Censorship is a way of control. Censorship is used to control the social interaction of the public with the media. Such a censorship can be directed to various medias if the media is judged to be either immoral, blasphemous, obscene, unpatriotic, radical or seditious. In the novel, Fahrenheit 451, the government prohibited and burned books; the public is denied access to and the use of books the government deemed as objectionable or promoted individuality. The public is only authorized to access, keep and read rule books, trade journals and the three-dimensional comic books, any other books were subjected to burning.
Fahrenheit 451 brilliantly illustrates a life where censorship eliminates thought provoking activities and replaces such activities with those of instant gratification. Censorship is a controversial topic that often confuses the common person. “Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are ‘offensive,’ happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others” (“What is Censorship” 1). Knowing the definition of censorship allows for the ability to discern suppression from the whole truth. Why censor in the first place?
Many say no torture because they fear it would “corrupt democratic institutions, diminish our moral authority in the world, cause torture to become routine and widespread in society, and arouse worldwide resentment and anger towards us” (688). They would say that torture is not morally permissible, and does not truly work. A non-consequentialist might believe that torture disregards human life, and is disrespectful, no matter what the other has done. They would say that the answer to torture “is an absolutist no - torture is the use of a person merely as a means, a clear instance of a lack of respect for a human being. Torture is therefore always wrong” (687).
However, there are limits to what we are allowed to say. We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate
One major method of using biased word choice by mainstream media, is the exclusion of words that might give an idea that goes against the media’s beliefs. One taboo phrase is “gun control.” The word control is inferred as to government overreach and this will leave a space for
It was mainly used as a method to suppress the Freedom Movement. Several freedom fighters, including Tilak, and Gandhi have been jailed under this law. Nehru himself criticised the law, saying “that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” The sedition law is a draconian law in that it does not require the speaker to incite violence against the state. It simply requires that they “excite disaffection,” a term which the statute specifies “includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity,” extremely vague terms.
“Suspect classifications” include groups that have been historically discriminated against, they possess a visible trait, they are powerless in the political system to protect themselves, and their visible trait does not stop them from participating in society in a meaningful way. Race, religion, national origin, and alien status are all considered suspect classification, and thus any governmental law or policy that discriminates them will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. For a law or policy to be declared constitutional under strict scrutiny, it must be satisfy three components: it must have a compelling state interest which is generally accepted as necessary and crucial, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that state interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that state interest. The Courts have never established a set definition of what constitutes a compelling state interest, thus making it harder to determine the remaining two components. One example of a compelling state interest includes national security.
There are many positive reasons to embrace traditions and there is a need to introduce and enforce rules for social conformity to ensure that society can function without undue chaos. However, taken to their extremes, blind acceptance of traditions and strict social conformity can lead to the persecution and destruction of fellow human beings. In part, strict allegiance to traditions and requiring social compliance in conforming to one type of thinking can result in a “cult-like” mentality. This mentality continues if there is no opportunity to allow for creative and independent thinking. The end result is a narrow-minded perspective that can hold down others who express other opinions or live in an opposing manner.
How do I Make Moral choices, in a World of Moral Ambiguity? A desire for meaning would also include obtaining some kind of “identity,” or individualism. Yet, society or someone will try to force their “ideal” moral system onto everyone else. “Thinking may be “good for nothing” in the world, but in the mind it is good for guidance—not legislation, but guidance” (Bruehl 193). If you base your moral standards off everyone else’s, even when in truth you think in a different way, then in the eyes of an existentialist, you have been degraded and reduced to an object.
2. Disadvantages of regulations/censorship 2.1 compromising the freedom of speech Censorship compromises the freedom of speech in many different ways. Freedom of speech refers to the right to speak without censorship or being restraint by a higher authority of the organization or country. For example, Compromising the freedom of speech will not allow the society to voice out their negative thoughts or to protest at a government or a government-related event. This example clearly shows that freedom of speech is being compromised as people are unable to voice out what they truly feel and are mostly forced to keep their opinions to themselves as voicing these opinions will make the rest of the society think in a different way and steer them away to generate other ideas or thoughts.
Douglas point out that cases like Francis v. Resweber and Robinson v. California are examples of case being settled from due process ban of cruel and unusual punishment, which forbids the judicial system of imposing by the legislature. He believes that this type of punishment is targeting people from different race, religion, social position, and/or class. There is evidence that the provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from which the language of the Eighth Amendment was taken, was concerned primarily with selective or irregular application of harsh penalties, and that its aim was to forbid arbitrary and discriminatory penalties of a severe