However, it also makes it the rise of radicalism more possible. These opinions people choose to present may be seen as offensive and can turn social media into be a source of conflict.
Whether the people are friends are not, messages over the internet can be misinterpreted or taken out of context very easily. Not being able to see the persons face or emotions makes it easier for bullies to harass others. Social media truly can be dangerous if it used the wrong way or with the wrong people. In many controversial arguments on social media, people have gone as far as sending death threats, which is not acceptable. Also, depending on their account and person, they may have put out too much information out for the public to see.
Essays Essays FlashCards. Browse Essays. Sign in. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Show More. Read More. Words: - Pages: 6. It can help prevent fake news spreading and causing panic within local communities. It also protects people's personal information and reduces internet-related crimes. Internet censorship helps reduce the accessibility of content related to illicit drugs, child pornography and sex trafficking.
The major benefit of internet censorship is that it can reduce the violent behavior of among youth. Naveen is a copywriter and content strategist. He is also an educational consultant who coaches students to equip with relevant knowledge on entrepreneurship and helps them to set up small-scale and freelance businesses. By Naveen K. Reddy Updated November 10, Only a narrow range of "obscene" material can be suppressed; a term like "pornography" has no legal meaning.
Nevertheless, even the relatively narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups who want to impose their personal moral views on other people. Justice John Marshall Harlan's line, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," sums up the impossibility of developing a definition of obscenity that isn't hopelessly vague and subjective.
And Justice Potter Stewart's famous assurance, "I know it when I see it," is of small comfort to artists, writers, movie directors and lyricists who must navigate the murky waters of obscenity law trying to figure out what police, prosecutors, judges and juries will think. The Supreme Court's current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a case called Miller v.
California, has three requirements. The work must 1 appeal to the average person's prurient shameful, morbid interest in sex; 2 depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3 taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression -- in contrast with "obscenity" -- is entitled to some constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media broadcasting, cable, and telephone may be regulated.
In its decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the government could require radio and television stations to air "indecent" material only during those hours when children would be unlikely listeners or viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: "language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.
Its dictionary definition is "writing or pictures intended to arouse sexual desire. Today's calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of "scientific studies" that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.
There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent.
And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. But taken to the extreme, this can cause journalists to fear for their lives if they do not self-censor.
If they do not, the consequences can be real — even in democratic Europe. Daphne Caruana Galizia and Jan Kuciak are two recent examples of journalists who have been murdered in Europe after they refused to stop pursuing stories they were working on.
Media outlets in Hungary, Poland and other countries have felt pressure not to be critical of the government for fear of being taken over or closed down by the authorities. When journalists or media companies feel pressure to self-censor, it has serious consequences for our democracy. To ensure that governments work with the interests of their citizens in mind, it is essential that journalists are able to freely ask politicians difficult questions.
This keeps citizens informed and compels the government to speak frankly about what it is doing. And journalists and citizens need to be able to express their concerns to their representatives, either through writing or some other form of expression, like protests.
Media freedom is under serious threat in Europe. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia are notable examples of where the government has increased its influence over the media. And in each of these countries, democracy is backsliding. Why are some political leaders doing this?
Because it allows the government to control the narrative. When an authoritarian government puts pressure on journalists to self-censor, the government is then better able to control what information, which version of the story, the public hears.
Media that self-censors can remain out of government hands, thereby allowing the government to claim to the rest of the world that they still have a free press. But the news that people have access to is actually very distorted. With the microphone of government-friendly media in one hand and cudgel of self-censorship in the other, governments can, for instance, keep corruption scandals out of the news or, when a scapegoat is needed, apportion blame for public grievances towards groups like migrants, ethnic minorities and LGBTQI persons.
And it works. When the truth is suppressed, the lies will take hold. Stay in the loop. Truth is a fundamental pillar of democracy, and so too is balanced debate, where the public can hear different points of view, debate them, and then make up their own mind.
Self-censorship is a body blow to these things.
0コメント