Question

Argue AND Defend

Censorship restrictions in other countries on such information technology as Google and other Web sites is justifiable; U.S. and other western nations should not try to impose their values and norms on censoring practices. Why or why not.

Answer 1

Censorship is the restriction of free speech, often on the pretext of damaging or insulting the public by an act of communication. Often words are prohibited, since they are considered indecent, blasphemous, unpatriotic, seditious, or unethical. Usually the term "censorship" refers to government limits on free expression in public spaces, such as a statute banning the display of a Nazi flag;  or a government official who shuts down a public art display. However, efforts to restrict free speech can also come from private groups, and these are best termed non-governmental challenges, rather than “censorship” in its governmental sense.

Often the distinction between governmental censorship and non-governmental challenges is blurry, particularly where a private entity is operating with implied governmental authority. This is the case for self-regulated censorship: a private organization, in return for which the government decides not to be involved, sets rules which control free speech within an industry. And all forms of self-regulation there is always a governmental threat lurking in the background.

There has always been controversy between free speech and censorship since the very first initial authors disagreed with the very first regimes. Over the ages the topic has been of special concern to philosophers, in part because these authors themselves frequently bring forward provocative theories that government or church officials considered dangerous.

The first philosophical argument for freedom of expression is that freedom of speech is necessary for a democratic government to function properly. An area of free discussion and dialogue, would give policymakers the ability to objectively analyze every number of future public policies. Democracy requires a wide range of opinions about what's best for society, and politicians can not act on all of them

Even in a country like the U.S. that values free speech, not every expressed idea is legally protected, and since the 1920s the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the Constitutional limits of free speech. While there is no master list of exceptions to free speech, the critical ones include expressions that (1) pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence or lawlessness, (2) threaten national security, (3) constitute fighting words that inflict injury, (4) maliciously defame someone’s character through false facts, or (5) are obscene as judged by community standards.

The conservative view on the issue of censorship is that freedom of speech can be abused if it undermines traditional values and social stability and censorship is justifiable in some cases. The main arguments for the Conservative stance are:

Child protection: Censorship protects children from ideas which can disrupt their moral growth. One of the most ancient and fundamental human ideals is that of the parents who educate their children. We do so both as an impulse matter and out of a sense of spiritual obligation. The driving philosophy of all parenting is to do what is right for one's children and we understand that parents have a big latitude in determining for themselves what is best.

Stability of government: Censorship helps preserve democracy by stopping official power from eroding. All the rights we have and the practices we participate in are feasible only if we have a democratic government and a healthy environment.

Traditional values and offense: those which target traditional values are the most offensive words, and censorship defends those values against violence. Each culture has a rock of values — core principles and codes of morale that govern how we behave and communicate with each other. We internalize universal values, they are an important part of our personality and an assault on one of those values quickly translates into an attack on us personally.

The liberal view on the issue of censorship is that even though it violates mainstream ideals, freedom of expression should be allowed, and in a few cases censorship is justifiable. The core reasons for the liberal approach are:

Democracy: Repression destroys the mechanism of government, as it benefits others by silencing other ideas. Those who have the most wealth or influence to promote their interests also defend the favored theories; their ideologies are often perpetuated at the detriment of the most underprivileged citizens in society. Censorship then is an expression of intolerance against those whose voices must be heard at the earliest

Discovering truth: Repression prevents the attempt to uncover new truths and extend the knowledge base of society. The discovery of both philosophical and scientific facts is the product of trial and error. Originally, progressive concepts, such as gender and racial parity, fair treatment of inmates, and due process of law, encountered tremendous challenges as well.

Absolute autonomy: Repression limits our innate self-expression tendency and hits at the root of our individual identity. One of the distinguishing features of human nature is our desire to share our thoughts, to challenge others' viewpoints and to offer our own specific perspectives. This is a especially valuable item for the human sense of identity, as society expects  everyone to think and behave in fixed and predictable ways