When an argument for the support of censorship is made, it is justified advocates claim for the protection of the public. Censorship is an act of oppression on multiple levels.It attempts to halt free speech, thought, or opposing views. At its worst it stifles intellectual curiosity.While these seem like minor violations of basic right it can escalate to another extreme. Imprisonment, persecution, or death can be the devastating consequences of censorship. This has become a attribute of authoritarian systems, but democratic systems are not immune either. Free speech and press remain fragile when measures are taken in the name of national security. Even moderate levels of censorship could be potentially dangerous. The advocates of this type of censorship want to prevent offending various groups or people. This seems misguided. What may be offensive to one person could be different from another individual's perspective. Censoring media or print does not hide the reality of society's prejudices and intolerance. Policing language becomes more restrictive rather than a tool for social change. What this does is only silence debate. Censorship does not do the public a service. Censorship is the desire to control what people think, feel, read,or watch.
It cannot be denied that censorship is a form of oppression. What it seeks to do is stop independent thought. When a person is no longer able to reason for themselves, they will be subject to easier manipulation. There is also an emotional response component. The information presented to a individual has to induce a certain reaction. The message could either be telling a person how to feel about a certain group or take a particular political position. Truth and falsehood can no longer be deciphered. There is a war on critical thinking in which opposing views are either considered conspiracy theory or nonsense. Free speech continually is under threat from both political and corporate power. Populations that do not utilize critical thinking can easily be misled by various institutions in society. The ability to decipher information is more important now than ever. The average person has more access to information than at any point in human history. This may be the last bit of hope,but the ruling class of various societies want to stop people from getting access. A population that has critical thinking skills or is educated cannot be controlled. The desire is to create conformity in thought and action. Putting people in an imposed state of ignorance is nothing new. The enslaved in the Americas were not taught to read for fear they would question why they were in slavery. Women were denied education, because it would make them question their lower status in society. Peasants were kept in ignorance of their condition in Europe to prevent revolts which would change the feudal order. Since these periods of oppression and social change, there has been improvement in conditions.
The worst acts of censorship come from the restriction on press freedom. Governments attempt to silence people who oppose certain policies. Liberal democracies have another issue,which involves the mass media being controlled by a few corporations. The result is a population thinking they are getting unbiased and new information when they are not. Authoritarian governments are more blatant about their disdain for press freedom. Uganda and Saudi Arabia for example have been known to persecute journalists or be involved in their disappearance. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi government demonstrates oppressive governments are willing to liquidate their own citizens who oppose the system. The United States seeks to imprison Julian Assange for documents he put on Wikileaks regarding the Iraq and Afghan wars. The liberal democracies seek to also silence opposing views,but it is done in a more covert manner. They simply do not have the political power and force of a dictatorship has to violate basic human rights to the same degree. The troubling aspect in liberal democracies is the abnormal amount of corporate influence on print and television news. If a group of corporations owns papers and networks they can stop certain stories from being reported that do not suit their objectives. Alternative media has arisen to counter the corporate news model, yet it is often presented as being fringe or based in conspiracy theory. Societies that pride themselves of free expression allow various views to be presented, yet the fact is media shapes one perspective. The reader or viewer of media is kept in a state of ignorance about the reality of political and economic conditions.
Prior to television or the internet books were a source of recording information. Prior to that oral traditions were common in various societies. Censorship has a long history of banning books or simply destroying them. The Catholic Church had a list of banned books considered blasphemous. During the Middle Ages it was possible to be burned at the stake for questioning religion. Nicholas Copernicus did not even publish his heliocentric theory during his lifetime for fear of punishment by the Church. Giordano Bruno was executed for promoting the Copernican model. Institutions that dislike the truth will always want to suppress numerous texts. If they cannot stop people from reading certain books, they are eliminated. The execution of people or the destruction of books has continued into the modern era. The 20th century did see similar behavior related to extreme censorship with totalitarian states in Europe. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union went to obsessive lengths to prevent any written material getting to the public that challenged their ideology. A common practice in the Third Reich was to burn books. If books were not in line with ideas of race supremacy or militarism they were simply liquidated. Fiction works were also subject to book burning. Works of satire or comedy can be a threat to rulers or institutions that want to present their convictions as ultimate truths. If a lie can not be sustained, then war on truth must be waged. Public schools have even been known to ban books they deem to controversial or inappropriate for students. Reading can give the people the power of knowledge and awareness, which many ruling elites want to prevent.
The argument for censorship lacks credibility. The excuse is either for the instance of public safety or the notion certain thoughts should not be spoken. Governments make the argument that press and free speech need restriction to ensure national security. What the real concern for them is exposure of possible abuses or illegal activities. The NSA was doing mass surveillance of US citizens who had nothing to do with terrorist organizations. Edward Snowden exposed these programs in 2013 and ever since he has been demonized or prevented from explaining on mainstream media. There is no evidence that his links caused a spike in terrorist attacks or endangered people working in the CIA or NSA. The only actions that endanger national security is being in a permanent state of warfare, not public awareness of NSA programs. Moderate censorship may not be as severe as the national security or public safety argument, but still raises concerns. This extends into the concept of political correctness and what is deemed offensive. Advocates argue that certain language or speech should not be spoken on the basis it can offend certain groups. This can extend to ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation identification. The problem with this is that it is stifling free expression. What may be considered offensive to one person may not be to another. What is considered obscene or lascivious can also vary among individuals and culture. This attempt to create a safe space really only accomplishes the illusion of an inclusive atmosphere. Censoring films, TV, social media, or any other medium does not eliminate racism, sexism, homophobia, or religious intolerance. The result is that discussion and debate are neutralized, because there are some topics that are forbidden to talk about. Free speech seems to be okay until somebody hears a view they do not like. Far-right extremists make the argument that they are having their free speech restricted, but their real intent is just to insight violence and hate. Moderate censorship cannot distinguish the difference between general disagreement and extremist thought. This leaves tech companies in a more precarious situation when their platforms are used for hate groups or terrorist organizations to organize. The government will just use that as an excuse for more regulation and censorship.
Censorship has caused major damage throughout history. It has attacked the arts,sciences, and even free thought itself. Humanity has reached a new age in which knowledge and information is ubiquitous. Governments and the ruling classes of the world may not be able to manipulate or control populations like they used to. However, the threat of censorship has remained present along with disturbing new developments. Fake news is not a recent phenomenon due to the fact newspapers of the past were filled with bias or false information. The problem is that people of their own free will are believing what they read without serious examination. People may be willing to believe anything if it correlates to their opinions, even if the facts state other wise. The internet and social media provide a vast scope of various perspectives and information, but people require the critical thinking skills to decipher what they are reading. As there is a greater movement to dismantle net neutrality, this means censorship could reach a whole new level. This means users will have access to only certain websites under the direction of internet service providers. Censorship will become more prevalent in the future seeing as the average person has more access to information. The movement for more censorship must be resisted. Ignorance and philistine attitudes can be lethal to free society. Now more than ever it is the public must be vigilant of corruption and government abuse. There is no good reason for censorship,other than protecting the powerful. Knowledge was meant to be free and open to everyone. Censorship seeks to keep people isolation and darkness.
It cannot be denied that censorship is a form of oppression. What it seeks to do is stop independent thought. When a person is no longer able to reason for themselves, they will be subject to easier manipulation. There is also an emotional response component. The information presented to a individual has to induce a certain reaction. The message could either be telling a person how to feel about a certain group or take a particular political position. Truth and falsehood can no longer be deciphered. There is a war on critical thinking in which opposing views are either considered conspiracy theory or nonsense. Free speech continually is under threat from both political and corporate power. Populations that do not utilize critical thinking can easily be misled by various institutions in society. The ability to decipher information is more important now than ever. The average person has more access to information than at any point in human history. This may be the last bit of hope,but the ruling class of various societies want to stop people from getting access. A population that has critical thinking skills or is educated cannot be controlled. The desire is to create conformity in thought and action. Putting people in an imposed state of ignorance is nothing new. The enslaved in the Americas were not taught to read for fear they would question why they were in slavery. Women were denied education, because it would make them question their lower status in society. Peasants were kept in ignorance of their condition in Europe to prevent revolts which would change the feudal order. Since these periods of oppression and social change, there has been improvement in conditions.
The worst acts of censorship come from the restriction on press freedom. Governments attempt to silence people who oppose certain policies. Liberal democracies have another issue,which involves the mass media being controlled by a few corporations. The result is a population thinking they are getting unbiased and new information when they are not. Authoritarian governments are more blatant about their disdain for press freedom. Uganda and Saudi Arabia for example have been known to persecute journalists or be involved in their disappearance. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi government demonstrates oppressive governments are willing to liquidate their own citizens who oppose the system. The United States seeks to imprison Julian Assange for documents he put on Wikileaks regarding the Iraq and Afghan wars. The liberal democracies seek to also silence opposing views,but it is done in a more covert manner. They simply do not have the political power and force of a dictatorship has to violate basic human rights to the same degree. The troubling aspect in liberal democracies is the abnormal amount of corporate influence on print and television news. If a group of corporations owns papers and networks they can stop certain stories from being reported that do not suit their objectives. Alternative media has arisen to counter the corporate news model, yet it is often presented as being fringe or based in conspiracy theory. Societies that pride themselves of free expression allow various views to be presented, yet the fact is media shapes one perspective. The reader or viewer of media is kept in a state of ignorance about the reality of political and economic conditions.
Prior to television or the internet books were a source of recording information. Prior to that oral traditions were common in various societies. Censorship has a long history of banning books or simply destroying them. The Catholic Church had a list of banned books considered blasphemous. During the Middle Ages it was possible to be burned at the stake for questioning religion. Nicholas Copernicus did not even publish his heliocentric theory during his lifetime for fear of punishment by the Church. Giordano Bruno was executed for promoting the Copernican model. Institutions that dislike the truth will always want to suppress numerous texts. If they cannot stop people from reading certain books, they are eliminated. The execution of people or the destruction of books has continued into the modern era. The 20th century did see similar behavior related to extreme censorship with totalitarian states in Europe. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union went to obsessive lengths to prevent any written material getting to the public that challenged their ideology. A common practice in the Third Reich was to burn books. If books were not in line with ideas of race supremacy or militarism they were simply liquidated. Fiction works were also subject to book burning. Works of satire or comedy can be a threat to rulers or institutions that want to present their convictions as ultimate truths. If a lie can not be sustained, then war on truth must be waged. Public schools have even been known to ban books they deem to controversial or inappropriate for students. Reading can give the people the power of knowledge and awareness, which many ruling elites want to prevent.
The argument for censorship lacks credibility. The excuse is either for the instance of public safety or the notion certain thoughts should not be spoken. Governments make the argument that press and free speech need restriction to ensure national security. What the real concern for them is exposure of possible abuses or illegal activities. The NSA was doing mass surveillance of US citizens who had nothing to do with terrorist organizations. Edward Snowden exposed these programs in 2013 and ever since he has been demonized or prevented from explaining on mainstream media. There is no evidence that his links caused a spike in terrorist attacks or endangered people working in the CIA or NSA. The only actions that endanger national security is being in a permanent state of warfare, not public awareness of NSA programs. Moderate censorship may not be as severe as the national security or public safety argument, but still raises concerns. This extends into the concept of political correctness and what is deemed offensive. Advocates argue that certain language or speech should not be spoken on the basis it can offend certain groups. This can extend to ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation identification. The problem with this is that it is stifling free expression. What may be considered offensive to one person may not be to another. What is considered obscene or lascivious can also vary among individuals and culture. This attempt to create a safe space really only accomplishes the illusion of an inclusive atmosphere. Censoring films, TV, social media, or any other medium does not eliminate racism, sexism, homophobia, or religious intolerance. The result is that discussion and debate are neutralized, because there are some topics that are forbidden to talk about. Free speech seems to be okay until somebody hears a view they do not like. Far-right extremists make the argument that they are having their free speech restricted, but their real intent is just to insight violence and hate. Moderate censorship cannot distinguish the difference between general disagreement and extremist thought. This leaves tech companies in a more precarious situation when their platforms are used for hate groups or terrorist organizations to organize. The government will just use that as an excuse for more regulation and censorship.
Censorship has caused major damage throughout history. It has attacked the arts,sciences, and even free thought itself. Humanity has reached a new age in which knowledge and information is ubiquitous. Governments and the ruling classes of the world may not be able to manipulate or control populations like they used to. However, the threat of censorship has remained present along with disturbing new developments. Fake news is not a recent phenomenon due to the fact newspapers of the past were filled with bias or false information. The problem is that people of their own free will are believing what they read without serious examination. People may be willing to believe anything if it correlates to their opinions, even if the facts state other wise. The internet and social media provide a vast scope of various perspectives and information, but people require the critical thinking skills to decipher what they are reading. As there is a greater movement to dismantle net neutrality, this means censorship could reach a whole new level. This means users will have access to only certain websites under the direction of internet service providers. Censorship will become more prevalent in the future seeing as the average person has more access to information. The movement for more censorship must be resisted. Ignorance and philistine attitudes can be lethal to free society. Now more than ever it is the public must be vigilant of corruption and government abuse. There is no good reason for censorship,other than protecting the powerful. Knowledge was meant to be free and open to everyone. Censorship seeks to keep people isolation and darkness.
No comments:
Post a Comment