Cen.sor.ship [noun]: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

Though I may notice a tiny blurb in the World News section of the local newspaper or encounter hearsay of global and domestic struggles, there are Jihad-driven suicide bombings, hostage imprisonments, brutal executions, pornographic anomalies, and endless injustices, deemed unremarkable by censors, to which I remain blind. Whether these events are happening thousands of miles from me or in my own home, should I be able to open my eyes to these controversial and devastating incidents? A group of more conservative, protective people believe that if the information would be detrimental to my emotional or physical stability, censors should filter the details of troublesome issues; more liberal people confident in the ability of others to censor information on their own, however, believe that information pertaining to any, and every, global event should be universally available.

Protecting our supposedly morally-tapering society from the perceived rampant evils of the world is the objective of proponents of censorship. Whether they are parents shielding their children from pornographic images or government advisors withholding information about the War on Terror, these proponents, concerned with the safety of their tyro, wish to provide a moral, ideological shelter under which each willing citizen can congregate. Shuddering at the thought of unsolicited suppression of information enforced by ambiguously defined organizations, opponents of censorship from all walks of life believe that the explicit truth should be readily available to all American citizens in order for them to make informed, self-protecting decisions.

In a time of graphic executions and overt nudity creeping onto broadcast television, the supporters of censorship fear a severe decay in the moral fiber of American society. Why should we, as children or as adults, be regularly exposed to sex, violence, and pure hatred through television, magazines, newspapers, or the internet? Especially in the malleable minds of children, this extreme openness can adversely affect behavior. If protected from the graphic images, inappropriate content, and subversive ideas, their behavior could be shaped and they could be bred into more praiseworthy figures concerned with America’s future, much like our forefathers. The opposing side counters, arguing that the founding fathers did not conform to social norms. They abide by the Bill of Rights, specifically freedom of speech and freedom of the press: evidence that America is a culture based upon open communication and equality between all people, whether it is in the amount of say in the government or the amount of information accessible to them.

Even though editing and censoring can protect an individual from the trepidation of a conflict in the Middle East or the panic associated with a terrorist threat, this censorship does not stop the fact that these incidents occur. To bowdlerize this information may appeal to the “ignorance is bliss” mindset of many, yet terrifying events still happen daily around the world. At times, the best way to prevent confrontations and unpleasant episodes is to be aware of the issues, and to actually expose the general populace to them. However, in spite of this concept of placing controversial events in the limelight, sometimes it is better not to explicitly flaunt the displays of hatred in the world. In American news, I doubt we would ever see the beheading of an Iraqi soldier; the negative effects of bluntness can outweigh the benefit of knowing the unconditional truth.

Those who believe in censorship yearn to protect their children, and even themselves, from material such as pornography, violent video games, or sensational news, that could be detrimental to their physical or mental health. Knowing the absolute truth is the means by which the opponents of censorship protect themselves. They would rather know what is happening to whom in which part of the world, and what they can do not only to protect themselves from terrorist groups holding weapons of mass destruction or the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, but also to help prevent these dilemmas in the future. Government officials, news reporters, conglomerate corporations, teachers, parents, and I, whether we advocate or contest censorship, wish to achieve the same result: personal security.