Censorship Wasn't All-bad: Daniel Wolf The article begins by grabbing the reader's attention to refer to society as “ugliness as beauty, insensitivity is honesty, offense as virtue” (Wolf, 192). The author also states various sentences about freedom throughout the article. The author Daniel Wolf demonstrates us various opinions that may be considered propaganda in today's world. According to Webster's dictionary, propaganda is defined as, “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.”
In 1789, thirty-eight men who helped shape America into what it is now signed the Constitution of The United States of America, approving it’s message and the rights, or Amendments, listed within it. The first Amendment listed in the Constitution is the right of freedom of speech, the press, to peaceably assemble, and religion. However, in current times, citizens are challenging this Amendment by censoring the media, books, T.V shows, and movies. Why is it that people are doing this now, after nearly 230 years? Some people believe that certain information and ideas must be withheld from certain minorities and age groups, and few others believe that some ideas must be censored to everybody.
The inadequacy of censorship was just part of the reason leading to the bombardment of news coverage. However, the underlying reason was the war itself. Why did Americans protest the war? When the first coffin was sent home, they considered that was a symbol of heroic sacrifice. Nevertheless, when many of them were returned, inherently, many questions were asked.
Canada Are we sacrificing free speech for others protection? Freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute like for an example in America. Canada has always had a few rules to limit the grotesqueness of some of their books that were published in the past and present. I might not be a fan of restriction of speech whatever form it takes, but i can see what they are trying to do by creating a safer environment for the citizens they have and so on so forth.
Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.
The Censors “But he knows that they examine, sniff, feel, and read between the lines of each and every letter, and check its tiniest comas and most accidental stain.” (pg.174) I suppose the author was making a historical connection to the book and our society. In our world, the government often tries to censor what information we can receive and send. For instance, in China the government had decided to ban all mentions of the word “time travel” from movies, tv shows, etc for some odd reason. For our local government, they do the same things as well by censoring things that might jeopardize national security or something else.
How would I feel about government control and censorship? I would feel extremely angry and stressed out. It would be hard for people to adapt to a culture like that. The government would control everything and censor what you do. Meaning you are limited to things you can do and allowed to watch.
"YouTube Censorship In the last year, there has been a huge controversy over YouTube censorship. This has greatly affected the people that solely make their money from producing videos on YouTube and it has also greatly affected the content that they are producing for their viewers. The way that YouTube works is that they will make a contract with a YouTuber once they have accumulated a big following and they will put advertisements on their videos, and the profit is split between the content producer and YouTube, but if YouTube doesn_Ñét agree with the content that they are putting out, they will demonetize the video and no ads will be put on the video, thus no money is gained from that video, but what content qualifies for demonetizing?
Should some images be censored? When dealing with the censorship of photos, I think it depends on the magnitude of the crisis. Images that are gory should undeniably left out. If you are able to see someone being brutalized those should also be omitted from view. However, when people see dismal images, though they may cause squabble, are needed in order to show people what is going on in the world.
It is a very difficult and complex issue whether to publish hate speech or not. Anthony Lewis(2007) believed that hate speech makes us aware of terrible circumstances and enhances our resolve to combat them. But on the other hand, hate speech is expressed and transmitted by hatred rather than beneficial information. And the hatred is detrimental to the interests of society, and as well as desecrate to personal dignity. It is a violation of personal personality and reputation.
With the rapid advances of technology, freedom of speech related issues have encountered new dilemmas. While the 1st Amendment protects us from government intervention, the same protection does not apply to private businesses. Although such protections and censorship dilemmas are not specific to this new wave of technology, as free speech dilemmas have been long debated in and out of the court systems, technology adds a potentially advanced threat to such issues. As more and more individuals become enamored by the world of information at their fingertips, the flow of information is faster than ever. Ideally, this phenomenon should be a positive one, as more information should lead to a better educated society.
The Production Code Administration (PCA) EStablished in 1934 was a list of "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" which could not be in movies such as; sympathy for criminals, attitude toward public characters and institutions, titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers. The code, however, was not monitored by any federal, state, or city government. The (MPAA) was pretty adamant on resisting government censorship and advocating the First
Censorship jeopardises education, as misleading information can lead to misconceptions; reducing the amount of credible information valid as educational material. The goal of the education system is to produce thinking citizens, whose rights to the freedom to read are endangered by the censorship of reading material, whether in print or on the Internet. Unlike 1984, language isn't as affected by censorship in modern society; it is only ever altered when the language threatens government ideologies and perspectives. In 1984, the Party have changed the language to ‘Newspeak’, the official language of Oceania, and designed to make the ideological premises of Ingsoc (Newspeak for English Socialism, the Party’s official political alignment) the only expressible doctrine. Newspeak is engineered to remove even the possibility of rebellious thoughts; the words by which such thoughts might be articulated have been eliminated from the language.
I do not believe that censorship should be applied in libraries. Censorship could take away the books people want to read, formulate multiple arguments as to what is allowed, and violate the first amendment. Overall, censorship would create a harsh and uncomforting reading environment in our society. Censorship in libraries can eliminate possibilities that people may want to read. As students, we learned that reading is something we should all practice and enjoy.
I am undecided for Freedom of Speech. There are plenty of good and bad qualities, and as much as there are pros there are also an equal amount of cons to freedom of speech. According to the first amendment, we the people have the freedom of speech which allows us the right to speak freely without censorship. Freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech”. There are many pros and cons to freedom of speech, which is why I am only discussing three pros and cons, that I find that argues the opposite side, to the point it made me undecided on free speech.
