Censorship would be defined as the accepted means of controlling information that would have otherwise been circulated to the general public. It was practiced under the explanation that there were fundamental institutions that needed filtered information. Protection of information that were deemed to be unfit for consumption by all and sundry were always filtered under the pretense of morality. It was achieved by examining information either in newspapers, audio systems, audio visual machines, films and even movies. Those ideas found in media to be offensive were either altered of deleted altogether so that the ugly parts did not reach the general public. Censorship was always sanctioned by institutions that felt that the information contained in such media were offensive to them (Penny, 56-59). The church, for instance, could authorize censorship of information that it deemed offensive or demeaning to the morals of the church. In the family, parents, for example, could order individual films or movies not to be watched in the family house. These could be plays that they believed would spoil their children or so to say. The state too could sanction the censorship of information to its citizens for different reasons. Top among the reasons that were given by the state were security concerns. All these were forms of censorship practiced in our societies.
The media as we all know are the medium through which the local citizens receive information. It is the means that is used in the communication process. They would include newspapers, magazines, radios, television et al. The media has also in modern times expanded to include what is today called the social media. This media today is more vibrant and real-time. It includes applications such as Facebook, twitter, whatsapp and others. Under this class, real time happenings can be relayed to the users within a split of a second. These means of communication on their own were very resourceful inventions (Penny, 56-59). They were valued not only for their information values but also for their entertainment aspects. Watching television, for instance, was not only informative but also educative and relaxing.
Based on the above definitions, the media have far more advantages than otherwise believed. To try and control the information that was relayed by media houses be it in the church, at home or in the public domain was not a good way to go about this whole issue. This paper would, therefore, try to argue in favor of freedom of the media in air or relay any information that they would deem to be appropriate for their consumers no matter what core of the society these customers were found. It is my presentation that the information relayed by the media ought not to be censored (Haslett, 98-102). I would, consequently, wish to disagree with the idea of media censorship.
The motives for censorship though were varied. In particular instances, censorship had targeted information and materials that were viewed as obscene, indecent, seditious, treasonous or blasphemous based on the censoring body. Based on these theories, suppression of ideas and information were always well intended and the results of such actions helpful and constructive to the society as a whole. In such cases, censorship would be useful to the community. It is common knowledge that children always like imitating every new experience that they go. Consequently, media censorship would help control children from resorting to acts of violence if they were controlled by watching violent movies and articles. Restrictions on pornographic movies and films do not only assist in maintaining moral standards in the society but also assist in restoring order and culture. When they are exposed to obscene scenes in movies and cinemas, they are likely to try and practice what they see and watch the movies. Negligence in parenthood too has a role to play in letting their children watch obscene and otherwise dirty sources of entertainment. To that end, media censorship helps in preventing the moral degradation of the society as a whole. So in as much as media censorship was a bad idea, it also had positives that could not be easily wished away.
Censorship is not just about control of the content that was transmitted by the media. In its full practice, it denies the citizens the right to information. Take for instance, when the church, the family or the state decided to censor any information that was sex related from being transmitted to media houses. The results of that action would be far reaching. It was known in many cultures that the topic of sex and related behaviors were hard to discuss in any public place. It was particularly hard to talk about the subject in a set up that combined child and their parents. Children, at their free time, could watch such topics in the media and discuss the issue among them and find a solution without their parents' indulgence. And even in a case where the parents came in, they would find the children at least had gathered some knowledge on the subject and talking to them on this topic would be a little easier. In such a case, censorship would idea as it would make it near impossible to teach our young children about matters sexuality and the consequences that came with it.
In other countries, censorship was used by the leaders to suppress the population. Unpopular leaders and more so dictators hid under the guise of restraint to relay information that they thought built their image to the public. The public were never informed on the real happenings in the country at the expense of making the image of the unpopular leader. An instance is a case where serious an issue concerning the general security of the country was at stake. The leadership, in its characteristic, would want to portray itself as capable of handling the safety of the state. It would also wish to paint the leader as capable of leading his citizens through any challenge, be it war or famine. In such a scenario, all the negative but otherwise real issues that concern the situation would either be edited or altered. Far-reaching consequences for the general population would without a doubt happen. The leader would want to paint his character leader in the eyes of the nation by choosing what kind of information to pass to the government. On the other side, the nationals would continue dying as a consequence of the lapses in the security apparatus of the government. In such a case, censorship of the media would be significantly detrimental to the well-being of the nation as a whole and, therefore, censorship would be an unwarranted idea.
Censorship silences were opposing views and ideas. Several governments and political parties in general censor information that is relayed to the public. In this way, they are able only to communicate information that in their opinion would be positive for their case and cause. Divergent and opposing views would either be dismissed or censored. This type of censorship does not only kill the opposition but also deprives the party faithful of the variety of opinion they could choose from. For example, matters of public interest for the security of the nation. If the government had a preferred position and would like to implement it as it was. There would also be those with dissenting views and options. The government could choose to censor the media houses and choose for them the information to transmit. In this case, any divergent views to that of the government would never get to be listened to beyond the mover. This would be unfair to the citizens. The views that would have otherwise been expressed in a free media could have been much practical and cost- effective to the nation. Denying such views airplay and transmission denies the whole country to debate and decide on the best way forward for their country. Such are the disadvantages of media censorship. It does not only stifle divergent and opposing views, but it also killed public participation in matters of public interest more so where sitting governments were involved.
Censorship of book, movies plays and even films derail their entertainment aspect. Movies, the world over, are known much for their entertainment value rather than their informative and educative values. Every individual derives satisfaction from movies in a different way from other people. There are persons who prefer getting entertained by particular types of films. There are those who derive pleasure from watching romantic movies. Others prefer watching action movies only for their entertaining aspect. Yet still, others would also watch violent episodes, not to go and practice what they watch, but just for entertainment. In such a case, censorship would be depriving people of their preference to get enjoyment from certain movies or films. In as much as editing helps in controlling content that was shared in the public domain, blanket imposition does no good to everybody. Not everyone who watches pornographic films would watch them so as to practice pornography. And not everyone watches violence based movies so that they could participate in violent activities thereafter. It would be prejudicial to judge everybody watching particular movies or reading certain books that their intent would be the same as the themes of those books or movies. Some people watch movies or films, no matter their content, purely for their entertainment values (Magoon, 121-124). Denying such people their entertainment on the basis of unpalatable material to the public would be an infringement on their rights. To that end, blanket media censorship would not be acceptable.
Editing involves withholding of information that would have otherwise been meant for the consumption of the general public. Knowledge, as it was known is the power. The power of knowledge was derived from information. If this information that is supposed to be transmitted to the public was withheld or edited for that matter, the result would be an uninformed public. Such a population would be ignorant of many things including the most essential that they ought to have known. For instance, if an important event happened at particular place, and for one reason or another, the local media were censored and cold not disseminate that information. Fortunately or, unfortunately, such an occurrence was captured by foreign media and was distributed in a foreign country. The local population would be taken by surprise if someone from a foreign country told them that such an event happened right in their country. The local people who would have otherwise been the first to know would be found ignorant of events on their home soil, thanks to media censorship. It is my conviction here that media censorship leads to ignorance among the population if it was practiced irresponsibly.
Media censorship invades on the freedom of the press. In most countries of the world, the press as it was known has its autonomy in the dissemination of information. The press, as it was regarded is a professional outfit that practices professionalism in the delivery of its roles in the society. It has self-regulating mechanisms that advocates responsible media practices and journalism. It would, therefore, only be practical to let the media carryout their roles in the society without involvement by the authorities on what information they are supposed to transmit to their consumers. Moreover, in almost the whole world, there is freedom of the press. It would then beat logic as to why on paper, and there would be this kind of freedom whereas it does not exist in practice. It could only be fair to the media fraternity if their rights and privileges were upheld and they were let to practice and play their rightful role in the society. That is the purpose of passing information from one place to another. Just by the recognition of that role, it would beat logic as to why again they would need to be censored. On the other hand they have organized themselves professionally and are ready to handle their mandate to the society professionally. To this end, media censorship is an unwelcome practice (Steele, 45-48).
There would also be what would be called patronage by big media houses under the pretense of restraint. These big media houses, once they have developed an idea about pertinent issues affecting the society, they would like to push their position to the public pretending that the flow of information was censored. Aware that they have an unlimited audience, they will go to all costs explaining to the general public their position on the important issues well aware that they can influence public decision. To this end, the inkling of censorship is not a good idea if it can be misused to promote partial ideas under the pretense of media censorship.
Even though media censorship had its advantages. That brought some sanity to our culture and upheld moral standards. It was concerned, blatant and blanket imposition of censorship does not augur well for the development of the information and entertainment industries (Caso, 69-72). It has several shortcomings to the public and the society in general and, as a result, would not be a welcome idea in the current state of the information and entertainment world. For the reasons given above and others that I may not have written down, I strongly oppose the idea of imposing censorship on the media in general or on parts of the media, either in print, verbal or audio-visual.
As explained in the above statements, media censorship has many shortcomings to the society in general. Censorship in its own denies the public access to vital information that they would otherwise have access to had it not been for censorship. With censorship, it has become hard to teach our young children and teenagers on matters related to sex and its consequences such as the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Censorship too, as mentioned, has been used by dictators to paint themselves good to an unsuspecting public thereby defeating the cause of democracy. This way, censorship has helped them remain in leadership positions, their unpopularity notwithstanding (Couvares, 34-38). Censorship also leads to an ignorant population.
Withholding information from the general public under the pretext of inconsumable content only serves to deny such a community the right to know and as such would remain ignorant even on the most important matters of their society. Censorship could also silence opposition and outwit divergent and alternative views. In this way, it does not only stifle democracy but also denies the public a chance to participate in debates that could only help in shaping their country. As also explained, censorship could also be prone to abuse by established media houses that could use it to advance their own parochial and partial views under the guise of restraint (Steele, 45-48).
In the light of the above shortcomings, I do not wholly say that censorship should be totally scrapped from our midst. Like I noted earlier, it also has some beneficial points. It is my submission that even though at some stages and circumstances it could be beneficial, practicing it without control could have much more damages than otherwise imagined. If it used in the right way, it would serve the society invaluable in the control of spiraling vices that are associated with the emergence of several mass media organizations. It is also my worry that it could be misused especially by government agencies (Caso, 67-72). The governments and other institutions that could impose this practice must, therefore, use it wisely and judiciously. The absence of censorship might not be the perfect state of affairs. However, governments must not rely on it for their selfish and personal gain, by stifling opposition and alternative views. It would be prudent that censorship was not treated as a mistake in totality.
Censorship, as debated as it has been should be an issue worth thinking about in the society today. Just like we have weighed its shortcomings in this paper, it also has numerous benefits to the society that we may not have highlighted. It is, therefore, worth noting that as contentious as it is, it should not be wished away just like that (Magoon, 121-124). The opponents and proponents of this means of regulating aired content ought to sit down and strike a balance between the boundaries that it should not cross. As mentioned before, where it could be injurious, it out to be scrapped whereas it ought to be practiced where it is found to be beneficial.
Work Cited.
Caso, Frank. Censorship. , 2008. Internet resource.
Couvares, Francis G. Movie Censorship and American Culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006. Print.
Gottfried, Ted. Censorship. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2006. Print.
Haslett, D W. Equal Consideration: A Theory of Moral Justification. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1987. Print.
Magoon, Kekla. Media Censorship. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub. Co, 2010. Internet resource.
Mandiberg, Michael. The Social Media Reader. New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print.
Penny, Simon. Critical Issues in Electronic Media. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Print.
Semonche, John E. Censoring Sex: A Historical Journey Through American Media. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print.
Steele, Philip. Censorship. London: Evans, 1999. Print.
Stephens, John R. The Censorship of English Drama, 1824-1901. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.
