Censorship: Does it have to be a choice between freedom of speech ?
Like a moth to a flame, let’s not jump towards directly making declarations. With the rising epidemic of self-reflections and relative morals we might be inclined to choose just one side, to stick to the latter in a heartbeat and not think twice. To actually create a case for or against censorship we need to understand the need for it, the impact that it can create and the integrity of the governing bodies that practice control over media content, particularly on television and radios. The concept of censorship refers to blocking the open display or communication of content in terms of films, speeches, television shows, news and all other forms of media that can be considered in a way to be inappropriate. Now it would be considered turning a blind eye if one did not acknowledge the aspect of suppression associated with the act. It is inherently a side effect of creating boundaries against content created for a mass audience.
However take a minute, let out a deep breath and ask yourself: Why did the need arise for censorship in the first place? Is suppression of free speech all that it is?
This is not a debate to decide the integrity of censorship nor is it a debate against free will. What this is an appeal to look at it from the perspective of how both these concepts can co-exist. The authoritative figures or body responsible for deciding what is appropriate to be shown on mass media is the culprit in this scenario. If we make an effort to employ a body that depicts a balance between the values of a wide percentage of the population and the rhetoric of what represents the pessimistic side of unabridged information, it might help us navigate the issue with more finesse.
What we have to aim towards is festering the practice of media literacy; the basic concept of differentiating between the sources of media and having a coherent understanding of what information you are receiving and perceiving. This will help control the content creators and the disseminators. In the paper “Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Challenge of Fake News” (Lance E. Mason, 2018) the authors have discussed how the various facets of media technologies and societal cultures amalgamate over time to restrict open speech. There is an aspect to censoring speech and art that does withhold freedom of expression. However as a community we have a responsibility to oversee what the public is being exposed to in masses. Why has the term “sensitive content” come into existence? Why are we forewarned to choose what kind and form of content we expose ourselves to? Content completely devoid of censorship will cause unrest all over the world as can be physically exemplified in the Covid 19 “microchip” vaccines or the Palestinian children starting a “war” with their stones. There has to be a reason why we have to censor a PS4 video game such as Sims. It only makes sense for there to exist a rationale towards supporting the application of worldwide censorships. As William Westmoreland once said “Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind”. If the public faces no restrictions to what is being conveyed to the audience we might as well look forward to generations of confused, idiosyncratic children not knowing where the filters to the real world begin and end.
Recently in Pakistan the movie “Zindagi Tamasha” faced backlash particularly from Mullahs and religious sects who felt the content was insulting to their religion. For them to question this is their right, but for the authoritative figures such as PEMRA to overlook the penalties for the piece of art and banning it at the prime of its launch only to allow its release now, is an ignorant abuse of power. You are costing your own economy, your own industry, your own workforce an irrevocable loss. To support the utter, persistent need for our authorities censoring bodies to be aligned with the ideas of the greater good, one of the most influential bodies in the history of cinema Steven Spielberg said, “There is a fine line between censorship and good taste and moral responsibility”. What we need is someone to define those lines, we need someone to take charge and we need that someone to embody the spirit of understanding what the actual purpose is for censoring content.
The conclusion that this debate supports is that censorship should be an adjustable necessity. Which means that content displayed on mass media through these platforms should be monitored no doubt or questions to that. I do acknowledge the fact that on some level censorship does indicate a suppression of speech in the form of commercial art and media. It might become an ultimate question of democracy. In this context what we fail to comprehend is, it is us who have the right to choose the body that defines the extent of censorship that our content faces! However who decides what is appropriate and the standard of power given to these bodies is supposed to be more carefully controlled. A balance of logic and societal normalcy has to be created in the content that we showcase through these media platforms.
One of the core views this article highlights is the point of view that sometimes the “bad” things in life open up your eyes to the good things you maybe weren’t paying attention to before. Does it not seem like a possibility that all the adverse characteristics that we associate with censorship might actually be pointing us towards a bigger picture of avoiding an exposure to certain content that may usurp our viewpoint or to secure a farfetched epiphany of mass hysteria? The application for censorships may be for the greater good, one cannot deny that it has been safeguarding generations against blasphemous news, propagandas, inappropriate content for years on end. How about some final words as food for thought; all this time could censorship possibly have been an initiative towards protecting you and your peace of mind?
