Topic: Censorship of arts by the media
Censorship can be a finely tuned system of protecting our children. Just as we recognise that certain content should not be accessed by society at all, we can also recognise that certain content (e.g. sexual content) is unsuitable for children, and we can pass censorship accordingly. For example, certain forms of erotic artwork might be unsuitable for children, despite their artistic merits.
On the other hand, Censorship, even when age rating systems are used, is a very blunt tool. It takes no account of the differing standards of education or maturity between children and youths, or the varying attitudes towards parenting in different households. By imposing an external standard of censorship, the government is depriving parents of the right to raise their children in a manner that they see fit. We lose the element of parental discretion, which is arguably part of the right to lead a private and family life as one sees fit – a right that is enshrined in many international human rights conventions. Looking at adults, we see that they have the right to vote, bear arms, and die for the country. Why should they be deprived of the ability to decide what they wish to see, or what their children should be allowed to watch?Lastly, we should note that people are not being forced to view artwork at gunpoint. Every member of the public has the right to avert their eyes and not look at art that offends them. Similarly, they can refrain from entering a gallery with an exhibition of offensive works.
Many forms of modern art seek to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, or aim for the lowest denominator in taste. Both situations can give rise to content that is unacceptable, and which governments should not permit.
However, The risks of stifling free expression far outweigh the potential for unacceptable material. Content which we consider perfectly acceptable today would have been regarded as taboo 50 years ago – if the Proposition had their way, we would all still be stuck in the Victorian Era. Besides, if a novel and controversial art form proved to be completely out of touch with society, then the individuals in society would reject it rather than be corrupted by it.
Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an important message about what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in sending social messages and setting social standards should not be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess.
However, Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable.
LInk:http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/
LInk:http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/banned-books.html
LInk:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/Media%20Censor_ProjCensor.html
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
GP essay
Topic:Censorship can never be justified.Do you agree?
The concept of "censorship" is somewhat ambiguous but a better debate results if the Prop side takes the commonly accepted definition – that certain texts, images, or films should be banned. If "censorship" is defined as any form of regulation or law, then it becomes almost truistic as a definition, since the opposition would (if they accepted such a silly definition) have to argue that Art somehow exists above all laws.The Proposition can also include age restrictions as part of their definition of censorship. For example, certain texts, images, or films may only be viewable by people of a certain age, or under the grounds of official academic research.This debate sometimes becomes one about the broader concept of censorship, rather than a debate specifically about whether the arts should be censored. The debate can also go in other directions – some debates will instead evolve into a discussion about the nature of art and how we can decide that a work has redeeming artistic value.
An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws against incitement to racial hatred and similar hate speech, we have accepted that freedom of expression should have limits. In addition, art, like any other form of free speech, should be subject to the same restrictions on an individual's freedom of expression. To create an exception for art would be hypocritical and create a legal loophole for content such as hate speech, which could then seek protection on the grounds that it was a form of art.
However,Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of a clear and present danger to the safety of others. The Proposition has a duty to demonstrate this risk is genuine. Furthermore, we would argue that so long as no illegal acts were committed in the creative process, the public should have a choice in deciding whether to view the resulting content. Proposition arguments about child pornography and bestiality being filmed and then displayed as art are irrelevant arguments, as these acts are illegal in the first place.
Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA have shown this). There is a very real risk of copycat crimes inspired by depictions of criminal activity in the media, even if no criminal act was committed during the creative process. This alone should be justification for censorship.
On the other hand, the statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We must also realise that correlation is different from causation – an alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate, with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and improved street lighting.
Link:http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html
Link:http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14915pub20020916.html
Link:http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15566lgl19981022.html
The concept of "censorship" is somewhat ambiguous but a better debate results if the Prop side takes the commonly accepted definition – that certain texts, images, or films should be banned. If "censorship" is defined as any form of regulation or law, then it becomes almost truistic as a definition, since the opposition would (if they accepted such a silly definition) have to argue that Art somehow exists above all laws.The Proposition can also include age restrictions as part of their definition of censorship. For example, certain texts, images, or films may only be viewable by people of a certain age, or under the grounds of official academic research.This debate sometimes becomes one about the broader concept of censorship, rather than a debate specifically about whether the arts should be censored. The debate can also go in other directions – some debates will instead evolve into a discussion about the nature of art and how we can decide that a work has redeeming artistic value.
An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws against incitement to racial hatred and similar hate speech, we have accepted that freedom of expression should have limits. In addition, art, like any other form of free speech, should be subject to the same restrictions on an individual's freedom of expression. To create an exception for art would be hypocritical and create a legal loophole for content such as hate speech, which could then seek protection on the grounds that it was a form of art.
However,Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of a clear and present danger to the safety of others. The Proposition has a duty to demonstrate this risk is genuine. Furthermore, we would argue that so long as no illegal acts were committed in the creative process, the public should have a choice in deciding whether to view the resulting content. Proposition arguments about child pornography and bestiality being filmed and then displayed as art are irrelevant arguments, as these acts are illegal in the first place.
Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA have shown this). There is a very real risk of copycat crimes inspired by depictions of criminal activity in the media, even if no criminal act was committed during the creative process. This alone should be justification for censorship.
On the other hand, the statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We must also realise that correlation is different from causation – an alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate, with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and improved street lighting.
Link:http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html
Link:http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14915pub20020916.html
Link:http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15566lgl19981022.html
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Gp blog
Topic:Should the police force be armed?
The police in the United Kingdom are routinely unarmed, whereas in North America and most European countries – as elsewhere – policemen are routinely armed. In countries such as the United States, police arms are commonly cited as links to abuse of power e.g. victimisation of certain ethnic communities, and so there are sometimes calls for a reduction in police reliance on firepower. There are also calls, however, for extending their presence, e.g. using armed air marshals: this is essentially a different debate involving air safety issues etc., although many of the points below may still have some relevance.
Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europe and North America routinely arm police officers, in part to deter criminal acts. Armed criminals operate in at least some areas in almost every jurisdiction. GivenBy routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values. this, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence without any corresponding risk to themselves.
On the other hand,Routinely arming the police causes a spiral of violence. Where the police are not routinely armed, a proportion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider a shooting option which they did not formerly possess. This effectively reduces the options currently available, for example the police are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as “stun guns”, CS spray, negotiation, etc.
The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighbourhood light policing reflected the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. There is also a network effect involved in being a state with unarmed police when others have them. The nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can effectively encourage an importation of criminality.
However,by routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values.
The police in the United Kingdom are routinely unarmed, whereas in North America and most European countries – as elsewhere – policemen are routinely armed. In countries such as the United States, police arms are commonly cited as links to abuse of power e.g. victimisation of certain ethnic communities, and so there are sometimes calls for a reduction in police reliance on firepower. There are also calls, however, for extending their presence, e.g. using armed air marshals: this is essentially a different debate involving air safety issues etc., although many of the points below may still have some relevance.
Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europe and North America routinely arm police officers, in part to deter criminal acts. Armed criminals operate in at least some areas in almost every jurisdiction. GivenBy routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values. this, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence without any corresponding risk to themselves.
On the other hand,Routinely arming the police causes a spiral of violence. Where the police are not routinely armed, a proportion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider a shooting option which they did not formerly possess. This effectively reduces the options currently available, for example the police are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as “stun guns”, CS spray, negotiation, etc.
The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighbourhood light policing reflected the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. There is also a network effect involved in being a state with unarmed police when others have them. The nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can effectively encourage an importation of criminality.
However,by routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimises the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.By this policy – especially in the absence of a fundamental right for citizens to bear arms – the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)