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
No comments:
Post a Comment