The Pros And Cons Of Military Censorship

Our country was founded on the idea of freedom. We wanted freedom from a government that was too controlling and didn’t give us a voice. When it came time to set up an ideal government after we won a well fought war, we ensured that individuals’ freedom of speech and freedom of the press were included in the Bill of Rights. These are irrefutable rights that citizens of any country should always have. The very concept of censorship--suppression of free speech--violates these basic principles. Although many people believe that censorship protects citizens from dangerous information being leaked, it does not protect against real threats and could just as easily harm soldiers more than help them.

Censorship requires a lot of effort with little

The press is essential in gaining the support of the people. During the world wars, “journalists considered themselves a part of the war effort”(Press Freedom vs. Military Censorship). However, the military fears that if the public is informed of the true war conditions, then they would be less willing to encourage the suffering of their loved ones. “Starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military...When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for ‘losing Vietnam’”(Press Freedom vs. Military Censorship). On the contrary, lying to gain the misplaced trust of the people has an equally crippling effect. “Such phony optimism will encourage public support in the short run, just as false low assessments of the enemy’s size did early in the war in Vietnam, but it undermines support in the long run along with the precious trust in government”(Etzioni). Citizens cannot have faith in a government that would deceitfully manipulate them. Censorship doesn’t preserve the support of the people--it destroys