Prompt: Artists need a certain amount of freedom to develop their creativity. Some people think that artist should have total freedom to express any thoughts and ideas. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is often argued that in order to develop creativity of artists, an unlimited amount of freedom is a need. Some people believe that artists should be allowed to convey any concepts completely freely. From my perspective I totally disagree with this point of view and tend to support the idea that content in art should be controlled by government for the following reasons. Ċ Firstly, artists' expression of art should be limited to protect young people from harmful content. For instance, without necessary regulation, pornography can be accessed easily by minors. It would stimulate them engage in sexual activities when they are underage. In addition, violent content should be under control in art as well otherwise children might see it even when they do not have intention and this impacts negatively to their mental health. Moreover, the young might learn and mimic violence from art. This leads to a number of violent actions in school which is regarded as a serious problem. Ċ Another point government should limit the ideas of art is to prevent political conflicts in society. Perhaps the best example is that content relating to religion or race topics usually create arguments. In some cases, it might end up by murder and violence or an increase in racist behaviors. In addition, some bad group of people might take advantage from art to against government with bad purposes such as terrorism, reactionary attitude, etc. Ċ In conclusion, although government should encourage artists to develop their creativity, limiting the thoughts and ideas should be necessarily applied to not only protect the young but also keep the society stable.