f

1. Censorship !
!
Censorship is a difficult think to understand. It is vastly unclear what qualifies and what does not a
censorship issue. But firstly it is important to acknowledge what censorship is. The google
definition is as follows:!
!
“the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports,
and other communication media for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be
objectionable or offensive”!
!
The key words here are “suppressing”, “objectionable” and “offensive”. In other word censorship
exists in order to remove content from media which may have cause (or a result) offence. Offence
can be a troublesome as i can create division in communities and run the risk of public unrest.
Censorship is a code put in place and enforced for wellbeing of the overall population. However
regulation is also something people throughout history have felt is deeply offensive to them. This
begs the question “Should we have censorship?”.!
!
Some people will be behind the censorship programme while other feel that it challenges there
freedom of speech. This is truly something that has no correct answer, there is two sides to every
coin and no one so far has come up with an answer that everyone is happy with. I will attempt to
weigh up the for and against arguments in this debate.!
!
Coming back to our initial quote, the word “offensive” came up as something to “suppress”. A
common cause of censored media is something that offends a community as i can be deemed an
attack on that particular way of living. For example there is a catalogue of banned television
episodes, Family Guy once created an episode called “Partial Terms of Endearment” this episode
depicted the positive affects of getting an abortion (of course it was crude and comical, and not a
political move) this caused certain groups of people to take offence. This kind of content was
censored for this reason as the content seamed to have a target. However censorships that cover
ethical and moral issues do not always have a direct victim. For example it is considered morally
wrong to allow children to be exposed to violence, swear words, sex, drugs, etc.. therefore there is
a censorship of anything that is deemed unfit for a certain time of day on television. This is an
indirect censorship issue. The fact that television is carefully censored during the daytime bring up
another relevant point. Where censors occur is specific and relevant to the content and more
importantly the platform of media. It is expected that children will be watching television particularly
during the day and appropriate censors are put in place. In contrast books are not such a common
form of media for children to consume, excluding children’s books, there absence of a regulatory
system in books for this reason. Books are therefore censored to a much lesser extent. I am not
saying that regulation only exists for children however i am only making a point that censorship
occurs at different degrees on different platforms. Video games are proof that some medai outlets
receive a high degree of censorship and controversy.!
!
Censorship can occur if content is “objectionable” acceding to the definition i have found.
Continuing on with my point about books and children, there is a good example of how a book
might cause someone to object to it. Keeping in mind there is a difference here between
censorship because of offence and because the content is objectionable. There was a series of
books the were often found in school libraries this series was called “Captain Underpants”. This
book was pulled from the shelves of all school libraries and banned in schools by the “American
Library Association” for the reason that the book “encouraged children to disobey authority”.
Children can be extremely impressionable. This can be attributed to how children are still
discovering themselves until adulthood (i’m thinking mainly of under 10s) they will try to understand
what kind of person they are. For example how they might react to someone asking for a favour or
in this example how they will react to authority. This is the thinking behind the book being banned.
However this correlate to the hypodermic needle theory which i do not believe to be true. Children
are impressionable of course although i don’t think we give them enough credit in distinguishing
who they should behave and how characters and fictional creations behave. Perhaps it is true that

2. all of what i just said goes entirely over young children’s heads. I have a better example to
accommodate this theory. There was a book released for children called “In our Mother’s House”
the book is a picture book for young children that features a family, the only irregularity being that
the family has two mothers. Some have argued that this should be censored as it encourages
children to grow up to become homosexual and that is inappropriate for them to be exposed to. I
think it is likely that children pay no attention to the gender of the parents and simply enjoy the
story. On the other hand it is thought that it is very good for children to grow up accepting and
being accustomed to homosexual relationships. I don’t feel that it poses any significance as i can’t
see an correlation between sexual orientation and this book. Is it relevant for children to be
concerned about this at a young age it would be something that poses any relevance until
adolescent years. This example spans far further that just sexual orientation, this can apply to
peoples religious views. There is a balance that must be found as there is no answer to this
debate. !
!
Continuing on the theme of children, it seams people are always trying to influence children.
Television advertising directly towards children is another matter that is morally ambiguous. The
route of the argument is that adverting to children is taking advantage of their impressionable
nature. In other words that are currently uneducated in how adverting works and the real goal
behind adverts. Censorship has a place in advertising as a whole as we do not like to be hassled
by companies that are essentially trying to get us to part with our money. Children do not see it this
way they see something that captures their imagination for the duration of the advert, there is no
point in their thinking that they consider whether they really want/need it. Toy sellers are exploiting
this and i therefore feel that advertising to children and i therefore endorse censorship of children’s
adverting. !
!
The people who decide what should be censored and propose the rules censorship consist of
independent and government ran organisations. Some operate within the media industry such as
the BBFC who are responsible for the age rating system present on films. I like the age rating
system as it is left largely up to the parent of guardian to chose what is right for the child. A large
organisation cannot determine what is best for an individual while catering for a majority.
Alternatively government run organisations have a feeling of trust about them as they are not trying
to make money, we the people also elected our government which might make some feel as if they
have our best interests at heart. !
!
Gagging is appropriately named as a censorship on a person or body of people that have
information that they a legally required to keep the information to themselves. The information that
might get out to the public could be a meter of safely in extreme circumstances. There on behalf of
the police/military someone may be subjected to a gagging order. I feel this is a reasonable request
, in past times the consequences would be far ore severe. A gagging order is a safe a modern way
to deal with dangerous information. There is the risk that information will get out after the issue of
the gagging order however. Despite gagging orders being used to protect it can often be unfairly
used to shelter the public from information that they perhaps have the right to know. In other
circumstances it has been used to shut down the press when they have breached personal
information in order to sell a story. Steve Coogan was a victim of what has become known as the
phone hacking scandal, details of his personal life was revealed by the press. http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013316/Steve-Coogan-phone-hacking-scandal-sickening-case-
hypocrisy.html In this situation it would seem to be a very reasonable request to have the press put
under a gagging order. This to me would be just use of a gagging order in a different situation a
gagging order can be used to control by those in power. For example a witness or member of jury
might be put under a gagging order as a way of enforcing silence for the rich and powerful. !
!
When the rich and powerful try to control the masses then everyone suffers. There is evidence of
this currently around the world. North Korea is a good example of a population that has been
overly subjected to censorship. The population is dehumanised and fed lies and restricted from
free speaking. Free speaking and the right to our point of view has been fought for by our

3. ancestors to question our right to this is unthinkable to some. This North Korean method of
censorship is destructive to our individuality and human creativity. !
!
Which way you chose to looking at it i think it is evident that we are are impacted by the media and
it has a profound effect on us all. And it is therefore a tool that cannot be wielded by the wrong
people. There must be a degree of debate surrounding every piece content. This debate will come
to a conclusion on to the degree of censorship applied. This is the system we have in place in the
UK. I think this is a good system that i commend as we are neither one extremity or the other. The
best thing for a population of people with conflating views is to stay in the balance of equilibrium. It
will never be possible to answer the question “should we have censorship?” as it is something that
is a matter of perception and perspective, there is no yes or no answer.