How can censorship be dangerous

Media censorship can really hinder a society if it is bad enough. Both Poland and Ukraine experience this type of censorship but Ukraine experiences it more now because they are in a state of crisis.

International communication and globalization are such major advances in our world, but if the information that is being given to these societies is one sided and only what the government wants them to hear, then they cannot fully understand and accept other countries and cultures. When a journalist has to report on only what the government wants people to know, they do not have the freedom to express what they really want to.

In the countries of Poland and Ukraine people have to be careful of the information they are putting out there because, although they are supposed to have the right to freedom of speech, there can be some serious consequences for their words and actions. Matt Woods posted inappropriate comments about a 5-year-old at a time when he was drunk, earning him three months in jail.

Some governments use their power to arrest those who are deemed to be in opposition. It shifts where the responsibility of consumption is in society.

This process cedes control of ethics, morality, and standards to whomever is in charge of implementing these policies. Instead of being individuals, censorship turns people into commodities. We already see the impact of this disadvantage in China. If someone adds comments that are anti-government, violent, or sexually graphic, then the content is subject to automatic deletion.

Do it enough times and the account will be deleted. It creates an adverse impact on the economy at all levels. Businesses can no longer promote themselves because their advertising might be offending someone. It creates a world where our actions are dictated by others, so those with the loudest voices will typically have the most control.

It allows a false narrative to become the truth. There are also extreme human rights issues, such as a complete curtailing of freedom of expression, religious practices, or even independent civil society organization. It is a land of torture, arbitrary arrest, and public executions. The Trump Administration wants to label anything in opposition to its viewpoint as being fake because that indicates their content is the truth.

It is another form of a false narrative intended to get a specific reaction out of supporters as a way to keep power. It is expensive to be engaged in the practice of censorship. Those expenses are only the tip of the iceberg to consider when looking at the practical enforcement of censorship on others. There are hundreds of thousands of workers who monitor individual activities, with some sites allowing back-end access to facilitate this work.

It creates repression so that it encourages compliance. What is so remarkable about that fact is that the author was a devout Catholic and a good friend of C. He once wrote a letter to Lewis to say that his trilogy and The Hobbit were unconsciously written from a Christian perspective at first, and then edited consciously to incorporate those themes.

Christian churches and schools are the most likely places where you will see these works banned because they are viewed as being anti-religious or anti-Christian. It can be an ill-informed opinion that is completely contrary to the work in question, yet the power it has to condemn can influence countless others. Some people look at the idea of censorship as a way to add common-sense restrictions to our daily routines so that we can stay safe and protect our children.

The other side of that equation is that families can set their own limits, establish rules, and create circumstances that fit their needs without imposing their morality or beliefs on others. Murder videos, child pornography, and similar items that encourage violence against others or promote actual harm in the images is a safety factor that we cannot ignore.

We would outlaw content that showed a murder because a real person was harmed in the process of its creation. This article was originally published in Foerstel, Herbert N. Banned in the U. Westport, Conn. Hull, Mary E. Censorship in America: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif. Marsh, Dave. Armstrong, Sarah. Our success and our liberty has come from people being able to challenge ruling paradigms, whether political, social, commercial, religious, or scientific, such that we can propose something different or point out what is flawed.

We can change and improve our world by speaking out about wrongdoing, bigotry, foolishness, racism, scientific error, bad dance moves, or whatever inspires us to speak. Free speech comes with the danger that many speakers will say things that are foolish or wrong at times, as has often been the case in science and is typically the case in pop culture, religion, and perhaps most fields, but we must never let one mortal man, one party, or one company or coalition of aligned companies like our social media giants assume that they are so wise, so omniscient, so beautifully woke, that they can decide what may be spoken and what may not.

In a world that is increasingly politicized, our liberty depends on being able to speak and share information that may clash with the political desires of others, including those who want more power and control over our lives. We need to be civil and respectful in this, but at the same time must not be so hyper-sensitive as to become angry at dissenting voices. Persuasion, not force and censorship, should be the tool for change. Freedom of speech supports all our freedoms, and without it, all our freedoms can ultimately be at risk.

I have learned over the years that most important public policy issues raised by our children, grand children and friends are best answered by addressing what that policy will do to impact freedom of speech and liberty to act.

It is as though the more free we feel, the greater the potential there is that we could be deceived into giving away some of that freedom. We must be very alert to any erosion of that freedom. Thanks for your additional alerts. Excellent post, Jeff. Our judicial system assumes innocence until proven guilty, erring on the side of preferring to let the guilty go free rather than wrongly imprison an innocent person.

We need a similar approach on information.