By Laura Knoy on Wednesday, March 31, 2010.
Are there some forms of expression that are simply too crude or too offensive to be allowed to be disseminated? What kinds of things, if any, should be censored? Who should do the censoring?
GUEST
- Max Latona, Associate Professor of Philosophy at St. Anselm College
Background Reading from NHPR
To censor: Merriam-Webster defines it as “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable”. The English form of the word was taken from Ancient Roman and the position of “censura”, a government position who not only was in charge of the city’s census and certain areas of the government’s finances but also to ‘supervise public morality’.
As you can see, censorship has been around almost as long as there have been people who have wanted to express themselves freely. Both in Ancient Roman and Greek societies, censorship was looked on as ‘honorable’ since it helped shaped the moral character of its people. The Greek philosopher Plato emphatically defended that any art that could corrupt morality should be censored. “Let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad,” said Plato, “and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only.” Ironically, his teacher (and our project’s namesake), Socrates, ended up being one of the earliest victims of censorship, as he was sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for impiety and corrupting the youth.
Almost 2500 years later, the censorship debate remains strong. It’s a discussion that occurs almost every day in our media, schools, libraries and in popular culture, and with this debate arrives a host of Socratic questions on both sides of the argument.
The first amendment comes up often in debates around censorship. It allows us the Constitutional right to free speech and free press, but it does have its limits. We can’t scream “Fire!” in a crowded theater, there are laws against slander and libel, and we hope the press will report ‘the truth’. But the press and the media have greatly expanded due to technology. It allows us to access more information than ever before. So how much of this information should the press report? Does telling ‘the truth’ go too far when it could compromise the safety of people or our nation? Should embedded war journalists report on secret military locations, strategy and weaponry? Should we permit homeland security plans to be revealed if terrorists can use them to find possible loopholes? DNA sequences of some of the most deadly pathogens known to man (small pox, polio, and 1918 Influenza) can now be purchased over the internet. Is that permissible? But if we start censoring there, where does it end? Do you create a slippery slope once you begin to censor?
Then there is harm. We have a right to express ourselves freely but it’s generally agreed that we shouldn’t try to harm each other. In that respect, we DO censor both on our Socrates Exchange radio and web discussions. We don’t permit certain vulgarities on our air: if we did, we would incur major fines from the FCC. We also don’t allow disparaging remarks, name calling or threats on our web discussion because we want to create an environment for people to post, respond, debate and yet feel safe. Many media outlets have discussion pages, blogs and comment sections that go unmonitored. There you do find vulgarities, slanderous statements, misinformation, and threats. As cyber media grows and continues to become more relaxed, does that in part make censorship meaningless and irrelevant?
Then there is the classroom. For years debates have raged over the possible banning of certain books. Examples of this include the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for using the word ‘nigger’, Alice in Wonderland due to implications of drug use, Harry Potter because some feel that wizardry depicted has ‘satanic overtones’ and Heather has Two Mommies due to its discussion of homosexuality. Likewise debate has come up about the teaching of creationism, evolution, safe-sex and abortion. Those who support censoring in the schools say that as parents they have a right to censor the ideas that their children are exposed to. Those against this parental control ask why we should ban a book for all because it offends the beliefs of a few? Should one or two bad words exclude a masterpiece of literature? Do religious principles stand up in schools? If you don’t ban a book that offends a particular church, then is it OK to teach the Bible or the Koran in the classroom? Is expunging “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance censorship? If we don’t ban certain books in school due to language, sex or violence then should we allow pornography or graphically-violent novels in schools?
One final outlet in the censorship debate is art and pop culture. Gone are the days where TV couples sleep in different beds. TV cartoons like South Park constantly push the limits, and then push more. Video games have become increasingly violent and some music is chock full of vulgarities and vitriol. Because of this rein-loosening, some feel that lines have been crossed. Some say the lyrics and subliminal messages behind Ozzy Ozbourne’s 1980 hit “Suicide Solution” led to several deaths by teens who had listened to the song. There was Ice-T’s 1992 rap “cop killer” that some say incited police violence. After the Columbine school massacre, there were those who looked to blame movies and video games. It was said that one of the killers had named his sawed off shotgun after a character of the video game “Doom” and that their dressing in trench coats copycatted the violent movie “Basketball Diaries”. Closer to home, the senseless murder of Kimberly Cates in Mont Vernon, NH last October has been linked to the musical group “Insane Clown Posse” and the ultra-violent lyrics to which the teenagers listened. But the same has been said in the past of Elvis, of the TV show “Bevis and Butthead” and the art of Robert Mapplethorpe (which when compared to the extremes of today seem far milder). Most listen to Cop Killer and don’t think about killing police; most can play Doom or listen to Insane Clown Posse and not resort to violence. Shouldn’t we then allow these forms of art even though there are a few “bad apples”? Or has the tolerance of increasingly more graphic and extreme violent, sexuality, and lewdness begun to erode our sensibilities and numb us to their depravity? If so, what is the next envelope to be pushed if we don’t censor at some point? How about when it offends a whole religion? A Danish cartoonist recently depicted a picture of Mohammed in several comics. Is it OK to censor someone who offends a whole religion to the point of blasphemy?
Maybe there ought to be no limits to freedom of expression. If there should be, then what are those limits, and whom do we trust to articulate and enforce them? The topic of censorship is extremely controversial. Get Socratic! Let us know what you think. Respond to other postings while you are here!
What do you think: Is censorship ever acceptable? Write a response to this question using Google Docs. Think before you write.
- Make sure the text document is formatted in Times New Roman and 12 point font.
- Your response should be at least 6 to 10 sentences long.
- Proofread your response aloud in your head.
- Your response should be free of all GUMS.
- Clearly explain your position on the question.
Do not post a comment here on the blog.
Before you complete this response, think about everything you heard discussed at TodaysMeet. Here are some of the questions that we might discuss in Todays Meet:
•When is censorship acceptable?
•Is it ever acceptable to ban a book from a school library?
•Is it ever acceptable to block/filter Web sites from school use? If so, who determines what to block? How do you decide what to block?
I think that censorship is acceptable when there is a piece of information that doesn’t need to be shared to certain people. Like the government has important information that they don’t want the public to know. Also nudity pictures on the internet should be censored, but I don’t know why it isn’t. Artwork can also be taken the wrong way so it is censored. When someone gets in trouble at school and the teachers don’t want other students to know about it to make rumors. Like if someone doesn’t want to be judged by something that the do or what they’ve done. All those things are examples of censorship, and if something is censored, 9 out of 10 it is for a good cause or for safety or for reason. Sometimes people censor when it shouldn’t be, like if there is a person who committed a crime and they don’t want people to know it was them, that is censoring, for a wrong reason, so I guess there are good times for censoring, and there are bad times for censoring.
I think censorship is acceptable in many cases but not in many others. I think it is acceptable to censor swear words and nudity when there may be younger viewers watching. This may be all the time but T.V. people should try to air there bad shows late at night rather than 8 o’clock or earlier. I also think it is pretty bad and shows bad education when rappers put a lot of swears in there songs. Some of those swears should be censored out but no to the point that the song loses its meaning. Some swears in a song make the song better and make it have more meaning. I don’t think it is acceptable to censor full websites that could have educational pictures or information on them.
I think that censorship can be fine for some things and not fine for others. Before all of the discussions that we had I thought that censorship was good and things should be censored. Now I have a different opinion.I now think that people who are old enough should be smart enough to censor themselves. With parents if they want to censor what there children do then they have that right. I also think that if there is something bad on the TV then you can either just watch it and not make a big deal out of it ,or you can change the channel. If something is violent or has bad language then just don’t go out and do that stuff. I do not think that music is a problem because you can listen to the censored or uncensored version or the censored version. That is my opinion on censorship.
I think that to go with out censorship is not an option. There should be some but not to much. For example the radio. I believe that the radio should be censored but CD’s should not. Because you can just not listen to a CD but you have no idea what will come on the radio. Also I think that your parent should do the censoring until you are eight teen years old. Then once you turn eight teen you should censor yourself from things that are not good to hear,see or, read. I do not think that the government should be doing the censoring. I also disagree with people who think that you should not censor a persons words. Except when listening to CD’s. Because that is taking away a persons freedom of speech.
I think that we shouldn’t have censorship besides books. Kids under a certain age should not be able to read books that older people read. Those books shouldn’t be in a library where younger kids go. Certain video games should be censored to kids under a certain age because of the violence in them. Movies should be rated because of violence and content such as killing and drugs.
Is Censorship Ever Acceptable?
I think that censorship is definetly acceptable, and helpful. On the other hand, I can understand and kind of be on the side that there shouldn’t be censorship at all. I think that it is acceptable when it is to protect people/ persons from hearing/ seeing the truth, (ex.) Parents with the Easter Bunny.) Or like when the pres. are making decisions and they keep the answer private along with the conversations that went along with the discusion. They keep it censored until the answer is final and we are sure that’s what we want.
Then again I understand why some people say that there should be no censoring because kids and other people will eventually find out about what people are censoring.
Secrets are a type of censoring. I think that because secrets are a show of love, care, trust… that censoring should be allowed/ acceptable.
Though I say all of these things, it is hard to explain because the questiong in general is just SO broad, that it would take at least 10 pages to explain and give reasons why or why not that censorship is acceptable.
There was a woman that said, ” All violent movies, even if they were history should be censored in a way that they aren’t available to public”. I COMPLETELY disagree with this woman! I believe that even if the movie isn’t about real life war scenes it is still a lesson of what not to do. Some people might like watching violence, some might sit through the scenes in a good movie. It doesn’t mean that are going to go out and kill random people, or stalk people… Most normal human beings think murdering is terrible, movies shouldnt change their minds.
Is censorship sometimes acceptable? I believe that censorship is sometimes acceptable but only if your being censored by the government or your parents. When being censored by the government it usually has to do with something going on in the country or world. They often won’t tell us what’s happening because they don’t want our country to worry. So if they don’t want us to know they won’t show things on the news. Instead they will show us things that we want to see. For an example they will tell us who got kicked of Dancing With The Stars. But sometime they also get to wrapped up in telling us what we want to hear so they also won’t tell us what’s happening local. But I’m not saying that showing us what we won’t to see is a bad thing because of the government not wanting us to know about something but they need to show us the news that people can see. There is also your parent that do the censoring that is sometimes acceptable. They can’t really censor you if your over eighteen because your an adult. But if your under eighteen they are able to censor things from you like movies, music, books, Internet and more. They block the these things because of swearing and things kids should not be seeing. I think the Internet is what most parents will censor due to all the content you can find and different websites where you can talk to people. One thing that really should be censored if your under eighteen is inappropriate images on the Internet. Little kids should not be looking at images not meant for their age and in a way it should not be on the Internet in the first place. So parents can censor it but the government should not allow it to be on the Internet. There is than video games that will be censored by not just parents but also the law. You have to be over eighteen just to by some video games due to all the violence in the games. Little kids should not be learning about violence at a young age because they will start to think it’s an okay thing to do. But even older people will copy things from the games and go do it in real life. So should video games be not sold for good? I don’t really know but I think there wouldn’t be as much violence in he country. So censorship is sometime acceptable at times.
Devlyn N.
Eisenhower
3/29/10
Censorship is not acceptable when you are reading,acting,preforming a play,songs,or in poetry. Censorship is acceptable when you are on watching TV. Ex You are watching a cop show and some criminal gets pulled over for illegal drugs, They fuzz the face and censor out the people, that is when censorship is acceptable. If someone censors out a song someone writes that is not right. That is kind of like plagiarism people changing someone elses master piece because they don’t think that word is very nice. Well if someone swears in a book they don’t reject the book or censor out the words. Same thing with songs. I know how video games also say that viewer digression is advised or before you watch a movie or buy a new video game.
Devlyn N.
Eisenhower
4/1/10
Is Censorship ever acceptable? I think that censorship is acceptable in certain things such as: inappropriate shows, songs for kids, school Internet. Though those are all things that should or could be censored. Somethings shouldn’t be censored like video’s that have a lesson or something to teach that might not be very appropriate. I think there is a line though of what should be censored and what shouldn’t be censored. I know that people say you shouldn’t watch a TV show or something because it is not very good to watch without an adult but it viewer discretion’s advised or rated R.
First draft;
I think that censorship is acceptable in many cases. For example if you are asked to give out a phone number of someone else you would not give it out. Because you would be censoring that person. But with the Harry Potter thing I do not think that that should be censored from schools. If some people do not like wizardry because of there own reasons. Then they should read the back of the book and if they are against it then they should put it down and find another book to read. The same thing with huckleberry finn it should not be censored from schools the school should warn the students that the book has some foul language and if it affends them then they should not read it. I think that in order to censor a book from a school it should be affending more then 50% of the school. As far as websites go I think that if it is harming people in any way. Weather it being there education or there mind.
Tom McCullough
Eisenhower
3/29/10
I believe censorship should not be aloud at all. Eventually people will sell it or smuggle it somewhere were it is not allowed. You can say that’s not true but it is. For example cocaine it’s illegal but somewhere someone just took a big sniff of it. Cuban cigars are illegal but some people are taking a thousand dollar summer vacation just to get some. The TV show south park even before the show they say before every episode “VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED”. They say that before every TV show that has to say that. They even have that little box in the corner of what rating it is. That thing is on TV episode, video game movie and now even apps for i pods. I believe that there should be no censorship.
I have read other peoples opinions and I still believe we should censor our own life. The government says we should censor all this bad stuff for the kids but what about the rest of us that are not kids. The people that can handle it. We should have the option of censoring ourself our not censoring us at all. The government gives us so many wrong answers from the real question that we forget what are original opinion was. Nothing is going to change my mind on this its not like the FCC can censor life. This stuff happens. It’s not like when my great grandma died the government is not going to give us a new one to forget about it or cover our eyes. This stuff happens as a result my great grandpa when he found out he had a major heart attack. This is america we need to have our own choice not it being chosen for us that is why we left to america. We should censor ourself with our choice.
It is only acceptable to censor something when the information can potentially harm someone. Such as names and locations of people that would be put into largely viewed public events such as news casts. Peoples names, faces, and locations should be censored unless the events has the persons consent. Nothing else should be censored by anyone but you. By this, I mean if you find something offensive, don’t pay attention to it. If your offended by the lyrics of a song, don’t listen to it. If you are offended by a piece of art, don’t look at it.
Censorship should never take place in art and expression. Art is the most personal form of expression and if that is taken away your taking away what makes yo yourself. People who died due to Ozzy Osbournes song “Suicidal Solution” died because of their own actions. It was their own fault because they misinterpreted the meaning of the song. The only time it has ever been acceptable to censor a song was a case with an album released by Judas Priest. Their album contained songs that had been sending subliminal messages spreading Satanism.
Books should also not be censored. We are all sure that Harry Potter isn’t promoting Satanism, but just because there are spells and hexes and other things associated with magic people automatically assume that the magic is involved with the devil. This is another case of misinterpreted information. I can see why they would ban Huck Finn due to it’s offensive language towards black people but people need to get passed the language and remember the book was written in an era where that type of langauge was normal.