Censorship: A Dangerous Precedence.
Should there be limits to free speech? In America there is a cultural phenomenon that is growing each day. This phenomenon is that society is utilizing lawsuits to enforce censorship. There are two definite sides of this argument, one arguing for and of course one arguing against. These sides, by nature, were bound to clash, and the instance in which censorship was brought to the forefront of everyone’s mind was shortly after a copy-cat murder of the 1994 film Natural Born Killers. In 1996 John Grisham wrote an editorial article in the Oxford-American Magazine titled Unnatural Killers categorically attacking Oliver Stone, the director of Natural Born Killers, after two teenagers, Sarah and Ben, went on a
…show more content…
The waters become muddied if a precedent is set where suing is the ultimate answer. Lawyers will start to seek scapegoats to promote their financial well-being and, while this already occurs, it will be greatly amplified if suing becomes a bigger part of society. Grisham argues that money is the only real way to get the movie industry to change, and that is why he argue for lawsuits. However, when the crux of your argument allows you to make a profit by shifting around blame, you lose credibility. Lawyer’s predispositions about a producer or about an internal belief could manifest themselves in excuses for criminals, so it is easy to see Grisham’s argument being used for selfish reasons, meanwhile making society less accountable. Stone touches upon this, and brings up the conflict that arises. He states “Even if we admit, for the sake of argument, that Ben and Sarah were influenced by a film, only a lawyer in search of a client could see in this an indictment of the entertainment industry and not of the teenage killers and those who reared them” (Stone 1). Society will become enamored with a “witch-hunt” mentality and once you lose purity in your objectives, it becomes less and less likely that those who are responsible for their actions will face
In the article censorship: a personal view by Judy bulme she discusses and touches on censorship in literature in children and young adolescence books. Now in article there are a lot of possible exigencies listed threw out the article one of the main exigencies is that Judy bulme has personal experience with censorship as a little girl, with that personal account she has familiarity that compels and gives her credibility to write this article. With exigencie their also comes a purpose bulme’s purpose in the article is trying to convince parents that you should not coddle a young teen or an adolescent from literature that may not be suitable for them, but let their mind wonder and explain it after they read it. Also she communicates that censorship on books are not right because it’s unconstitutional violating the first amendment freedom of press. The audience she speaks to in article is the group of parents that are like middle age and older that have one track minds, and have to young teens and adolescent ages between 12-9 years old that are hesitant to let their children to read edgy books, teens who were her age and, have or experience the same thing she went thought as a kid, teachers and facility that believe in her cause that have lost their job over edgy books that were not age appropriate to their students. The context that you have to consider in the time of Judy bulme article is there is are a lot of issues going on the America culture that censorship of government felt need be. For inesxctie like the cold war was going on and nobody knew if another war was going to break out at any time. So any material that seemed edgy or conserverial it was going to be censored or restricted by the censors to the minors. Then th...
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
If limitations are placed on some things, but not others, then it will lead to a great deal of conflict. Freedom of expression is a great thing, however it does come along with a few negative side effects. This including, hateful, ignorant, and rude individuals who do not care what they say. Some want to be able to control these hateful people and restrict what they are permitted to do or say. But, where is the gray line?
The authors of these passages have very different ideas about censorship. After evaluation I will determine which passage states a stronger argument. I believe that Passage 1 provides a stronger argument over Passage 2.
Censorship, defined as the act of destroying, suppressing or withholding information otherwise intended for the public, is detrimental to the community in a number of ways and has no place in a democratic society. Firstly it is detrimental to the progression of social ethics, morals and ideals and limits diversity in society while prolonging ignorance. Secondly it is a breach of freedom of expression, free speech and the free press. It will be demonstrated in this essay that censorship does happen in Australia, that it is not beneficial to society, and that it should be replaced with a system of management where members of the public will always have a choice as to whether or not they can view material intended for the public.
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
these scenes out to allow that age group to see it, it should be left
Without the history of Censorship, what type of things would children be watching? Without the unique methods of Censorship, what kinds of films would be being released into the public? Throughout this essay I will be explaining the steps taken to achieve the level of Censorship, that we have now.
Exercising the freedom of speech has two sides: the speaker and the listener. Censorship is unfair to both sides. When it takes away the speaker’s Constitutional freedom of expression, it simultaneously revokes the listener’s right to develop an informed opinion based on unobstructed truth. This opinion has been supported by the courts. In 1982, an informal agreement between several broadcasters from major media outlets known as the Code of Broadcaster Conduct, which banned “depictions of sexual encounters, violence and drug use, as well as excessive advertising,” was nullified because it was a violation of First Amendment rights (“Broadcast Decency”). Excessive censorship is viewed as unnecessary by both the American public and by the government that endorses it.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events.
Censorship is an interesting system because of its variety and versatility. Some governments use it sparingly to protect state secrets and others heavily regulate all forms of the media and internet to try to control the people and what they see. To censor something means to “examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable” (Merriam – Webster). Censorship has been going on since 399 BC, but there wasn’t much need for it until the invention of the printing press due to the fact that censorship is mostly done to documents and websites. Over the last thousand years, censorship has been the subject of much debate and turmoil. Whether or not it morally right for a government to be able to censor things from the public’s
Censorship affects our society in many different ways, it affects the music we listen to, the movies we watch, the books we read, and many other aspects of our everyday lives. Even though many might argue that censorship doesn't really have a place in a society that emphases freedom of speech and the freedom to express oneself, but censorship is an essential and needed part of our growing society, it's needed in the television industry, the Internet, and the music industry. Censorship helps to make our world a better place because it creates a better environment for us to live in.