Of course, one way of avoiding much of the difficulty, expense, and inefficiency of a system of prepublication censorship is simply to allow editors to publish as they choose, subject to the risk of prosecution for whatever is published contrary to the standards laid down by the regime. But it is far from easy, even in a dictatorial regime, to prosecute effectively so long as some semblance of due process remains. It appears simpler for dictators to refuse to permit a particular report to be published than it is to explain in open court what was wrong with the report once published. Whether it is indeed simpler can be doubted, however, considering the mammoth effort required to supervise many thousands of reports.
It should be evident from these observations that “censorship” is used today in two senses. The more limited, perhaps more rigorous, sense refers to a system of prepublication control; the broader sense includes, in addition, sanctions visited upon a publisher after publication (whether or not the publication has previously been “approved”). Something to prepublication censorship is often said, by contemporary psychologists, to operate in the human psyche to prevent the conscious awareness of any unacceptable desires harboured in the . Comparable suppression, as well as intimidation, may be seen in the political world when prosecution and persecution for various kinds of associations and actions can render certain opinions virtually unthinkable.
What happens in practice is that a rough accommodation develops between an editor and a censor. Each can make the duties of the other a constant aggravation. The accommodation worked out is rather like that which guards and inmates arrive at in their collaborative governance of a prison. One critical problem in maintaining indefinitely a system of censorship is, as Milton pointed out, that it is dull, unrewarding work for the typical censor—and so the quality of people drawn to it tends to deteriorate.
One explanation is that self-censorship has become institutionalised and is therefore largely invisible and unchallenged – it has settled in over time, for a range of reasons and with a number of causes, throwing a cloak over some uncomfortable truths. At the same time support for artistic freedom of expression has been assumed rather than ensured.
Hate Is Bad. So Is Censorship. | The American Conservative
In the quest for marketability, some artists have pushed the bounds of acceptability. Throughout time, there have been many dark periods that censorship has plagued the artistic freedom of the artist. According to Herbert Mitgang(1993, p. 1.11) One such period was during WWII when the Nazi Censors ceased artwork, books, and sculptures deemed racially inferior. Nazis imprisoned or executed artist they found to be in conflict with the Third Reich. The persecution artists have endured for expressing…
Free censorship in the arts papers, essays, and research papers.
Freedom of expression needs certain conditions to thrive: the willingness to embrace controversy and diversity of opinion, to maintain open debate and dialogue, to take risks and experiment. The economic, social or political climate doesn’t necessarily favour these conditions and they have to be actively maintained at the heart of artistic mission and practice. Artistic freedom of expression is a tricky right because it supports artists to investigate the most sensitive areas of the society and ask difficult questions. Perhaps we are losing our appetite for disagreement and debate in the arts. Many acknowledge that fear of causing offence feeds self-censorship; others stress that over-protectiveness brings its own problems and denies the audience the opportunity to decide for itself.
The battle over Goya’s painting wasn’t the first skirmish between religion and the world of art, and it certainly won’t be the last. The truth is, religiously based censorship by the government has a long history in Europe and the United States – and, thanks to recent political changes, it may be on the upswing here.
Censorship versus Freedom of Expression in the Arts
2. The surfeit of intense crime in TV and films is restricted by censorship. There are some sensitive topics or subjects that are not appropriate for people, especially to the children. Censorship restrains them from seeing such things and it protects the morals of the society. It also prevents violence through stopping broadcast of events that might trigger it. The prevention of public display of disrespect to community and individual is also one of most important things about censorship.