Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Linda from physic G 12. Today I would like to talk about censorship. By the group taboos enforced by group leaders, censorship of a kind exists in primary groups, such as the neighborhood, village, or small community. Today censorship is a phase of social control closely correlated with rapid communication and with the extension of secondary group relationships transcending the usual limitations of space.
Just as opinion had a narrow range in the village, so, too, the control of expression of opinion and of action had the same boundaries. Censorship is fundamentally a phase of social taboo against the expression of opinion. If it once had a narrow range in primary groups, today it reaches as far as political power and public opinion extend. In the primary group censorship of opinion for the most part was restricted to control of speech rather than of printing.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $12
In secondary groups censorship has moved definitely toward tabooing the printing of opinion as well as controlling speech. The fundamental purpose of censorship of free speech and of free printing is much the same. The censorship of free speech attempted to control the crowd-audience, the censorship of the press attempts to control the public-audience. The purpose of this report is to give information on regarding censorship knowledge .In this presentation, I would like to talk about: The reason of censorship exists, the relationship between censorship and intellectual freedom, and pornography and censorship.
Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. Individuals and pressure groups identify materials to which they object. Sometimes they succeed in pressuring schools not to use them, libraries not to shelve them, book and video stores not to carry them, publishers not to publish them, or art galleries not to display them. Censorship also occurs when materials are restricted to particular audiences, based on their age or other characteristics. According to George Bernard Shaw, all censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. There is the whole case against censorship in a nutshell.
When a society has intellectual freedom, citizens can collect and distribute any information they want without any restraints. Also, citizens have right to access information in all communication media — to watch, read or listen to whatever they want. The concept of intellectual freedom involves protecting the rights of all individuals to pursue the types of information and to read anything that interests them.
Attempts by a member of the community to remove materials from a library collection or to restrict access to them may be the most common challenges to intellectual freedom that a small library will face. The origins of intellectual freedom can be traced back to Socrates, who believed in the value and benefits of free discussion. The American Library Association (ALA) has been interested in intellectual freedom for a long time, with the first Library Bill of Rights written in 1939. The Library Bill of Rights has been modified several times over the years with the most recent version available from the ALA web site.
While the Library Bill of Rights does not provide legal protection (legal protection comes from the First Amendment), it does provide a set of principles to guide libraries and librarians in dealing with issues of censorship and intellectual freedom. In expressing their opinions and concerns, would-be censors are exercising the same rights librarians seek to protect when they confront censorship. In making their criticisms known, people who object to certain ideas are exercising the same rights as those who created and disseminated the material to which they object. Their rights to voice opinions and try to persuade others to adopt those opinions are protected only if the rights of persons to express ideas they despise are also protected. The rights of both sides must be protected, or neither will survive.
Should pornography and obscenity be controlled in society, and, if so, what kind of control is desirable? This issue deeply concerns and excites the passions of people in many countries. Of course, many would think pornography to be one of the least pressing of the issues that face us in the late twentieth century. Indeed, some regard pornography as raising only trivial issues in it, and as becoming important only as other people inflate its importance to the point where they are prepared to interfere with fundamental democratic freedoms. Nevertheless, many regard pornography as an affront to the dignity and self-respect of half of the human species, if not as creating the risk of serious harm to women through its effects on its users. Still others consider pornography to be an evil in itself, regardless of its possible effects on others, and think that its widespread use is symptomatic of a crisis of values in Western society.
Anyone could perhaps agree at the outset that pornography is of interest and importance, if only because each of the various positions regarding it is held with such conviction, and because the issue of whether and how to control pornography is connected with fundamental issues such as the desirable scope of the rights of free speech and freedom of choice. They believe that certain individuals, certain institutions, even society itself, will be endangered if particular ideas are disseminated without restriction. What censorship often doesn’t consider is that, if they succeed in suppressing the ideas they don’t like today, others may use that precedent to suppress the ideas they do like tomorrow.
In conclusion, Censorship might sincerely believe that certain materials are so offensive, or present ideas that are so hateful and destructive to society, that they simply must not see the light of day. Others are worried that younger or weaker people will be badly influenced by bad ideas, and will do bad things as a result. Still others believe that there is a very clear distinction between ideas that are right and morally uplifting, and ideas that are wrong and morally corrupting, and wish to ensure that society has the benefit of their perception.
Therefore, Is all censorship wrong? Most of us don’t want censorship because we want to have our own way, or because we want to keep others from having their way. We censor because we want to keep others and ourselves from being hurt. It’s just that plain and simple. So should all censorship be banned? Maybe, maybe not, but it will never happen. If we want that world where we can leave our doors unlocked again, then we need to have censorship, and many of us will need to give up some things we think we want because those things will eventually hurt someone else, or ourselves.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.