Research Papers /
US Government Censorship: Essay Written a Year Ago - What do you think about it? [2]
Hi all,
I wrote this essay last year and received a good grade on it.
It is a research paper on
US Government Censorship and I was just hoping to hear some responses from the community on how good of a paper it is.
I am sorry I do not know the assignment's prompts. :'(
However, I do hope you at least enjoy the reading and maybe learn something you did not know about government censorship.
Essay:
When America was formed, it was on the basis that people would be free from any sort of government tyranny. Free speech was the most basic form of abuse that the Founding Fathers sought to eliminate and thus, the Bill of Rights had it as part of the first amendment. Yet, over the next two centuries, the government has been enforcing censorship on things that it deems could harm society. Although there are many things that individuals should not see, including pornography and racist remarks which can encourage Americans to act in rebellious manners, the government should not censor materials because by doing so, it violates the Constitution, suppresses information from us, and forces people to conform to the views of the government as all written material in books and online are confined to things that are deemed acceptable by the controlling body.
By censoring material, the government clearly violates the US Constitution as it limits civil liberties by denying freedom of speech which is guaranteed to citizens. As American citizens, we have the right to express ourselves as stated in the First Amendment of the sacred document: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise... of speech, or of the press." Therefore, any act that thwarts the media or individuals from getting information out infringes upon their rights. Yet, National Security Letters, those which prevent the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was even received, are still produced by the government and demonstrate that censorship is being implemented by the body that is not suppose to be doing so (ACLU, In ACLU). Even the USA PATRIOT Act, according to Jim Cornehls, makes people become "too frightened to speak up and out, because they fear their names may go on some government list of suspicious persons, [thus] censorship" . Moreover, the Constitution also allows for people to "assemble, and to petition the government." This right is almost always denied to those who represent the minority of public opinion. For example, when a President appears in an area for a gathering, "First Amendment Zones" are set up for political activists to exercise their rights of free speech by protesting against him. However, the authorities that organize the meeting place these zones so far away from the venue that the opposing views cannot be heard as they are "censored on the basis of viewpoint" . Not only can the mass public not hear the arguments, but even the media is also denied to hear such statements as the protesters are "herded to... remote area out of sight of the press corps" (ACLU, Secret Service). Obviously, this act proves that the government is stopping others from expressing themselves. While the government continues to disobey the rules on which it was based on, it also appears to contain no errors.
As the government continues to preclude freedom of speech and the release of information, individuals are also stripped of information that could show it to have flaws. Like the political activists expressing their disapproval of the president, Homére Cardichon was also censored so that he did not leak out any information that might incite any anger at the government. Cardichon, a reporter in Haiti, had his camera confiscated by US marines while he covered "demonstrations by disgruntled residents outside the US embassy". There was apparently growing discontent with the indigenous people against the humanitarian relief effort, but Americans so far have not received much news of this. By reacting this way, the soldiers continued to let no bad information reach the public, if only to "protect- the [US] image" . The government also suppressed information regarding "counterterrorism efforts" when it passed a law to exempt the Pentagon from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), even though the FOIA was originally put in place to show the public the inner workings of the United States Government . Because of this, no criticism could come from human rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union as they cannot get any evidence of "torture and mistreatment of foreign detainees" to support their claims against the government that would have been found if the government did not take away their rights to look at the indecent reports (Project Censored, Cen. '07 61). In contrast, Americans have not heard of their government's own actions of terrorism in other countries. Information on attacks from Americans on the lands of Congo for its rich "abundance of minerals and resource... [such as] diamonds [and] copper" was released in 2001, one year after the events occurred. The US even supplied the neighboring countries Ugandan and Rwandan so that the extraction of the resources was easier (Project Censored, Cen. '03 93). No matter how bad the actions are, the public does not hear of them until much later and they cannot degrade the government for the condemned acts because the media was not allowed to show the events as they occurred. Complete censorship for the benefit of the government would result in allowing Americans to only view what was deemed acceptable by the leaders at the top.
With continued restraint, people would become conformists as the government starts to take away individual thought by only allowing its views to shine in Americans. Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court Justice once said, "Censorship... is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime". The US government already acts like this kind of regime, controlling the media through censorship and therefore, the minds of its citizens. Taking over war propaganda is another key example of the government becoming more and more restrictive. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration launched the War on Terror campaign which was dedicated to "defeating terrorism" . To keep others from speaking against the movement, several measures were taken by the campaign that involved influencing the media to comply with it. First, on October 10, 2001 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice held a conference with the executives of five networks and urged them not to broadcast any taped statements by Osama bin Laden because they might "arouse... political support in the American viewing audience" against the administration. Next, the media withheld any description of bomb damage or Iraqi losses so that the estimated deaths of thousands of civilians would not strike the hearts of Americans . First-hand accounts from people like Abdul-Ahad who described attacks on cities by American soldiers were also not noted by any major US media outlet and instead, false information that only the terrorists were "accurately targeted... while protecting the lives of innocent civilians" was spread . The efforts made by the campaign not only stopped the public from siding with Iraq, but they also gave way into expanding support for the movement as the number of troops and annual funding increased to 62,000 and 60.2 billion dollars compared to just 5,200 and 20.8 in 2002, respectively . Those sparked by the facts from the censored material turned to avid supporters with no knowledge that they continued the mistreatment of innocent bystanders because all they knew was that terrorists inhabited those lands according to the government. Dictatorships also do not allow certain books to be read - something that the US already practices.
The government limits Americans' rights even more when it bans written material. Books are supposed to be symbolic of free speech as information can be spread quickly through them. However, in an attempt to again not allow the public to see the government as a poor infrastructure, any book that has data which goes against the political majority is taken out of view. Irwin Schiff's, The Federal Mafia, is one such book that exposed "every facet of the government's illegal enforcement of the income tax". In response, the government sued him in United States v. Schiff 2008 and won, enjoining Schiff from selling the book . Years back, the government had stopped another author from distributing information that taught differing values. Margaret Sanger had made a pamphlet called Family Litigations in 1915 which contained birth control information. Women back then were seen as second class citizens and considered to have no rights in the politics and even in their own homes. Though there were some people who only wanted to learn about different contraceptive method for education purposes, the material was still censored. Finally, as said before about wars, the US government jailed those who distributed "anti-draft pamphlets" such as Schenck. If government officials continue to restrict access to books and other pieces of writing because they oppose ideas in those works, its actions obviously violate the First Amendment. Information on the Internet has also been limited as the government finds the same type of material online.
Though the Internet is less than half a century old, it is censored as much, if not more, as books are, and as a result, Americans that read and publish this sort of material online (which is then clouded by the government) lose their liberties. This should not have been the case in the first place, as the United States Supreme Court issued a "reaffirmation of core First Amendment principles... that communications over the Internet deserve[d] the highest level of Constitutional protection". Yet, Senator Jay Rockerfeller has pushed forward Cybersecurity legislation through the House this past February . The bill aims to "defend the nation from enemies" by allowing hired cybersecurity specialists to exploit Internet and intranet communications - better worded as spying on those who use the web and judge whether the content viewed is appropriate or not . Congress had also passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which further censored free speech on the Internet by limiting any "indecent material" . As with all filtering, access to information is restricted and the supreme law of the land is not followed. However, sometimes the government should not allow individuals to view offensive material.
Certain restrictions in society are crucial to make sure that the people do not see anything that is obscene and behave in rebellious manners. A main issue that censorship proponents argue is the viewing of pornography. Many people find this material distasteful and not allowing it to be viewed could be beneficial for all. In fact, according to Roger Kimball, a social commentator, "when graphic depictions of sex are forbidden, the audience's imagination makes the story richer," thus stimulating the mind and encouraging creativity . The CDA and Child Online Protection Act also combat child pornography by regulating indecency related to minors, condemning it from being shown or made which many other countries follow . Then, there is the matter about foul language and whether it can be used in media. The Federal Communications Commission has made it illegal to utter any "profane language by means of radio communication" . In addition, the Motion Picture Association of America was created to rate movies and then figure out the certain audience that is suitable to watch the film . While censorship does limit free speech, the advocacy of racial hatred and violence can be spread through it and be unchecked if no limits are placed. Fortunately, the government does act on these and forbids speeches that "incite riots" . To keep a safe environment for humans to interact in, people must be willing to give up some rights - in this case, the full implications of the original First Amendment.
Though there are some good intentions, the government in general has censored too much. People should be able to voice their opinions even if the majority of the public or political officials do not agree. Banning books, monitoring people online, and stopping the media from telling the full story obviously do not take a step forward with protecting Americans' civil rights. In fact, censorship is on the rise as more technology gets invented, and many voices are lost as the freedom of speech that was worked so hard to get becomes a lost cause. The government should therefore step back and stop discriminating data, if not for people then, for the foundation on which it was built upon.
It is cited in MLA format; here are the sources used (in the MLA style):
Works Cited
EDIT: Made the paragraphs of the essay portion separated so you can see where one ends and the next begins.
P.S. Thanks for fixing the title - I was looking for where the edit button was to fix it myself and just found it.