This past week in Intro to Media, we discussed censorship. Books can be challenged when readers claim the novel’s content is inappropriate. Finally, the book will be removed and banned if agreed upon. As a result, this degree of interference provoked my thoughts. Is censorship okay? If so, should there be limitations? These are questions I have processed and concluded.
The idea of censorship is not wrong. In fact, within certain constraints, it can be a helpful tool. Not every single thought should be published for the public. Some people are very disturbed and could represent that in their topics and themes. Easily influenceable consumers, like kids or the deranged, could view this insight as acceptable. They could follow in the writer’s footsteps, leading them down a dangerous path.
On the other hand, does this take away authors’ rights, or does it create a safe environment? A reader’s disagreement with the producer’s opinion does not invalidate their beliefs. For instance, religion and politics are personal viewpoints for all citizens. They should freely be able to practice these outlooks. A Republican should not challenge a Democratic novel, or vice versa, simply for its angle. Additionally, religious texts should not be quieted just for differences in worship. One cannot censor how another chooses to live and fulfill their purpose.
Overall, censorship is a weighty and controversial topic. I see the positive and negative in its decisive role. Just like anything else, censorship is relevant in doses.