arienettelyn's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Something I wrote last year I just found this essay I wrote last year which I actually liked...I did research and everything! And I felt the need to post it here since I'm bored and too sick to concentrate on studying!(I'm not sure if I posted this before, but probably not since I wrote it last November and didn't start this diary until late December...oh well!) Censorship is Never the Answer "Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free." Theodore Roosevelt, 1918. The citizens of the United States take their rights very seriously, so it is doubtful that many Americans would dispute Roosevelt's opinion on free speech. In general, we are extremely proud to live in a country we consider free. The Bill of Rights, a document written to protect the individual freedoms of American citizens, mentions freedom of speech in its very first amendment. The amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Through various Supreme Court cases, the meaning of speech has been expanded to include painting, music, poetry, movies, dramatic works, radio and television entertainment, drawings, and engravings (Van Camp 1). Basically, freedom of speech also means freedom of artistic expression. However, no artist in this country has complete freedom to create and display the art they desire due to various forms of censorship. I believe that there is no situation that can justify the censorship of art. In addition to expanding the meaning of the word speech as used in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has also placed limits on the First Amendment protections. Our rights to freedom of speech do not apply when used for defamation, causing panic, inciting a fight, inciting a crime, sedition, or obscenity (Van Camp 1). Most of these exceptions are concise and non-debatable. The obscenity exception, however, is a bit vague, and the cause of most censorship. According to the Supreme Court, speech or artwork can be considered obscene for three different reasons. One of these is if the average person would find that the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest. Another is if the work depicts or displays sexual conduct in an offensive way. The third is if the work, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (Van Camp 2). I find it extremely hard to accept the last classification of obscene art or speech. I do not understand how any one person or group can decide if a piece of art has enough value to be viewed by the entire country. Art should be interpreted on an individual level. Each person should have the right to decide whether or not a work of art is valuable to them, and the government need not make this decision for us. For example, I find little value in the work of Marilyn Manson, a popular target for censors. His fans, on the other hand, find great value in the art he creates. Shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy the art that means so much to them? Censorship of the arts has been an ongoing problem. For years, various groups have protested art or music that they believe goes against their personal or religious views. Since September 11th, however, Americans freedom of expression has been further threatened. Any work of art that in some way questions America or the way our government is handling the current situation is deemed unpatriotic. Art is being censored at a time when we need art the most. During wartimes, it is extremely important for various opinions to be expressed through art. If this right is taken away, the government is, in a way, using a form of thought control (National 4). Maybe George Orwell's ideas in 1984 were not as radical as they seemed. Of course, many will argue that censorship is a practical device used only to protect certain people, mainly children, from the evils of society. Vulgar language is edited from radio, vulgar images are edited from network television, and parental advisory stickers are placed on music albums with questionable content. Does this stop children from hearing or seeing these "vulgar" things? Of course not. Our efforts to shield our children from this vulgarity are futile; they hear swearing from their parents or other adults, and they can see images of violence and sex merely by changing the television to a cable station. Many will argue that people, especially young children, are impressionable, and should be kept away from violence in art. I can admit that some art is perhaps not suitable for children, and parents should make decisions on what their children can and cannot handle accordingly. Artwork is not something that should be regulated by the government in any way. Another popular argument in support of censorship is that people should not be forced to see or hear art that they consider offensive. They believe that questionable books should not be made available in schools, and questionable art should not be displayed in public places where they are forced to see it. Perhaps books which can clearly be labeled as offensive should not be made required reading for any public school class which is required to be taken. However, this does not give any reason why the books should not be made available in the school's library for other students to enjoy. Most art displayed in public places is not offensive to most people, and it would be extremely difficult to determine which art is offensive and which art is suitable to be displayed. I imagine that almost every work of art produced is offensive to at least one person in the world. Does this mean no art should ever be displayed? One of the main goals of art is to make people think about viewpoints other than their own. Of course this will sometimes offend people; that's the point. Censorship will continue to be a problem in our country for years to come. Most likely, it will never be eradicated. Since the Bill of Rights only provides us protection from Congress making laws infringing our freedom of speech, there is no legal protection against censorship perpetrated by individuals or advocacy groups. Citizens of the United States need to realize that their support of our freedoms in this country is hypocritical unless they support all of them. In the dissent for the 1929 United States v. Schwimmer case, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that one of the most important principles of the Constitution is that of "...free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate" (Levendosky 1). Until Americans can accept this principle entirely, we will not be safe from the censors. Works Cited First Amendment Cyber-Tribune. Ed. Charles Levendosky. 1995. 15 Nov. 2002 http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.quotes.html. National Coalition Against Censorship. 1996. 17 Nov. 2002 Van Camp, Julie C. Freedom of Expression at the National Endowment for the Arts. 1996. Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Long Beach. 15 Nov. 2002 http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html. Oh well that was fun...I'm gonna go sleep or something now. 12:59 p.m. - 2003-11-09 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||