Can censorship be justified????hmmmm......

My class recently had a debate in censorship and that made me wonder whether is censorship is justified. I googled the word censorship and got these information. “Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.” 1

I cannot imagine a world without censorship. “In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions, hard core pornography.” 2

Young children will be watching pornography without control. 8% of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist, Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behaviour. This shows how dangerous pornography can be. Without censorship, I cannot imagine what will happen to the world. “In 8 of January of 2007, Brazilian authorities tried to censor the site Youtube.com due to a video of scenes of sex between the model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzoni, filmed by a paparazzo on a beach in Spain. Companies responsible for the access to the Internet in Brazil, such as Brasil Telecom and Telefonica, initially accepted the judicial order readily, and hindered access to the site with the offending videos. Due to the great displeasure regarding the decision in the community, authorities rescinded their order the following day, and Youtube.com was once again widely available to computer users in Brazil.”1

“During the Spanish-American War of 1898, reporters, if anything, led cheers for the military. Throughout World War I, journalists considered themselves part of the war effort, not independent observers. This pattern of press and military cooperation continued through World War II. But starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military. In Vietnam, more than 2,000 accredited reporters roamed freely throughout battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on the often rosy picture of the war presented by the Pentagon. There were few incidents of news stories endangering U.S. troops or military operations. But negative press accounts fueled anti-war feelings back home. When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for "losing Vietnam." Some Pentagon officials resolved to restrict press coverage of future American wars. In 1983, the Pentagon barred all journalists from the initial invasion of Grenada. Then in 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to an airport in Panama until nearly all fighting ended.”3 Negative reports will make the situation worse like in the case of the Vietnam War.

“The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.” 2 Activists might fight for freedom of speech, but freedom without control will make the world a worse place to be in.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship2 http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=833 http://www.crf-usa.orgIraqwar_htmliraqwar_press.html

The problem with the modern media is they do not have a sense of social justice. Do you agree?

The modern media today over emphasizes on the fact of attracting the reader's attention, thus neglecting certain aspects of social justification. It covers a wide range of audience, from the young to the old, and conveys pieces of information to all.

In the website attached beneath, the author talks about the presence of U.S army troops in Iraq. Plagued with figures, he supports his stand with no regards to social values or ethics. He blatantly ignores the feelings of certain individuals and the stand of Iraq.

Also, he states "From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the U.S. occupation of Iraq." This shows what the media did to cover up certain truth which will hinder the support for U.S troops, and as such it chooses not to mention such facts.

By doing so, the audience perception of events as mentioned will be blurred. They would lack of a justified perception and thus be influenced by the author.

However, it is not to a large extent that the modern media does not have a sense of social justice. If it did not have such morals, it would not have reported news like the presence of U.S troops in Iraq, as this would ruin the United States' image. Instead, it reported this incident, portraying acts carried out by the United States troops in Iraq.

To conclude, I would agree that the modern media is not justified in terms of moral values to a large extent because if it is justified, it would have reported with great transparency, including all details in the reports.





http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Mercenaries/Shadow_Army_Iraq.html

2. The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?

The media plays an important role in our society today. It envelopes us from all aspects, and to a certain extent, it influences our opinions and thoughts on social and political issues.

From the link attached beneath, it is evident how biased the author is. He puts forth his opinion in an attempt to change the mindset people have of Bush. The essay revolves around political corruption and paints a negative picture of him.

Even a simple piece of news could influence my mindset as well. I took no sides before reading this particular article. However, after doing so, it became clear to me that I somehow shared the author's point of view. Inevitably, I was influenced.

In addition, the author chose to play around with strong words and backed up his arguments with substantial evidence of figures. This further affects the impression Bush is offering to many.


On the contrary, the media might not be corrupting our society. This is because some might already share the same views as the author. As such, this is just another platform for readers to communicate amongst themselves. Besides, the media includes not only the press, but the television and radio. Thus there are many channels which present both side of the information, be it postive or negative.




http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/13/493/