Censorship Is Essential As A Way Of Controlling Information In

Censorship is essential as a way of controlling information in any civilized society Censorship has been a global issue for hundreds of years, but the idea of ‘’filtering’’ information that reaches your subordinates has existed for even longer. And yet for these hundreds of years there has been no solution that has been both ‘’Right’’ and ‘’applicable’’. Decade after decade, government hides information such as gruesome incidents and shameful facts, and the public demand access to all truth. I believe that the power to censor information is vital for any government, but there are a lot of lines to be drawn and therefore each case of censorship must be taken in a unique approach. In my opinion, there can never be a set of laws that define what will and won’t be censored. When the word ‘’Censorship’’ is mentioned, many tend to think of films, pictures, and topics. But censorship is a much wider area. Any government needs censorship to function adequately as otherwise information such as government intelligence and military plans could be printed in newspapers with no repercussions to the editors. Imagine that in World War II the local London newspaper printed an article about how Britain had acquired an Enigma machine, and the German military found out. But censorship is also arguably necessary in other situations. A book or film which is incredibly insensitive to its audience or discriminative to a certain part of society can cause unneeded and avoidable uproar and revolt. The public can panic, misunderstand, and rebel; even though the government is part of the public, it is their job, not the public’s, to prevent these kind of events. In 1997, Princess Diana was seriously injured in a car crash whilst being chased by Paparazzi. One of the men present had a camera and took a picture of the Princess dying. He wished to publish this picture in the newspaper as this would make him incredibly rich. However, such an image to the public would be insensitive to Diana’s relations and would desecrate the kind, great image that most held of Diana. In March 2005, a couple of boys aged 12-14 in a town in Latvia murdered their fourteen year old friend for ‘’fun’’ using moves borrowed from a video game. They kicked him several times, and broke his neck. When he was dead, they threw him into a river. When interrogated, the boys said they were inspired by the video game, and had attempted several moves that the video game – based on brutal fighting – had. If such a game was censored from young minds incapable of understanding the consequences of violence, the death of this young boy, with his whole life ahead of him, could have been avoided. However, these are arguable cases, and many would express their opinions otherwise. When the government starts restricting what people can say, write, read and see, they are restricting their freedom. Many would argue that every human deserves to see what he or she chooses. First, it might start with intelligence and

gruesome pictures; then move on to movies and books, and eventually speech itself! If the government has the ability to restrict what people can do, then it would no longer be a real freedom that we’d live in, but an imaginary one. In 1994, Stanley Kubrick – a respected film director – made a movie named Natural Born Killers. This movie was about two mass murders – Micky and Mallory Knox – that traveled across the USA murdering as many in their path as they could. Whilst this part of the film was not knew, the fact that they did it ‘’Just for fun’’ was. The ease with which violence was executed in this movie was disturbing and scary in many ways. The film however, despite its originality and interesting topic, was hated by governments all over the world, especially in Britain. Statistics were composed showing the relation between crime rise and the amount of views the film had received, and insulting and silly complaints were made by the day. Many wanted to ban the film from the public, and in many countries this was done. In England, however, Stanley Kubrick banned the film himself, being disgusted at the reaction of the government to his art. If people have ideas and revelations which they believe the public should be made aware of, they should be able to do so. If the government prevented these dark truths from reaching the eyes of men, we would live blind and beguiled into ignorance. This kind of power granted to but a few men is scary and tyrannical. Many would say that living in a free state involves choosing what kind of truths to be told, and not told; to be able to go where one wishes and see what one wants; to say what one believes in, and to believe in what others say.

There are many different and very valuable arguments for and against censorship. I believe that there is no straight answer to whether ‘’Government should be able to control information which reaches the public’’. There can be no book of laws saying what can be censored, and when and why. There can be no simple way to deal with information. But instead, the government must individually analyze each case of possibly needed censorship. And only after all other ways have been exhausted should they rely on simply banning the information from the peoples’ eyes.