Censorship

Views about censorship are of two main kinds.

Proponents of censorship take the view that the loss of free­dom that censorship involves is a necessary evil because there is likely to be a far greater loss of freedom without censorship than with it. Opponents of censorship argue that censorship itself is a far greater threat to freedom, than any of the dangers it suppos­edly guards against.

Those who favour censorship base their arguments on the view that, if left to their own devices, human beings do not al­ways act in the best interests of their fellow men and women. They need to be protected from themselves by governments in much the same way that parents need to protect their children from the consequences of some of their natural instincts. To be­lieve otherwise is seen as at best naive, at worst plain foolish.

Thus, without censorship, supporters of this view argue, it would be impossible for governments to prevent military secrets from reaching a country's enemies. Likewise, unless the govern­ment has some control over the media, irresponsible journalists or broadcasters would be free to create unrest by spreading false information. By the same token, it is argued that it is necessary to have laws against matters such as pornography in order to protect the rights of vulnerable groups within society, such as women.

Supporters of this general view believe that the threat to hu­man rights would be much greater without the protection of cen­sorship. The means are seen as justifying the end: it is better to sacrifice a small amount of freedom in the interests of ultimately creating much greater overall freedom. According to their views, there is really no such thing as freedom, merely uncontrolled opportunities for the more powerful and unscrupulous to exploit the weaker and law-abiding.

Opponents of censorship accept that human beings do not always act in the best interests of their fellow citizens. They dif­fer from supporters of censorship, however, in terms of what they see as the remedy. According to their view, the best guarantee of human rights is a society with as few restrictions as possible, much as the role of parents can be seen as not just to control their children but to help them to grow up to be responsible adults. Thus the responsibility for regulating society is seen to belong primarily to the ordinary citizen rather than the government. This view acknowledges human weaknesses, but also recognizes the potential of humanity for self-regulation.

Thus, from this point of view, it is up to the individual citi­zen to take whatever action the law permits regarding matters such as unfair or inaccurate newspaper, television or media re­porting, pornography, and so on. As a first line of defence, citi­zens have the choice of denying the offending material an audience, simply by switching off or refusing to buy. Beyond this, the argument runs, citizens can use the existing laws of the land against obscenity, libel, slander and so on, without the need for an extra level of censorship-based legislation. It is also argued \ by supporters of this view that a responsible citizenry is the best defence against irresponsible behaviour by those set on attempting to exploit their fellow citizens.

Thus, while allowing that there may be times of national emergency, such as war, when censorship is justified, opponents of censorship would argue that it is in general unnecessary, and takes away from ordinary citizens a role that is rightfully theirs, \ and gives to government one that is inappropriate. Opponents of censorship also point out that its supporters are naive in their assumption that governments are always more benign than the forces they oppose. It is only too easy for the censorship to be exploited as a weapon of oppression by a ruthless government.

In conclusion, censorship can perhaps best be regarded as a mixed blessing. It has the potential to protect society from harm­ful influences, but, equally, it may act as a harmful influence itself. It may be impossible to say whether censorship is ever totally beneficial or not. Much will depend on the circumstances in which it operates. In a society, which is relatively immature and insecure, it may provide much-needed stability and protec­tion. In other societies, however, it may act as a brake on liber­ties, or, worst of all, be used as an instrument of repression and terror.

LESSON 5