Censorship is unnecessary.

I look forward to it. Credits to Wikipedia for the definitions. I'll first go through each category of censorship and explain why each one is necessary. 1. MORAL censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. An example of this would be child pornography, or even more simply, filtering (or censoring) what children view on the internet. When the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey asked in 1995 whether we thought "people over the age of 16 are old enough to decide for themselves what they want to see and read", 48 per cent of respondents thought they were, against 32 per cent who did not. Similarly, when asked whether "adults should be allowed to see whatever films they like, even if some people think the films violent or pornographic", 55 per cent agreed that they should, and only 23 per cent disagreed. Clearly, it would seem that freedom is good, and censorship bad. But the case is not quite closed. BSA also asked people, in 2005, whether they think that "censorship of films and magazines is necessary to uphold moral standards. " Sixty-four per cent of those asked agreed or agreed strongly that censorship was necessary, whereas only 17 per cent disagreed or disagreed strongly. Remarkably, these figures have not changed in 20 years. We do not like the idea that some should stop us from doing what we want in the privacy of our own home. But we accept this as a need for others — indeed, we want them to be prevented from enjoying the same privilege. What is good for me is not, apparently, good for us. There may be some hypocrisy in this, but there is also a serious moral tension, based on whether we understand our identity as being founded primarily on me (I am an autonomous, rational, moral agent), or on us (I am a spouse, parent, colleague, neighbor, citizen). For some, the choice is simple. The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) published Prohibitions, a series of essays that argued for a legal market in, among other things, pornography, guns, prostitution, and human organs. "To prevent other people from choosing their own ends is to deny their capacity for autonomous choice and ultimately to deny their humanity," it stated. Censorship is thus not only politically oppressive and economically counterproductive, but also morally dubious. " If the rest of us do not see things so categorically, it is because we understand that humans comprise a variety of identities. Yes, we are free moral agents, but we are also committed spouses, neighbours, and citizens. Our freedom is essential to our human flourishing, but so are our relationships, which exist only because we are prepared to surrender some of that freedom. It is these multiple identities that underlie the supposed hypocrisy of the public's attitude to censorship. I should be able to dictate my personal media consumption, but I am uneasy at the idea of my 18-year-old son sitting in his bedroom beating up someone on a video game. And the thought of thousands of young men doing the same thing before they head out for an evening fills me with terror. The key question is: which identity do we have in mind when we are thinking about censorship? If we buy the IEA's vision of thoroughly autonomous individuals whose personal liberty demands maximal respect, then we should eliminate all forms of media censorship straight away. If, on the other hand, we adopt a more relational public identity, seeing the public square as full of spouses, siblings, and neighbors, there is an argument for censorship. If it is possible to show that uncensored games, movies, and tv shows cause harm to the relationships that make up the public square (which is different from saying that we find them morally ugly), then censorship becomes a valid option. From a public-health perspective, there is evidence that violent or tastless imagery has short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behavior. Long-term outcomes for children viewing media violence are more controversial. nevertheless, a small but significant association persists in the research, with an effect size that has a substantial public-health effect. Such evidence is mounting. Regrettably, however, it remains some way short of being able to persuade the public that we are better off without such products. In spite of what libertarians argue, censorship does — indeed, must — have a place in modern society. Yet that place must be dictated not by the revulsion some have at how others spend their time and money, but by careful, empirically grounded arguments about what constitutes a threat to the public good. 2. MILITARY censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. & POLITICAL censorship occurs when governments hold back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to rebel. Any dissent against the government is thought to be a "weakness" for the enemy to exploit. Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: ex. the Watergate scandal. - We as American citizens are a part of this country, and our leaders' jobs are to keep us safe. As far as military censorship is concerned, why would you want our plans and tactics to be released to the enemy in the first place? And as far as keeping information from the public, consider this: You and your wife are having marital problems because she's cheating on you. Now, you have a five-year old daughter who wants to know what's going on. Do you tell her EVERYTHING that is going on between you two (the cheating, etc. )? Or do you simply say "mommy and I are mad at each other right now. " in an attempt to not worry her? Think of the American population as a five-year-old kid. The government withholds some information from us in order to protect us, not to worry us, and keep the country safe. If the government was planning a bombing on Thailand, the government would be putting the entire country at risk by not withholding that information; someone could very well send that info over to Thailand and warn them. Also, if the tables were turned and they were planning to bomb us at noon tomorrow, then the entire country would be in a panic if the government released that info. We as citizens have the right to know what's going on with our world and leaders, but the government has the right to keep its citizens safe and calm. 4. RELIGIOUS censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. - this one crosses a fine line between religion and morals, and any type of moral censorship could be grouped into this category. But I do believe in freedom of religion in that sense. You are free to believe what you will, but to shun the beliefs of others (and censor those beliefs) is unconstitutional. And lastly. .. 5. CORPORATE censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. - I have a hard time settling with this one, I guess because I take it to the extreme situation and think how they should be exposed for doing something that bad.