Censorship is Not the Answer
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." - First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"This is true liberty when free born men, having to advise the public, may speak free." -Euripides, Fifth Century B.C.
"There is room for all of us - and our divergent view - under the First Amendment." - Spiro Agnew
"... They have expelled Huck from their library as 'trash and suitable only for the slums.' That will sell 25,000 copies for us for sure." - Mark Twain, 1885
"Why teach us to read and then say we can't?" - Mowat Middle School in Florida, 1986
Throughout history, members of society as individuals or as groups have taken it upon themselves to judge who is too dangerous to be read, plunging books such as Huckleberry Finn, Little Red Riding Hood, and even well known dictionaries into the war of words. Censorship, or the act of withholding, confiscating, or deleting material so that it cannot be printed or distributed, is an issue that must be continuously debated to prevent the rights of all from being abused, limited or ignored (Evans 10). Although issues such as pornography and racism are legitimate concerns, in a democratic America, individuals have the freedom to choose for themselves, but not the right to choose for others - a sensible balance, not literature censorship, is the solution.
Balance can be achieved by applying common sense and staying within the legal boundaries. In the insightful words of Justice Oliver Wendall Holms, Jr., "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a therater and causing a panic" (Rpt. in War of Words, 21). Present laws protect Americans from false libel...
... middle of paper ...
...or "when one group decides for all."
Works Cited
Angelou, Maya. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings." New York: Bantam, 1971.
Baker, Russell. Rpt. in Free Speech for Me-But Not For Thee. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
Evans, J. Edward. Freedom of the Press. Minneapolis: Lerner, 1990.
Holms Jr., Oliver Wendall. Rpt. in War of Words The Censorship Debate. Kansas City: Andrews and McMee, 1993.
Book Ban Attempt Halted. Houston Chronicle. Houston: Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, November 17, 1994.
Noble, William. Bookbanning in America. Middlebury: Eriksson, 1990.
Pally, Becky. War of Words The Censorship Debate. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1993.
Stone, Geoffrey. Censorship Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1990.
USA Today Editorial. Rpt in War of Words The Censorship Debate. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1993.
As the news reported that Islamic State committed genocide against Christians and other minorities had suffered serious defeats from recent battles against the allied forces, the images of piles of dead bodies shown to the world in Rwanda about a couple decades ago emerge once again and triggers an interesting puzzle: why did the Rwandan Genocide happen in one of the smallest nations in the African Continent? The documentary film, Rwanda-Do Scars Ever Fade?, upon which this film analysis is based provides an answer to the puzzle.
The analysis of the genocides that took place both in Rwanda and Sudan’s Darfur region exhibit some similarities as well as differences. The character of violence was similar in both cases, but in Rwanda the violence was more intense, participatory, and extraordinary. The violence in these two places took place in an environment that had experienced civil wars. It was a period of political transition which was further aggravated by ethnic nationalism and a conflict of ethnic populations that were living in close proximity. However, in the Rwandan genocide, the state is more centralized, compact, and effective. This is what explains the intensity and variation. The international response to these genocides through observers emphasized on using the genocide label to create domestic constituencies especially in the Rwandan case.
The physical and mental intent to destroy another being often unveils the darkest side of human nature. In the memoir, “An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography” dedicated to the Rwandan genocide, war hero Paul Rusesabagina states: “A sad truth of human nature is that it is hard to care for people when they are abstractions, hard to care when it is not you or somebody close to you. Unless the world community can stop finding ways to dither in the face of this monstrous threat to humanity those words never again will persist in being one of the most abused phrases in the English language and one of the greatest lies of our time.” The United Nations promised never again would they allow genocide to occur after the Second World War. Unfortunately, less
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution).
"Rwanda Genocide 20 Years On: 'We Live with Those Who Killed Our Families. We Are Told They're Sorry, but Are They?'" The Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.
The purpose of this paper will be to focus on the differences between the film Hotel Rwanda and the reality of the Rwandan genocide. I will seek to determine how accurately the film draws from history and how much of the film is fiction. For this essay I will first look at the history of the relations between the Hutus and the Tutsis dating back to the 1950s, so to grasp a background of the country. I will then account the events leading up to the 100 day massacre and look at how they were depicted in the film Hotel Rwanda. I will then examine how accurately Paul Rusesabagina and his efforts were displayed in the movie as well as the efforts from the U.N. This essay aims to have a comprehensive summary of the infamous tragedy as well as critically highlighting how Hollywood can alter history.
United Nations. "Rwanda, genocide, Hutu, Tutsi, mass execution, ethnic cleansing, massacre, human rights, victim remembrance, education, Africa." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment Center, 2008)
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.
“So Rwandan history is dangerous. Like all of history, it is a record of successive struggles for power, and to a very large extent power consists in the ability to make others inhabit your story of their reality—even, as is so often the case, when that story is written in their blood.”(p.48).
Africa has been an interesting location of conflicts. From the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the revolutionary conflict in Libya and Egypt, one of the greatest conflicts is the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide included two tribes in Rwanda: Tutsis and Hutus. Upon revenge, the Hutus massacred many Tutsis and other Hutus that supported the Tutsis. This gruesome war lasted for a 100 days. Up to this date, there have been many devastating effects on Rwanda and the global community. In addition, many people have not had many acknowledgements for the genocide but from this genocide many lessons have been learned around the world.
The common image that comes to mind on the topic of censorship is that of book burning. Dating back to ancient times, the easiest way to deal with unwanted writings has been to get rid of them, usually by heaping them into a blazing pyre. In his most famous science fiction novel, Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury warns of a futuristic society where all literature is destroyed under a kerosene flame and the citizens' freedoms are kept in check by the lack of written information. In fear of this kind of totalitarianism, many bibliophiles have fought against all manners of censorship, wielding the first amendment and the rights recognized by our fore-fathers. But with the technological advances of this the last decade of the twentieth century and the up welling of a new informational medium comes a new twist to the struggle for freedom of expression.
Taylor, Charles. "Censorship is Not an Effective Way to Protect Children." n.d. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 April 2012.
The United States Bill of Rights guarantees its citizens the freedom of expression, but how far does that freedom extend? Does the right to express yourself include the right to observe the expressions of others? According to pro-censorship view holders, it does not. But to those who feel strongly against censorship, the freedom of information, or the “right to know,” should be an absolute right granted to the American public. Censoring material is the responsibility of the individual, not the institution itself, and certainly not the job of a separate institution. Also, the definition of what is censor-worthy is by no means clear.
Middleton, John. "Rwanda." Africa: an Encyclopedia for Students. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002. Print.