Censorship

Censorship

• 1.
  Censorship We see censorshipa lot throughout various forms of media. The definition of censorship is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” So basically, it is someone decided that a certain aspect of content is not appropriate for a certain audience. The organization that censors film and television in the UK is the BBFC. They not only censor films but they also rate them. This means that people over a certain age can buy the content or watch it in cinemas. This means that they can keep the films more or less as they are without censoring them, by having them restricted to a certain age group. ADS/DIS OF CINEMA CENSORSHIP The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) regulates advertising. In terms of censorship, the most important part of advertising censorship is privacy, so for example not putting a person’s full or real name in the ad. This is to protect that person’s privacy and keep them from any harm that may come from the advertisement, whatever it may be. For me the main question is should we have censorship in the first place? Should we cut out parts of pieces of media, whether they be artistic or entirely corporate, just to protect people or to refrain from offence. To answer this question, we have to look at both sides of the argument. There are many positives to censorship, for example, the ability for a person in a news story to refrain from giving their full name, so that they can keep their identity private. The ASA states that you may not portray someone in an ‘adverse or offensive’ way unless you have the expressed written permission to do so from the person. This is one of the positives of censorship, as it protects a person’s identity, and say for instance, ta news outlet such as Vice were interviewing drug dealers about how they sell drugs, which would be a typical article for them, they would not put their name or their face in the article, to protect their identity from the police. On the surface, this may seem like a negative as they are letting criminals get away, but the information that they learn could potentially help the police on a much broader scale, so if they started giving the names of these criminals in the articles that they write, nobody would ever come forward to be interviewed as they know that they would just essentially get handed over to the police. As they know that they can talk, we cannot learn more about how criminals operate in the UK. The downside to censorship is that artistic pieces of media can either be watered down or completely changed to what the original intention was from the author. Libraries censoring books, . Example of this is books about lesbian mothers in some American schools, in the more religious states. To me this is very limiting, as it doesn’t let children challenge their beliefs, which will be further imposed upon by the people censoring what they can see. If this book was sexually explicit you could justify ting it out of the school library, but there was no sexual content in the book so they had no real justification other than ‘gay people are bad, just because’. In my opinion, books should not be censored but if they contain content that could be deemed offensive, they should be age restricted just like films and games, even in libraries. One thing that censorship is good for is protecting a person’s privacy. This is especially pertinent in legal cases and for celebrities who want to keep their private
• 2.
  life out ofthe public eye. An example of this is the James Bulger case, where Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were given new identities after their release from their detention after the murder of James Bulger. These identities, including any imagery of them and their names where kept a secret form the press, so that they could start a new life after their sentences. This was done as this was a high profile case involving children, which is normally a big motivator for people to take revenge almost upon the former convict. This is a relevant example as just the other day, Facebook moderators refused to remove illegal posts that revealed the identity of Jon Venables, forcing the social media giant to remove it themselves. To conclude, I think that we should have censorship in some circumstances, but not in some. For example, I think we should respect the privacy of people who have served time in prison by not releasing any statements when they are released. But in some circumstances I think we don’t need censorship, for example I don’t think that any books should be banned for their content, for example, in the U.A.E you aren’t allowed to read Harry Potter as witchcraft is deemed illegal. So censorship should not be black and white. References Ben Lazarus. (2018). FARCEBOOK Facebook moderators refused to remove illegal posts allegedly revealing Jon Venables’ identity – forcing company chiefs to step in. Available: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5818070/facebook-moderators-refused- to-remove-illegal-posts-allegedly-reifvealing-jon-venables-identity-forcing-company- chiefs-to-step-in/. Last accessed 16th Mar 2018.