Kızıldağ, 1

Salih Kızıldağ

Intstructor : Berrin Geceer CRN : 20260

Date : May 08, 2011

Censorship

Thesis: Even though it can be maintained that censorship is necessary and critical for the safety of

the society, censorship should not be used since it prevents children from adapting reality and

learning new things, it can be easily abused by governments and it hinders freedom of expressions.

I. It is widely argued that censorship is obligatory for children safety, yet censorship limits

their imagination and knowledge.

A. Protecting children from inappropriate content

1. Porn

2. Violence

B. Opportunity to make children adapt life and mentally healthy (Seate, 2005)

1. Sexual education (Ridwan, 2011)

2. Learning every aspect of life

II. Some claim that censorship is a necessity for governments; however, it can easily be abused.

A. Securing national sovereignty (Blankley, 2009)

– Government secrets

B. Manipulates public

1. Lack of knowledge about government activities

2. Filtration causing one-sided information (Duma, 2010)

3. Death of journalists and writers

4. Public fear

III. It is contented that censorship is a part of democracy, in fact, censorship hinders freedom of

expressions.
 Kızıldağ, 2

A. Necessity of censorship on democracies

– Providing more democratic circumstances

B. Restriction on freedom of expression

1. Contradiction with democracy

2. Causing media to not to be able to fullfil its function (Camus, n.d.)

 Kızıldağ, 3

Censorship

Control of the information, ideas and communication circulated within a society is called

censorship. Everything in a society can be subject to censorship. There are many kinds of

censorship including moral, military, political, religious and corporate censorship. Censorship is

widely used in all countries independent of polity. However, censorship is more often in

dictatorship and it varies from a country to another. In countries, like Burma, Turkmenistan, North

Korea, Libya, censorship is heavily used. The argument about censorship is whether it is vital to

sustain human rights, or whether it hurts democracy. Even though it can be maintained that

censorship is necessary and critical for the safety of the society, censorship should not be used since

it prevents children from adapting reality and learning new things, it can be easily abused by

governments and it hinders freedom of expressions.

It is widely argued that censorship is obligatory for children safety, yet censorship limits

their imagination and knowledge. It is the contention of supporters of censorship that Internet, TV

programs harm children, therefore, censorship should be applied for children's security. On the other

hand, when the censorship is practiced, children will not be able to adapt reality of life which

includes death, sex, violence and they will have major problems during their education life and

adolescence. Parents and teachers do not want children to learn these things, especially sex.

Nevertheless, Ridwan emphasizes that sex education is a must for children (2011). In addition to

this, Seate explains that child abducations and sex crimes occur less frequently in countries with

more relaxed attitudes toward nudity (2005). Furthermore, children have to learn facts of life like

death and pain. A child may have psychological problems when one of his/her relatives die or

he/she may not understand what it is at all. Thus, censorship applications do not let children learn

reality.

Some claim that censorship is a necessity for governments; however, it can easily be

abused. One of the contentions in favour of censorship is that censorship is a necessity for

governments. It is the claim of supporters of censorship is that national security related and highly
 Kızıldağ, 4

sensitive information can not be revealed to the public. This position goes on to further maintain

that national sovereignty will be threatened without censorship. Blankley claims that censorship is

critical for national security (2009). On the other hand, it is a right of public to know the facts about

their country and governments. Governments, though, abuse their power and provide one-sided

information to have greater control on the population. What is more, governments monitor radios,

TV channels and websites in the name of national security. As an example, North Korea is one of

the countries where political censorship is heavily used. Duma states that internet access is very rare

in North Korea and existing media is based on propaganda activities (2010). Moreover, journalists

get killed to make sure that the media will support the ruling person or government. In other words,

political censorship results in an information void and isolated people.

It is contented that censorship is a part of democracy, in fact, censorship hinders freedom of

expressions. A commonly put forward assertion supporting censorship is that censorship is

necessary since public can not decide whether something is right or wrong for themselves. It is also

claimed that ideas and expressions must be filtered for safety of democracy and public. However,

freedom of expression is intimately linked to the concept of democracy, therefore, censorship in a

democracy is a contradiction in terms. If ideas, speech and expressions become filtered, that also

means that they are being controlled. This filtration can commonly be seen in the media. Nwolisa

states that the number of human right violations are higher in the countries with media censorship

(2011). As large corporations do not want public to think and comment, they control media by

modifying news, advertisements and websites, consequently, journalists and writers can not express

themselves in the way they want to. Media's job is to focus on facts, otherwise it will fail as Camus

explains, "a free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press

will never be anything but bad"(n.d.).

In conclusion, it is apparent that censorship is harmful for democracy and it should not be

used. Freedom of expression and censorship can not live in the same place. People should decide on

their own what to watch, what to think or what to say. It is not governments' right to choose what is
 Kızıldağ, 5

good for a person and what is not. It is crystal clear that true protection of human rights and

democracy can only be achieved without censorship.

 Kızıldağ, 6

References

Ridwan, R. (2011, January 18). Sex education please, not censorship. Retrieved May 08, 2011, from
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/01/18/sex-education-please-not-censorship.html

Seate, M. (2005, November 22). Parents can't censor reality. Retrieved May 01, 2011, from
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_396796.html

Blankley, T. (2009, February 12). Yes, we need censorship. Retrieved May 08, 2011, from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/yes-we-need-censorship/

Duma, M. (2010, October 29). Media Censorship in North Korea. Retrieved May 08, 2011, from
http://internetstudies.ukzn.ac.za/inst102news/node/325

Nwolisa, N. (2011, April 05). New Media and Censorship. Retrieved May 08, 2011, from
http://www.freemedia.at/singleview/5422/
 Kızıldağ, 7

Instead of censorship, we should provide young people with sex education and instruction on how
to use the Internet wisely.The young generation should be empowered in dealing with their
sexuality and obtaining information related to the issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights
(SRHR) from credible sources.(SUMMARIZED)
It can be said that young people become curios about sex and porn materials because they lack
credible information on this matter.
Therefore, discussion about sexuality should be opened to youths, particularly by their parents, to
make them better understand and respect their bodies.
Sexuality is not a taboo. Making sex taboo is like calling the existence of life taboo. Research
conducted by Susan M. Blake (Susan M. Blake, et al; 2001) revealed that children whose parents
talk with them about sexual matters or provide sex education or contraceptive information at home
are more likely than others to postpone sexual activities.
The children have fewer sexual partners and are more likely to use contraceptives such as condoms.
They are at reduced risk for pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases than young
people whose parents do not engage in open communication about sexual matters.
National Education Minister Muhammad Nuh has deemed sex education as unimportant because
children will get to know sex by themselves as soon they mature and get married.
However, a recent survey conducted by the National Family Planning Board (BKKBN) shows that
around 50 percent of young teenagers in Greater Jakarta have been sexually active.
The lack of information and ignorance of this phenomenon amounts to a disaster for youths as it
will spark unwanted pregnancies and spread the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Sex education is a must, and the need for it is urgent. It must be formulated in a specific curriculum
to ensure that youths have knowledge about their bodies and sexuality, and can thereby act make
more responsible choices.

I've heard parents make similar statements when their children were exposed to everything from
racy scenes in movies to gay couples walking down the street holding hands. It's always puzzling
how simple explanations along the lines of "That's what people look like in their birthday suits" or
"Those two women just happen to love each other," never surface.
It would surprise this woman, and many other parents, to know that kids in European countries see
nude people in magazines, catalogs, on network TV and in everyday life without becoming rapists,
murderers and sociopaths. She also might be shocked to learn that many countries with more
relaxed attitudes toward nudity have far lower rates of sex crimes and child abductions than this
one.(PARAPHRASED)
Worse yet, we already live in a world with childproof bottles, restaurants that ban smoking because
it might harm the little ones, and mandatory recycling programs so the kids will have a clean planet
in which to grow up.
In convenience stores, adult magazines can only be sold wrapped in protective bags to ensure that
no one under 18 gets a glimpse of what many kids already know lurks under their clothing.
Making book stores rearrange their displays to make them more child-friendly is going one step too
far.
I'm not advocating that parents buy their kids subscriptions to "Nudism Today." But expecting the
world to wear a fig leaf for the kids' sake is an idea so silly, even the kids can see through it.
During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security
must take precedence. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration
rolled back very few civil liberties. Aside from establishing a regime for handling captured foreign
 Kızıldağ, 8
terrorists, the curtailments largely consisted of common-sense enhancements in the power of
intelligence agencies to monitor terrorism suspects and access their personal records. And the
administration did so, in a limited way, because it rightly deemed these restrictions in America’s
national security interests. Bush’s steps were modest, yet liberal journalists reacted as if he were the
reincarnation of Stalin, or, more to their taste, Hitler.
Some observers reject outright the necessity of enhanced government powers. Denying that we are
currently in a time of national peril, some argue that Islamist fascism does not present an existential
threat to America. In a December 2008 draft report, a bipartisan, congressionally mandated
commission found there was a better-than-even chance that terrorists would attack a major
international city with weapons of mass destruction in the next few years. The threat of some kind of
nuclear device being detonated in America is greater now than it was during the Cold War, when the
doctrine of mutually assured destruction ensured that no nuclear weapons were used in what we used
to call the balance of terror.

Faced with this imminent threat, to insist on the continuation of all the civil liberties we enjoyed
during the 1990s is to handcuff the government in its war fighting efforts, making another terror attack
more likely. My argument is simply this: a temporary reduction of personal and media freedoms is an
acceptable price to pay in order to lessen the chance that Islamic fanatics will commit further atrocities
against the American people.

During World War II, a federal Office of Censorship was created to review and if necessary censor
any criticism of the morale of U.S. forces, or any communication that might bring aid or comfort to
the enemy. Censorship applied not only to news and commentary, but also popular entertainment.
Anti-war films were all but unheard of, since the government simply would not allow them.

At the beginning of World War II, around twenty-six news stories were censored in the American
press every day; by the end of 1942, the Post Office had completely outlawed seventy newspapers.
Compare that restrictive environment to the laxity that prevails today, when the , absolutely
unhindered by the government, prints op-ed submissions by the likes of Mahmoud al-Zahar, a founder
and top official of Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Mousa Abu Marzook, a
Hamas terrorist who is listed as a specially designated terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department.
Similarly, a website run by the and saw fit to run a piece on the meaning of jihad written by
Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a spiritual leader of Hezbollah, another U.S.-designated terrorist
organization.

It is hard to imagine the population on the home front during World War II waking up one morning,
opening the paper, and finding a direct appeal to the American people from a top official from Nazi
Germany’s Propaganda Ministry, or an entreaty from an Imperial Japanese pilot suspected of
participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

There is no reason why newspapers should remain free to publish direct appeals to the American
public from members of designated terrorist organizations. Most important, the media should not
enjoy the unfettered right to publish national security, intelligence, and military secrets. These
revelations can be so damaging to national security that sanctions should be enforced not just
 Kızıldağ, 9

against government officials who leak secrets, but also against the journalists and media outlets that
disclose them.(SUMMARIZED)

Congress must clarify the law so that publishing government secrets that endanger our national
security and our wartime efforts will be severely punished. American newspapers should foster a free
debate on government policies, not act as agents of enemy sabotage.

Media Censorship takes extreme measures in North Korea as the citizens of the country are only
allowed to see the good of the country and not the bad. This has affected a lot of people within the
country since they can't have a window which leads them to the outside world. Another trait of Asian
countries is their tendency to remain in the past and have laws that do not take into consideration
modern behavior and lifestyles.
The problem of media censorship in North Korea also results to the citizens of the country not being
able to use the Internet effectively due to the fact that they are not allowed to have access to most of
the websites which are public websites to most countries; it also results to the foreign news broadcasts
to be jammed by the government.[2] Kim “opened his own ‘distance learning’ school to instruct the
globe on the great triumphs of North Korea and North Korea's philosophy of “juche” or self-reliance.
[6]
The media of North Korea is mostly based on propaganda. As Judita Aita states, quoting Cooper in
her article: "people from countries like North Korea are virtually isolated from the rest of the world,
kept uniformed by authoritarian rulers who muzzle the media, who keep a chokehold on information
through restrictive laws, fear, and intimidation”. This argument shows exactly that such a term as
'Freedom of expression' doesn't exist in countries like North Korea because of the citizens being
scared of the fact that it might endanger their lives.
All radio and television stations, newspapers, magazines and church sermons are government
controlled which offers a steady diet of fawning coverage of "dear leader" Kim Jong IL. One example
of how censorship can harm the public was when the government did not deem it newsworthy to
report the famine in the 1990s that affected millions of North Koreans.[3] This serves as proof that -
the media is controlled by the ruling government to only show the good that is being done by the
government in charge while ignoring the bad which is much of a concern to the citizens of the country
since it involves and might also harm them.(SUMMARIZED)
The media is one effective tool that can be used to put the country together. This should mean that
every individual of the country should participate in the media anyhow, provided that, the
participation will be to the benefit of the country as a whole. The issue of Media Censorship should
be kept to the lowest point as possible since a lot of it restricts a lot of individuals throughout the
world and therefore most of the truth is kept secret by the people who are in charge.
North Korea is in line with the countries like Burma, Turkmenistan and Equatorial Guinea where
media censorship is practised at its highest levels. Journalists get killed, threatened or harassed as a
way to monitor global press freedom. This is to make sure that the ruling person or government of
the country is always favoured by the media so as to continue ruling.[1] North Korea continues to be
known as the world’s internet black hole and it is in fact one of the most censored countries in the
world[8].
Censorship will always remain a challenge to free media. We have seen censorship disguised in
various forms, and wherever there is evidence of censorship, the intention has always been to keep
the citizen uninformed because of the simple fact that a free media allows for equal participation in
government and more transparency and accountability. It’s no surprise that in countries in which
there is media censorship, the number of human rights violations tends to be
high.(SUMMARIZED)