The issue of censorship is a difficult one to address, and even moreso when we realize that the question (should things be censored?) holds a very complex answer. Of course, these are all matters of opinion; a definite answer can never be reached. Popular opinions are what the “true” answer is based on, but I must argue that even if something is of a popular opinion, it is not necessarily true or right in any way. We’ve seen this before at various points in time: Columbus proved that the world is round, or at least made it apparent to the masses, leaders who have been voted in have been impeached due to their inability, etc. In the case of censorship, my opinion is similar to the Capitalist (or free market) economic system: the government (public) should have less power, while the individuals (private) can have more power.
Censorship in media is already shaky, and I intend to shake its foundations more. Let us assume that something like, say, a snuff film is illegal. Our government has said that it is illegal to own, produce, or even view such material. I must argue that films like those in the Saw franchise, which depicts scenes such as a man being chained down and drowned in the sludge of ground-up pigs, are just as disturbing if not more disturbing than a film that depicts the actual death of a human being. The difference between the two is that we understand that those Saw films are fictional, while a snuff film is not. I, however, do not believe that the difference presented there is enough of a reason to have snuff films legally banned while the Saw films are shown in popular theaters worldwide.
In comes Twitter, censoring the posts that users make on their website. Should it be the website’s decision whether or not to show that content or allow it to exist? Yes – it is the website’s decision. Should it be the government’s right to say what should and what should not be said on Twitter? No, I don’t believe it should. What is the difference here? Well, for one thing, no one is forcing you to go to Twitter; you are not born into Twitter, many refuse to use Twitter (like myself), and there are alternatives to Twitter. For another thing, Twitter is privately owned. It should be the Twitter staff’s choice whether or not to allow something on their website, as it is, frankly, their website.
Some argue that a complete lack of censorship in all forms of media would lead to the corruption of the population. Yes, this is true! If child pornography were easily accessible, and people were seeing it on a daily basis, it would become more acceptable, which is corrupt (some might even say “evil”). That, however, is not the proposition I am making. I believe that the movie theater should be able to choose whether or not to show snuff films, just as theaters now don’t show every movie that comes out. Specialty theaters would exist for such things. The horrors of the world wouldn’t be forced into our lives, but made available. People could go their entire lives without ever seeing any of the now-banned material, without reading the now-banned books, etc. For those who wished to see or read it, however, it would be made available.
In conclusion, the private decision to show content should be the only factor in censorship. Any government involvement is unnecessary. We live in a world where there are people interested in the things that are legally banned, and where there are people who couldn’t be less interested in those things. Ultimately, it should be the company’s choice to show it – and the viewer’s choice to watch. This, I think, is perfectly fair, and would end the issue of censorship forever.
