The Issue of Censorship

In this globalized information age with the media at our every touch, the issue of censorship inevitably comes into play. As an action of suppressing or deleting anything deemed as objectionable, censorship generally has good intentions. However, it is, in truth, no better than propaganda. Like propaganda, censorship seeks to change peoples' attitudes about a certain issue by preventing them from being confronted with opposing views. The mere definition of censorship raises queries. Why should any information be hidden from the public just to avoid certain parts of society being offended? Instead of having someone decide what is wrong for the public, they should have the right to argue for themselves.

Censorship is the control of all the ideas circulating around the world. The standards, or rationales, for what is "objectionable" or "inappropriate" differ depending on each nation. For example, when it comes to pornography, much of what's illegal in Germany is normal in Scandinavia. In certain Asian countries, popular social networks are blocked despite their obvious placement in the media-intensive world. While a universal standard for censorship is not necessary, a domestic guideline for what should or should not be censored within each country is. Without a set of instructions, the following happens: In 2006, the independent movie The Cooler was given a NC-17 rating – no one 17 and under allowed admittance– for its offensive passage of a tender love scene. Yet, the horror comedy Scary Movie, in which a psycho killer stabs a woman in her breast, received a R-rating, meaning it could still be attended by children with a parent in tow. In the film industry, the matter of violence is looked lighter upon than of the matter of sex, and for unjust reasons too. If you ask any Hollywood distributor not to splatter movies to kids, they'd probably counter, "But that's our main audience!" Kirby Dick, known for his documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, commented upon this partial case, saying "I would prefer an open system with standards, and if they're going to have guidelines, have the guidelines so that filmmakers know what they're working with and against, and there's something there to publicly advocate for and against. That's the democratic system."

Furthermore, quoting former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, the question of "just who is doing most of the censoring"2 is equally controversial. During monarchial days, the censor was an individual appointed by the king, which made his decisions indubitably prejudiced. Even nowadays, with a board of censors – such as the government – deciding what should or should not be censored, the decision can become biased and power abused. In the movie industry, for one, the MPAA ratings board responsible for handling movie ratings does not comprise of psychiatrists,