My GP Blog

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree? (group blogging)

In this media-intensive age, where we are bombarded with magazines, newspapers, periodicals, television and radio programmes, advertisements, and what-not, the issue of censorship inevitably comes into play. Censorship, has been practiced by governments and the press since the beginning of time. Yet, is censorship ever justified? Can it ever be justified?

Importance of a free media in civil society
The information role of a free press is disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny. A free press provides us with the news. Information and warnings we need to make informed decisions. They gather and pass on information we would unlikely or unable to make on our own. They also inform us about conditions or happenings that they determine could threaten our day-to-day existence. The media balances perspective and give voice to the neglected and disadvantaged, thus providing greater human security- but a compromised news media cannot serve its function to enlighten the public, so citizens can intelligently exercise their responsibilities in a democratic society.

When censorship leads to propaganda
Propaganda can serve to rally people behind a cause, but often at the cost of exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even lying about the issues in order to gain that support. Those who promote the negative image of the “enemy” may often reinforce it with rhetoric about the righteousness of themselves. Often, the principles used to demonise the other is not used to judge the self, leading to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.
The threat of censorship is never greater than in wartime when governments exploit the pull of patriotism to suppress unwelcoming news. The military often manipulates the mainstream media, by restricting or managing what information is presented and hence what the public are told. This has happened throughout the 20th century. Over time then, the way that the media covers conflicts degrades in quality, critique and objectiveness. The military throughout most recent conflicts then have tried hard to control media in subtle ways, either through organizing media sessions and daily press briefings, or through providing managed access to war zones and so forth.

Problematics of implementation
There are also practical reasons as to why censorship doesn’t work. It is difficult for people to agree on what should be censored and to define it in terms that are clear enough to put publishers and distributors on notice of what is banned. Compounding the difficulties of censorship are the inherent contradictions of a secular democratic society that recognizes no one group above the other. For example, those who think that media violence is bad for kids acknowledge that they don’t mean to include televisioned versions of Shakespeare or Saving Private Ryan. In some countries, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of public hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults. For example, when it comes to hard-core pornography, much of what’s illegal here in Germany is legal and normal in Scandinavia.

Censorship is the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. Censorship can be achieved through the examination of books, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent; heretical; or treasonous. Unjustified means that it is not right or proper"

Example of censorship being unjustified is the incident which happened on 4 Feb 2005
King Gyanendra has sacked the government, declared a state of emergency and imposed media censorship saying it had failed to tackle the Maoist rebel uprising.This results in Media having to promise not to pose a "threat" to the security situation. Their correspondent says that, with phone lines cut for a lot of the time and media censorship, there has been almost no flow of information.
Being citizen of Nepal, they should be kept aware of all the happenings in Nepal. By censoring facts, people will not be able to have a full picture of the incident and will have a biased view and in times to come for decision making, they might not make the wise choice. Making the wrong choice might affect many other people, not only one self.
Censorship doesn't conclusively resolve the problems it claims to
Advocates of censorship claim that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills. But how true is this? Despite research showing that the average child sees about 8000 television murders by the time he is 21, the link between entertainment and behaviour is as complex as the human mind. In investigating the effects of television on children, Wilbur Schramm, a professor of communication, concluded that under some conditions, violent programmes could effect some children. But most of the time, most television is neither helpful nor harmful to most kids under most circumstances. Since this conclusion is quite vague, how can one say that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills? As such, censorship is not the panacea to these problems; it is not justified. Blaming media is merely the simplest, most convenient way to explain what cannot be explained.

Moreover, censorship tends to create the forbidden fruit effect. It creates taboos that make the forbidden material more attractive. Banning a film, therefore, increases people's desire to see it. If violent films are removed from mainstream cinema, audience demand might be met by an unregulated "underground" industry. Curious youngsters will defy the ban - making their way into R-rated movies, de-programming Internet filters, sneaking looks at Playboy orFHM. Censorship in the media is more about sending people a message of social disapproval than about actually preventing them from reading or viewing everything that might be thought age-inappropriate or psychologically damaging.

Lastly, censorship strategies also create the false impression that the problem has been solved. For example: the use of parental discretion warnings and advisories: it presumes the presence of a parent to catch the warnings and to switch the channel, and ignores the fact the millions of children of working parents watch television unsupervised. Hence, censorship is not a solution to other significant cuss of violence, such as drugs, inadequate parenting, availability of weapons and unemployment. The solution has to take into consideration a large number of factors. It is going to take a lot more than rating, advisories, and cleaning up the TV schedule to deal and prevent the problem of violence. Thus, censorship is not justified, as such problems will only get worse because people are under the impression that something has been done already.

In conclusion, censorship can never be justified. The media should be a technology by which we are entertained and informed, although it is necessary to discern what one considers appropriate. Personal accountability and responsibility are the cornerstones to healthy media viewing habits, not potentially violating free speech. As Henry Steele Commager said, "The fact is that censorship always defeats for its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion."

Some may argue that there’s a need for censorship so as to protect public morals. For example, if the freedom of speech conflicts with another individual’s right to privacy, quality of life or even life itself, censorship is not only justified but a duty of any society. However, by censoring what people claim to be “inappropriate” material, it only causes the public to have stronger desire to get hold of these explicit materials. With today’s technology, is it possible for the government to censor anything not in their favour? Who is to decide what appropriate or inappropriate materials are? What defines good and bad information? Public should have their own freedom to choose what they want to read or hear news that they want to hear. They have to read and gain information from more sources in order to make a judgment. It should not be controlled by the government with intentions to “maintain stability” within the country.

posted by Phoebe @ 5:59 AM