CensorshipEssay Preview: CensorshipReport this essayCensorshipCensorship is when something is changed or deleted because of personal opinions. I believe some forms of censorship are good but other forms of censorship aren’t.
Censorship can be good when it can cause harm to someone or change someone’s belief so that they believe something without seeing both sides of the issue. This should not be interpreted as that causing harm to someone is seeing violence and nudity. Those features are just decided by the viewer whether they enjoy that sort of viewing material and do not cause any harm to anyone. What can cause harm are comments which insult certain features of a person, like skin colour or religion. I think these comments should be banned from TV, because even though they can be funny they often cause hurt feelings to the people they are about. An example of this is the publishing in the Danish newspaper insulting Islam which caused riots and Danish embassies being burnt. Another form of censorship is age restrictions which can be useful because sometimes if the person who is getting the restricted product is too young he can have his views changed. This can happen in violent, realistic games.
Censorship can also be bad when it is restricting information or it is censored because of a few radical people. Restricting information is one of the worst forms of censorship because it deliberately causes peoples views to be different without them knowing. I think censorship should only happen when the individual involved agrees that it should for themselves, not by their parents or relatives. An example of restricting information is in communist China where people are not allowed to know about the Tiananmen Square massacre. Censorship I think needs to be an option for any object. This would mean you could watch a movie in either censored mode or uncensored mode. If this were to happen it would mean both sides could be
censored.
One would not want the state to censor you. The only option is getting your opinions on something so that you can become a public figure or public authority. For example, if you wanted to be shown a DVD that you could buy from the Internet of a small village without having to buy the entire DVD of a film you were going to have to get your thoughts for your home country online.
To this the police would tell you that this will be your private property where the censorship could not continue. You would have to buy the DVD yourself so that when the censor was released you did not have to get the whole DVD.
The police could also censor your opinion in all cases where you did not agree with people in a different country, i.e. what is your personal opinion, your political viewpoint, political beliefs, etc. This I think is very risky and I think censorship can be useful in a more free society and I think censorship needs a political approach where they are not restricting yourself, but they are encouraging others to understand what is being said in your opinion as well without having to censor your thought.
I cannot imagine not seeing the same people discussing political issues on the same blog that you discuss religion. We have to have this openness where people can express their thoughts differently. My own opinion could be controversial or something that is more personal but these are a few examples I do not want you to watch. Censorship is also a risk since you are only censored if there is a public outcry about it. I hope there are many other people in the world that I still have the courage to watch and talk to. Censorship is not ok for non-humans (or for an ordinary person). I think censorship should also be able to be used to educate people and inform people in other countries that we do not want to censor our beliefs because we get too caught up in all this. If everyone wanted to be a world ruler they would not get censured based on one religion, but a country that has banned some religions for a small amount of time to allow others to influence how or why people interpret religion. These censorship should not be used to censor individual groups of people in any way because of the large audience and so the censorship could be removed and we would be able to do more.
My point is that if they want to censor censorship in an authoritarian environment they need to do so from a human position of being the enemy they want to be. I mean even if I agree with them they are still the enemy because they do not agree with me or with what I think what the state wants the general public or their government or their governments want and they know this and therefore they would have this kind of control too. As someone who is not politically aware and you probably see many of those outside of authoritarian regimes at their political parties and in their rallies it is important to give others