Well this is just a little doo dah that I typed up in conjunction with a project I did. Maybe we can get some good discussion on censorship going.
Censorship in the Modern World
Few words in the English language evoke the wide range of emotional responses that censorship does. All forms of media are at some point or another subject to censorship. Some people believe that censorship is necessary, as it prevents the perpetuation of uncouth and morally offensive material. Others are of the opinion that people should have unfettered access to all information and media, and that no one group can determine what is offensive. Upon much personal reflection, and intense mental application, I find my self often supporting the latter group. The conclusion that I have reached is two-fold; there will always be arguments as to what is morally justifiable and acceptable, and that not all parties involved in these debates can be satisfied. Therefore, until a universally accepted solution can be found for the issue of censorship, it is extremely arrogant for one individual or group to believe that their idea of “acceptable” is better then that of another’s. Due to this assertion, I can conclude that censorship is the product of individuals that demean others values, and find no evil in subjecting others to their prescribed idea of acceptable.
Before we can truly begin exploring any philosophical topic, we must have a clear idea of what the topic is. To this end I have provided The American Heritage, Fourth Edition dictionary definition of a censor. The definition being-One authorized to examine books, films or other material and suppress what is considered objectionable. With this definition in hand, we can examine the first idea that I presented. If censorship is the act of suppressing objectionable media, who is allowed to define “objectionable”?
Who has in them the omnipotence to decide what all people find objectionable, and suppress said things? I pose this question in a hypothetical manner, as it should be clear to all, that no one individual has the wisdom to decide what is good for everyone. Who then should this task fall upon? Who should be responsible for the suppressing of objectionable material? Most would agree that no one individual could do the job to the satisfaction of all. Therefore, I propose that the job not fall upon any one person, but on everyone. Within their own homes all individuals should have the access to any and all information that they choose. While some may not fully agree with this, I think that most will admit that a person should have liberty and freedom within their home. The real problem is in the community, where a single individual can infringe upon everyone’s right to non-censorship. For example, there is many an avid reader that cannot afford to quench their thirst for literature, and in response join a library. If one community member objects to a book, and the book is subsequently removed, then the other man’s ability to enjoy this book in his own home is violated. The motives behind the removal of various media is often murky at best, and the special interests of a group are oft times masked behind the guise of an acceptable activity. In America most censorship cases revolve around the need to protect children from objectionable content. I agree that children should not have graphic violence and explicit pornography easily within their reach. However, instead of making these materials inaccessible to children, some people would rather have them banned outright. This is a flagrant violation of a mature adult individual’s right to privately have materials that they choose to have.
The current institutions that we have in place would be more than enough to prevent children form gaining access to materials they are not mature enough to make decisions about. Throughout my preteen and teenage years, in four different states and four unique communities, I was able to walk into nearly any store and purchased a large quantity of “mature” content. There is a reason that video games are rated, most twelve year olds are not mature enough to decide whether they really do want to play chainsaw death rally 3. Music has advisory labels, because no one I know wants 8 year olds running around shouting explicit lyrics. Movies have a rating system, because no one wants a ten year old watching a sex scene in the movie theatre. The current establishments would actually, in my opinion, be too stifling if they were carried out as intended; but due to the fact that they are not, many children are exposed to this content. These concepts of age operate on the assumption that with age comes maturity and wisdom. Unfortunately, all of us mature differently, so there will never be one perfect system. I do believe that we can make a fairly accurate assumption, that individuals below a specified age should not have access to what a community has deemed objectionable. While I do not profess to be an expert in child development, I believe that such an age would be something akin to 13-14 years of age. Once an individual reaches high school age, they should begin to self-censor, as an adult would. If they do not agree with something, then they are under no influence to hear or see it. However, at the same time, if they want these materials, they are going to get them one way or another. Would it not be better then, to educate these children so that they can make mature and responsible decisions? I digress.
Every form of communications is at some time or another censored. Literature, music, video, and even the way that you dress is censored. Books are challenged and removed from libraries, musicians are refused access to venues and their albums can be out right banned in some jurisdictions. Videos are censored for explicitly showing realities of this world, and people are told how to dress in their school, at their job, and in public. Most would agree that it is the right of all individuals to express themselves. How then, can the banning of a musician’s work be justified? This is clearly an example of one individual imposing their ideas of “objectionable” onto thousands of individuals. When an art exhibit is taken down because someone found it provocative, mature individuals are deprived of their ability to view said material. I don’t need to continue in this fashion, because these kinds of things are wrong. Therefore, in the same manner, censorship is wrong. It is wrong to assert your values in place of another’s, or to imply that their ideas of morality are completely wrong.
Simply put, censorship is a black mark on our society. Censorship interferes with an individuals right to express themselves, and forces people into a morally subservient position. Mature individuals should have the right to access any materials that they choose, but in our society these people are forced to live their lives according to someone else’s ideas as to what is offensive. We need to move towards a society that resists censorship, and refuses to have our lives led by someone else. I propose that all of peoples of the same mindset as mine actively oppose the censorship of all media sources, and work to make tomorrow more accepting and friendly towards all peoples ideals.