Sensible Censorship?
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates claimed that stories affect the souls of those who hear them. Given this, he went on to argue that censorship was not only necessary but also beneficial to society. Socrates wanted to censor portions of poetry, the arts, and sciences that were not productive or beneficial to society. He believed that poetry was neither philosophical nor pragmatic and did not lead to true knowledge. Rather, he found it to be unethical, leading to desires and passions. He thus declared it inferior to the practical arts and lacking in educational value.
I agree with Socrates’ goal to protect the world from such falsehoods. Our minds are like sponges, and in order to protect against the absorption/effects of unnecessary and harmful practices, there must be a filter. Such a filter would protect/preserve that which is moral and good in society, including the innocence of the youth. This can be encouraged by banning the inappropriate elements of popular culture, including suggestive movie content, explicit song lyrics, and false information shared and displayed in the media and replacing them with beneficial practices.
So how much does the world affect us? Can these “harmless stories” really harm our souls? Yes! We are a product of our environment. We mimic those around us to be accepted. We conform to what society deems normal or desirable in an effort to “fit in”. For example, a student can go to Baylor University, major in engineering, meet some supportive and encouraging “nerd” friends, and join a life group at church. That same student might just as easily have attended the University of Texas, joined a sorority, embraced the “party life” and gotten pregnant.
Young, preteen girls...
... middle of paper ...
...ction regarding what is watched, viewed, read, and heard might begin to help protect society as a whole.
Socrates sought to amputate a dead body part for the benefit of the body as a whole. Censoring is necessary if we are to allow for a society functioning in accordance with his City in Speech. Unfortunately, he also points out that because society is composed of fallen, fallible men, it would ultimately cycle through all four of the unjust constitutions of city and man. Timocracy would ultimately give way to oligarchy, in turn degenerating into democracy. Democracy would eventually and completely decline into tyranny. Spiritually, (in the Christian sense of the word), we will probably never realize lasting change because our fallen nature can only be remedied by heart change, and that can only be accomplished through God and not institutions of man.
In review of both Plato and Mill’s arguments for and against censorship, I come to my conclusion that holds true to Mill. I could not have said it any better than Mill’s two main arguments against censorship. Humans make mistakes and making mistakes is entirely unavoidable because we are not perfect. Therefore, without being perfect, how can a human, like Plato, decide the perfect way to form a society? Plato makes sense in that he does not care about happiness he only cares about an ideal state with little or no issues. I understand that was his goal in forming the Republic but as I see it Plato leaves no room for growth. In his society, everything will be the same for generations and generations. His society is very well structured and extremely thought out but it essentially must be in order to thrive for many years because the workers only work, the guardians only guard, and the rulers only rule. Only what the rulers do, say, or think is important and they too are just as human as those they lead. My question to Plato is simply why? Why are the rulers, the philosophers, the ones ...
I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation. In books II and III Socrates argues that much of epic poetry that contains false statements about the gods and other immoral subjects should be removed from their city. If the education of the citizens were to be censored in this way, they would not properly be able to learn the divisions between the moral and immoral (just and unjust). In this sense the people may wish to explore what is being censored more than if it were not, and subsequently lead to injustice.
But the new landscape of ideas and their control leaves many people queasy and uneasy about media, morality, and responsibility. If censorship is wrong and impossible, how then to address the issue of people and companies that use media irresponsibly?
Socrates speaks of two types of stories that can be told to young people, ones that are true and ones that are false. (389b) By this he means those that speak of actual events and those that are the product of an individual’s imagination. When taken as strictly for reading enjoyment, neither is better than the other is. This differentiation does not come about until the story is allowed to affect or shape the values of the person hearing them.
In Peter Tait’s article, “Preserving childhood innocence” he discusses how it influences the way social media has corrupted the innocence of youth. It is very easy to Google search and find anything in the blink of an eye. But, just because the information is readily available does not mean that it is a good idea to take advantage of it all at once. Parents often struggle raising their children in today’s society in which kids have much more exposure to content that is not age appropriate than the past generation had at their age. Today’s generation can be overstimulated by the kind and amount of information at their fingertips as they stumble upon it. Burdens of adult life are being unknowingly placed on kids who have not yet reached, or are just reaching, adolescence. This often leads to long-term negative psychological and social effects on children if they are prematurely exposed. Most information on the Internet is unfiltered which is often why it is often called “overexposed”. Without filtration, anyone can pull up inappropriate or false information without being aware of its inaccuracy. This includes anything from inappropriate pictures to hateful comments to uncensored language. When absorbed by a child who does not know how to self-filter the material, it can destroy the innocence that comes with being young. The kid no longer thinks like a child and is haunted by the
According to Peter S. Jenison “Children deprived of words become school dropouts; dropouts deprived of hope behave delinquently. Amateur censors blame delinquency on reading immoral books and magazines, when in fact, the inability to read anything is the basic trouble.” Jenison is trying to tell us that censorship will damage our future generations due to the amount of tension it has put our society in. Books teach us lessons and if this books are abolished then lessons, ideas and real events of the real world are also banished from students.
Philosophers as well as ordinary people have different ideals and morals. They sometimes agree on things, but most of the time they contradict each other on certain ideas or principles. Both Pericles and Aristophanes were wise men that analyzed certain aspects of life that are essential for a thriving society. Although Pericles has a point on democracy being the essential way to rule Athens, through seeing Aristophanes’ evidence I argue that unjust speech can corrupt the society because it makes people engage in selfish behavior and make bad decisions that affect everyone.
Censorship is defined as the act or practice of removing obscene, vulgar, and highly objectionable material from things we encounter every day. Whether it is on TV, in music, books, or on the Internet censorship is an inescapable part of our lives. Free expression is one of the basic roots that are country is based on, although this right is constantly challenged and contested. The Communications Decency Act was passed by congress on February 1st 1996. This act sent shockwaves throughout the Internet community.
Presently 98% of the households in the United States have one or more televisions in them. What once was regarded as a luxury item has become a staple appliance of the American household. Gone are the days of the three channel black and white programming of the early years; that has been replaced by digital flat screen televisions connected to satellite programming capable of receiving thousands of channels from around the world. Although televisions and television programming today differ from those of the telescreens in Orwell’s 1984, we are beginning to realize that the effects of television viewing may be the same as those of the telescreens.
It won't kill us to make limits, but it might if we don't. That is why it is JUSTIFIABLE to limit adult's freedom of expression--it is in our, society's, best interests to protect the children. Lional Tate is just one example of a child gone bad because of the media. Tate mimicked his idol the Rock, killing a six-year old girl by smashing her skull, pulverizing her liver, breaking her ribs and causing numerous cuts and bruises. If that's not enough of an example what about the teen from New Jersey who simply listened to Ozzy Osborne's "Suicide Solution" and killed himself? These are not random occurrences, we hear about them on the news frequently. If our freedom of expression is harming kids why can't we fix the problem by not allowing them access to it?
For centuries, government nations and society have been withholding certain pieces of information from the public to ensure safety and prevent catastrophic out bursts; this detainment of public knowledge is called censoring. Censorship started in the early twentieth century, when profane literature began to surface in the wake of World War I; ever since then it's been a normal part of all society. Without the use of censorship and the methods used to sustain information, society would evolve and erupt into complete and utter chaos.
Is Censorship Justified? Ever wondered the reason behind racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, children committing crimes or violence? The main reason is that censorship is not properly imposed or there is a need for censorship in the society. Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain people, individuals, groups or government officials find objectionable, offensive or dangerous to others. There are varieties of other definitions, but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/or resources from those who seek it.
Poetry, with its focus on mimesis or imitation, has no moral value. While Plato sees reality as a shadow of a realm of pure Ideas (which in turn is copied by art), Aristotle sees reality as a process of partially realized forms moving towards their ideal realizations. Given this idea by Aristotle, the mimetic quality of art is redefined as the duplication of the living process of nature and its need to reach its potential form. Art, then, for Aristotle, does not become the enemy of society if the artist is loyal to the representation of the process of becoming in nature. Horace, like Aristotle and Plato, also brings to view a theory of poetry as mimesis.
Censorship affects our society in many different ways, it affects the music we listen to, the movies we watch, the books we read, and many other aspects of our everyday lives. Even though many might argue that censorship doesn't really have a place in a society that emphases freedom of speech and the freedom to express oneself, but censorship is an essential and needed part of our growing society, it's needed in the television industry, the Internet, and the music industry. Censorship helps to make our world a better place because it creates a better environment for us to live in.
...milarly, Plato says that Poetry has the same effect on us when it refers to sex and violence, arousing an array of ‘desires and feelings of pleasure and pain… it waters them when they ought to be left to whither, and makes them control us when we ought, in the interests of our own greater welfare and happiness, to control them.’ What this indicates from a rational perspective is that imitation brings undesirable emotions to our surface, allowing it to cloud our judgement, weaken our psychological stability and change our outlook on life itself. This could therefore have a drastic effect, according to Plato, on the present and future guardians who are required by the rest of us to remain emotionally stable and in full control of their own irrational desires and fears.