Hi Folks,
Just for the record, although next week is technically listed as a 'resource week', we will still be meeting up for our small group discussions on Tuesday afternoon. We will be discussing study skills amongst other topics, so be ready to discuss what you learned from the lecture/seminar task of marking the essay.
I would like to continue our blog for this week on the theme of the Amendments to the Bill of Rights; specifically that of the Freedom of Speech and how this might relate to censorship.
Olly, you will be our lead poster this week, so please search out TWO websites that discuss the idea of censorship; one pro and one anti. Then, as per normal, all of us must respond to your posting with intelligent, well-considered posts that show how well we have read not only the sites Olly has chosen, but also how we feel about them. Please do ensure your posts are actually engaging with the subject! Remember, you will be marked on your participation in the blog.I'll look forward to seeing all of you, then, on Tuesday as per normal at one o'clock.
Best
Devon
3 comments:
The first site I found concerns the rejection of censorship. I found it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/02/censorship
It takes the stand of artists who believe their freedom of speech and right to express themselves is not just being questioned, but being destroyed.
The next site I found that is in agreement with censorship was
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=14893
This site is actually an essay paper posted for people to plajurize ideas from a previous assignment, but as a contradicting argument this source has some strong counter-points to the theory that censorship is damaging to society. It is showing the harm that lack of censorship can do to children in society. A strong example given was
" An eight year-old boy and a ten year-old accomplice now face charges of rape and sexual molestation after forcing another student to have sex with the eight-year old. Both told police that they had learned about sex from a pornographic video that the eight year-old's father had rented. The eight year-old told police after watching the tape that 'I wanted to have sex with her.' Pornography is just one of the forms of expression taken too far and is detrimental to the children of America."
This shows the level of censorship we need to protect children from certain aspects of adult experience.
The other site is arguing that
"It's one thing to be denied your credit or compensation, but it's another thing entirely to have your work suppressed, burned or banned. You'd never know it, however, judging from the state of the law surrounding the creation and use of internet publishing tools."
This argument though putting forward their own strong and valid point seems to contradict itself and is hinting that it is fairly easy to get around some censorship tools and laws. These are legitimate artists in their respective fields and dont want to cheat the system, but want to be allowed in, and given freedom of speech and expression.
All in all I agree with many of the points given in both articles and censorship is deffinately needed but it has to be sensible. You can't just stop everything you don't like, we live in a democracy, but then you can't get away with peddling terrible views and images to succeptable minds. I feel that some of the artists complaining are being selfish, and seem to want their own views represented no matter the cost, as other things would end up being shown as well.
I'm sorry I published this so late. Have been very busy all week and dont have internet in my building. The library closed early yesterday when I finally had a chance to go down so this is the best I could do. Hope this isn't too late for everyone.
This first website is rather confusing. The publisher seems to feel very strongly about the issue, and goes to great lengths to explain that censorship is terrible . I understand that it is their right to say how they feel, however, expressing his hatred for child pornography and then arguing against the laws that restrict it seems hypocritical and rather insensitive.
I agree with Olly that these 'artists' are relying too much on their person opinions to make their statements.
Furthermore, those who decide what is unnecessary information on the Internet, have been doing so with a general sense of morals. Surely only those without a sense of what is right or wrong should feel threatened when examples like child pornography and terrorism are displayed all over the internet for anyone to lay their hands on.
In the end it is hardly likely that censorship against trouble sites will eventual cause some sort of tyrannical communist takeover. There is too much exaggeration in this article for me.
I feel that the second sight is more eloquently written, but it still does not use any hard evidence to suggest a link between the media and child violence. in the case of the child who attacked a young girl, who can say whether he had been treated badly himself as a child, or had previous psychological problems which would make him prone to the 'Monkey see, monkey do' philosophy.
However, I do strongly agree with the section referring to the change is 'hero' characteristics. The origin Superman could never break the law or do any injustice; unless it was his alter ego, but more recently there has been The Punisher, Mad Max, and plenty more film characters that go on the rampage.
I must mention that this publisher is likely to be studying Sociology, as their examples are ones known well from the text books. They have taken into account the psychological reasons by this time though still nothing is mentioned on the children's upbringing. This is not the writers fault.
Overall, I feel this essay is rather valid though it is hard to find any attempt to explain how and to what extent censorship should be enforced.
These were both really interesting sights.
Thanks Olly.
Post a Comment