censorship

Censorship is something we may need in the sensitized world we live in today, but I feel that it is not something we need in the sometimes extreme form in which we receive it. Censorship is overused in our society to an almost dangerous degree, but the way it is perceived instills in us a sense that it is ok. This peculiar conformity is one that is not challenged enough, as it has become somewhat fashionable and easy to slap labels and ratings on the various forms of entertainment. We should not let this system of filtering cloud our capability of judgement, however, for this would bring about worse consequences than an uncensored flow of entertainment would provide. As Henry Steel Commager, an American historian, once said, "censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.".
One major reason censorship is dangerous is because it alters the original perspective the artist attempted to convey. The object being censored is usually a form of entertainment, and entertainment is defined as being an art form or activity which gives pleasure to an audience. With art, a general rule of thumb is to keep the art original when being reproduced, trying to stay as close to the artist's vision as possible. An author would hate for the words they diligently pieced together to be changed by another so as to not offend anyone. In fact, entertainers of any sort will often try to be offensive in order to convey emotions not contained within the feel-good spectrum. This is important because reality is filled with all different types of emotions, and when entertainers try to relate to as many people as possible, they will try to realize this fact through their work. This being said, Mark Twain did not omit the word 'nigger' from Huckleberry Finn, Jim Morrison went ahead and said 'higher' on the Ed Sullivan show, and Theodore Gericault did not banish the fully-dressed men or the naked woman from his "Raft of the Medusa." Censoring these people, then, is unjust and is an act of dismantlement upon their hard work.
Another reason censorship should be limited is that it truly goes against our most basic right, the right to free speech. People like Don Imus are being put out of work for saying what is on their mind and saying it true to original thought. Although free speech has the famous "fire in a crowded theater" limitation on it, which makes perfectly good sense, there is no clear and present danger in saying what is on your mind, even if it is derogatory to someone. This should be an obvious fact; words will only be words, and the person being verbally attacked has the same right to speech as the attacker, making it a fair fight. Society must not submit this right to the trend of accepting losses of freedom, for losses of freedom does not create a stronger people but only a population that can no longer do what they will, ultimately leading to unhappiness.
In this day and age, the government has felt the need to step over the parents of America to inform the children about what is right and what is wrong. Not only is this harmful to individualist thought, which is what this country is supposed to be founded upon, but it is also harmful to the families who hold and teach different values than those the government would impose. The morals that are taught to children should be kept with the confines of the family. It should not be up to the government whether or not a person can see an R-rated movie, buy graphic video games or listen to certain music. People should have access to any form of entertainment whether it's graphic or not, and if it crosses the line with what the parents feel is right, then certain action should be taken, but only by them.
Although I have said that people should be able to get any entertainment they want, the reality of this is that it will not happen. So, a compromise. Advocates of censorship will claim that we need to filter anything with a harmful nature in order to maintain peace in the violent everyday life of society. A balancing point does exist between what they and I are saying, however. Instead of turning away anyone under 17 that comes to an R movie, let's instead turn away only those we know are too young to handle the material, for instance 12 and under. When kids become teenagers, they should be able to make their own decisions about what they view, hear and see.
Child blocks are available on virtually every tv out there; Let us utilize them instead of filtering everything for everybody. This is another example of what we can do in everyday life to set the right censorship levels for our own distinct needs. If we did things this way, everybody could easily control what is right for them while the majority is not summarized into one idea. This is better because it allows us to practice our freedom of choice as well as expression, leading to an informed society working it's way through the acceptance of mature content stages.
Censorship, in the end, has the capability to be a good thing. Unfortunately, it is also a thing that is too easily abused. Free speech is a quality that needs to live on if we are still to be a free country. Besides, the world will always have its violence and cursing and censorship will only be throwing a blanket over the boulder whose presence is felt throughout the room and world. As Benjamin Franklin said, "If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed." Let society use censorship as a helpful tool if at all, and not to use it in every case of what might be one more missed opportunity, one more thought that didn't exist but could have at one moment in time.