This is my first essay! Please rate!
In few countries telivision and radio programs are censored for offensive language and behaviour and
in few countires its not. In this discussion I would like to make arugments for and against censorship
in following way.
Issues like Pro-Gay Rights/Pro-Abortion etc might be offensive to some, while other might feel they are
reasonable by being 'for' them. When such issues are covered on TV and radio do they qualify to become
offensive, just cause they are offensive to select few? Also who decides what is offensive and what is not?
The terms Offensive and Harmful can vary depending on the culture, region, religion, generation etc of the
particular society.
Freedom of speech and expression have a better history in free western societies , however in counties
like India the idea of freedom of expression should be taken with a grain of salt. Strong language and
visuals evoke extreme emotions amongs the viewers and often extreme sides are taken. In India, in the
past, most of the communal riots have gone from bad to worse. When such such an event is covered on
TV, the extreme opinions and views being aired in the media didn't help the situation. And hence it is reasonable
to expect meaningful (self imposed or externally regulated) censorship on sensitive issues.
It should also be noted that our children should be protected from violent images, ideas and pornographic content.
Here censorship can prove to be an effective tool by reducing the risk of exposure.
It should also be noted that when the power of censorship goes into the hands of powerful interests, news and
facts can be distorted to portray the wrong picture for reasons of propoganda. Authorarian goverments world
over have used the power of selective censorship to evoke emotions and responses favourable to them, by distorting
the truth. So in a way selective censorship is allowing disempowerement of people. As an example I would like to
take 2009 FIFA world cup where North Korea allowed telecast the match which they won, while they conveniently
stopped the telecast of the match which they lost.
An Approach to censorship should not be a seen in a "One size fits all" prism. In an ideal world there should be no
censorship cause it is in conflict with Freedom of Expression and Speech. Freedom of speech and expression
should take precedence over censorship, however it can be beneficial to the society if censorship is exercised
with wisdom.
In few countries telivision and radio programs are censored for offensive language and behaviour and
in few countires its not. In this discussion I would like to make arugments for and against censorship
in following way.
Issues like Pro-Gay Rights/Pro-Abortion etc might be offensive to some, while other might feel they are
reasonable by being 'for' them. When such issues are covered on TV and radio do they qualify to become
offensive, just cause they are offensive to select few? Also who decides what is offensive and what is not?
The terms Offensive and Harmful can vary depending on the culture, region, religion, generation etc of the
particular society.
Freedom of speech and expression have a better history in free western societies , however in counties
like India the idea of freedom of expression should be taken with a grain of salt. Strong language and
visuals evoke extreme emotions amongs the viewers and often extreme sides are taken. In India, in the
past, most of the communal riots have gone from bad to worse. When such such an event is covered on
TV, the extreme opinions and views being aired in the media didn't help the situation. And hence it is reasonable
to expect meaningful (self imposed or externally regulated) censorship on sensitive issues.
It should also be noted that our children should be protected from violent images, ideas and pornographic content.
Here censorship can prove to be an effective tool by reducing the risk of exposure.
It should also be noted that when the power of censorship goes into the hands of powerful interests, news and
facts can be distorted to portray the wrong picture for reasons of propoganda. Authorarian goverments world
over have used the power of selective censorship to evoke emotions and responses favourable to them, by distorting
the truth. So in a way selective censorship is allowing disempowerement of people. As an example I would like to
take 2009 FIFA world cup where North Korea allowed telecast the match which they won, while they conveniently
stopped the telecast of the match which they lost.
An Approach to censorship should not be a seen in a "One size fits all" prism. In an ideal world there should be no
censorship cause it is in conflict with Freedom of Expression and Speech. Freedom of speech and expression
should take precedence over censorship, however it can be beneficial to the society if censorship is exercised
with wisdom.
