Arguments Against Government Censorship

Censorship and those who support this action seek to suppress information to protect the public from an obscene and offensive material that might be harmful to society. Withholding information from a mass audience already exists on some levels and can be seen when the government agencies block and remove offensive content from the internet or other means of media (White, 2017). Debates over censorship are quite controversial and based on unproven assumptions, but they arise from issues of democracy. Although critics say censorship could be dangerous to democracy, censoring already occurs regularly without much dispute from the public. This essay, therefore, seeks to explain why governments should censor information from the public if it’s in the public’s best interest.

With globalization and technological advancements, the modern world has come to be known as the age of information. The internet, the media and other sources of mass and

They argue that suppressing information furthers propaganda in order to fabricate beneficial representations from the public. While this may hold some truth, it is up to the media to report unbiased stories and not sensationalize terrorist attacks since it only furthers a terrorist’s ploy and produces fear among the public. The media should self-censor because information can be exploited by terrorist organizations. Without regulation, a reporter may accidentally compromise national forces and operations. From the viewpoint of free speech advocates censorship is considered intrusive and a form of secrecy that violates democracy’s freedom of speech and communication. Some critics believe that the government having power over news reports would be a violation to the freedom of the press. However, the government does not seek to have control over media outlets but instead limited censorship and