Censoring material is the responsibility of the individual, not the institution itself, and certainly not the job of a separate institution. Also, the definition of what is censor-worthy is by no means clear. Exercising the freedom of speech has two sides: the speaker and the listener. Censorship is unfair to both sides. When it takes away the speaker’s Constitutional freedom of expression, it simultaneously revokes the listener’s right to develop an informed opinion based on unobstructed truth.
Censorship involves the restriction of material that the government believes may be harmful to society. However, censorship in film is controversial because it can either create safe boundaries for movies or hinder the film industry’s freedom. Those who support censorship believe that it prohibits unnecessarily explicit content from being freely shown in films. Those who are against censorship believe that censorship conflicts with constitutional freedom and can be used as a tool for manipulation. Although, both sides of the argument have valid points, censorship should not apply to films at any extent because it impedes societal progress.
Also, the definition states suppression of speech considered inconvenient to the government. The Constitution guarantees us the right to Freedom of Speech specifically to keep government from suppressing our speech. Many argue that there are words, phrases, pictures and ideas that are so offensive that we must have government pass laws to keep these from being spoken or discussed. They would further argue that the enormity of the degree of offense warrants such censorship. There are certain types of speech that fall under that definition, howe... ... middle of paper ... ...an trust what the paper’s say because the state runs the media.
The laws within are rarely contested, however, censorship tends to impede on this pattern. The First Amendment of the Constitution states,” Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. or of the press…”(Charters), meaning there cannot be any laws enacted that will interfere with an individuals’ freedom of speech or press. Yet, this is exactly what censorship in all forms works to do. When censorship blocks out certain phrases from a book, or banning an entire book all together, it is going against the constitution, as both the author and reader have the right to say and speak their mind.
Although Article 19 of the UDHR ,which states that everyone has the right to freedom, does not create a binding effect to Malaysian law, Malaysia as a member of the United Nation should abide by this vow (Lim,2007). Newspaper publishers are restricted from writing fair and accurate information due to the strict regulations and government ownership of the firms thus misleading the public. Also, the government can misuse the laws that restrict the freedom of expression for their own political benefits.Wang (2001) argued that in order for Malaysia to remain as a democratic society; the press should have the freedom to write and criticize without fear from the government. Though the press may exploit their freedom to express, there is no reason for the Malaysian government to restrict them with regulations that only benefits the government.
Artists have always viewed censorship as a hindrance stiffening their creativity and as a means for control that can be asserted over that which should not be controlled. The Government on the other hand has viewed censorship as an unavoidable evil to protect the public and maintain order and morality. Whether you are for or against censorship in art, it serves a useful purpose in moderation, but it can be taken to extremes. As an Artist trying to express your individual vision, you would not want someone telling you how to or not to go about doing that. It would be easy to sympathize with their feelings of resentment for the loss of creative freedom.
However, the courts in Oman take this law to mean that insulting a public official is illegal. Article 31 addresses press, printing, and publishing. It states that the freedom of press, printing, and publishing is protected by the Law. Despite this freedom, magazines and newspapers are expected to be consistent with government views and media presence in the country is limited and monitored by the government. The citizens are given internet access, but the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority monitors activity and any sites deemed pornographic, culturally or politically sensitive are to be blocked immediately.
The right to speak up stretches across many topics, but not all of them are the kindest. Hate speech is a protected form of free speech, which is controversial amongst many because of its inherently hateful nature. In fact, some people argue it should not be protected under the first amendment at all. If hate speech is to be made illegal however, it would lead to the censorship of society as whole, and would be reminiscent of the days of Hitler and Mussolini. People were shot down simply for stating an opinion.
From the perspective of political realism, there is no international morality. Without a defined universal morality, humans are subject to follow their own basis for what is right and wrong, which limits any chance of a realistic expectation on the limitations of freedom of expression. Without a limitation on the freedom of expression, humans live in a state of nature in which morality is negated when free speech is used. However, when the safety of others comes into play, it is universally understood, that precautions should be taken. Charlie Hebdo may have gotten security guards, but it persisted in committing the same act that places its staff in danger in the first
In conclusion, the right of free speech never meant persons could do anything they please, regardless of its effects, and when that effect is to undermine the integrity and heritage of our great country we must act. The inflammatory act of burning our flag does not accomplish anything except the alienation and devaluation of the rest of us. It is an attack by a citizen on their own country, an act of domestic terrorism. Protecting the flag is not an abridgment of free speech, but rather an action to honor our most recognized national symbol. We must act to restore out flag to the position of respect that it deserves as an emblem of our nation.