“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” This quote by Robert A. Heinlein beautifully describes the power of the government and other agencies to impact society on so many levels. Personally, media censorship totally goes against what the United States was built upon. The fundamental framework of America is intertwined with our First Amendment- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Intense, beautifully crafted, and the first thing our country’s founding fathers felt we should build upon. Honestly, a plethora of reasons can come up in regards to the argument of media censorship and whether or not is should exist, but the fundamental reasons why censorship should not exist are infringement upon the first amendment; it propagates ignorance, and modifies the truth. Over time, many countries have overstepped the boundaries of media censorship only to face drastic consequences. Censorship has no place anywhere.
Censorship is generally understood to be the official suppression or prohibition of forms of expression. Its legal definition is narrower-expressly the official inspection of books, journals, theater, film, music and popular media of many forms before release (prepublication) to ensure that they do not offend against legal proscriptions instituted by governments. That definition has never effectively described it. Many established democracies have different approaches to the concept of free speech and how that directly ties in with media censorship. With such variability among these different countries, this is where different interpretations can come about and cause confusion and infringement upon that sanctity of that right itself. Under the democratic process, some degree of free speech is assumed but “democratic nations often struggle with the balance between free speech and the need to ‘protect’ certain citizens seen as vulnerable” (Ferguson 159). This is where the variation comes into play; many countries have different perceptions on the law and how it is interpreted. For the government to feel as if protection of the “vulnerable” is on them (particularly the youth) seems like crossing lines of parenting itself. In essence, isn’t the responsibility of parenting on the parents themselves? The first amendment in the United States might be the most “comprehensive free-speech protections offered among democratic nations” (Ferguson 162). With this in mind, that does not literally translate to the fact that America has the most liberal media. A viewer is more likely to come across “nudity or profanity in broadcast television” (Ferguson 163) in countries like the United Kingdom as opposed to the United States, despite the UK having a set censorship bureau. The struggles over free speech are always the tug of war of freedom versus the need or perceived need to protect society. We understand that some forms of speech, whether shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when no fire exists, or child pornogra- phy, require restriction, given the rather obvious harm generated by such speech. Debates occur when the harmfulness of a particular kind of speech is less clear, or where perceptions of harm and personal morality become intertwined. Keeping along these lines, the idea of media censorship also encourages ignorance of reality especially in military campaigns and attacks overseas.
One of the most common deductions from media censorship is the pervasive increase in ignorance. This propagation of ignorance is found in the military tactics employed by major nations, most importantly democratic ones. One of the problems with enforced censorship in military tactics is not the restriction placed on journalism from a personal and professional satisfaction, but the moral force behind it. What this means is “citizens cannot fulfill their duties as moral actors without being able to control how others act on their behalf–especially in wartime, when those actions themselves raise profound moral concerns” (Brennan 1). In layman’s terms, use of morality as a purveyor of force is the only way citizens can know what is really happening behind enemy lines. Growing up surrounded by war for much of my life, with the Iraq war, I personally became numb to the fact that it was even happening. Many of the older generation became glued to their televisions to try and determine what was really happening. This way of trying to use moral force to decide what we as Americans were doing only increased ignorance on my part to what was occurring. This ignorance also comes from the fact that reaction to censorship is subjective, what can be deemed as obscene to me could be totally fine with someone else. In the United States, “censorship almost always occurs after the fact” (Biagi 295). Barring this in mind, many media industries in America have set up methods to prevent the courts from reviewing their works after the fact. We as citizens of a country that does not infringe upon our basic rights as humans have turned a blind eye and become ignorant to the fact that things happen in other parts of the world, which we can not possibly fathom.
Regarded as one of the most significant events of the new millennium, the Arab Spring, which evolved from an uprising in Tunisia that began in late 2010 and swept across the Middle East and North Africa in the following months and years. This resulted in the overthrow of a plethora of authoritarian regimes in several countries and the shaking of many more. The Internet, especially the new emerging social media, played an unprecedented role in the uprisings, and was met with an equally unprecedented level of censorship from the authorities. One of the most significant of these overthrows was that of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. During this time of political unrest, many citizens went to social media in order to engage in organizational events such as protests and rallies. Sadly the cruel regime of Mubarak figured the only way to stop this turbulence was through some form of censorship. One of the fundamental issues with Egypt at the time was “the perfect position structurally [that it had] to restrict Internet access” (Queeney 1). What is meant by this perfect position is the ability for Mubarak and his regime was to force almost all of the Internet service providers to shut down. Even thought the country had significant infrastructure, its undiversified Internet provider market allowed for the government to swoop in and strong arm them into submission. As a millennial, I felt so moved by this time period in my life. I had quite a few friends with an Arab background and knew what it personally meant for them and their families to watch this cultural shift. Media censorship, especially during this time made the movement of the Arab Spring even stronger. With so much uproar over breached personal rights, the censorship aspect only added more fuel to the fire. Incredibly, what made this time even more iconic was the Internet allowed the whole world to be seamlessly interwoven into the fabric of justice. As a budding youth, I felt it was my duty to give to the cause and almost felt personally attacked by the injustice being done onto my fellow brethren overseas. With the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube providing an incubator for these revolutions, these ruthless regimes couldn’t seem to maintain a solid grip on the uncontrollable power of people and media.
In conclusion, no matter what we as society do to protect the vulnerable, the influence of media is everywhere. With the advantage of social media and the internet, we as people have the ability to obtain information at the blink of an eye. Censorship has no place in any system, any country, and any government. Our country was built upon the teachings of tyranny and what evil the British rule had brought to us. When our rights were attacked prior to America’s independence, the right thing to do was…revolution. The censorship of media only provides a platform for society to remain ignorant and hide from the truth. Our country was founded on the principles of free speech and that amendment has held its place for over two hundred years. Why fix something that was never broken? Keep on eating what you want America, be it steak or baby food, its your unalienable right.