final essay

Sarah Berger

Period 10

10.21.10

Censorship

            It all started with an idea. As an editor on the school newspaper, I knew that fresh ideas were hard to come by, and an idea for an amazing article was right in front of me, begging to be written. It had to do with a disabled girl at our school who was forbidden to play on our Special Olympics team, so her family was suing the Special Olympics. This particular girl had appeared on CNN and was featured in the Chicago Tribune; it felt like we had a celebrity in our school! I, along with the rest of the staff, were excited about the potential front-page article possibilities. After contacting the parents of the girl, we were set to write the article, only to be stopped right in our tracks. The principal of our school was too afraid that the subject was too “touchy” and didn’t want it to be published. Frustrated and angry, we now had a gaping hole on the front-page of the paper. This type of censorship is common in high school publications, and I couldn’t help but feel the heat of frustration from not being able to write what I wanted, when the Constitution clearly states freedom of the press. This experience got me wondering; if censorship is allowed inside the walls of an institution that is designed to nurture and promote the ideas of young people, what types of censorship occur outside the walls of this high school? What I found was alarming; the number of filmmakers, authors, musicians, and artists that are censored in this “free” country is ridiculous. Censorship may seem like a problem happening only in dictatorships and third-world countries, but it’s happening here and now, in the land of the free.

            Although the movies we see in theatres nowadays may seem raunchy and inappropriate to some, this country has actually had a long and dramatic history with film censorship. In 1908, New York City was the first city to enact a censorship law that banned “immoral” films (“Violence in Mass Media Timeline”). I cannot even imagine the frustration and anger that thousands of filmmakers probably felt during this time period. Not only was this law extremely vague, but who was entitled to decide what was immoral and what wasn’t? Everyone has a different opinion on what is wrong and what is right; obviously Mormons have different beliefs then Catholics, and the beauty of this country is that we are all entitled to our own opinion and moral codes. Although this example of censorship in the film industry is a bit outdated, it still shapes how movies are censored in present times. Films, although somewhat obscure, such as The Profit and The Yes Men Fix the World, are still being banned today due to questionable content. Why is this type of censorship still being allowed in a free socitey? Although I do believe that children should not be exposed to inappropriate content, I don’t believe that the government has the right to censor any films. There’s a reason why movies are given a rating before they are released, so that parents can decide whether or not to allow their children to see a certain movie. Films are a form expression for the filmmakers; they are simply taking an idea and bringing it to life on the big screen. Censoring films would be like censoring those filmmaker’s ideas, and really, who has the authority to do that? People can make the choice whether or not they want to view a film, and if they find some of the material offensive, then they are perfectly capable of walking out of that theatre. America should give filmmakers the freedom to produce any type of film they want.  

            Not only are filmmakers censored, but so are artists, such as cartoonists. Political cartoonists use their talent for drawing to express their opinions about issues going on in the world. It is recorded that there was recently an article published in Denmark that apparently depicted Muslims in a negative light (“When Cultures Collide”). Many people were outraged with this cartoon, but the real issue that I have with this was that the United States refused to publish the cartoon for the public to the see. I do believe that offensive cartoons pinpointed towards minorities are extremely wrong, but my belief in freedom of the press and no censorship is stronger. American citizens should have had the right to see the infamous cartoon, and refusing to publish it was an act of censorship that should have never happened. Political cartoons poke fun of everyone, whether it be the president or the typical suburban family. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, was quoted saying, “The U.S. news media, by refusing to run these cartoons, are giving in to intellectual and religious terrorism. A separate standard is being applied here out of fear of physical retaliation. Whatever is fair to say about one group must be fair to say about another. The European papers are doing the right thing. They're being courageous. It is in the public's interest to see these cartoons that are causing so much outrage. When you see them, you see the extent of the overreaction. They are not nearly as bad as cartoons that routinely run in the Muslim media against Jews, Christians, the U.S. and Israel.” to look at them. Americans should at least be given the opportunity to view a cartoon that has caused such a stir-up in other parts of the world, so then they can at least form an educated opinion for themselves.

            Television nowadays is loaded with numerous parental controls, locks, and passwords, but this is very different from censorship. TV censorship occurs every day, whether it is bleeping out a swear word or limiting the topics that can be aired on prime-time TV. The truth is, TV is the most viewed form of expression, considering the number of Americans that gather around the TV every night to tune into their favorite show. People who find swear words or certain topics offensive should simply just change the channel, and parents who are worried about their kids watching offensive shows can easily lock certain TV channels or shows.  In “Government Censorship Would be Harmful” Kate Burns claims that, “No causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically established, in spite of many efforts to do so.” Obviously, this statement argues with the preconceived notion that watching violent TV shows will lead to violent behavior. Previously banned television shows in American history include The Miracle Worker, Star Trek 9, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Burns). Who has the authority to censor these classic and entertaining shows, depriving the American people of their favorite form of entertainment?  If these shows are being banned for being too violent, then I suggest the government  takes a note from Japan because the Japanese are obviously doing something right; the country is known for its extremely graphically-violent TV shows, but also for its extremely low-crime rate (Burns).

I believe that Kate Burns sums up perfectly what I have been arguing this whole time with this quote from her article, “Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor you, or something you like. Censorship is like poison gas: a powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts. Freedom of expression for ourselves requires freedom of expression for others. It is at the very heart of our democracy.” Censorship should be banned, everyone has the right to say, create, and express themselves in any way they want, it’s the very foundation our country was built on.   

Works Cited

“Government Censorship Would Be Harmful." Censorship. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Contemporary Issues Companion. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

ProQuest Staff. "Violence in Mass Media Timeline." Leading Issues Timelines. 28 Jul 2010: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 13 Oct 2010.

“When Cultures Collide: Observers around the world tell TIME how they view the cartoons--and the controversy they've sparked." Time 13 Feb. 2006: 48. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.