“The fact is that censorship defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion”~Henry Steele Commager
Right from our childhood we are exposed to censorship though in varying degree and measure. Parents dictate what their children should or should not do stressing that it is for their children’s own good. Interestingly, although our parents would dictate what programs we were allowed to watch, that did not stop most of us from watching or listening to censored materials secretly.
Once we grew older, we realized that censorship still persisted especially when the government decided that some music or videos should be censored because their content was considered immoral. However, the big question we should be asking ourselves is who has the right to make the decision that some media stuff is offensive.
Is that not a disguised method of promoting an authoritarian regime by allowing an individual or a group of individuals to make that decision for the entire society The proponents of SOPA bill may argue that internet censorship yields positive results, but we should not forget that we have witnessed instances of society oppression in China where internet censorship laws overlook human rights of expression.
Proponents of the SOPA bill may propose that ‘the end justifies the means’ because it seeks to protect copyrighted material from being pirated online; however, the fact that this ‘end’ is only achievable through unjustifiable means indicates that censorship laws do not achieve the intended results. It is high time we started searching for other means of protecting copyrighted materials, because it is evident that denying all people their constitutional right is not a solution.
Obviously, artists are likely to benefit from internet censorship laws, but are these laws not likely to elevate individual rights over rights of every other individual in the society? SOPA bill portrays the American government as the ‘big brother’ who is always looking after ‘little brother’ just in case they put harmful objects in their mouth. However, the government (big brother) should realize that the society (little brother) has to be set free to make its’ own decisions, because censorship does not guarantee compliance.
History has shown that censorship bears negative results because it gives rise to an utopian society by making some individuals more equal than others. Hitler’s regime is a clear evidence of what could go wrong when censorship laws are misused. Apparently, Hitler banned people from reading books, because he feared they would enlighten the society about his oppressive rule.
Censorship is a reality with certain individuals trying to compel the government to ban particular books from high school curriculum because they think that the information is not appropriate for our youths. Important to note is that any attempt to restrict free thought deteriorates the situation because human beings are naturally thrilled by an opportunity to break the law.
In conclusion, it is apparent that censorship is a severe infringement of individuals’ rights because people have different likes and dislikes. Whatever materials an individual may perceive as obscene maybe appealing to someone else; therefore, what happens if one is allowed to make censorship decisions?
Will we not be promoting individual rights over societal rights? The above implies that adults should be granted an absolute freedom to make own choices. Consequently, if we do not desire to witness a 21st century model of George Orwell’s utopian society, censorship laws should not be allowed to succeed.