FREE SPEECH VERSUS CENSORSHIP.
“Freedom of speech” is defined as the right to express certain concepts without fear or retribution from higher authorities, and the corresponding right to express your views and opinions without being reprimanded. On the contrary, we can define “censorship” as the institution, system or practice of examining in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. The question is: Can we mix both concepts?
Advocates of free speech claim that censorship stifles debate. However, proponents of censorship suggest that it is necessary to prevent the broadcast and publication of obscene material which is considered offensive or harmful to public morals. For this reason, governments have the duty to impose certain restrictions on the mass media, such as the Internet, TV or radio by censoring films and texts which contain explicit scenes of sex, violence or foul language.
In contrast, opponents of censorship point out that when it is abused by governments, censorship becomes an instrument used to misinform society and maintain power. What is more, it is widely believed that repressive regimes try to put constraints on the media in order to control the flow of information which reaches the public. Thus, denying citizens the right to information it may lead them to seek greater freedom. In other words, censorship is like a wall which has been built to suppress the rights of some societies. Indeed, most people hold that freedom of speech is needed to create balance. Actually, the right we have to speak out on our own opinions and beliefs is useless without an outlet to make your voice heard, and consequently it represses debate.
Taking everything into account, I personally reckon that in our modern and global society we can mix two totally different concepts as free speech and censorship, in order to keep an objective debate. While on the one hand a certain degree of censorship is always necessary, freedom of speech is the way that we need to express our personal opinions. The best course of action would be to attempt to achieve a balance between the requirements of the governments and the society on the one hand, and individuals´ rights on the other. Needless to say that, not only do we have the right to express an objective and plural debate, but we also have the responsibility to do so.(C.T)
Monday, May 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment