There's a new movie out, but in your country, you’re not allowed to watch it. There’s a big event that happened recently, but when you search for it on the internet there’s seemingly no information being broadcasted about it. There’s something controversial on your mind, but you’re not supposed to talk about it. These restrictions placed on people around the world are caused by the government’s censorship of its people, the media, and history. This topic is very disputed as many argue that government censorship can protect vulnerable members of society and prevent public disturbances. However while doing so, it prevents freedom of speech, public awareness and has the ability to be exploited by authorities who may use it for manipulation. Therefore despite its positive impacts, government censorship has negative repercussions that can cause damage to society and long-term harm to the citizens who are impacted by it.
One reason government censorship is harmful is that it prevents the freedom of speech of its citizens. One country with a prime example of this is Canada. In 2006 when Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister, restrictions were placed on what scientists were and were not allowed to publish. According to Lesley Ogden of the Nature Publishing Group, “On numerous occasions over that [time period], government officials had forbidden [a scientist] from talking to the press or the public about her work on the genetics of salmon.” (Ogden, 2016) Due to censorship by the government, this scientist could not publish her work simply on the genetics of salmon, a topic not opposing the ruling party. This ridiculous censorship completely stripped the scientist in question from her right to an opinion and her right to free speech. Canadian scientists were not alone, corporations and unknowing civilians also had their freedom taken from them. CNET, a leading publisher of technological news, reports that “[Google] said it had received more than 1,000 requests from governments around the world to remove items such as Youtube videos and search listings.” (Musil, 2012) This illustrates that governments are trying to control everyday citizens who post content on a platform famous for free speech, the internet. It is a place where everyone should be able to enjoy the same freedoms without having to worry about persecution from the government due to a non-compliant material being published.
However despite this, censorship is not necessarily always a harmful thing. Many use a reasoning described in Tony Blankley’s 2009 book, American Grit, stating that “a temporary reduction of personal media freedoms is an acceptable price to pay in order to lessen the chance that [terrorists] will commit further atrocities.” (Blankley, 2009) This argues that censorship can prevent terrorism and help keep citizens safe from groups aiming to participate in violence. Indeed, to some extent, it can help to restrict those aiming to commit violent crimes and prevent them from recruiting more people. It can help create a safer world by limiting the reach of violence and can help the government to persecute those involved in it. Yet while all this may be true, is government censorship really effective enough for all the negatives to be overlooked? Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the small boost censorship provides in preventing terrorism is enough to make up for the complete loss of freedom that comes along with it.
Government Censorship is also harmful because it prevents the general public from being fully aware of what is happening in their own country. During the period of scientific censorship in Canada, “it was an incredible rigmarole to try and get the most innocuous bit of information to media or the public.” Ogden, 2016) and “it was like an iron curtain was drawn across communicating research to Canadians.” (Ogden, 2016) The people of Canada were completely oblivious to information that may have concerned them because of the censorship of the media. The citizens of a country have the right to know what is happening within their own borders. For it to be so difficult to communicate research, not even an opinionated piece, to the people that it is affecting surely cannot help in any way.
Next door in the United States, censorship was beginning to take place in schools. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group of school districts set up a board to select a curriculum with “parameters put forth will give students a false impression of [the United State’s history]” (Lindberg, 2014) including the exclusion of topics that would “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” (Lindberg, 2014) Their goal was to prevent anything that promoted going against the government from being taught in a classroom. If this curriculum was successfully implemented, students would receive an education missing influential parts of their history. Upstanders such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks who disregarded authority to protest for change fit the description of topics that may be discluded. Some of the greatest moments in human history have come via those who challenged the government, but now would be ignored by teachers because they didn’t comply with the new guidelines.
Yet censorship can also be used to maintain a more peaceful society. “During an emergency, [censorship] helps in controlling panic and rumours throughout the nation.” (Pillai, 2016) This was observed in India in 2008, during a terror attack in Mumbai. Stories about what happened flew around the country with no one being sure which to believe, causing widespread panic. Censorship helped to remove false stories and leave only the true ones for the public to see. As well as this “Book may be used to portray wrong information about individuals or groups that could incite violence.” (Pillai, 2016) False information could encourage unrest and spark violence. Censorship would remove the false information and prevent citizens from ever being able to see the incorrect versions, thus maintaining order in society. However on certain controversial topics, who has the authority to draw the line between what is true and what isn’t? In these cases, whatever the government regards as correct is generally regarded as so and remains in circulation for the general population, be it the truth or not.
Thirdly, censorship can easily be exploited for government manipulation. For example, after the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square in China, the Chinese government went to great lengths to erase the event from history altogether. In the 2014 book, the People’s Republic of Amnesia, author Louisa Lim explains that “The government tried to saturate the country with its version of events” (Lim, 2014), wanting the Chinese people to only believe what the authorities were saying happened. They did so to retain control over their large population, in fear that if their people knew the truth it would spark a rebellion against their only recently established stable government. Yet this censorship caused a large impact on the population they claimed to be trying to protect and became “a massive secret that has become a massive vacuum, like a poison that has contaminated the air [they] breathe and [their] whole life and spirit.” (Lim, 2014) Pretending that something didn’t happen in order to pretend it doesn’t exist is hard to do without making those that do remember, feel outcasted and alone.
It was not just countries with newly stabilized democracies whose governments felt the need to use censorship for manipulation. The reason behind the censorship against scientists in Canada was due to the government's need to hide the environmental atrocities that came at the cost of their choice to focus on boosting the economy. It is not uncommon for governments to “use censorship to promote a flattering image of themselves and [to] remove any information that goes against them.” (Pillai, 2016) However does it really make that big of a difference? Surely “topics that promote patriotism, respect for authority and free enterprise” (Lindberg, 2014) can only help to increase the stability of a society. It is true that the censorship used for manipulation can, in fact, be used in a good way. Some examples of this are preventing violence or promoting peaceful interaction between citizens. However more often than not the manipulation is indeed used for harm, and that risk is one too large to take in return for the positives that the censorship offers.
Indeed, government censorship is bigger than just whether or not an individual feels it is morally wrong. It is the question of how much power we give our governments. While it is necessary for some form of government to prevent society from slipping back into a state of nature, a line must be drawn between what is required and what is too far. The role of the authorities should not be taken for granted, yet their use of censorship is clouding the judgement of many members of society, whether they are aware of it or not. At the end of the day, whether it is in a country's constitution or not, a freedom of speech, a freedom to access information and a freedom of opinion should be a universal human right, not one dictated by which country one lives in or the stability and confidence of its government.
Bibliography
Blankley, Tony. “BLANKLEY: Yes, We Need Censorship.” Washington Times. The Washington Times, 12 Feb. 2009. Web. 29 May 2016.
Pillai, Prabhakar. "Pros and Cons of Censorship." Buzzle. Buzzle.com, 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 24 May 2016.
Musil, Steven. "Google Sees 'alarming' Level of Government Censorship."CNET. CNET, 17 June 2012. Web. 18 May 2016.
Ogden, Lesley Evans. "Nine Years of Censorship." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 3 May 3016. Web. 07 May 2016.
Lindberg, Maya. "The Danger of Censoring Our History." Teaching Tolerance. Southern Poverty Law Center, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 May 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment