Censorship, in my opinion, is when the media suppresses inappropriate images or phrase to better the people and not disturb them with what they were about to see. When it comes to online imaging and online documents I believe everything should be uncensored. The items should be uncensored due to the fact that it is our decision to search up that material and it is our decision to decide whether or not we should view it. When it comes to Jareckes image of the man smothered in flames ,“turning him to dusty ash, and blackened bone” I believe that this image is unjustified (DeGhett Page 74). People have a right to see the truth behind what's happening in the war and how we could possibly change a scenario.
There are instances where these photographs cross an ethical boundary. Instances in which it becomes unclear whether they should tell the story. Sometimes described as disaster pornography, these photographs depict brutal moments of human suffering. Often with a level of objectivity that may seem callous or exploitative. These moments prompt the question: is this necessary to tell the story?
Sometimes though, omitting an image means shielding the public from the messy, imprecise consequences of war- making the coverage incomplete and even deceptive.” (Daghett 2) This reflection shows that Daghett does not want graphic imagery to be shown merely for shock value, but rather that she believes it has an instrumental role in keeping the public informed and aware. While a noble thought, there are many questions that can be raised from this sentiment. For example, what would factor into determining what photos are necessary or unnecessary for the public to see?
Nevertheless, Ephron believes that newspapers should not censor dismaying images because they embody certain issues well. The same theme of death appears in a recent photograph of the blood-spattered death of many Syrians in “air strikes by the Syrian government forces” (Getty Images). In short, although some people believe that certain images invade
The influence of an image on viewers’ perception is stronger than that of words. John Long accentuated this statement when he said, “Words can tell us the facts, but photos hit us in the gut” (671). Unfortunately, it is difficult for the public to recognize how easily small factors contributed to a photo can severely influence their psychological perceptions. The neutral standpoint of viewers towards the Time magazine’s cover photo of O.J. Simpson was manipulated when the editors “darkened the handout photo,
”(cia.gov) Also, censorship helps protect people. During WWII, the government censored many different newspapers and news bulletins because they had appeals to the American people from Nazi leaders and Japanese leaders trying to manipulate the American people. The Government would restrict these news sources because they would decrease the American morale and make them want to end the war effort (Blankley). Censorship, in limited forms, is right and necessary
War photography is a good medium to show the tragedy and people’s life during the war time. It is also a good way to stop war because it makes people rethink about their decision of taking away innocent lives and ruining people’s home. In my opinion, there should not be any censorship over war photography because it shows the true time of people during war. The purpose of photographs is to show what actually happen, and there should not be an exception for war photography. I think publishing the war photographs can allow people to see what happen during a war.
“The best American swimmers have not slowed” said Missy Franklin, a swimmer on the USA women’s swim team. This quote was taken after the trials of 2012. The first Olympic unified swim meet since the swimsuit ban in 2010. This ban ended the use of full body polyurethane and many other synthetic swimsuits. I also believe that the swimsuit ban was good for the sport and that the swimmers will just have to push past their believed limits to beat the records made in the polyurethane era.
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.
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.
Fair Use Defense Fair use is a guideline in US law that authorizes restricted use of copyrighted material without having to get permission from the owner. Fair use is a limitation to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest. The fair use defense is eminent in defending non-commercial memes. Critics believe that, “fair use is a robust doctrine that ably acts as one of the “built-in First Amendment accommodations of the Copyright Act.” (O’Connor)
Censorship has always been around and will most likely never go away. Censorship, according to Oxford Dictionaries, is the suppression or prohibition of any book, film, or other media deemed too obscene for the public, a threat to security or politically unacceptable. We see it many forms such as a black bar over something inappropriate, the blurring of nudity, or a bleep over swearing. However it seems no one can agree on how things should be censored, what should be censored, or even why. The most common argument as of late has been what is more acceptable: Sexual Content or Harsh Violence?
So the argument against censoring video games is valid. Paintings, sculptures, prints, installations, drawings, and photography are all considered protected speech under the First Amendment. Even so, conflict arises based on objections to the religious, sexual/nudity, or political content of the artwork (Visual Art,
In this case, parents could see their own child screaming of terror and being in such a situation between life and death and no one is helping. All of Thailand would also have a hard time to look at it as the country failed to protect their children and their people. So, people look at the government as if they failed to protect their city. When a picture affects a strongly, it is easier to catch their attention and react to what is happening. I personally believe that this photograph should not be censored.
Censorship is unnecessary because in some cases, it blinds people from the truth. It also leads to misunderstandings that tend to cause disputes. Media
