Censorship the Notion of Censorship

Censorship

The notion of censorship is generally aimed towards protecting the impressionable minds within our society -- children, for example -- from messages or material that are deemed misleading, overly explicit, or detrimental. The concept is tied to the premise that some members of society do not possess ample experience or maturity to make educated decisions about their lives and the actions they take -- they are highly susceptible to numerous forms of persuasion. Lack of censorship may be seen as analogous to handing a child a loaded gun and telling them to operate it responsibly; knowledge and information are sometimes wielded in a similar manner. Problems with this way of thinking arise when decisions about specifically what information is potentially harmful, and who should determine what remains seen and unseen are established. Clearly, the responsibility for judgments regarding censorship would be most reasonably placed with the parents and guardians of those being protected; however, within modern society this is often not possible. Accordingly, frequently arbitrary decisions are made concerning censored material by the government and the media in the interest of appeasing the largest portions of society. The difficulty with government controlled censorship is that it cannot impede upon our First Amendment rights; the problem with media controlled censorship is that market forces tend to demand that limitations constantly be pressed. Additionally, censorship in the media and government can result in misleading information being fed to the public: "Freedom of information in American society is in serious danger. Corporate media is trying to maintain access to most official sources of news." (Phillips 11). Abuses of authority and power are made possible by official controls of information.

Proponents of government controlled censorship argue, "Even of one is an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment, it is worth noting that the existence of a right to do something does not mean that it is a morally or socially acceptable thing to do." (Roleff, 19). So, they assert that in many situations the rights that are afforded us by the Constitution, if expressed to their fullest degree, fail to apply to actions that may result in numerous social sanctions in equally numerous social situations. For instance, it would be justified by the Fist Amendment to make racial comments about a coworker, but this could potentially put your job at risk. Writers like Roger Kimball remember when government censorship was far more influential: "Not so long ago, you could turn on the television and be absolutely certain that you were not going to be confronted with potty-mouthed people taking off their clothes. You could go down to the newsstand and not see rows of pornography for sale." (Roleff 18). This was because government restrictions upon printed and broadcasted material, just a handful of years ago, were far more extensive. Kimball contends that the lack of governmental controls today has resulted in a popular culture that is fixated upon brutality and sexuality (Roleff 20). In short, individuals in favor of an increase in government control over censorship recognize that they must necessarily walk a fine line between their aims and violating American's freedoms of expression. However, they stress the dual responsibility of our government: to both uphold our rights and our moral codes. Kimball concludes, "Society had an interest in protecting free speech and free circulation of ideas. It also has an interest in protecting the moral sensibility of its citizens, especially the young. Freedom without morality degenerates into the servitude of libertinage." (Roleff 21). Still, it is difficult to make a case as to why the government in particular should be the entity that makes the ultimate moral decisions of society, when they have explicitly limited themselves from such pronouncements within the Constitution.

An opposing viewpoint has been put forward writer Paul Masters who insists, "Today, the charge down that path [towards governmental censorship] is led by the speech police who assail popular culture as the weapon of an 'institutional elite' that 'wraps themselves in the First Amendment' and are bent on destroying society by entertaining it to death." He goes on to say, "This insanity begins as always in a rush to save the populace from the influence of coarse language and entertainment." (Roleff 24-25). Essentially, he argues that the continuing crusade to, in effect, save society from itself is completely groundless in its presumption that swearing and mock-violence can lead to any sort of social meltdown. He maintains that Americans are perfectly capable of making rational decisions concerning images and material that they either do or do not wish to be exposed to (Roleff 22). The complication with the perspective held by Masters and his contemporaries is, obviously, that children are not necessarily the rational citizens that most adults believe themselves to be. Additionally, his endorsement of allowing the media to control itself demands that much material is likely to be broadcasted that parents will deem inappropriate for their children.