Issues

Censorship vs. Intellectual Freedom. Which should be dominant? (How much more dominant?) Extent of censorship/ boundaries of censorship Arguments for Censorship: 1. Maintain internal security in the country (from controversial topics such as religion) Censorship of racially insensitive messages and content helps to prevent prejudice and discrimination between different faiths, ethnic groups and so on, and thus help to reduce friction and strife between these groups, therefore increasing levels of security. In addition, it helps to protect the rights of the people from political or social groups with malicious intent. Furthermore censorship of potentially dangerous information (e.g. ways to produce dangerous compounds) can help to reduce the threat posed by extremist groups, radical groups or other groups with malicious intent, by denying them access to dangerous tools and means of persuasion. 2. Defend State Secrets (from other countries) 3. Defend country populace/values from harmful messages (from yet-to-mature readers) 4. Arguments for Intellectual Freedom: 1. Keep the country populace well-informed and aware. (Less prone to extremist principles) Intellectual freedom provides the populace with a way to learn about their surroundings and the current situation, in politics, 2. Freedom of speech being a basic human right. (Deprivation of rights) As a basic human right, intellectual freedom cannot be denied to other people, whether through censorship or other means. As a direct violation of these basic rights, censorship is immoral and thus cannot be sanctioned. 3. Cultivate the Intellectual and open culture (Like in western countries) Many concepts which have helped contribute to the enrichment of culture and an advancement in society can only be cultivated through the presence of intellectual freedom. For example: To the individual, intellectual freedom offers an opportunity to offer feedback and to change his surroundings for the better. It suggests that his opinion is valued and duly considered. It provides a motive for the individual to think about his circumstances, the circumstances of others, and ways to improve them all.

Points for discussion/setting up a criteria: 1. Both sides must be present in a country. The extent of both differs for each country. Censorship leads to a more conservative and peaceful culture, while intellectual freedom leads to a more liberal and active culture. The key is to balance between both to find an optimal and desired outcome. For Example, the foundation of a proper democracy exists only when people are aware of the current issues in governance, and on all alternative forms of governance. This will not happen when the populace is denied information on alternative governing parties, or politics as a whole. See North Korea in the articles provided. 2. The important thing is to moderate both sides, and recognize that as long as no one single party dominates the benefits for their vested interests, the situation will have its own merits (?) (Brings to next issue)

Moral Censorship: Does anybody have a right to Censor? (Also: Is it morally right to censor?) Extent of censorship/ boundaries of censorship Moral Arguments for Censorship: 1. Defends against internal strife over sensitive issues. 2. Prevents yet-to-mature readers from coming across mature themes or messages. 3. Arguments against Censorship morally (?): 1. An abuse of authority: Governments that have been elected to power by the people have a responsibility to the people and therefore have to account for their actions. Censorship of information constitutes an evasion of their responsibility to the people and also a misuse of governing power to serve selfish purposes, and is therefore unjustifiable. As a channel of information trusted by the people, media companies also have a responsibility to the people to tell the truth- the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Here, corporate censorship and other forms of censorship, which may hide or distort information provided to the public, may constitute an irresponsible use of the peoples trust in media. 2. Peoples Intelligence: By blocking out information deemed unsuitable or sensitive, censorship argues that most people are not capable of dealing with such forms of information in a mature way. This is an

insult to the intelligence of the population- it asserts that the population is not able to think for itself and hence must be guided by a higher power- a controversial statement to make. Points for discussion/setting up a criteria: 1. Recognize that the information being censored is crucial in whether it is moral or not. While censoring more sensitive and mature information seems considerate and moral, censoring the Truth or happenings of certain matters is not moral, especially those regarding politics. 2. Recognize that throughout the argument the assumption is of a neutral and sensible framework. From this, we can see the full importance of the censoring power of the parties involved. (Brings to next issue) Govt. and Media Censorship: Do the people have a right to Truth? (Is it morally right to censor?) Power to censor/ authorities/extent to censorship

The Right to Censor: Who should have the right to censor information? (Government vs Media vs People) Power to censor/ authorities Arguments for Media: 1. Inherent need to maintain neutrality (trustworthiness) As a highly-regarded and followed source of information, the Media has the responsibility to maintain objectivity and neutrality when reporting on controversial issues. This means the media has to remove prejudiced messages, no matter the source, even if such messages come from the government. 2. Maintain Popular/ Prevalent views and Political Correctness (trustworthiness) 3. The media is the main way to disseminate info, so giving them the power to censor is reasonable to prevent dispute among Governments and Media. Arguments against Media: 1. Profit-Driven Medias Untrustworthiness The corporate media comprises of profit-driven institutes and firms. It may misuse the authority to censor information by monopolizing the information available to the people, hiding objectionable practices and negative reviews on the corporate media, and distorting facts to suit the tastes of people or to gain profit. If the media is to fulfill its responsibility to

express the views of the people and present an objective view of current events and issues, then the corporate media cannot be trusted with the power to censor. 2. Accountability of the Media Arguments for Government: 1. The governing body is clear about the directions for the country. (decision-making) As a governing body, the government has the most access to information on the countrys state. They know best about what is beneficial to the people, and what is detrimental. As the best-informed party, the government is in the best position to decide what to be doneincluding what should be censored, and what should not. 2. They set the law anyway, so they should have a say in what to censor. As the party which imposes this censorship, the government has a stake in the law too. They should be given the power to decide what content to censor so that the law can best fulfill its intended purposes. 3. They are the ones who will have to clean up any mess that uncensored and sensitive information caused, so they need to have a say. The Government is ultimately in charge of maintaining peace and order within the society and protecting the interests of the populace and the state. They are entitled and obliged by duty to enact/ alter these laws if such actions will help fulfill their responsibility to the society. Points for discussion/setting up a criteria: 1. The bottom line is that both sides need to have power to censor information. However, we must recognize that no matter what happens, the government still has more power than the media, although they should not overly abuse it. 2. The people factor is also very important. As people feedback to both the government and the media, both must have means to react to the peoples needs, hence the need for power. 3. However, the extent of power to censor also depends highly on the type of media. New media like the internet seem to be more self-regulated than official media like newspapers and television. (brings to next issue)

Censorship Misused: What is the right use of Censorship? Power to censor/authorities

Outdated Censorship: Is Censorship relevant today? Relevance in context. Arguments for relevant: 1. Defend against extremist principles (which might take advantage of mass media) Censorship helps to maintain order and peace by removing radical, prejudiced and highly popular ideas from the information sources of the people. For example, it helps to remove the 2. Race and religious issues become ever so sensitive (due to globalized world) 3. Many preexisting reasons for censorship, like mature issues, still exist. Arguments for irrelevant: 1. One can come into contact with many uncensored websites on the internet anyway. With the advent of the Internet, censorship can be easily circumvented. By using secure servers, proxy servers and other innovations, people can easily access objectionable content, classified information and protected information (for example, credit card numbers of bank clients). Censorship measures today are ill-equipped to serve their purposes of removing objectionable content. 2. Censorship does not stand up to moral examination. As a morally debatable measure, censorship is limited in usefulness- it cannot serve its purposes without infringing on the rights of people, or on the moral obligations of the censoring parties. Its shaky moral ground makes it a measure whose implementation cannot be easily justified. Points for discussion/setting up a criteria: 1. Censorship can hardly be irrelevant today. It remains as a useful and relevant tool, despite all that advances in technology, and that many new forms of media exist, some of which do not have strong regulations. (?) 2.