproar andrevolt. The public can panic, misunderstand, and rebel; even thoughthe government IS technically made of the public, it's up to them, notthe public, to prevent these kind of events.

In 1997, Princess Diana was seriously injured in a car crash whilstbeing chased by Paparazzi. One of the men present had a camera andtook a picture of the Princess dying. He wishe to publish this picture inthe newspaper as this would make him incredibly rich. However, suchan image to the public would be very insensitive to Diana's relationsand would desecrate the kind, great image that most held Diana in.

In March 2005, a couple of boys aged 12-4 in a town in Latviamurdered their fourteen year old friend for ''fun'' using movesborrowed from a video game. THey kicked him several times, andbroke his neck. When he was dead, they threw him into a river. Wheninterrogated, the boys said that they were inspired by the video game,and had attempted several moves from it. If such a game wascensored from young minds incapable of understanding the



consequences of violence, the death of this young buy with his wholelife ahead of him, could have been avoided.

However, these are arguable cases, and many would express theiropinions otherwise. When the government starts restricting what

people can say, write, read and see, they are restricting their freedom.Many would argue that every human deserves to see what he or shechooses. First, it might start with intelligence and gruesome pictures;then move on to movies and books, and eventually speech itself! If thegovernment has the ability to restrict what people can do, then itwould no longer be a real freedom that we’d live in, but an imaginaryone.

In 1994, Stanley Kubrick – a respected film director – made a movienamed A clockwork orange. This movie was about a young boy - Alex -living in futuristic Britain. This film [and book] is a dystopia, so the

Britain where he lives is filled with darkness. Alex is ultraviolent and isin a gang of his own. He beats up, murders, and even rapes. The moviewas filled with scenes of these gruesome actions, but this is not whatmade the film controversial. What did, however, was the ease withwhich the violence was executed in the film. It was simply shocking.Despite this, and even in these scenes themselves, the film held afascinating topic within and offered a lot of controversial arguments tothe public. However, the government did not see it that way, andinstead started accusing the film of sparking up crime in the ''real''world. Statistics were composed showing the relation between crimerise and the amount of views the film had received, and insulting and

silly complaints were made by the day. Many wanted to ban the filmfrom the public, and in many countries this was done. In England,however, Stanley Kubrick banned the film himself, being disgusted atthe reaction of the government to his art. If people have ideas andrevelations which they believe the public should be made aware of,they should be able to do so. If the government prevented these darktruths from reaching the eyes of men, we would live blind and beguiledinto ignorance. This kind of power granted to but a few men is scaryand tyrannical. Many would say that living in a free state involveschoosing what kind of truths to be told, and not told; to be able to gowhere one wishes and see what one wants; to say what one believes

in, and to believe in what others say.

There are many different and very valuable arguments for and againstcensorship. I believe that there is no straight answer to whether‘’Government should be able to control information which reaches thepublic’’. There can be no book of laws saying what can be censored,and when and why. There can be no simple way to deal withinformation. But instead, the government must individually analyze



Documents

Censorship is Essential as a Way of Controlling Information In