fair censorship
Recently, a guest on my blog posted a comment, saying "I don't like censorship, but I love fairness." The remainder of the comment was peppered with curse words, which is why I did not publish it. However, this got me to thinking...
When it comes to censorship, what is fair?
In ancient Greece, Socrates is credited as the first person to sacrifice his life rather than allow the government than censor his teachings. Censorship of his teachings would have been considered fair.
In ancient Rome, only persons of authority (mainly the Senate) enjoyed the freedom of speech. Everyone and everything else in their society was censored. All Roman citizens were required to worship the imperial person or image; those who did not (mainly Christians) were persecuted and frequently martyred. This was considered fair.
In AD 333 set a pattern of religious censorship by burning all books by the Greek theologian Arius. This was considered fair.
In AD 496, Pope Gelasius issued a catalog of forbidden books, which consisted of books opposed to orthodox faith or morals, and the authors were punished. Heretics were tortured and punished. In 1231, Pope Gregory IX instituted the Inquisition. For almost 500 years, the Inquisition remained an influential agency of religious censorship. Yet this was considered fair.
State censorship was severe in the Soviet Union. Political opposition was suppressed by allowing the existence of only one political party. When publishers, authors, or broadcasters were judged to have trespassed the political or moral boundaries set by law, they were punished with confiscation of their publication, prohibition of future publications, closing the media of communication, fines, imprisonment, or torture. This was considered fair.
In Nazi Germany, under the command of Adolf Hitler, a massive propoganda campaign was established, called the Nazi Propoganda Ministry. It was directed by Joseph Goebbels, and it took control of all forms of communication in Germany, including newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, rallies, art, movies, music, and radios. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media. This was considered fair.
When the Constitution of the United States was written, the founding fathers built into it many laws to protect personal rights and personal freedoms. However, I think it's fairly safe to say that the founding fathers could have never imagined an attack as massive as the 9/11 attacks, a war as difficult as the current Iraqi war, or an enemy as crafty as al Qaeda. So that leads us to one prominant question: In light of our current circumstances, what is fair when it comes to censorship? How far is too far? Anarchy is not an option, but martial law is certainly not desirable. What do you think?
When it comes to censorship, what is fair?
In ancient Greece, Socrates is credited as the first person to sacrifice his life rather than allow the government than censor his teachings. Censorship of his teachings would have been considered fair.
In ancient Rome, only persons of authority (mainly the Senate) enjoyed the freedom of speech. Everyone and everything else in their society was censored. All Roman citizens were required to worship the imperial person or image; those who did not (mainly Christians) were persecuted and frequently martyred. This was considered fair.
In AD 333 set a pattern of religious censorship by burning all books by the Greek theologian Arius. This was considered fair.
In AD 496, Pope Gelasius issued a catalog of forbidden books, which consisted of books opposed to orthodox faith or morals, and the authors were punished. Heretics were tortured and punished. In 1231, Pope Gregory IX instituted the Inquisition. For almost 500 years, the Inquisition remained an influential agency of religious censorship. Yet this was considered fair.
State censorship was severe in the Soviet Union. Political opposition was suppressed by allowing the existence of only one political party. When publishers, authors, or broadcasters were judged to have trespassed the political or moral boundaries set by law, they were punished with confiscation of their publication, prohibition of future publications, closing the media of communication, fines, imprisonment, or torture. This was considered fair.
In Nazi Germany, under the command of Adolf Hitler, a massive propoganda campaign was established, called the Nazi Propoganda Ministry. It was directed by Joseph Goebbels, and it took control of all forms of communication in Germany, including newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, rallies, art, movies, music, and radios. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media. This was considered fair.
When the Constitution of the United States was written, the founding fathers built into it many laws to protect personal rights and personal freedoms. However, I think it's fairly safe to say that the founding fathers could have never imagined an attack as massive as the 9/11 attacks, a war as difficult as the current Iraqi war, or an enemy as crafty as al Qaeda. So that leads us to one prominant question: In light of our current circumstances, what is fair when it comes to censorship? How far is too far? Anarchy is not an option, but martial law is certainly not desirable. What do you think?
posted by Tidy Bowl at
4:35 PM
2 Comments:
All I know is that where my children are concerned, there is not enough censorship, I on the otherhand, well I guess that nothing really bothers me....yet...
If I see it and dont like it I just stop reading or turn away.
By
Princessa, At
February 14, 2006 6:00 PM
All I know is that where my children are concerned, there is not enough censorship, I on the otherhand, well I guess that nothing really bothers me....yet...
If I see it and dont like it I just stop reading or turn away.
By
Princessa, At
February 14, 2006 6:00 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home