Scribd
Upload
145 views

Rough Draft

This document discusses censorship and differing viewpoints on its use. It summarizes the common understanding that freedom of speech is not absolute in the US and there are some reasonable limitations, such as not shouting "fire" in a crowded space. However, it argues that some censorship goes beyond safety and is used as a control mechanism. While some scholars see censorship as protecting society, the document takes the view that censorship limits full self-expression and access to information, which can lead to ignorance and misunderstanding.

Uploaded by

api-357220960
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
145 views

Rough Draft

This document discusses censorship and differing viewpoints on its use. It summarizes the common understanding that freedom of speech is not absolute in the US and there are some reasonable limitations, such as not shouting "fire" in a crowded space. However, it argues that some censorship goes beyond safety and is used as a control mechanism. While some scholars see censorship as protecting society, the document takes the view that censorship limits full self-expression and access to information, which can lead to ignorance and misunderstanding.

Uploaded by

api-357220960
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Dixon 1

Shadajah Dixon

Professor Quitadamo

UWRT 1102

April 10, 2017

Censorship Rough Draft

It is rare that someone goes through their day analyzing their rights as a citizen unless it

is a part of their profession. We especially do not realize the presence of censorship unless it is

affecting us directly. This goes for things like altering the lyrics to our favorite song just because

it is being played publicly on the radio. But, what if it were our own words that were being

altered? Is the meaning of what we say even the same? Censorship is capable of stripping away a

great deal of important context despite the form it is presented in.

It is common today to dismiss the topic of censorship because it can be so easily

overlooked. It is also common for the average American to list freedom of speech when asked

what rights they are guaranteed as a citizen. It is not until later in life that we are informed that

this right does not guarantee total freedom of speech. Many citizens assume that their right to

freedom of speech allows them say anything that they would like at any time. It is now clear that

this is actually far from the truth. There were guidelines put in place long ago to please those in

positions of power. Of course, every limitation is not unnecessary. Restrictions against shouting

fire while in a crowded, closed in area for entertainment is an example of both a reasonable

and beneficial limitation. This limitation is only reasonable because it was set in place to ensure

safety. Others, however have been set in place simply to make things appear greater than they

actually are. This would be known as sugar coating in a more urban dictionary. It is often said
Dixon 2

that censorship is just another form of a control mechanism. It is acceptable for our citizens to

think this way because restraints are being put on their promised freedoms.

Scholars in favor of censorship such as Smith argue that censorship is a tool that was

created in hopes of improving our country as whole. The method is what allows for lesser

conflicts due to pointless misunderstandings. All of those issues can be avoided with use of

various forms of censorship. If censorship did not exist, our country would have experienced far

more problems than it already has simply because everyone cannot be trusted to properly express

their perspectives. Due to each individual holding a different identity, everyone has not be

educated properly when it comes to distinguishing between what feelings are acceptable to

express and what feelings are not. There is no need for each individual to voice their opinion

when there can be a representative elected to present the views of the group as whole. This is the

more efficient way of approaching debates or just introducing new ideas and viewpoints.

My view, however, contrary to what Smith has argued, is censorship is not something that

was created to benefit and protect society as a whole. This is actually an act of limitation and

essentially a control mechanism that has been created. Not only are individuals not given the

opportunity to fully express themselves but they also do not have access to all of the information

that they are seeking at times. This scenario is the same as not having access to useful resources.

When an individual is not fully informed, this leads to ignorance and eventually

misunderstanding. I do believe that individuals should be warned against stating anything that

could potentially cause danger to themselves or others but I do not believe one should be

restricted from stating their opinion simply because it is unfavorable. It is impossible for anyone

to hold a perspective that everyone agrees with and this is no surprise to anyone so censoring

what others say just to prevent something that will eventually happen anyway is not as effective
Dixon 3

as it may seem. The same opinion that is being stopped from being spread publicly can be spread

in a much smaller private setting and can still have the same effect is passed on to enough

audiences, This interpretation challenges the work of those critics who have long assumed that

the government is fit for determining what the public should and should not be exposed to as

well as what viewpoints can be spread. Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds

that it is okay to insult someone in a position of power simply because this is what they were

influenced to believe.

There are often times where an individual does not even have to physically speak to be

censored. For example, if a democrat were to attend a recorded meeting wearing a shirt that said

something unfavorable about that party, it is likely that the shirt would be blurred or the entire

clip of the individual would be cropped out before airing on a station that is in favor of the party

being insulted.

You might also like