essay on censorship in media

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Learning objectives.

• Explain the FCC’s process of classifying material as indecent, obscene, or profane.
• Describe how the Hay’s Code affected 20th-century American mass media.

Figure 15.3

Attempts to censor material, such as banning books, typically attract a great deal of controversy and debate.

Timberland Regional Library – Banned Books Display At The Lacey Library – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Case Summaries).” Under this definition, the term “speech” extends to a broader sense of “expression,” meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

Classifying Material as Indecent, Obscene, or Profane

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material:

• causes the average person to have lustful or sexual thoughts;
• depicts lawfully offensive sexual conduct; and
• lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography (Federal Communications Commission). “Indecent” material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material:

• contains graphic sexual or excretory depictions;
• dwells at length on depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and
• is used simply to shock or arouse an audience.

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it (Federal Communications Commission).

These classifications symbolize the media’s long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, e-mail, fax, telephone, or the agency’s website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should “contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used (Federal Communications Commission).” Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station (Federal Communications Commission). If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment (Federal Communications Commission).

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 2000–2005

Violence and Sex: Taboos in Entertainment

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery , for example, is known for expressing “the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process,” and showcases “the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema (Film Reference).” The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinema’s fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he “believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity (Film Reference).”

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8 “Movies” , this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industry’s self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to “police all in-house productions (Film Reference).” Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industry’s commitment to the public, stating:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment…. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (Arts Reformation).

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and “dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc.” could not be presented in detail (Arts Reformation). The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing (Arts Reformation).”

Figure 15.4

As the chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, Will Hays oversaw the creation of the industry’s self-censoring Hays Code.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

Ratings Systems

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPPDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Film Ratings

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to ages 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to ages 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both films—and subsequently the MPAA—received criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Despite the arguably milder format of the rating’s name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Television and Video Game Ratings

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all TV shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children ages 7 and up), TV-Y7-FV (older children—fantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Source: http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm

At about the same time that television ratings appeared, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was established to provide ratings on video games. Video game ratings include EC (early childhood), E (everyone), E 10+ (ages 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only).

Table 15.3 Video Game Ratings System

Source: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Even with these ratings, the video game industry has long endured criticism over violence and sex in video games. One of the top-selling video game series in the world, Grand Theft Auto , is highly controversial because players have the option to solicit prostitution or murder civilians (Media Awareness). In 2010, a report claimed that “38 percent of the female characters in video games are scantily clad, 23 percent baring breasts or cleavage, 31 percent exposing thighs, another 31 percent exposing stomachs or midriffs, and 15 percent baring their behinds (Media Awareness).” Despite multiple lawsuits, some video game creators stand by their decisions to place graphic displays of violence and sex in their games on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Government devised the three-prong test to determine if material can be considered “obscene.” The FCC applies these guidelines to determine whether broadcast content can be classified as profane, indecent, or obscene.
• Established during the 1930s, the Hays Code placed strict regulations on film, requiring that filmmakers avoid portraying violence and sex in films.
• After the decline of the Hays Code during the 1960s, the MPAA introduced a self-policed film ratings system. This system later inspired similar ratings for television and video game content.

Look over the MPAA’s explanation of each film rating online at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means . View a film with these requirements in mind and think about how the rating was selected. Then answer the following short-answer questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Would this material be considered “obscene” under the Hays Code criteria? Would it be considered obscene under the FCC’s three-prong test? Explain why or why not. How would the film be different if it were released in accordance to the guidelines of the Hays Code?
• Do you agree with the rating your chosen film was given? Why or why not?

Arts Reformation, “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html .

Case Summaries, “First Amendment—Religion and Expression,” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ .

Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html .

Film Reference, “Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Sex and Relationships in the Media,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_sex.cfm .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Violence in Media Entertainment,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm .

Understanding Media and Culture Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Americans and ‘cancel culture’: where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment.

People have challenged each other’s views for much of human history . But the internet – particularly social media – has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it’s never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray .

The phrase  “cancel culture” is said to have originated  from a relatively obscure slang term – “cancel,” referring to  breaking up with someone  – used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse . There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it’s a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn’t even exist .

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share – in their own words – what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Pew Research Center has a long history of studying the tone and nature of online discourse as well as emerging internet phenomena. This report focuses on American adults’ perceptions of cancel culture and, more generally, calling out others on social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,093 U.S. adults from Sept. 8 to 13, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

This essay primarily focuses on responses to three different open-ended questions and includes a number of quotations to help illustrate themes and add nuance to the survey findings. Quotations may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. Here are the  questions used for this essay , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Who’s heard of ‘cancel culture’?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase “cancel culture” varies – sometimes widely – across demographic groups.

Overall, 44% of Americans say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase, including 22% who have heard a great deal, according to the Center’s survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they’ve heard nothing or not too much about it, including 38% who have heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages 30 to 49 and 34% among those 50 and older.

While discussions around cancel culture can be highly partisan, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are no more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define ‘cancel culture’?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard about “cancel culture” were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions also discussed how these actions can be misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history being erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans’ responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an attack on traditional American values, a way to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people’s actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it as actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), conservative or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly one-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture .

Does calling people out on social media represent accountability or unjust punishment?

Given that cancel culture can mean different things to different people, the survey also asked about the more general act of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive – and whether this kind of behavior is more likely to hold people accountable or punish those who don’t deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don’t deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans – but just 22% of Democrats – believe this type of action generally punishes people who don’t deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor’s degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is true among Democrats: Those with a bachelor’s degree or more education are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those under 50 (73%) as well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely to punish people who didn’t deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open-ended responses and identifying common themes. Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. (If a response mentioned more than three themes, the first three mentioned were coded.)

After all the responses were coded, similarities and groupings among codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and punishment became apparent. As such, answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement between these two groups.

We identified five key areas of disagreement in respondents’ arguments for why they held their views of calling out others, broken down as follows:

• 25% of all adults address topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful
• 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior
• 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important
• 8% address the differing agendas of those who call out others
• 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

For the codes that make up each of these areas, see the Appendix .

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it’s because people are not taking the context of a person’s post or the intentions behind it into account before confronting that person.

In all, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people’s answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to be helpful?

The most common area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people’s differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior as a form of accountability point to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can be. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they associate this behavior with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

Is calling out others on social media productive behavior?

The second most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others can solve anything: 13% of those who see calling out others as a form of punishment touch on this issue in explaining their opinion, as do 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can actually make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a viable place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, free speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between free speech and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out as punishment explain – in their own words – that they are in favor of free speech on social media. By comparison, 10% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should be more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What’s the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another small share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who see calling out others as a form of accountability say it’s a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions voice these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a form of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others as punishment. 

Should people speak up if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or punishment also involve a small but notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who find a post offensive should not engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of action, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don’t like what that person has to say. However, 4% of those who see calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans see shades of gray when it comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can be difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that there can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Acknowledgments – Appendix – Methodology – Topline

What Americans say about cancel culture and calling out others on social media

Below, we have gathered a selection of quotes from three open-ended survey questions that address two key topics. Americans who’ve heard of the term cancel culture were asked to define what it means to them. After answering a closed-ended question about whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn’t deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view – that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.

• In this analysis, “familiar with” or “aware of” the phrase cancel culture mean “have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase cancel culture.” ↩
• Quotations in this essay may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. ↩

Sign up for our Internet, Science and Tech newsletter

New findings, delivered monthly

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Media Censorship and Its Impact

The freedom of information, the press and free speech is arguably an important human rights deeply rooted in the structures of democracy. Democracy, which largely derives its origin from the US, is one of the legal rights that should be provided and protected in the modern context (Goldberg, Verhulst and Prosser 207).

Under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is a requirement that every person to have the right to freedom of expression and opinion. In addition, the First Amendment of the US constitution prohibits the state to make any law that abridges the people’s freedom of speech and free press.

The media is arguably one of the most important tools that provide people with information as well as channels for expression and making speech. As such, any law that interferes with free media amount to violation of these legal provisions. Nevertheless, some information may be harmful, objectionable, sensitive and incorrect (Goldberg, Verhulst and Prosser 209).

Media censorship has become one of the most important tools through which the government attempts to control the type of information given to the people in order to suppress harmful communication.

Although media censorship is important in avoiding the harmful effects of uncontrolled communication, the government mediated censorship on the media is too much, which amounts to violation of the right to free press, expression and communication. Arguably, there is too much censorship on the media, which keeps important information relating to current political events away from the public.

The US has been enacting laws to control the negative effects of harmful, objectionable, sensitive and politically incorrect information. While this is important for the best interest of the citizens, it is worth noting that some of the enacted laws are excessively suppressing the media.

For instance, the communications decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was enacted with an aim of regulating indecency and obscenity in cyberspace, especially when information is available for children (Wittern-Keller 56). However, the government used this act to suppress the media.

For instance, in 1997, the Supreme Court found the CDA unconstitutional in the case of Reno v. ACLU. When delivering ruling in this case, Justice Stevens held that the act was placing excessive burden on the media, which was unacceptable and unconstitutional (Nelson 88).

The government has also been attempting to suppress the media based on the claims of protecting children rights. For instance, in 1998, the US enacted the Child Online Protection Act, which restricted companies from feeding the minors with harmful materials on the internet (Wittern-Keller 79).

However, the Act was exerting too many restrictions on the free media. For instance, the Supreme Court found this act unconstitutional because it was hindering free speech among the adults, even when child protection from the information is assured.

Over the decades, the American government has used a number of ways to suppress the media through censorship. Currently, too much media censorship through federal and state laws attempts to control the information passed through press. The first amendment to the US federal constitution concerns with the protection of people’s rights to religion, speech, press and peaceful assembly.

Adopted in 1791, the First Amendment is one of the ten amendments that constitute the American Bill of Rights. One of the main purposes of a free media is to provide citizens with information about the things taking place in the government, public and corporate sectors (Gillers 279). The government’s objective of suppressing information, especially which related to political and economic sectors, amounts to violation of the two statutes.

One of the major reasons why the government tends to suppress information is to prevent public anger, which might lead to protests and insecurity. Currently, the office of the president recognizes this. For instance, the office of the president states, “the governments should not keep information confidentially just because public officer bearers might feel embarrassed or because errors and failures might be made public”.

This is an indication that the accountability cannot be achieved without proper information disclosure. The government accepts that some information is not being made public, especially in terms of public finance. The activities taking place at the Wall Street, where allegations of corporate influence on public finance offices are common, is an example of a lack of accountability through information concealing (Gillers 281).

On its part, the government attempts to conceal this kind of information to avoid public rage. In particular, the Occupy Wall Street protests were largely blamed on the excessive media involvement, which led to deviance. Thus, the government seeks to censor the media to avoid release of incorrect information, which amounts to violation of the first amendment and freedom of information act.

Noteworthy, media censorship is important to avoid sharing of the wrong information that may mislead the public. However, using laws to censor the media may lead to over-censorship, which allows only certain government approved data made public while less-attractive but true facts fail to feature in the released news.

This amounts to violation of the freedom to free press. Over-censorship is likely to make public officers hide their activities, which might be corrupt.

In the US, military censorship is an important topic of debate. It is worth noting that information relating to national security is highly sensitive. In addition, the government has the right to hold such information because it is largely a state secret. In any government, the military bears the largest burden in protecting the countries interests and boundaries against enemies.

Control of Information about the military activities is justified. Nevertheless, military censorship in the US had often led to deflection of news that reflects poorly the people in power. For instance, censorship of the media in reporting about the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was partly aimed at hiding information about America’s rogue nature, which led to an unjustified war.

In fact, a lot of information about the country’s failures in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and many instances of torture perpetrated by American and British soldiers in Iraq has been concealed under the pretence of military censorship.

On the other hand, a number of critics argue that censorship is important to restrict rogue media from perpetrating deviance, violence and lawlessness. For instance, critics argue that unrestricted release of information, especially those portraying the people in power negatively, is likely to increase the risk of retaliations by groups or countries that are affected by the information.

For instance, the recent release of information proving that American security agencies have been eavesdropping phone conversations by foreign leaders, including the German presidency, led to bitter relations and speculations between the two nations. Thus, the media must be censored to maintain positive views about the US and enhance her relations with foreign nations, especially her allied in Europe and other regions.

In addition, after the media released Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, Muslim extremists retaliated by beheading Nicholas Berg, and American contractor. They posted the video footage on the internet to show the Americans that their actions have consequences. Arguably, this could be avoided in the media was prohibited from posting Abu Ghraib photos.

In conclusion, the debate about media censorship will remain a contentious issue as long as the country has not developed laws to differentiate between positive censorship and negative concealment of information about leaders. In fact, there must be no political influence on media censorship.

Works Cited

Gillers, Stephen. “A tendency to deprave and corrupt.” Washington Law Review , 85.2, (2007): 276-88. Print.

Goldberg, David, Stefaan Verhulst and Tony Prosser. Regulating the Changing Media: A Comparative Study . New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print

Nelson, Samuel. Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism . The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print

Wittern-Keller, Laura. Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 1915–1981 . Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Print

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 13). Media Censorship and Its Impact. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/

"Media Censorship and Its Impact." StudyCorgi , 13 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Media Censorship and Its Impact'. 13 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Media Censorship and Its Impact." January 13, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Media Censorship and Its Impact." January 13, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Media Censorship and Its Impact." January 13, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

This paper, “Media Censorship and Its Impact”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 13, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges and Departments
• Email and phone search
• Give to Cambridge
• Museums and collections
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Fees and funding
• Postgraduate events
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement

Internet censorship: making the hidden visible

• Research home
• About research overview
• Animal research overview
• Overseeing animal research overview
• The Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body
• Animal welfare and ethics
• Report on the allegations and matters raised in the BUAV report
• What types of animal do we use? overview
• Guinea pigs
• Naked mole-rats
• Non-human primates (marmosets)
• Other birds
• Non-technical summaries
• Animal Welfare Policy
• Alternatives to animal use
• Further information
• Funding Agency Committee Members
• Research integrity
• Horizons magazine
• Strategic Initiatives & Networks
• Nobel Prize
• Interdisciplinary Research Centres
• Open access
• Energy sector partnerships
• Podcasts overview
• S2 ep1: What is the future?
• S2 ep2: What did the future look like in the past?
• S2 ep3: What is the future of wellbeing?
• S2 ep4 What would a more just future look like?
• Research impact

Despite being founded on ideals of freedom and openness, censorship on the internet is rampant, with more than 60 countries engaging in some form of state-sponsored censorship. A research project at the University of Cambridge is aiming to uncover the scale of this censorship, and to understand how it affects users and publishers of information

Censorship over the internet can potentially achieve unprecedented scale Sheharbano Khattak

For all the controversy it caused, Fitna is not a great film. The 17-minute short, by the Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders, was a way for him to express his opinion that Islam is an inherently violent religion. Understandably, the rest of the world did not see things the same way. In advance of its release in 2008, the film received widespread condemnation, especially within the Muslim community.

When a trailer for Fitna was released on YouTube, authorities in Pakistan demanded that it be removed from the site. YouTube offered to block the video in Pakistan, but would not agree to remove it entirely. When YouTube relayed this decision back to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA), the decision was made to block YouTube.

Although Pakistan has been intermittently blocking content since 2006, a more persistent blocking policy was implemented in 2011, when porn content was censored in response to a media report that highlighted Pakistan as the top country in terms of searches for porn. Then, in 2012, YouTube was blocked for three years when a video, deemed blasphemous, appeared on the website. Only in January this year was the ban lifted, when Google, which owns YouTube, launched a Pakistan-specific version, and introduced a process by which governments can request the blocking of access to offending material.

All of this raises the thorny issue of censorship. Those censoring might raise objections to material on the basis of offensiveness or incitement to violence (more than a dozen people died in Pakistan following widespread protests over the video uploaded to YouTube in 2012). But when users aren’t able to access a particular site, they often don’t know whether it’s because the site is down, or if some force is preventing them from accessing it. How can users know what is being censored and why?

“The goal of a censor is to disrupt the flow of information,” says Sheharbano Khattak, a PhD student in Cambridge’s Computer Laboratory, who studies internet censorship and its effects. “internet censorship threatens free and open access to information. There’s no code of conduct when it comes to censorship: those doing the censoring – usually governments – aren’t in the habit of revealing what they’re blocking access to.” The goal of her research is to make the hidden visible.

She explains that we haven’t got a clear understanding of the consequences of censorship: how it affects different stakeholders, the steps those stakeholders take in response to censorship, how effective an act of censorship is, and what kind of collateral damage it causes.

Because censorship operates in an inherently adversarial environment, gathering relevant datasets is difficult. Much of the key information, such as what was censored and how, is missing. In her research, Khattak has developed methodologies that enable her to monitor censorship by characterising what normal data looks like and flagging anomalies within the data that are indicative of censorship.

She designs experiments to measure various aspects of censorship, to detect censorship in actively and passively collected data, and to measure how censorship affects various players.

The primary reasons for government-mandated censorship are political, religious or cultural. A censor might take a range of steps to stop the publication of information, to prevent access to that information by disrupting the link between the user and the publisher, or to directly prevent users from accessing that information. But the key point is to stop that information from being disseminated.

Internet censorship takes two main forms: user-side and publisher-side. In user-side censorship, the censor disrupts the link between the user and the publisher. The interruption can be made at various points in the process between a user typing an address into their browser and being served a site on their screen. Users may see a variety of different error messages, depending on what the censor wants them to know. 

“The thing is, even in countries like Saudi Arabia, where the government tells people that certain content is censored, how can we be sure of everything they’re stopping their citizens from being able to access?” asks Khattak. “When a government has the power to block access to large parts of the internet, how can we be sure that they’re not blocking more than they’re letting on?”

What Khattak does is characterise the demand for blocked content and try to work out where it goes. In the case of the blocking of YouTube in 2012 in Pakistan, a lot of the demand went to rival video sites like Daily Motion. But in the case of pornographic material, which is also heavily censored in Pakistan, the government censors didn’t have a comprehensive list of sites that were blacklisted, so plenty of pornographic content slipped through the censors’ nets. 

Despite any government’s best efforts, there will always be individuals and publishers who can get around censors, and access or publish blocked content through the use of censorship resistance systems. A desirable property, of any censorship resistance system is to ensure that users are not traceable, but usually users have to combine them with anonymity services such as Tor.

“It’s like an arms race, because the technology which is used to retrieve and disseminate information is constantly evolving,” says Khattak. “We now have social media sites which have loads of user-generated content, so it’s very difficult for a censor to retain control of this information because there’s so much of it. And because this content is hosted by sites like Google or Twitter that integrate a plethora of services, wholesale blocking of these websites is not an option most censors might be willing to consider.”

In addition to traditional censorship, Khattak also highlights a new kind of censorship – publisher-side censorship – where websites refuse to offer services to a certain class of users. Specifically, she looks at the differential treatments of Tor users by some parts of the web. The issue with services like Tor is that visitors to a website are anonymised, so the owner of the website doesn’t know where their visitors are coming from. There is increasing use of publisher-side censorship from site owners who want to block users of Tor or other anonymising systems.

“Censorship is not a new thing,” says Khattak. “Those in power have used censorship to suppress speech or writings deemed objectionable for as long as human discourse has existed. However, censorship over the internet can potentially achieve unprecedented scale, while possibly remaining discrete so that users are not even aware that they are being subjected to censored information.”

Professor Jon Crowcroft, who Khattak works with, agrees: “It’s often said that, online, we live in an echo chamber, where we hear only things we agree with. This is a side of the filter bubble that has its flaws, but is our own choosing. The darker side is when someone else gets to determine what we see, despite our interests. This is why internet censorship is so concerning.”

“While the cat and mouse game between the censors and their opponents will probably always exist,” says Khattak. “I hope that studies such as mine will illuminate and bring more transparency to this opaque and complex subject, and inform policy around the legality and ethics of such practices.”

Read this next

Emissions and evasions

Lights could be the future of the internet and data transmission

The Misinformation Susceptibility Test

Rewarding accuracy instead of partisan pandering reduces political divisions over the truth

Barbed wire

Credit: Hernán Piñera

Search research

Sign up to receive our weekly research email.

Our selection of the week's biggest Cambridge research news sent directly to your inbox. Enter your email address, confirm you're happy to receive our emails and then select 'Subscribe'.

I wish to receive a weekly Cambridge research news summary by email.

The University of Cambridge will use your email address to send you our weekly research news email. We are committed to protecting your personal information and being transparent about what information we hold. Please read our email privacy notice for details.

• digital media
• social media
• Digital society
• Sheharbano Khattak
• Jon Crowcroft
• Computer Laboratory
• School of Technology

Connect with us

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility statement
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

How Media Censorship Affects the News You See

• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government

Censorship in Journalism

• Protecting a Person's Privacy

Avoiding Graphic Details and Images

Concealing national security information, advancing corporate interests, hiding political bias.

• B.A., Communications, Mercer University

Although you may not realize it, media censorship happens to your news on a regular basis. While news stories are often simply edited for length, in many cases subjective choices are being made about whether to keep some information from becoming public. Sometimes these decisions are made to safeguard a person's privacy, other times to protect media outlets from corporate or political fallout, and yet other times for concerns of national security.

Key Takeaways: Media Censorship in America

• Censorship the media is the suppression, alteration, or prohibition of written, spoken, or photographic information from books, newspapers, television and radio reports, and other media sources.
• Censorship may be used to suppress information considered obscene, pornographic, politically unacceptable, or a threat to national security.
• Censorship may be carried out by governments, businesses, and academic institutions.
• Some uses of censorship, such as protecting the identity of crime victims or to prevent libel, are not controversial.
• While most countries have laws against censorship, those laws are filled with loopholes and are often challenged in court.
• It is not against the law for the authors, publishers, or other creators of information censoring their own works 

Censorship Definition 

Censorship is the alteration or suppression of speech, writing, photographs, or other forms of information based on the opinion that such material is subversive, obscene , pornographic, politically unacceptable , or otherwise harmful to the public welfare. Both governments and private institutions may carry out censorship for claimed reasons such as national security, to prevent hate speech , to protect children and other protected groups , to restrict political or religious opinion, or to prevent libel or slander .

The history of censorship dates back to 399 BC, when Greek philosopher, Socrates , after fighting off attempts by the Greek government to censor his teachings and opinions, was executed by drinking hemlock for attempting to corrupt young Athenians. More recently, censorship in the form of book burnings was conducted by the military dictatorship of Chile led by General Augusto Pinochet in the aftermath of the 1973 Chilean coup d'etat . In ordering the books burned, Pinochet hoped to prevent the spread of information that conflicted with his campaign to “extirpate the Marxist cancer” of the previous regime.

In 1766, Sweden became the first country to enacted the official first law banning censorship. While many modern countries have laws against censorship, none of these laws are ironclad and are often challenged as unconstitutional attempts to restrict certain rights, such as the freedoms of speech and expression . For example, the censorship of photographs deemed to be pornographic is often challenged by persons who consider the images to be an acceptable form of artistic expression. There are no laws preventing authors, publishers, or other information creators from self-censoring their own works. 

Journalists make difficult choices every day about what to share and what to hold back. Not only that, but they often experience pressure from outside forces to suppress information. It's important for the public to be informed about the choices those who deliver the news face, and why they might decide to keep certain information private or not. Here are five of the most common reasons for censorship in the media.

Protecting a Person's Privacy

This is probably the least controversial form of media censorship. For instance, when a minor commits a crime, their identity is concealed to protect them from future harm—so they aren't turned down from getting a college education or a job, for instance. That changes if a minor is charged as an adult, as in the case of violent crime.

Most media outlets also conceal the identity of rape victims , so those people don't have to endure public humiliation. That was not the case for a brief period in 1991 at NBC News when it decided to identify the woman accusing William Kennedy Smith (part of the powerful Kennedy clan) of raping her. After much public backlash, NBC later reverted to the common practice of secrecy.

Journalists also protect their anonymous sources from having their identity exposed for fear of retaliation. This is especially important when informants are individuals highly placed in governments or corporations who have direct access to important information.

Every day, someone commits a heinous act of violence or sexual depravity. In newsrooms across the country, editors have to decide whether saying a victim "was assaulted" suffices in describing what happened.

In most instances, it does not. So a choice has to be made on how to describe the details of a crime in a way that helps the audience understand its atrocity without offending readers or viewers, especially children.

It's a fine line. In the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, the way he killed more than a dozen people was considered so sick that the graphic details were part of the story.

That was also true when news editors were faced with the sexual details of President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the accusations of sexual harassment Anita Hill made about then-U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas. Words that no editor had ever thought of printing or a newscaster had ever considered uttering were necessary to explain the story.

Those are the exceptions. In most cases, editors will cross out information of an extremely violent or sexual nature, not to sanitize the news, but to keep it from offending the audience.

The U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic operations function with a certain amount of secrecy. That confidentiality is regularly challenged by whistleblowers , anti-government groups or others who want to lift the lid on various aspects of the U.S. government.

In 1971, The New York Times published what are commonly called the Pentagon Papers , secret Defense Department documents detailing the problems of American involvement in the Vietnam War in ways the media had never reported. The Richard Nixon administration went to court in a failed attempt to keep the leaked documents from being published.

Decades later, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange came under fire for posting more than a quarter-million secret U.S. documents, many involving national security. When The New York Times published these U.S. State Department papers, the U.S. Air Force responded by blocking the newspaper's website from its computers.

These examples show that media owners often have a tense relationship with the government. When they approve stories containing potentially embarrassing information, government officials often try to censor it. Those in the media have the difficult responsibility of balancing the interests of national security with the public's right to know.

Media companies are supposed to serve the public interest. Sometimes that's at odds with the conglomerate owners who control traditional media voices.

Such was the case when The New York Times reported that executives from MSNBC owner General Electric and Fox News Channel owner News Corporation decided it wasn't in their corporate interests to allow on-air hosts Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly to trade on-air attacks. While the jabs seemed mostly personal, there was news that came out of them.

The Times reported that O'Reilly uncovered that General Electric was doing business in Iran. Although legal, GE later said it had stopped. A cease-fire between the hosts probably wouldn't have produced that information, which was newsworthy despite the apparent motivation for getting it.

In another example, cable TV giant Comcast faced a unique charge of censorship. Shortly after the Federal Communications Commission approved its takeover of NBC Universal, Comcast hired FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who had voted for the merger.

While some had already publicly denounced the move as a conflict of interest, a single tweet is what unleashed Comcast's wrath. A worker at a summer film camp for teenage girls questioned the hiring through Twitter and Comcast responded by yanking $18,000 in funding for the camp.

The company later apologized and offered to restore its contribution. Camp officials say they want to be able to speak freely without being hushed by corporations.

Critics often lambast media for having a political bias . While viewpoints on the op-ed pages are clear, the link between politics and censorship is harder to spot.

The ABC news program "Nightline" once devoted its broadcast to reading the names of more than 700 U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq. What appeared to be a solemn tribute to military sacrifice was interpreted as a politically motivated, anti-war stunt by Sinclair Broadcast Group, which didn't allow the program to be seen on the seven ABC stations it owned.

Ironically, a media watchdog group called out Sinclair itself for labeling 100 members of Congress "censorship advocates" when they raised concerns to the FCC about Sinclair's plans to air the film, "Stolen Honor." That production was blasted for being propaganda against then-presidential candidate John Kerry.

Sinclair responded by saying it wanted to air the documentary after the major networks refused to show it. In the end, bowing to pressure on several fronts, the company aired a revised version that only included parts of the film.​

Communist countries that once stopped the free flow of information may have largely disappeared, but even in America, censorship issues keep some news from reaching you. With the explosion of citizen journalism and internet platforms, the truth may have an easier way of getting out. But, as we have seen, these platforms have brought their own challenges in the era of "fake news."

Updated by Robert Longley  

• Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson
• Kids' Book Censorship: The Who and Why
• The Harry Potter Controversy
• Controversial and Banned Books
• Censorship and Book Banning in America
• Presidential Executive Privilege
• Banned Books: History and Quotes
• The Top 12 Journalism Scandals Since 2000
• Censorship in the United States
• How to Replace a Lost or Stolen Social Security Card
• The History of CREEP and Its Role in the Watergate Scandal
• How Much Did That Obama Bus Cost?
• Criminal Justice and Your Constitutional Rights
• Where Did the Right to Privacy Come From?
• History of the US Congressional Gag Rule
• Top Essentials to Know About the Vietnam War

Threats to freedom of press: Violence, disinformation & censorship

The free flow of ideas: Freedom of the press, the journalists on the frontline

The way we see the world and act on it depends on the information we have. This is why freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights, and the free flow of ideas is a key driver of vibrant societies and human progress. UNESCO works to reinforce the tools, skills and conditions that make these rights real.

Peter R. De Vries was on his way to a car park, walking past crowds of people enjoying post-work drinks in the heart of Amsterdam. It was the early evening of 6 July 2021 and the veteran crime journalist had just left a nearby TV studio, where he had appeared as a talk show guest. 

De Vries was a household name in the Netherlands, where his own TV show had run for 17 years, working with crime victims’ families, pursuing unsolved cases and exposing miscarriages of justice. The journalist had recently refused police protection after receiving death threats. A year earlier, he had agreed to act as an adviser to the key prosecution witness against the suspected head of a cocaine trafficking gang. 

As De Vries walked to his car, several bullets were fired at him. He died from his injuries nine days later. 

Threats and violence against journalists

De Vries’ death prompted outpourings of condemnation and anger in Europe. Yet, many journalists and reporters around the world today risk their lives to uncover the truth. Every four days a journalist is killed in the world. In 2020 alone, according to UNESCO, 62 journalists were killed just for doing their jobs. Between 2006 and 2020, over 1,200 media professionals lost their lives in the same way. In nine out of ten cases, the killers go unpunished.

In many countries investigating corruption, trafficking, human rights violations, and political or environmental issues puts journalists’ lives at risk.

62 journalists killed in 2020,

just for doing their jobs: UNESCO

Crimes against journalists have an enormous impact on society as a whole, because they prevent people from making informed decisions.

To help create the kind of environment journalists need to perform their vital work, UNESCO has set up several initiatives, including a global plan of action for the safety of journalists, in order to support Member States to establish or improve mechanisms for prevention, protection and prosecution to bring justice to cases of murdered journalists. One key aspect of UNESCO’s work is first and foremost to report and publicly condemn all cases of killing of journalists. UNESCO also produces training materials and best practices to help improve journalists’ skills and knowledge on international standards for freedom of expression, investigative journalism and reporting on conflicts.

For the past 40 years, UNESCO’s International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC)   has focused on targeting the most pressing issues concerning communication development around the world. It helps keep journalists safe, supports the development of media in countries where it is most needed, promotes freedom of expression and public access to information.

UNESCO's initiatives

Fostering Freedom of Expression

Women journalists facing risks and abuse

Across the world, journalists face countless threats every day, ranging from kidnapping, torture and arbitrary detention to disinformation campaigns and harassment, especially on social media. Women journalists are at particular risk. 

According to UNESCO research, 73 per cent of women journalists surveyed said they had been threatened, intimidated and insulted online in connection with their work. Often, the failure to investigate and address online attacks has real-life consequences for women journalists, affecting their mental and physical health. In some cases, online threats can escalate to physical violence and even murder, as the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 demonstrated.

#JournalistsToo:

For many years, Caruana Galizia had been the most prominent investigative journalist in Malta. She had worked as a columnist and editor in various newspapers. She later set up the website Running Commentary, where she published some of her most significant investigative journalism, exposing tax abuse and corruption in Malta and abroad. Harassment, threats and attempts to silence the journalist had been a constant presence throughout her career.

Online threats and violence against women journalists are designed to belittle, humiliate and shame them, as well as induce fear, silence and discredit them professionally. To respond to increasing threats against women journalists, UNESCO has published a research paper aimed at associations, politicians and governments: The Chilling . It seeks to promote discussion about effective legislative and organizational initiatives that are designed to protect women journalists.

Training judges and prosecutors to defend press freedom

Caruana Galizia’s biggest fear was that her example of physical threats, online harassments and libel lawsuits might discourage other journalists from speaking out. At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia was facing 48 libel suits. Award-winning journalist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa also faced several lawsuits before being found guilty of libel in the Philippines in 2020.

What you are seeing is death by a thousand cuts for press freedom and democracy. It joins the messaging that was pushed out on social media that “journalists equal criminals.

Ressa and a former colleague at the news site she founded, Rappler, were convicted of cyber libel by a court in Manila after they published an article linking a businessman to illegal activities. During her career, Ressa has been arrested and has been subject to a sustained campaign of gendered online abuse, threats and harassment, which at one point, resulted in her receiving an average of over 90 hateful messages an hour on Facebook.

Often based on meritless or exaggerated claims, these lawsuits are brought in order to pressure a journalist or human rights defender, rather than to vindicate a right.

That is why judges and prosecutors play an important role in protecting journalists from threats and harassment, as well as promoting prompt and effective criminal proceedings when attacks occur.

When attacks against journalists go unpunished, the legal system and safety frameworks have failed everyone.

In recent years, UNESCO has trained nearly 23,000 judicial officials, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers, through several workshops on media and journalist law, training courses and online webinars, in partnership with universities and educational institutions like the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Austin, Texas (USA). Training focuses on international standards related to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, placing a particular focus on issues of impunity. In 2021, UNESCO’s online conference The role of the judiciary and international cooperation to foster safety of journalists – What works? explored effective ways in which judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as regional human rights courts and judicial training institutes, can combat impunity for crimes against journalists.

The fight against misinformation and censorship

The threats to freedom of expression and democracy also come from misinformation and censorship. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing pandemic of misinformation have demonstrated that access to facts and science can be a matter of life and death.  In the first three months of 2020, almost 6,000 people around the world were hospitalized because of coronavirus misinformation, according to a paper published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene . During this period, researchers say at least 800 people may have died due to misinformation related to COVID-19.

In May 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic, the Knight Center, with the support of UNESCO and the World Health Organization (WHO), launched an online course on how to empower journalists, communication workers and content creators countering the phenomenon of disinformation related to the pandemic. The course attracted nearly 9,000 students from 162 countries. ‘2020 was surely the most important year for the fact-checking community,’ said journalist Cristina Tardáguila, who was the course instructor and has been involved in global initiatives against disinformation as associate director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Journalism in a Pandemic: Covering COVID-19 Now and in the Future is an online self-directed course available in eight languages:  Arabic ,  Chinese ,  English ,  French ,  Hindi ,  Portuguese ,  Russian and  Spanish . 

Journalists covering the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines have received support through a live webinar, Covering the COVID-19 Vaccines: What Journalists Need to Know.  The recording is now available in 13 languages : Arabic, Bambara, Chinese, Dari, English, French, Guarani, Hindi, Pashto, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Wolof.

The media can also take an important part in understanding complex issues such as climate change and fighting the misinformation that surrounds it. In the face of climate change, journalists have the ability to enlighten the public and be the link between scientists and citizens by highlighting the urgency of the situation, but also tell stories that are positive and inspire solutions.

Getting the Message Across: Reporting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO has supported the publication of a handbook for journalists covering climate change. Journalists are key to ensuring that stories of destruction as well as of resistance are shared, in order to get the message across about climate change and avoid misinformation.

The power of community radios

The struggle to protect journalists and promote freedom of expression is just one of the pillars helping build knowledge societies that have the power to transform economies and communities. Universal access to information and knowledge as well as the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity are essential to building peace, sustainable economic development and intercultural dialogue.

The Syrian Hour is a UNESCO-funded project that produces a bi-weekly radio programme, aired on Yarmouk FM radio station in Irbid, northern Jordan, where there is a large Syrian refugee population. 

Syrian Hour

The programme trains young Syrians in radio broadcasting skills to host the shows while the shows themselves provide vital information and support to displaced Syrian refugees residing in Jordan. Majd Al Sammouri is one of the young people being trained to host The Syrian Hour. 

The first paths of my dreams were at the Faculty of Media and Mass Communication at the University of Damascus, a road I thought was lost forever after finding refuge in Jordan. Yarmouk FM was the compass that put me back to the streets of my dreams.

Many Syrian refugees who fled the war to Jordan still lack awareness about their security, liberty and protection rights and what is available to them in terms of food-assistance, education, health or psychosocial support. Often, their precarious refugee status makes them too afraid to approach authorities and humanitarian organizations.

Majd and his young colleagues provide much-needed reliable information and support to the refugee community.

Community radio is a powerful tool because it has the potential to reach out to people with little or no access to information. It is an efficient mechanism for educating and informing people living in remote areas about key issues such as health, education and sustainable development.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios as a means to facilitate social communication and support democratic processes within societies.

Community radios are also being used to promote oral traditions. For example, in Bandafassi, Senegal, the community radio broadcasts stories and proverbs, traditional music and the history of the various villages. This is one of the many small steps towards building pluralistic and diverse media that provide free impartial information options to empower the public to make their choices towards peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios

Fostering freedom of speech.

UNESCO works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. Media that adhere to this model enhance freedom of speech as well as contribute to peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

#TruthNeverDies

#TruthNeverDies is a campaign developed jointly by UNESCO and communication agency DDB Paris to commemorate the  International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists  on 2 November.

Women Make the News 

Women Make the News is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness on issues relating to gender equality in and through the media, driving debate and encouraging action-oriented solutions to meet global objectives.

#HerMomentsMatter  

#HerMomentsMatter is a continuation of UNESCO’s World Radio Day campaign and aims to promote fairer coverage of women athletes. Women represent just 7 per cent of sportspeople seen, heard or read about in the media, while only 4 per cent of sports stories focus primarily on women. 

Remote Radio Week

Community media, whether broadcast or online, are key to ensuring media pluralism and freedom of expression. They are also an indicator of a healthy democratic society.

In partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO has launched a free online training for radio stations to develop their capacities to broadcast remotely.

AI and Facial Recognition webinar

This webinar about artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition, organized by UNESCO, touches on the pressing issues of facial recognition and the concerns it raises about the widespread adoption of AI and human rights. As AI is developing rapidly, it is important to understand its developments, which may have profound and potentially adverse impacts on individuals and society.

Webinar on Artificial Intelligence and Facial Recognition

World atlas of languages.

The World Atlas of Languages is an unprecedented initiative to preserve, revitalize and promote global linguistic diversity and multilingualism as a unique heritage and treasure of humanity. The project aims to stimulate new research and innovation, create demand for new language resources and tools, help support language policy and legislation, and forge new partnerships and collaboration in the global community to open up access to information.  

World Digital Library

Launched in 2009, the World Digital Library is a project of the U.S. Library of Congress, with the support of UNESCO, and contributions from libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and international organizations around the world. The WDL seeks to preserve and share some of the world’s most important cultural objects, increasing access to cultural treasures and significant historical documents, to enable discovery, scholarship and use.

UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

Created in 1997, the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize honours an individual, organisation or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and, or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. It is named after Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper El Espectador in Bogotá, Colombia on 17 December 1986.

UNESCO / Guillermo Cano

World Press Freedom Prize

Related items

• Information and communication

113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples

Looking for censorship topics for research papers or essays? The issue is controversial, hot, and definitely worth exploring.

🏆 Best Censorship Topic Ideas & Essay Examples

🚫 internet censorship essay topics, 📍 censorship research questions, 💡 easy censorship essay topics, 😡 controversial censorship topics to write about, ❓ research questions about censorship, 🙅 censorship topics for research paper.

Censorship implies suppression of public communication and speech due to its harmfulness or other reasons. It can be done by governments or other controlling bodies.

In your censorship essay, you might want to focus on its types: political, religion, educational, etc. Another idea is to discuss the reasons for and against censorship. One more option is to concentrate on censorship in a certain area: art, academy, or media. Finally, you can discuss why freedom of expression is important.

Whether you need to write an argumentative or informative essay on censorship, you’re in the right place. In this article, we’ve collected best internet censorship essay topics, title ideas, research questions, together with paper examples.

• Pros and Cons of Censorship of Pornography This is due to the fact that pornography is all about exploitation of an individual in maters pertaining to sex as well as violence exercised on females by their male counterparts.
• Need for Internet Censorship and its Impact on Society The negative impacts of internet have raised many concerns over freedom of access and publishing of information, leading to the need to censor internet.
• Literature Censorship in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury The issues raised in the novel, Fahrenheit 451, are relevant in contemporary American society and Bradbury’s thoughts were a warning for what he highlighted is happening in the contemporary United States.
• Censorship and “13 Reasons Why” by Jay Asher Though the novel “13 Reasons Why” by Jay Asher could be seen as inappropriate for young adults, attempting to censor it would mean infringing upon the author’s right to self-expression and the readers’ right to […]
• ”Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury: Censorship and Independent Thinking By exploring the notion and censorship and how it affects people, the author draws parallels with the modern world of his time and the increasing impact of government-led propaganda. Censorship is a recurring theme that […]
• Censorship and the Arts in the United States The article titled “Censorship versus Freedom of Expression in the Arts” by Chiang and Posner expresses concerns that the government may illegitimately censor art to avoid corruption of morals and avoid subversion of politics.
• Censorship in Advertising One of the most notorious examples is the marketing of drugs; pharmaceutical companies have successfully convinced a significant number of people that drugs are the only violable solution to their health problems.
• Censorship, Its Forms and Purpose The argument here is that censorship is a means being used by conservative persons and groups with distinct interests to make life standards so difficult and unbearable for the minors in the society, in the […]
• Self-Censorship of American Film Studios In this sense, the lack of freedom of expression and constant control of the film creations is what differs the 20th-century film studios from contemporary movie creators.
• Twitter and Violations of Freedom of Speech and Censorship The sort of organization that examines restrictions and the opportunities and challenges it encounters in doing so is the center of a widely acknowledged way of thinking about whether it is acceptable to restrict speech.
• Censorship by Big Tech (Social Media) Companies Despite such benefits, these platforms are connected to such evils as an addictive business model and a lack of control over the type of content that is accessible to children users.
• Freedom of Speech: Is Censorship Necessary? One of the greatest achievements of the contemporary democratic society is the freedom of speech. However, it is necessary to realize in what cases the government has the right to abridge the freedom of self-expression.
• Censorship on Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury The main protagonist of the novel is Guy Montag, a fireman whose job like others, is to burn books without questioning the impact of his decision.
• Art and the Politics of Censorship in Literature The inclusion of the novel in classroom studies in the early 1960s especially 1963, spurred criticisms due to the issues of contention addressed by the novel.
• The Issue of Parents’ Censorship Filtering the sources of information by the adults is like growing the plants in the greenhouse, hiding them from all the dangers of the surrounding world.
• Art and the Politics of Censorship The final act of the film is the most vital of all the scenes because the subject of the dispute elucidates the disparities between the director, producer, and censors.
• Censorship of Pornographic Material Effects of pornography are broad and the consequences are hazardous as it affects the moral fiber of the society. Censorship of explicit and pornographic material should be encouraged as we cannot imagine the catastrophe that […]
• China Intellectual Property Research on Censorship To prove the importance of the China’s intention to set the internet censorship, it is necessary to mention about rapid expansion of online technologies has made the internet one of the effective means of communication […]
• Pornography and Censorship in Society Admittedly, sexual explicitness has risen to new levels in the last few years, due in part to changing attitudes toward sexual behavior and the desire for more personal flexibility in the making of moral decisions.”The […]
• Censorship, Holocaust and Political Correctness In this paper, we will focus on exploring different aspects of formal and informal censorship, in regards to a so-called “Holocaust denial”, as we strongly believe that people’s ability to express their thoughts freely is […]
• Censorship: For the People, or for Controlling The main aim for this art in our societies is to restrain and conceal beneath the disguise of defending the key fundamental public amenities that are; the State, families and churches.
• Censorship in the United States Thus, the rationale of censorship is that it is necessary for the protection of the three basic social institutions; the family; the religion; the state.
• Balance of Media Censorship and Press Freedom Government censorship means the prevention of the circulation of information already produced by the official government There are justifications for the suppression of communication such as fear that it will harm individuals in the society […]
• Music Censorship in the United States Censorship is an act of the government and the government had no hand in the ban of Dixie Chicks songs, rather it was the fans boycotts that led to a ban on airplay.
• Modern Means of Censorship In his article Internet Censorship neither by Government nor by Media, Jossey writes about the importance of online political communication during the elections and the new level of freedom provided by the Internet.
• Art and Media Censorship: Plato, Aristotle, and David Hume The philosopher defines God and the creator’s responsibilities in the text of the Republic: The creator is real and the opposite of evil.
• Censorship in China: History and Controlling This is especially so when the government or a dominant religious denomination in a country is of the view that the proliferation of a certain religious dogma threatens the stability of the country or the […]
• Creativity and Censorship in Egyptian Filmmaking The intention of the media laws and other statutes censoring the film industry is to protect the sanctity of religion, sex, and the overly conservative culture of the Egyptian people.
• Internet Censorship and Cultural Values in the UAE Over the past few years, the government of the UAE introduced several measures, the main aim of which is to protect the mentality of people of the state and its culture from the pernicious influence […]
• Censorship of Films in the UAE Censorship of films in the United Arab Emirates is a major ethical dilemma as reflected in the case study analysis because the practice contravenes the freedom of media.
• Societal Control: Sanctions, Censorship, Surveillance The submission or agreeing to do according to the societal expectations and values are strong under the influence of both official and informal methods of control.
• Censorship Impacts on Civil Liberties In the US, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression; it is one of the main democratic rights and freedoms.
• Internet Censorship: Blocking and Filtering It is the obligation of the government to protect the innocence of the children through internet censorship. In some nations, the government uses internet blocking and filtering as a method to hide information from the […]
• Media Censorship: Wikileaks Wikileaks just offers the information which is to be available for people. Information is not just a source of knowledge it is the way to control the world.
• Censorship on the Internet Censorship in the internet can also occur in the traditional sense of the word where material is removed from the internet to prevent public access.
• Censorship of Social Networking Sites in Developing Countries Censorship of social media sites is the control of information that is available to users. The aim of this paper was to discuss censorship of social media sites in third world countries.
• Government Censorship of WikiLeaks In my opinion, the government should censor WikiLeaks in order to control information content that it releases to the public. In attempting to censor WikiLeaks, the US and Australian government will be limiting the freedom […]
• Censorship defeats its own purpose Is that not a disguised method of promoting an authoritarian regime by allowing an individual or a group of individuals to make that decision for the entire society The proponents of SOPA bill may argue […]
• Censorship and Banned Books Based on what has been presented in this paper so far it can be seen that literary freedom is an important facilitator in helping children develop a certain degree of intellectual maturity by broadening their […]
• Ethics and Media: Censorship in the UAE In this case, it is possible to apply the harm principle, according to which the task of the state is to minimize potential threats to the entire community.
• Aspects of Internet Censorship by the Government When one try to access a website the uniform resource locator is checked if it consists of the restricting keyword, if the keyword is found in the URL the site become unavailable.
• Censorship vs. Self-censorship in the News Media Assessment of the appropriateness of the mass media in discharging the above-named duties forms the basis of the ideological analysis of the news media.
• Should Censorship Laws Be Applied to the Internet? On the other hand, the need to control cyber crime, cyber stalking, and violation of copyrights, examination leakage and other negative uses of the internet has become a necessity.
• Internet Censorship in Saudi Arabia The censorship is charged to the ISU, which, manage the high-speed data links connecting the country to the rest of the world.
• Media Control and Censorship of TV The second type of control imposed on the media is the control of information that may put the security of a country at risk.
• Chinese Censorship Block Chinese People from Creativity With the development of the country’s first browser in the year 1994 and subsequent move by the government to “provide internet accessing services” in the year 1996, the use of the technology began to develop […]
• Censorship for Television and Radio Media This paper seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of censorship with the aim of determining the extent to which content on broadcast media can be censored. A good example of a situation in which moral […]
• Empirical Likelihood Semiparametric Regression Analysis Under Random Censorship
• An Argument Against Internet Censorship in United States of America
• The Lack of Freedom and the Radio Censorship in the United States of America
• Censorship as the Control of What People May Say or Hear, Write or Read, or See or Do
• An Analysis and Overview of the Censorship and Explicit Lyrics in the United States of America
• The First Amendment and Censorship in the United States
• Advertiser Influence on The Media: Censorship and the Media
• The Freedom of Speech and Censorship on the Internet
• Censorship Necessary for Proper Education of Guardian
• An Argument in Favor of Censorship on Television Based on Content, the Time Slot and the Audience
• Music Censorship and the Effects of Listening to Music with Violent and Objectionable Lyrics
• An Analysis of Controversial Issue in Censorship on the Internet
• Consistent Estimation Under Random Censorship When Covariables Are Present
• Music Censorship Is a Violation of Constitutional and Human
• Censorship Should Not Be Imposed by the Government
• Internet Censorship and Its Role in Protecting Our Societys Addolecent Community
• Against Internet Censorship Even Pornography
• The Concept of Censorship on College Campuses on the Topic of Racism and Sexism
• Cyber-Frontier and Internet Censorship from the Government
• Creative Alternatives in the Issues of Censorship in the United States
• Asymptotically Efficient Estimation Under Semi-Parametric Random Censorship Models
• Chinese and Russian Regimes and Tactics of Censorship
• An Overview of the Right or Wrong and the Principles of Censorship
• An Argument Against the Censorship of Literature in Schools Due to Racism in the Literary Works
• The History, Positive and Negative Effects of Censorship in the United States
• Burlesque Shows and Censorship Analysis
• Importance of Free Speech on the Internet and Its Censorship
• Historical Background of the Libertarian Party and Their Views on the Role of the Government, Censorship, and Gun Control
• Internet Censorship and the Communications Decency Act
• Monitoring Children’s Surfing Habits Is a Better Way Than Putting Censorship Over the Internet
• A History of Censorship in Ancient and Modern Civilizations
• Censorship, Supervision and Control of the Information and Ideas
• Importance of Television Censorship to the Three Basic Social Institutions
• An Argument That Censorship Must Be Employed if Morals and Decency Are to Be Preserved
• Is Internet Censorship and De-Anonymization an Attack on Our Freedom
• Censorship or Parental Monitoring
• What Does Raleigh’s Letter Home and the Censorship Issue Tell You About Raleigh?
• Does Censorship Limit One’s Freedom?
• How Darwin Shaped Our Understanding of Why Language Exists?
• How Does Censorship Affect the Relationship with His Wife?
• Why and How Censorship Lead to Ignorance in Young People?
• What Is the Impact of Censorship on Children?
• How Does Media Censorship Violate Freedom of Expression and Impact Businesses?
• Censorship or Responsibility: Which Is the Lesser of Two?
• How Can Censorship Hinder Progress?
• How Musical Censorship Related to the Individual?
• How The Media Pretends to Protect Us with Censorship?
• What Is the Impact of Censorship on Our Everyday Lives?
• Is There China Internet Censorship Against Human Rights?
• Can Ratings for Movies Censorship Be Socially Justified?
• Censorship: Should Public Libraries Filter Internet Sites?
• Does Parental Censorship Make Children More Curious?
• What Are the Arguments for and Against the Censorship of Pornography?
• How Propaganda and Censorship Were Used In Britain and Germany During WWI?
• Should the Chinese Government Ban the Internet Censorship?
• How Virginia Woolf’s Orlando Subverted Censorship and Revolutionized the Politics of LGBT Love in 1928?
• How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression?
• What arguments Were Used to Support or Oppose Censorship in Video Nasties?
• Why News Ownership Affects Free Press and Press Censorship?
• Should Music Suffer the Bonds of Censorship Interviews?
• Why Should Graffiti Be Considered an Accepted from of Art?
• What Is the Connection Between Censorship and the Banning of Books?
• How Does Congress Define Censor and Censorship?
• How Does Censorship Affect the Development of Animations?
• Why Should Internet Censorship Be Allowed?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 26). 113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/

"113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples'. 26 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "113 Censorship Essay Topics & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/censorship-essay-examples/.

• Public Safety Research Ideas
• Freedom of Speech Ideas
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Civil Rights Movement Questions
• Safety Essay Ideas
• Broadcasting Paper Topics
• Social Policy Essay Ideas
• Fake News Research Ideas
• Government Regulation Titles
• Internet Research Ideas
• Music Topics
• Public Relations Titles
• Video Game Topics
• Media Analysis Topics
• Child Development Research Ideas

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Censorship

Censorship In Media Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Censorship , Democracy , Family , Media , Children , Politics , Journalism , United States

Words: 2500

Published: 11/13/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Censorship is a suppression of the speech or a given public communication which can be considered harmful, objective, inconvenient, or sensitive to the people as it is determined by the media outlet, government or other controlling body. In the Twentieth century, censorship was seen through examinations of plays, books, radios and television programmes, and news reports for purposes of suppressing or altering ideas that were found to be offensive or objective. Not all censorship is equal and they do not arise from external forces or government. There are different forms of censorship which are not obtrusive and they have to be well examined correctly. This paper analyses explores and explains the censorship in media and its effects to the people.

Types of Censorship

Military censorship- is a process of maintaining military intelligence tactics and intelligence confidential away from the enemies. It’s used to counter the espionage or in other words process of gleaning the military information. Moral Censorship- This is the removal of some materials that are found to be obscene or considered morally questionable. An example is pornography, especially that of child pornography. It is illegal and also censored in many jurisdictions in the whole world.

Political Censorship- It occurs when the government holds back the information from the public. This is usually done in order to exert population control and prevent free expressions which may lead to the formation of rebellion.

Corporate Censorship- This is a processes by which the editors in media outlets intervene in disrupting publishing of the information which portrays their business partners or business in a negative way. The corporate media may also intervene to prevent alternating offers from being exposed to the public.

Religious Censorship- This is a process whereby materials are considered to be objectionable. This usually involves a prevailing religion forcing some limitations to be of less prevalent ones. In other way, a given religion may ignore the works of the other religion if they believe that the content is different from that of their faith.

A policy of banning works and literature outweighs positive effects. When restricting the abilities of a child to reach full intellectual potential isn’t worth a small chance that media, music industry and books can have the effect on the personality, behavior or attitude of a child. It’s evident that churches, schools, parents, the media and the music industry have power to control what American’s youths are exposed to. Censorship has always been of effect to the society. Therefore it has provoked between whether or not some of the things are right or wrong.

Censorship in Media

The government in some parts of the globe controls the media. One can’t publish or broadcast anything that the government may consider to be harmful or immoral, or that may threaten the stability of the country. On the other hand, some democratic countries are the ones that enjoy the freedom of speech. Citizens are free to write and say anything they wish to but by following some carefully exceptions. There is a controlling power that is at work in the market economy called the power of money. In some parts of Northern America, almost all the mainstream publications rely on two income sources: advertisers and subscriptions. Both influence decisions about the content. The readers must or should find these contents to be interesting, relevant, entertaining and tasteful. If it does not have these qualities then subscriptions may fall and also the advertisers may fear this censorship and cancel their accounts if the contents challenges or undermines their messages about selling of their products.

There are various pros and cons of censorship in media. Where freedom of expressions is stressed enough, the pro media censorship agreement may be implied as a sacrilege. People don’t realize that censorship doesn’t imply curbing freedom of expression but it only draws the line between unrestrained deviltry and freedom. It only reminds those people who cross the lines of humanity and morality in the freedom of expression and makes them to fear not to write or publish the things that violets the rights of people. Mass media are of several types which are means of people’s expression around the world. Media censorship must be applied to prevent unrestrained topics which are inappropriate for some age groups or those topics concerning racism. Discretion or censorship in viewers is necessary.

Those children of impressionable ages are exposed to sexually explicit content as well as excessive violence. All these are caused by media exposure which is an instrumental factor for shaping values and opinions in these children. An example which is common is the violence video games that most of them are addicted to. This increases aggressive tendencies in most children. Across the world, various researchers are studying the impacts of media on the developments of children. Use of abusive language and abusive actions can make lasting effects and also result in children’s aggressive tendencies.

According to buzzle.com, censorship in media is necessary for checking three main setback areas. These areas are racism, violence and vulgarity or sexuality explicit content. Also media censorship is necessary in seeing that the media isn’t being used as a toll in attacking the character of someone or humiliating or discriminating people. News channels in India are experiencing censorship regulations because of the body of Indian media industries.

Censorship of Violence in Media

According to most people all media texts are not suitable for many audiences. Therefore, there is need to place some limitations on the content and type of texts which children are exposed to in order for them to fear not to watch and those programmes that are for adults. It’s also agreed that texts that are accessible to a largely and wide non-selecting or involuntary audience like television commercials, terrestrial television before the watershed, music broadcast on radio and billboards should not contain offensive elements. Rules and regulations therefore, have been set to prevent contents of media texts in some situations (Kerina W. 1-3)

Many people would agree that freedom of speech is the basic human right and it should not be compromised or eroded through fear censorship in those nations that call themselves free. Poets, Film-makers, graffiti artists, journalists, musicians and internet site creators should have the rights that expresses what they think is the best without fear of official authorities or from elsewhere. Recently, there is a debate going on about those people who believe the need for censorship such as politicians, governments and parents and also there are those who believe in complete freedom of speech such as teenage audience, media corporations and artists. People should familiarize with different methods of censorship that is used by various media and in particular the issues surrounding texts.

The American Media in recent times has been plagued with many problems like propaganda, sliding profits, plagiarism and scandals about manipulation falling readership in press. Media distortion, omission, bias and inaccuracy in the United States are acknowledged by many people outside the United States of America and it’s slowly being realized inside the United States. However, due to distortion, omission, bias and inaccuracy in the United States mainstream media, it’s difficult for the American citizens to obtain an objective; open view of issues that are involved in the US since US is one of the largest military and economic powers in the whole world. That is why they are usually and naturally involved in different issues.

Censorship is the remarks and cuts of media mainly movies. Media censorship has been used for a long time and it’s supposed to protect people from the happenings in the media like movies which contain sex, horror or violence. According to the government, censorship helps people because it removes scenes that may affect people mentally such as a film that talks about poverty and working class which may trigger the revolution because people’s minds aren’t mentally strong and able to take that it was just a film. People should need fear of censorship in movies in order to protect young children not to watch adult movies which might change them for a long or short period.

Radio was one of the first mean which broadcast news and also entertainment to the audience. It seems now that the Americans are allowing many things to be said via the radio. Inappropriate words are spoken without bleeped out. The Americans enjoys the rights of free speech because their constitution allows it and also they are being protected by the government. Federal Communication Commission is the one that is responsible for maintaining and protecting the integrity of broadcasts by not allowing the obscene contents to be hard publicly (Media-awareness.com, 1-2). Many Americans feels that censorship violets their rights as citizens but it doesn’t violet their rights. The 1st amendment clearly gives the American citizens right of free speech. This means that they are able to say anything their heart desires.

Television censorship in the US has been the issue since its invention. The public holds varieties of stances pertaining censorship. Even if the law is passed regarding censorship, it may not suit every individuals their needs. According to some people, they believe that these censorship violets the rights of individuals in the law and also others believe that it should be available to the family members and not the government. Some people on the other hand strive to maintain the government regulation of censorship. TV censorship is important because it seize the future of the country. The rights of people can be violated if channels are being censored. But if it does not then the generations’ future may change because people will be influenced by explicit behavior which they view on television.

Magoon asserts that those people who are in favor of censorship believe that banning some books is necessary because it protects people. Some of those books could influence negatively or corrupt readers. Thos who oppose censorship believes that banning of books may violate the rights of Americans to free expression which is the U.S. Constitution. Individuals oppose censorship by just asking for materials that people want to have been censored. Students and parents write letters to the school boards and libraries asking for those books banned to be put on shelves. This makes them to buy copies of those banned and share them. Also the newspapers publish some controversial articles that the private companies or government asked them not to print. This may make people to hire lawyers and take them to court. The opposing censorship doesn’t mean that one has to watch or read something that he does not want to watch. It only means that people should choose what they wish for themselves. Librarians and teachers buy books for the school classroom and libraries reading lists. These lists generally, must go through a process of screening before being made available to young people. Those parents who screen the books may recommend not purchasing a given book if it’s found to be of morally objectionable. Though the American Library Association recognizes the rights of parents to control the things that their children read, it also strives in making materials available to all library patrons (60-120)

Media censorship opponents feel that censorship is a great hindrance as the society progresses without boundaries. Thus this makes them to fear that media censorship may led to some secrets of the government and high profile people not to published in the media. In most countries there is freedom of expression and speech to the citizens but there are also other countries that counter the abuse of rights by some people in a way of restricting freedom of this expression and speech. While each country censors media in some ways, the amount of censorship differs. Media censorship is done in different ways. The main criterion in media censorship is age limits of viewing different media. Media censorship sometimes may be a blanket ban on some taboo topics and their definitions can be defined in the country according to the governing authority. While the levels of this media censorship exist, citizens are calling for removal of all kinds of censorship but there are also other people who are looking for bringing in more restrictions to the media (Herbert H. 60-134)

Ncacblog.wordpress.com, real threats of media censorship are successful increasing in suppressing freedom of speech and expression to the media. Violence possibility has entered imagination of the publishers, media and the public at large in generating more and more blocking self censorship. Threats of violence have ensured that such actual violence and threats will be seen to be effective and also used. Those materials that are being disliked will end up to published regardless of fear and threats. The government of some states repeatedly bashes anybody who dares to be against the wisdom of its policies. The government has threatens jail-term for those business leaders and media houses who challenges its work. This has led to figurative wall of self-imprisonment and fear of censorship (1-6)

The media is the people’s mirror and it should be respected. The media plays a very imperative role since it informs members of the public the happenings. Educative programmes, entertainment and religious programmes are among the important contents that the media portray. Governments and their relevant communications departments must champion the rights and protection of the media. It is of paramount importance for the media itself to be responsible in whatever it gives the people. If it is books, only the right content should be published. To some extent, the government should control publishing firms and ensure that they publish materials that are of importance to the people.

Buzzle.com. “Media Censorship: Why is Censorship Good” (2000). 21 April 2011: 1-5.print. Foerstel Herbert. “Banned in the media: a reference guide to censorship in the press, motion” NY: British Library Pub. (1998). 21 April 2011: 60-134. Print. Kekla Magoon. “Media Censorship” US: ABDO Pub. (2010). 21 April 2011: 67-120. Print. Kerina Wilson. “Censorship of Violence in the Media”. (2010). 21 April 2011: 1-3. Print. Media-awareness.com. “Censorship in the Media” Media Awareness Network (2010). 21 April 2011: 1-2. Print. Ncacblog.wordpress.com. “Fear and censorship: Or, how strong is our commitment to free speech?” (2011). 22 April 2011: 1-6. Print.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 142

This paper is created by writer with

ID 257621392

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Twitter literature reviews, path biographies, bus biographies, guitarist biographies, probe biographies, ideal biographies, analogy biographies, officer biographies, jail biographies, algorithm biographies, free case study on internal control, example of argumentative essay on genetically modified plants, the odyssey literature review sample, admission or confession course work examples, knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts critical thinking, free report on activating prior knowledge and interest, sample book review on critical analysis, northeast region of the u s and all of china essays examples, library essays example, should nfl players be forced to talk to the media argumentative essay samples, the chattanooga ice cream case analysis essay example, free alzheimers disease course work sample, the psychological assault research paper sample, good example of various theories essay, good course work on design for change, essay on motivation 2, example of labor relations course work, the source of life essay, good essay on namedate, example of essay on abolitionist movements, free research paper about research assignment, good society and the value of life critical thinking example, free research paper on obesity and indwelling catheter use among long term care facility residents, good example of essay on ritual sacrifice in the art of the paracas nazca and moche peoples, good example of essay on rhetorical analysis, essay on leaders of change in the world, good example of essay on aristophanes and xenophon, desdemona essays, family dollar stores essays, dakin essays, avastin essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Censorship — Media Censorship in China

Media Censorship in China

• Categories: Censorship China Media

About this sample

Words: 997 |

Published: Jan 4, 2019

Words: 997 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

• Chang, M. (2016). The Paradox of Internet Freedom in China. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 44-58.
• Freedom House. (2017). China. Freedom of the Press 2017. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/china
• Gao, H. (2017). Freedom of the Press, the Rule of Law, and China's Road to Modernization. Frontiers of Law in China, 12(1), 1-19.
• Human Rights Watch. (2017). China: Events of 2016. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/china-and-tibet
• International Federation of Journalists. (2016). IFJ Concerned at New Crackdown on Media in China. Retrieved from https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/ifj-concerned-at-new-crackdown-on-media-in-china.html
• Ji, D. (2016). Changes and Continuities in Chinese Media Control under Xi Jinping. China Perspectives, 2016(3), 5-12.
• Liu, Y. (2017). Why China's Cybersecurity Law Is the New Normal. Foreign Policy.
• Reporters Without Borders. (2017). China. World Press Freedom Index 2017.
• State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China. (2017). Human Rights in China.
• Zhao, Y. (2016). Xi Jinping's Propaganda Policy: Power and Purpose in Chinese Politics. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(100), 533-551.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Geography & Travel Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2701 words

3 pages / 1473 words

3 pages / 1157 words

2 pages / 1011 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

In the world of literature, there are certain themes that transcend time and culture, resonating with readers in profound ways. Two such works that delve into the complexities of human society are Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 [...]

Since its publication in 1951, J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye has been both celebrated and condemned for its portrayal of teenage rebellion, angst, and controversial language. The novel has been the subject of numerous [...]

The banning of William Faulkner's novel represents a troubling trend in our society - the censorship of artistic expression and the suppression of challenging ideas. By critically examining the reasons behind the ban and the [...]

Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian novel written by Ray Bradbury, presents a chilling vision of a future society where books are banned and burned. In this world, firemen no longer extinguish fires but instead start them, burning down [...]

Art has a long history of giving rise to vocal outrage, but should there be restrictions on how far to push the boundaries? Art is no stranger to the gasp-inducing; in fact, it often strives on it. It’s not unusual to encounter [...]

While some argue that censorship can protect society from harmful ideas, Fahrenheit 451 presents a counterargument that censorship can create a society that is intellectually stagnant and vulnerable to manipulation. By [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Jump to navigation

"Crisis and the Everyday": 2024 University of Pittsburgh Grad Student Conference

2024 University of Pittsburgh Grad Student Conference 

Film and Media Studies

“Crisis and the Everyday”

Keynote Speaker: Gil Hochberg, Columbia University

Date: September 21-22, 2024  

The twenty-first century has been marked by crisis. We are witnessing state and police violence, military occupation and imperialism ravage our world. Xenophobia, nationalism, and authoritarianism have brought democracy and the public sphere under siege. Meanwhile, environmental exploitation by corporations and states promises planetary disaster on a different level altogether. The changing climate is rewiring virus networks and larger inter-species relations as we enter a new age of global contagion. Crisis is a proliferating network of connections and chain reactions that individuals, institutions, and societies have thus far been unable to comprehend, let alone address.

Crisis is a mediated social practice brought to us by an endless stream of audiovisual material and participatory new media. While crisis often postures as a scandalous break in time, we are interested in unpacking its multi-faceted and quotidian nature as it unfolds at local, national, and transnational levels. We seek to examine the relationship between mediated representation and permanent crisis. How are the challenges that confront our moment transformed as they pass through the screen, be it on smartphones, computer and television screens, or the cinema? How is media culpable in producing, heightening and profiting from these crises, and how does it offer pathways for resistance, organization and action? What role do citizen artists, filmmakers and other media practitioners play in witnessing, documenting, processing crisis?

We are looking for research capable of considering both the real problems with which society must contend and the emergent effects of their mediated representations and dissemination. We hope that prolonged engagement with this tension will be productive. 

Submissions may include but are not limited to the following topics:

• Archival practices
• Censorship and control
• Cinema and cultural hegemony
• Cinema and mental health
• Cinema in the age of media convergence
• Cinema, disasters and the Anthropocene
• Citizenship, democracy and the internet
• Digital media and activism
• Digital technologies and new cinematic modes
• Forensic architecture
• Labour in film and television
• Media and governance
• Migrant and diasporic cinema
• Narratives of resistance
• New media and futures of documentary
• Occupation, conflicts and national identity
• Witnessing and media re-presentation

Interested graduate students should submit abstracts (maximum 300 words) – along with biographies (maximum 100 words), institutional/departmental affiliations, and current email – to  [email protected]  by July 1st, 2024. For more information, please contact the Pitt Film and Media Studies Graduate Student organization at the above email.

Censorship in Media – Causes, Effects and the Indian Laws

From Current Affairs Notes for UPSC » Editorials & In-depths » This topic

In a recent development, the Indian government through legislation has scrapped the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) with immediate effect leading to rising fear among the film fraternity over increased censorship in coming times. Similarly, the New IT Rules, 2021 also gave rise to fear among media of content censorship. This has brought back the focus on the censorship issue in India. Censorship in media is not a new concept in India. Since the British Rule, there have been issues regarding press freedom. News and broadcasting media have been under watch on the grounds of several laws and regulations. There has always been a tussle between those who are in power and the media on several issues. Censorship in the media has been counterproductive on various grounds and has constitutional limitations as well. Therefore, there is a need to look into the various aspects of censorship and how it works in India.

This topic of “Censorship in Media – Causes, Effects and the Indian Laws” is important from the perspective of the UPSC IAS Examination , which falls under General Studies Portion.

Censorship – Meaning

Censorship refers to regulation and suppression of speech and writing perceived to be detrimental to the public good. It includes the review of media content that can be deemed pornographic, politically offensive, or a security threat. It also includes official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It can be imposed by a government authority, sometimes by a religious authority and occasionally by private organizations.

Express Learning Programme (ELP)

• Optional Notes
• Study Hacks
• Prelims Sureshots (Repeated Topic Compilations)
• Current Affairs (Newsbits, Editorials & In-depths)
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• Post-Independence Indian History
• World History
• Art & Culture
• Geography (World & Indian)
• Indian Society & Social Justice
• Indian Polity
• International Relations
• Indian Economy
• Environment 
• Agriculture
• Internal Security
• Disasters & its Management
• General Science – Biology
• General Studies (GS) 4 – Ethics
• Syllabus-wise learning
• Political Science
• Anthropology
• Public Administration

SIGN UP NOW

Causes of censorship

• Political reasons – Many times governments do not allow the publication of certain kinds of information on the grounds of being critical of it or some political party in the ruling.
• Social reasons – The disclosure of some kinds of information may create social disharmony due to which they are held back or censored.
• Moral reasons – Any content that is considered to be violating the moral code of conduct in society is censored. This may include pornographic content,  content promoting racial and gender inequality or discrimination and others.
• Religious reasons – Any type of information that may hurt the religious feelings of some community in society is often held back. Countries that have particular state religion also tend to restrict such speech and expression in any form that may be blasphemous.
• Security reasons – Information that may harm the security of a state is often held back from publication. Such disclosure may risk the security of a particular region against foreign invasion and terrorist threats.

Prelims Sureshots – Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims

A Compilation of the Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims, including Schemes, Freedom Fighters, Judgments, Acts, National Parks, Government Agencies, Space Missions, and more. Get a guaranteed 120+ marks!

Effects of censorship

• Pros – Although censorship is viewed negatively, it is not evil all the time; it has some positive aspects as well. Censorship prevents disharmony in society by prevention of disclosure of objectionable content that can lead to communal discord, preserves the security of the state, maintains morality in the society, prohibits the spread of false beliefs or rumours, curbs access to harmful activities by preventing their public display and others.
• Cons – Censorship also leads to excess restriction on freedom of speech and expression. Most of the time it is used to silence those who are critical of those who are in power. Thus, it may harm healthy debate and criticism in society. In this way, it gives prominence and authority to a single group of people. It often becomes an instrument of harassment of those seeking free speech.

Censorship in India

During the British Rule

• As soon as the British East India Company(EIC) set up its dominions in India, the printing press and typesets arrived in India but modern journalism was born in India mostly as a result of British suppression of Indians.
• The EIC’s administrators and shareholders were constantly anxious about the potential of the new medium of the press to disrupt their colonial rule. The East India Company actively tried to suppress this new medium.
• From 1780 onwards, the Company carefully monitored each piece of newsprint that was being circulated within its territories.
• In 1799, the Censorship of Press Act was enacted by Lord Wellesley, anticipating the French invasion of India. As per this act, every newspaper should print the names of the printer, editor and proprietor. Before printing any material it should be submitted to the secretary of Censorship.
• In 1823, the acting governor-general, John Adams enacted the Licensing Regulations to monitor press freedom in India. The regulations were supposed to act against Indian language newspapers or those edited by Indians. As per the regulations, starting or using a press without a licence was a penal offence.
• In 1835, governor-general Metcalfe repealed the 1823 ordinance and enacted the new Press Act (1835) . The Act required a printer/publisher to give a precise account of premises of a publication and cease functioning if required by a similar declaration. Metcalfe earned the epithet of “liberator of the press” due to this decision.
• In 1857, the Licensing Act was introduced given the emergency situation during the revolt. This Act imposed licensing restrictions in addition to the already existing registration procedure laid down by Metcalfe Act and the Government reserved the right to stop publication and circulation of any book, newspaper or printed matter.
• In 1867, the Registration Act was introduced. It replaced Metcalfe’s Act of 1835 and was of a regulatory, not restrictive, nature. As per the Act, (i) every book/newspaper was required to print the name of the printer and the publisher and the place of the publication; and (ii) a copy was to be submitted to the local government within one month of the publication of a book.
• A bitter legacy of the 1857 revolt was the racial bitterness between the ruler and the ruled. After 1858, the European press always rallied behind the Government in political controversies while the vernacular press was critical of the Government.
• Lord Lytton’s administration especially regarding its inhuman treatment to victims of the famine of 1876-77 was widely criticised by Indian newspapers in reaction to which the Vernacular Press Act, 1878 was enacted. It was designed to ‘better control’ the vernacular press and effectively punish and repress seditious writing. The Act forced all Indian publications to apply for a government license while also making sure that nothing was written against all the British government, nor was the government in any way threatened. The Press was unaffected by the “Gagging Act”, making its way across news dissemination. This pressed the government to develop far more rigorous policies. No English-language media outlets were subject to this Act.
• With the rise of the National Movement , the Indian Press got a powerful drive. Eventually, the government was suspicious of the press, so enacted many laws to regulate it and curb political issues.
• Four new laws were introduced around 1908-1901, following the creation of the Indian National Congress, which includes the Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act of 1908 , the Press Act of 1910, the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act of 1911 , and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 .
• Film censorship in India began in 1918. In 1917, a bill was introduced in the imperial legislative council which noted that there was a rapid growth in the popularity of cinematograph and an increasing number of such exhibitions in India. The Bill recommended the creation of a law that would ensure both safety and the “protection of the public from indecent or otherwise objectionable representations”. As a result, the Cinematograph Act of 1918 came into existence.
• In 1931, the Press Emergency Act was enacted. It was enacted in reaction to Gandhi ’s call to mobilise people for the Salt Satyagraha.
• The government during the Second World War to suppress popular Indian opinion introduced strict censorship while the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 was already in force. Under the Defence of India Rules , repression was imposed and amendments made in the Press Emergency Act and Official Secrets Act . It monitored and manipulated foreign news which was coming in, and intentionally generated, systematically propaganda-rooted news.
• There were regional censors in India to monitor cinematic content.
• In the 1940s, the policing of Indian cinema grew more stringent. Out of 1,774 films seen by the Bombay censors in 1943, 25 required modification before they could be released; that number went up to 464 (out of 3,099) by 1948.

After Independence

• The makers of the Constitution knew the value of freedom of speech and expression and thus Article 19(1) was introduced that guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. However, this right came with certain reasonable restrictions.
• The Cinematograph Act of 1918 was abolished and it was later replaced with a similar law the Cinematograph Act of 1952 . Over the next few years, a Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC, renamed as Central Board of Film Certification in 1983) was set up, regional boards were abolished. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) comes under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting purview. It assigns various certifications such as Universal, Adults, and Parental Guidance to India’s films before releasing.
• In the laws governing the freedom of speech and expression in independent India, the sedition law, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stands at the fore. The law is in working since British Raj. It provides for a maximum penalty of life in prison. It forbids any signs, visual representations, or phrases, whether written or spoken, that may “bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law”.
• Similarly, criminal defamation, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , specified in Section 499 is another law governing freedom of expression in India. It forbids any person from defaming any other person thus ensuring the wise use of freedom of expression guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.
• During the emergency period, there was a huge blow of censorship on the Indian media. In 1978, the Press Council of India Act came into being. The Press Council of India was established under its purview. It sought to preserve the press’s freedom and maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. The PCI has the power to receive complaints of violation of journalistic ethics or misconduct by an editor or journalist. The decisions of the PCI are final and cannot be appealed before a court of law.
• While the Cinematograph Act exists for the regulation of films, the Cinematograph Rules, 1983, govern the public exhibition of movies, and the Programme and Advertising Code prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules,1994 , regulates the broadcast of films on television.
• The operation of television networks, television broadcasters and related matters are governed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (the “Cable Television Laws”). These among other things, restrict transmission through a cable service, of any program that is not in conformity with the program code (the “Program Code”), and of any advertisement that is not in conformity with the advertising code (the “Advertising Code”) set out in the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000(“IT Act”) deals with censorship of online content. Sections 67A, 67B and 67C of the Act provide for penalty and imprisonment for publishing or transmitting obscene material, sexually explicit material and also material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, in electronic form. Under Section 69A of the IT Act, the Central Government is empowered to issue directions to block public access to any information.
• The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (the “Intermediary Guidelines”) notified by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, provide a due diligence framework to be observed by intermediaries in respect of the information being hosted or published on any computer resource of the intermediary.
• To monitor the content on the OTT (Over the Top) platforms, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) recently notified the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (Rules). The Rules seek to introduce a code of ethics to set out guidelines for classification of content based on viewer’s age, themes, content, tone and impact, and target audience; and requires OTT platforms to give due consideration to sovereignty, security, friendly relations of India, etc. It also requires the setting up of a robust three-tier grievance redressal mechanism.

Important cases and judgements

• The Supreme Court of India in the K.A. Abbas vs the Union of India case upheld restrictions on public exhibition under Cinematograph Act, 1952, and rejected a petition that challenged the Act’s powers of censorship. The Court ruled that prior censorship fell within the reasonable restrictions permitted on free expression and that the Act was sufficiently clear to avoid the arbitrary exercise of the powers therein.
• Constitutionality of censorship was also held in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram . The Court opined that cinema caters for a mass audience who are generally not selective about what they watch. It cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just as does the newspapers and magazines. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary.
• The Supreme Court through various judgments also upheld the dignity of the press and freedom it enjoys by nullifying the attempts to put a curb on it. These cases include the Brij Bhusan case , Sakal Papers case , Romesh Thapper case , the Indian Express Newspaper case , the Bennett and Coleman case and others.

Censorship and international laws

• Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
• Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) similarly states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. However, it carries with it certain duties and responsibilities.
• Along with these, the Special Rapporteur’s Reports on Free Speech and other records of human rights tie to India which are related to free speech and expression.

Recommendations

• Amendment of criminal laws in India in compliance with international principles to preserve freedom of speech and expression.
• Proper discussion with all the stakeholders before introducing and modifying any particular law on censorship.
• Creation of rules and procedures which are proactive and non-punitive to address hate speech etc. The process may involve raising public awareness, combating indecent misinformation and improving protection to protect a community at risk.
• Artistic expression and creative freedom should not unduly be curbed and certification should be responsive to social change.

Way forward

Censorship is a coin with two faces. It has positive as well as negative sides. Given the ever-changing nature of society, everybody should be inclusive enough to accept diverse and contrasting opinions. The very essence of freedom of speech and expression needs to be kept alive keeping in mind the reasonable restrictions at the same time. Proper discussion and persuasion can be the right approach in building a healthy balance between freedom of expression and what needs to be held back.

Practise question

• Write a note on censorship in media and its present status in India,
• https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/international_standards_on_freedom_of_expression_eng.pdf
• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/broadcasting-film-tv-radio/757742/censorship-the-current-regulatory-framework-and-the-future-of-digital-content
• https://www.theleaflet.in/censorship-and-creative-freedom-since-independence-to-ott-era/#
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/defamation-section-499-to-502-of-ipc/
• https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/abbas-v-india/
• https://www.cleverism.com/lexicon/internet-censorship/
• https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/new-rules-for-ott-platforms-regulation-or-restriction/2207205/

GET MONTHLY COMPILATIONS

Related Posts

Muting the Mob

Religious Freedom – USCIRF Report and India

The Necessity of Discoms- Should India Dismantle its Discoms

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Art and Censorship in Art

This essay about the intricate relationship between art and censorship throughout history and in modern times. It explores how censorship, driven by political, religious, and societal pressures, has sought to regulate artistic expression. From ancient civilizations to the digital age, artists have faced challenges in pushing the boundaries of creativity while navigating the constraints of censorship. Despite these challenges, the essay emphasizes the importance of upholding freedom of expression and supporting artists in their efforts to provoke thought, challenge norms, and shape our understanding of the world.

How it works

Art and censorship have been entwined throughout history, forming a complex tapestry of cultural, political, and social dynamics. From ancient civilizations to modern societies, the tension between artistic expression and censorship has played a significant role in shaping the artistic landscape. While censorship aims to regulate and control what is deemed acceptable or appropriate in art, it often sparks debates about freedom of expression and the boundaries of artistic creativity.

One of the most notable examples of art censorship is the banning of certain works by authoritarian regimes or religious institutions.

Throughout history, rulers and religious leaders have sought to suppress artworks that challenge their authority or beliefs, leading to the destruction of countless masterpieces and the persecution of artists. For instance, during the Renaissance, the Catholic Church censored artworks deemed heretical or blasphemous, such as Michelangelo’s “The Last Judgment” in the Sistine Chapel.

In modern times, censorship in art has taken on new forms with the rise of digital media and the internet. Social media platforms and online forums have become battlegrounds for debates over censorship, with users and governments alike grappling with issues of hate speech, obscenity, and political dissent. The internet has provided artists with new avenues for expression, but it has also exposed them to the risk of censorship and backlash from online communities and authorities.

Despite the challenges posed by censorship, many artists continue to push the boundaries of artistic expression, challenging societal norms and sparking important conversations about censorship and freedom of speech. Art has the power to provoke, inspire, and challenge us, and censorship only serves to stifle this creative energy. By resisting censorship and advocating for freedom of expression, artists can play a crucial role in shaping a more open and inclusive society.

In conclusion, the relationship between art and censorship is a complex and multifaceted one, shaped by historical, cultural, and political factors. While censorship may seek to control and regulate artistic expression, it often leads to debates about freedom of speech and the boundaries of creativity. Despite the challenges posed by censorship, artists continue to push the boundaries of expression, sparking important conversations and shaping our understanding of the world. As we navigate the complexities of censorship in art, it is important to uphold the principles of freedom of expression and support artists in their quest to challenge and inspire us.

Cite this page

Art And Censorship In Art. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/art-and-censorship-in-art/

"Art And Censorship In Art." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/art-and-censorship-in-art/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Art And Censorship In Art . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/art-and-censorship-in-art/ [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2024]

"Art And Censorship In Art." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 13, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/art-and-censorship-in-art/

"Art And Censorship In Art," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/art-and-censorship-in-art/. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Art And Censorship In Art . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/art-and-censorship-in-art/ [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Essay on Social Media Censorship

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Media Censorship in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Media Censorship

Social media censorship: a double-edged sword.

Social media platforms have become powerful tools for sharing information, connecting with others, and expressing ourselves. But with great power comes great responsibility. In recent years, there has been a growing debate about the role of social media companies in regulating content. Should they be allowed to censor posts that they deem to be harmful or offensive?

The Case for Censorship

Proponents of social media censorship argue that it is necessary to protect users from harmful content. They point to the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and cyberbullying as evidence that social media companies need to do more to regulate content.

The Case against Censorship

Opponents of social media censorship argue that it is a violation of free speech. They argue that social media companies should not have the power to decide what is and is not acceptable speech.

The Way Forward

The debate over social media censorship is complex. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether they believe that social media companies should be allowed to censor content.

250 Words Essay on Social Media Censorship

What is social media censorship.

Social media censorship is when companies that run social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, decide to remove or hide certain content from their users. This can happen for many reasons. Sometimes, it’s to keep harmful or inappropriate material away from users, especially younger ones. Other times, it might be because the content breaks the rules of the platform.

Why Do Platforms Censor Content?

The main reason social media sites censor content is to create a safe and welcoming environment for all users. They want to make sure that nothing offensive, violent, or misleading spreads on their platforms. This is important because a lot of people, including kids, use social media to learn, share, and connect with others.

The Debate Around Censorship

Not everyone agrees with social media censorship. Some people think that it limits freedom of speech. They argue that even if some content is unpleasant, people should have the right to share their thoughts and opinions freely. On the other hand, others believe that censorship is necessary to protect users from harmful content and misinformation.

In conclusion, social media censorship is a complex issue. It’s about finding the right balance between protecting users and allowing free speech. As social media continues to play a big role in our lives, this debate is likely to go on. Understanding both sides of the argument can help us form our own opinions on this important topic.

500 Words Essay on Social Media Censorship

Social media is a place where we connect with our friends and family, share our thoughts and ideas, and learn about the world around us. But what happens when our access to social media is restricted? That’s called censorship.

Who Censors Social Media?

Social media companies can censor content in a number of ways. They can remove posts, block users, or even shut down entire accounts. Governments can also censor social media by requiring companies to remove certain content or by blocking access to social media platforms altogether.

Why Do Companies Censor Social Media?

There are a number of reasons why social media companies might censor content. They may want to protect their users from harmful or offensive content or they may be trying to comply with government regulations.

Why Do Governments Censor Social Media?

Governments may censor social media in order to control the flow of information or to suppress dissent. They may also censor social media in order to protect national security.

The Dangers of Censorship

Censorship can have a number of negative consequences. It can prevent people from accessing important information, it can stifle freedom of expression, and it can create a climate of fear and intimidation.

What Can Be Done About Censorship?

There are a number of things that can be done to address the problem of censorship. We can support organizations that are fighting for freedom of expression, we can speak out against censorship, and we can use technology to circumvent censorship.

Social media censorship is a serious problem that threatens our freedom of expression and our access to information. We need to be aware of the dangers of censorship and we need to take action to protect our rights.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Social Media Bullying Prevention
• Essay on Why Deadlines Are Important
• Essay on Social Media Benefits For Students

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recommended

Breaking news, the plight of a kansas newspaper shows the new face of censorship via ai.

• View Author Archive
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

As more tech behemoths look to Artificial Intelligence to automate tasks, it becomes more apparent that AI is not ready for prime time and poses a threat to human autonomy.

No one can forget the ridiculous fiasco in which Google’s prized AI bot, Gemini, kept spitting out images of black Vikings, female Popes, and changing the ethnicity of every founding father to a person of color.

Now, the Kansas Reflector, a non-profit news operation, is fighting a losing war with Facebook’s AI bot.

Facebook flagged an article about climate change as a security threat, and then blocked the domains of any publication that tried to share or repost the article.

Users who attempted to post the article received auto-generated messages explaining that the content posed a security risk, without further explanation.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads is unrepentant, and says it has no idea why the Kansas Reflector’s innocuous post was blacklisted by its AI bot, but attributed the problem to likely “machine learning error.”

Of course there is zero accountability for these errors that result in immeasurable damage to brands and their reputations.

The promise of AI, we hear over and over again, is that it’s a tool to help humans do better, automating tasks to free up worker time for other things. But instead, AI looks far more like HAL 9000 in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a computer that overtakes its human masters’ ability to control it and turns against humanity.

In Texas, the scoring of the writing portion of the state’s standardized STAAR test has been outsourced to an AI bot, ruffling the feathers of everyone in the Lone Star State.

“The automation is only as good as what is programmed,” said one school district superintendent. A student can easily be downgraded for writing an essay that doesn’t toe the ideological line coded into the system.

Get opinions and commentary from our columnists

Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!

Thanks for signing up!

Please provide a valid email address.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Never miss a story.

It’s clear that ideological line bends markedly in one direction, to the left. We know that not just from the Google Gemini debacle. Regarding the most popular AI chatbot, research from international scholars “indicates a strong and systematic political bias of ChatGPT, which is clearly inclined to the left side of the political spectrum.”

In another bad omen, Clint Watts, the FBI special agent and MSNBC contributor who founded the Hamilton 68 dashboard, has been hired by Microsoft to run their disinformation unit during the upcoming election.

If Hamilton 68 isn’t ringing any bells, it was the left-wing think tank notorious for accusing legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots. It pushed the false narrative of massive Russian influence that was heavily relied upon by many mainstream media outlets and possibly even swayed the 2020 election.

And now this same guy is in charge of monitoring disinformation for Microsoft during the next election. What possibly could go wrong? Everything.

At the Equal Protection Project ( Equalprotect.org ), we’ve been screaming about the dangers of AI for over a year, and how bias in the name of anti-bias is being programmed into systems. Behind the scenes and out of sight, AI and social media algorithms can be used to determine what you are allowed to post, what you will be able to read, and ultimately what you will think.

Despite the promises of simplifying workflows and managing tasks, there’s far too much evidence of AI destruction to be ignored.

When it comes to AI, be afraid, be very afraid.

William A. Jacobson is a clinical professor of law at Cornell and founder of the Equal Protection Project, where Kemberlee Kaye is operations and editorial director.

Share this article:

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

NPR in Turmoil After It Is Accused of Liberal Bias

An essay from an editor at the broadcaster has generated a firestorm of criticism about the network on social media, especially among conservatives.

By Benjamin Mullin and Katie Robertson

NPR is facing both internal tumult and a fusillade of attacks by prominent conservatives this week after a senior editor publicly claimed the broadcaster had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage, risking its trust with audiences.

Uri Berliner, a senior business editor who has worked at NPR for 25 years, wrote in an essay published Tuesday by The Free Press, a popular Substack publication, that “people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.”

Mr. Berliner, a Peabody Award-winning journalist, castigated NPR for what he said was a litany of journalistic missteps around coverage of several major news events, including the origins of Covid-19 and the war in Gaza. He also said the internal culture at NPR had placed race and identity as “paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace.”

Mr. Berliner’s essay has ignited a firestorm of criticism of NPR on social media, especially among conservatives who have long accused the network of political bias in its reporting. Former President Donald J. Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to argue that NPR’s government funding should be rescinded, an argument he has made in the past.

NPR has forcefully pushed back on Mr. Berliner’s accusations and the criticism.

“We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories,” Edith Chapin, the organization’s editor in chief, said in an email to staff on Tuesday. “We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.” Some other NPR journalists also criticized the essay publicly, including Eric Deggans, its TV critic, who faulted Mr. Berliner for not giving NPR an opportunity to comment on the piece.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Berliner expressed no regrets about publishing the essay, saying he loved NPR and hoped to make it better by airing criticisms that have gone unheeded by leaders for years. He called NPR a “national trust” that people rely on for fair reporting and superb storytelling.

“I decided to go out and publish it in hopes that something would change, and that we get a broader conversation going about how the news is covered,” Mr. Berliner said.

He said he had not been disciplined by managers, though he said he had received a note from his supervisor reminding him that NPR requires employees to clear speaking appearances and media requests with standards and media relations. He said he didn’t run his remarks to The New York Times by network spokespeople.

When the hosts of NPR’s biggest shows, including “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” convened on Wednesday afternoon for a long-scheduled meet-and-greet with the network’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher , conversation soon turned to Mr. Berliner’s essay, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting. During the lunch, Ms. Chapin told the hosts that she didn’t want Mr. Berliner to become a “martyr,” the people said.

Mr. Berliner’s essay also sent critical Slack messages whizzing through some of the same employee affinity groups focused on racial and sexual identity that he cited in his essay. In one group, several staff members disputed Mr. Berliner’s points about a lack of ideological diversity and said efforts to recruit more people of color would make NPR’s journalism better.

On Wednesday, staff members from “Morning Edition” convened to discuss the fallout from Mr. Berliner’s essay. During the meeting, an NPR producer took issue with Mr. Berliner’s argument for why NPR’s listenership has fallen off, describing a variety of factors that have contributed to the change.

Mr. Berliner’s remarks prompted vehement pushback from several news executives. Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, said in an interview that he rejected all of Mr. Berliner’s claims of unfairness, adding that his remarks would probably make it harder for NPR journalists to do their jobs.

“The next time one of our people calls up a Republican congressman or something and tries to get an answer from them, they may well say, ‘Oh, I read these stories, you guys aren’t fair, so I’m not going to talk to you,’” Mr. Cavin said.

Some journalists have defended Mr. Berliner’s essay. Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR’s former ombudsman, said Mr. Berliner was “not wrong” on social media. Chuck Holmes, a former managing editor at NPR, called Mr. Berliner’s essay “brave” on Facebook.

Mr. Berliner’s criticism was the latest salvo within NPR, which is no stranger to internal division. In October, Mr. Berliner took part in a lengthy debate over whether NPR should defer to language proposed by the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association while covering the conflict in Gaza.

“We don’t need to rely on an advocacy group’s guidance,” Mr. Berliner wrote, according to a copy of the email exchange viewed by The Times. “Our job is to seek out the facts and report them.” The debate didn’t change NPR’s language guidance, which is made by editors who weren’t part of the discussion. And in a statement on Thursday, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association said it is a professional association for journalists, not a political advocacy group.

Mr. Berliner’s public criticism has highlighted broader concerns within NPR about the public broadcaster’s mission amid continued financial struggles. Last year, NPR cut 10 percent of its staff and canceled four podcasts, including the popular “Invisibilia,” as it tried to make up for a $30 million budget shortfall. Listeners have drifted away from traditional radio to podcasts, and the advertising market has been unsteady.

In his essay, Mr. Berliner laid some of the blame at the feet of NPR’s former chief executive, John Lansing, who said he was retiring at the end of last year after four years in the role. He was replaced by Ms. Maher, who started on March 25.

During a meeting with employees in her first week, Ms. Maher was asked what she thought about decisions to give a platform to political figures like Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican Party chair whose position as a political analyst at NBC News became untenable after an on-air revolt from hosts who criticized her efforts to undermine the 2020 election.

“I think that this conversation has been one that does not have an easy answer,” Ms. Maher responded.

Benjamin Mullin reports on the major companies behind news and entertainment. Contact Ben securely on Signal at +1 530-961-3223 or email at [email protected] . More about Benjamin Mullin

Katie Robertson covers the media industry for The Times. Email:  [email protected]   More about Katie Robertson