Censorship In The Written World Essay, Research Paper

Censorship in the Written Word The written word is mankind s oldest form of recorded information. It has allowed us to read about ideas and events of times long past. Writing was once accessible only to the rich and powerful, but the printing press allowed the common people the ability to read books cheaply, and more importantly, the ability to publish books and pamphlets of their own. Using a printing press, anyone had the ability to record and distribute his or her ideas. The printed word became a powerful force for democracy and reform. The questions that have aroused as time has passed are: Should the written word be censored? If so, by whom? Some people advocate the idea that written word should be censored, either by an ethical minority, or by the government, or by us as consumers. Very few individuals deem that a respectable minority is useful as censors. Which is very acceptable, even though it raises many questions. For instance: Who will be part of this respectable minority ? Even worst: Who will be in charge of electing this respectable minority ? While this idea turns out to be too vague to be productive, taking a few others to consider the thought which states that no government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free, no one will. Meaning that the government should be the entity in charge of censorship. Concepts that would work only if the rulers of the country do not use censorship as a political mean. Which is rather difficult if not impossible. This would deprive citizens to know the countries reality and would make it very difficult for to take action against the government if necessary. All this takes us to a more modern and aggressive idea of censorship, which says: sooner or later, in one way or another, the consumers want to live out of the pornography further into three dimensions. Sooner or later, in one way or another, they do. It makes them want to; when they believe they can, when they feel they can get away with it, they do. Conception that fits very well to what the modern society is doing. If one don t like a certain book, one opposes it and forms a group, which opposes it. As a result the book is either censored by a small group, a society or only by oneself, which is more realistic since censorship adapts to your own thoughts; not some to respectable strangers ideologies. Even though some think there should be limits on the content of printed material, others defend the notion that the printed medium should be unregulated.

Ones whom oppose might say, [they] never heard of anyone who was really literate or who ever loved books that wanted to suppress any of them. Censors only read a book with great difficulty, moving their lips as they puzzle out each syllable, when somebody tells them that the book is unfit to read. Being completely true that censors only look at the bad aspects of books, but never at how the bad was used, or what purpose does it serve in the plot. Others, plainly acknowledge the facts that if the book [is to] be false in its facts, [they] disprove them; if [it is] false in its reasoning, [they] refute it. But [they say:] for God s sake, let us hear freely from both sides. It is the truth. How can one know to distinguish between right or wrong, if one does not have examples of them? One can not know what is completely the truth if one does not know different viewpoints on the same issue. Last but not least, there are some that see freedom of press a victory of democracy. Democracy will best be served in the twenty-first century by returning to the eighteenth-century idea of an independent and totally unregulated press, a press that is controlled by any different owners, a press that offers access to many voices, and a press that makes available public essential affairs, educational, and cultural programming to all our citizens. Citizens are free to know what is happening in their country. Censorship affects ones culture education and access to literature. Even though both sides have pros and cons, the question still remains: Should the written word be censored? Clearly, the print medium is undeniably a powerful force, one which can be used for bad as well as for good purposes. It can be used to call for the overthrow of a tyrant, or to publish pornography and mindless tabloids. Should any person, or group, or government be able to regulate what the people can publish? Or should an absolute freedom of press prevail? Luckily, the answer lies deep inside oneself