實情和創作的審查制度

The Facts And Creations Of Censorship
 

在過去的幾年中，在美國的審查制度已經有所要求。 審查制度可以追溯到1700年。 據Proques職員說,言論自由權是美國長期的傳統,但人們實際上并不尊重言論自由(Proquest員工)。 1798年,約翰·亞當斯簽署了一項法案,該法案使其對政府官員沒有事實支持的在法庭上的批評是非法的。亞當斯正在審查言論。這件事的發生,沒有人能說任何有關政府官員的負面。 根據頭,審查的另一個例子是一本約翰·克萊蘭德芬妮寫的叫做《希爾》的書。

 

這本書寫的據說是作者想象中的一個妓女的回憶錄。 這本書已經被禁止了145年，在美國最長的禁令的記錄。 審查的那個人已經談到的還有一個例子是在1873年,康斯托克法案允許郵件無證搜查“淫穢材料”1872年,維多利亞哈爾出版了一本關于外遇部長和一個教區居民的書。安東尼•康斯托克有檢索到的這本書,維多利亞哈爾被捕。 我們歷史上另一個例子是在1921年，紐約社會阻止詹姆斯·喬伊斯的《尤利西斯》的出版,人們引用一個相對溫和的場景作為淫穢的證明。這里一本書被審查,這是新聞自由剝奪了作者的權利。 審查部長就解釋了很多年之后，在1930年,海斯法典規定禁止電影和暴力，性，臟話，甚至種族和同性關系。 這部法典并不是由政府強制執行的，但是，它是由電影發行商達成的，但是政府審查的威脅是必要的。今天,目前有更多的書籍被禁止在某些領域,比如《哈利波特》,《殺死一只知更鳥》,《黑暗之心》,《1984》,《哈克貝利·費恩歷險記》。 這些書被禁止,因為它既包含對共產主義的暴力,甚至促進了撒旦的價值觀。 最后，審查制度已經成為許多人生活的一部分。

 

Over the years, censorship has been demanded in the United States. Censorship goes back all the way to the 1700's. According to Proquest Staff, the right to free speech is a longstanding U.S. tradition, but actually respecting the right to free speech is not, (Proquest Staff). In 1798, John Adams had signed a bill that made it illegal to criticize a government official without backing up one's criticisms in court (Head 1). Adams was censoring speech. He made it so that no one can say anything negative about a government official. According to Head, another example of censorship was a book called Fanny Hill by John Cleland, (Head, 1). Fanny

 

Hill was supposedly about what the author imagined what a prostitute's memoirs would sound like. This book has been banned for 145 years, the record for the longest ban in the United States. Another example of censorship Head had talked about was how in 1873, the Comstock Act allowed warrantless searches of the mail for "obscene materials." In 1872, Victoria Woodhull published a book about an affair between a minister and one of the parishioners (Head 1). Anthony Comstock had retrieved this book, and had Woodhull arrested. Another example from our history is in 1921 when the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice blocked the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses, citing a relatively tame scene as proof of obscenity (Head 1). Again here a book is being censored, which is depriving the author's right to freedom of press. Head then explained how a few years pass and in 1930, the Hays Code regulated the filming industry and banned violence, sex, profanity, and even interracial and same-sex relationships. This code was never enforced by the government; however, it was agreed on by film distributors, but the threat of government censorship made it necessary (Head 1). As of today, there are more current books that have been banned in some areas such as Harry Potter, To Kill a Mockingbird, Heart of Darkness, 1984, and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. These books were banned because it either contained violence, references to communism, or even promoted satanic values. In the end, censorship has been a part of many people's lives.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

In the United States, we follow the fundamental laws of the Constitution. If people go against it, they are punished by going to prison. Within the Constitution,

 

people are given rights. If censorship went against one of these rights, then should it even be allowed? The answer is no. According to Kate Burns, author of the book, Censorship, states "The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free to decide for themselves what to paint, draw, read, write, see and hear," (Burns 1). If the government gets the right to censor material, then we as individuals do not have our first amendment rights anymore. People should be able to decide what they think is too inappropriate for themselves. We live in a free country, thus we should be free to decide on what we think is right. It is not our government's job to tell us what we can see or listen to. Also, Kate Burns states that, "The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books-whatever the human creative impulse produces," (Burns, 1). If censorship arises, then all forms of art and books are in danger.

 

There are two principles that the courts follow when they decide a case involving freedom of expression. These two principles are content neutrality and direct and imminent harm to an important interest of society. Content neutrality basically means that the government can not just limit expression just because someone is offended. Direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest is hard to define, but an example of it would be shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre. As a result, it is difficult to say that books and art can be banned. First of all, people do have the right to freedom of expression, and secondly, it does not fall into one of the two principles deciding whether or not it can be banned.

 

These two principles lead to the next example. The case of Schenck vs. the United States was concerned about the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I. The question in every case is whether the words used in such circumstances create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent (Burns 1). There is no clear and present danger in reading a book, or looking at a painting of some sort. Just because one person gets offended by it does not mean it is a danger for everyone else.

 

Supporters for censorship have many reasons for their position on this topic; however, their reasons are incorrect. According to Uttara Manohar, "Children of impressionable ages are constantly being exposed to excessive violence as well as sexually explicit content. Media exposure is an instrumental factor in shaping the opinions and values in these children," (Manohar 1). According to this promoter, the media affects individual's actions and opinions, especially children. However, this is wrong as there have been tests that prove that the media have no effect on children and how they behave. According to Diana Zuckerman, Dr. David Satcher, Surgeon General of the United States, held a position in the Bush Administration. In a press conference (2001) when the report was released, Dr. Satcher was asked about media violence, and he responded that the media is not a major influence on youth violence. Studies that try to find out why some aggressive people have a history of watching a lot of violence in television programs suffer from the chicken-and-egg dilemma: do violent television programs cause people to have an aggressive behavior or do aggressive people prefer to watch violent television. There is no clear and definite answer. But all scientists agree that one does not cause the other. If the government starts to censor these programs, then the question that pops up is what is too inappropriate to be viewed? Not one person or group can decide for a whole country what they believe is too inappropriate. It is too difficult to set the barrier, where in the end they might as well just remove all violence. Therefore, there should be no censorship because no matter what the government does, a new problem will arise. As a result, the opposition is wrong, proving that censorship should not be used.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

If government controls censorship, how can we even trust a government that has known to have been corrupt at times? "The Watergate scandal was a political scandal in the United States in the 1970s, resulting from the break-in into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex in Washington D.C.," (Gill 1). Richard Nixon ultimately resigned from his position on August 9, 1974. It also resulted in the conviction of several Nixon administration officials. According to Gill, the scandal began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in 1972. As evidence mounted against the president's staff, it was revealed that President Nixon had a tape recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations (Gill, 1). Recordings from these tapes put the president in danger for his job, revealing that he had attempted to cover up the break-in. After a series of court battles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the president had to hand over the tapes; he ultimately complied. Since Nixon was closed to being impeached he resigned the office of the presidency. Here is just an example of how our government can be corrupt. This leads to the possibility to the government censoring something that would be harmful to them, and would be chicanery to us. They would censor something from the people of the United States that would make the government look bad. It is almost like the question, if the world was going to end, would the government tell us?

 

Recently, in the state of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich was removed from office. Beginning in 2005, Rod Blagojevich, former Governor of Illinois, was being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for corruption. Blagojevich was charged with corruption by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. As a result, Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois General Assembly and removed from office by the Illinois Senate in January 2009. The federal investigation continued after this removal, and Blagojevich was indicted on corruption charges in April 2009. According to Rick Pearson, reporter for the Chicago Tribune, the investigation became public knowledge when a federal judge revealed that Blagojevich was the "Public Official A" in the indictment of Tony Rezko. The case gained widespread attention with the arrest of Blagojevich on December 9, 2008, at their homes by federal agents (Pearson 1). Blagojevich was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and one count of soliciting bribes. Even locally, we have a corrupted government! Again, how can we trust our government to do the right thing? Obviously they have no problem being corrupt. What will stop them when they are given even more power, and start censoring things that do not necessarily protect us, but protect them so that they can keep their job and do not have to worry about looking bad? A corrupt government could lead to excessive bans also. Like George Orwell's novel, 1984, the government tells people what to do, and what they can watch, have, and even speak. Government corruption could basically lead to a big change for the United States.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

Books and Art have history to them. If the government starts banning books and art, it is depriving kids an education. Books have lessons and opinions to teach. The purpose is not to convince others to conform, but it just shows how other people acted in the past, for example. Books are the base of the learning pyramid. Surely without books, that pyramid would fall. Books help people improve their vocabulary, and learn more about the author. Children do have the right to learn, and there should be nothing to oppress that. Not only does banning books deprive a person's education, but it also would upset the writer as well. The writer spent money, time, and hard work in creating a book. They would be very upset to learn that the book they wrote, the book that they wanted everyone to see, is banned. If books and art get banned, it makes an author's work a waste of time. These people took so much time doing what they love to express themselves, only to have their piece of work to not be seen by others. Isn't art a form of expression?

 

Since this is government censorship, it would affect the whole country. Locally, people will begin to not see artwork, books, and even some of our favorite television programs. We will also lose some of our freedom of speech. Basically, the government will come in and tell the people what can be watched, said, seen, and heard.

 

Honestly, there is no solution. There will always be controversy no matter what happens. If censorship arises, then the question of what is too inappropriate, and if there is no censorship, then more activists will try to get the government to go for it. Everyone deserves to have a freedom of expression, and no one should be denied this freedom, just because one person or even a small group thinks that a certain piece of work is offensive. Some people believe that some television shows are offensive to their children. Well here is a solution, just block the program. In today's society, technology is rapidly growing and with what we have today, it is possible to block television channels. Do not ruin it for everyone else. According to a survey called Censorship, it was found that as age increases so does the likelihood of favoring censorship (Roller, Censorship). 42% of people 65 years of age and older, had stated that they thought it was a good idea for the government to censor obscene materials. On the contrary, 10% of the people in the 15 to 39 year old age group favored it. Overall, 75 %, of all the people surveyed, were against censorship. According to these statistics, most people believe in their freedom of expression, so why deny it with government interference.

 

Censorship seems to be getting stronger, however, if it gets enforced, it will ruin our society and what we have gone by in the past. If Censorship does happen, society will be deprived of our freedoms and rights. We can not trust our government to make the right decisions. In the future, it may become like George Orwell had predicted in 1984. There will be words that we can not speak, things we can not see, and things that we can not have. The government could end up choosing to censor things that are not necessarily dangerous but may put the official's job in jeopardy. Censorship will blind us from reality.#p#分頁標題#e#