Mediaboss Marketing

In general, censorship in India, which involves the suppression of speech or other public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the Indian constitution.

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression but places certain restrictions on content, with a view towards maintaining communal and religious harmony, given the history of communal tension in the nation.[1] According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".[2]

In 2017, the Freedom in the World report by Freedom House gave India a freedom rating of 2.5, a civil liberties rating of 3, and a political rights rating of 2, earning it the designation of free. The rating scale runs from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free).[3] Analysts from Reporters Without Borders rank India 133rd in the world in their 2016 Press Freedom Index,[4] In 2016, the report Freedom of the Press by Freedom House gave India a press freedom rating of "Partly Free", with a Press Freedom Score of 41 (0-100 scale, lower is better).[5]

Watching or possessing pornographic materials is apparently legal, however distribution of such materials is strictly banned.[6] The Central Board of Film Certification allows release of certain films with sexual content (labelled A-rated), which are to be shown only in restricted spaces and to be viewed only by people of age 18 and above.[7] India's public television broadcaster, Doordarshan, has aired these films at late-night timeslots.[8]Films, television shows and music videos are prone to scene cuts or even bans, however if any literature is banned, it is not usually for pornographic reasons. Pornographic magazines are technically illegal, but many softcore Indian publications are available through many news vendors, who often stock them at the bottom of a stack of non-pornographic magazines, and make them available on request. Most non-Indian publications (including Playboy) are usually harder to find, whether softcore or hardcore. Mailing pornographic magazines to India from a country where they are legal is also illegal in India. In practice, the magazines are almost always confiscated by Customs and entered as evidence of law-breaking, which then undergoes detailed scrutiny.

The Official Secrets Act 1923 is used for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security.[9]

The Indian Press currently enjoys extensive freedom. The Freedom Of Speech, mandated by the constitution guarantees and safeguards the freedom of press. However, the freedom of press was not always as robust as today.[citation needed] In 1975, the Indira Gandhi government imposed censorship of press during The Emergency. It was removed at the end of emergency rule in March 1977.[10] On 26 June 1975, the day after the emergency was imposed, the Bombay edition of The Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that read, "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".[11] In 1988 defamation bill introduced by Rajiv Gandhi but it was later withdrawn due to strong opposition to it .[12]

On 2 October 2016 (see: 2016 Kashmir unrest) the Srinagar-based Kashmiri newspaper, Kashmir Reader was asked to stop production by the Jammu and Kashmir government. The ban order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar Farooq Ahmad Lone cited that the reason for this was that the newspaper contains material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility[13] The ban came after weeks of unrest in the Kashmir valley, following the killing of the militant Burhan Wani. Journalists have decried this as a clampdown on freedom of expression and democracy in Kashmir, as a part of the massive media censorship of the unrest undertaken by the central government. Working journalists protested the ban by marching to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations while the Kashmir Editors Guild(KEG) held an emergency meeting in Srinagar, thereafter asking the government to revoke the ban immediately, and asking for the intervention of the Press Council of India.[13] The move has been criticised by a variety of individuals, academic and civil groups in Kashmir and international rights groups, such as Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society(JKCCS), Kashmir Economic Alliance(KEA), the Kashmir Center for Social and Developmental Studies(KCSDS) and Amnesty International, among others. Most of the major Kashmiri dailies have also rallied behind the KR, while claiming that the move represented a political vendetta against the newspaper for reporting events in the unrest as they happened on the ground. Hurriyat leaders, known to champion the cause of Kashmiri independence, also recorded their protests against the banning of the newspaper. Amnesty International released a statement saying that "the government has a duty to respect the freedom of the press, and the right of people to receive information,"[14] while criticising the government for shutting down a newspaper for opposing it. The journalists associated with the paper allege that, contrary to the claims of the J&K government, they had not been issued a notice or warning, and had been asked to stop production suddenly, which was only one manifestation of the wider media gag on Kashmir. Previously, the state government had banned newspapers for a few days in July, calling the move a temporary measure to address an extra-ordinary situation,[13] only to deflect the blame onto the police upon facing tremendous backlash, and thereafter asking the presses to resume publication. As of October 5, 2016, the ban has not been revoked and local journalists continue to protest against what they see as a breach of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Kashmir, with no official meeting forthcoming with government functionaries.

The Supreme Court while delivering judgement in Sportsworld case in 2014 held that "A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman... cannot per se be called obscene".[12]

The Central Board of Film Certification, the regulatory film body of India, regularly orders directors to remove anything it deems offensive, including sex, nudity, violence or subjects considered politically subversive.[15]

According to the Supreme Court of India:[16]

In 2002, the film War and Peace, depicting scenes of nuclear testing and the September 11, 2001 attacks, created by Anand Patwardhan, was asked to make 21 cuts before it was allowed to have the certificate for release.[17][18] Patwardhan objected, saying "The cuts that they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court" and "But if these cuts do make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media." The court decreed the cuts unconstitutional and the film was shown uncut.

In 2002, the Indian filmmaker and former chief of the country's film censor board, Vijay Anand, kicked up a controversy with a proposal to legalise the exhibition of X-rated films in selected cinemas across the country, saying "Porn is shown everywhere in India clandestinely ... and the best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them openly in theatres with legally authorised licences".[15] He resigned within a year after taking charge of the censor board after facing widespread criticism of his moves.[19]

In 2003, the Indian Censor Board banned the film Gulabi Aaina (The Pink Mirror), a film on Indian transsexuals produced and directed by Sridhar Rangayan. The censor board cited that the film was "vulgar and offensive". The filmmaker appealed twice again unsuccessfully. The film still remains banned in India, but has screened at numerous festivals all over the world and won awards. The critics have applauded it for its "sensitive and touching portrayal of marginalised community".[20][21][22]

In 2004, the documentary Final Solution, which looks at religious rioting between Hindus and Muslims, was banned.[23][24] The film follows 2002 clashes in the western state of Gujarat, which left more than 1,000 people dead. The censor board justified the ban, saying it was "highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence". The ban was lifted in October 2004 after a sustained campaign.[25]

In 2006, seven states (Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have banned the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),[26] although India's Central Board of Film Certification cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.[27] However, the respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.

In 2013, Kamal Haasan's "Vishwaroopam" was banned from the screening for a period of two weeks in Tamil Nadu.[12]

The Central Board of Film Certification demanded five cuts from the 2011 American film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because of some scenes containing rape and nudity. The producers and the director David Fincher finally decided not to release the film in India.[28]

In 2015, the Central Board of Film Certification demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house Malayalam feature film Chaayam Poosiya Veedu (The Painted House) directed by brothers Santosh Babusenan and Satish Babusenan because the film contained scenes where the female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate.[29][30][31][32][33]

In 2016, the film Udta Punjab, produced by Anurag Kashyap and Ekta Kapoor among others, ran into trouble with the Central Board of Film Certification, resulting in a very public re-examination of the ethics of film censorship in India. The film, which depicted a structural drug problem in the state of Punjab, used a lot of expletives and showed scenes of drug use. The CBFC, on 9 June 2016, released a list of 94 cuts and 13 pointers, including the deletion of names of cities in Punjab. On 13 June 2016, Udta Punjab was cleared by the Bombay High Court with one cut and disclaimers. The court ruled that, contrary to the claims of the CBFC, the film was not out to "malign" the state of Punjab, and that it wants to save people[34] Thereafter, the film was faced with further controversy when a print of it was leaked online on a torrent site. The quality of the copy, along with the fact that there was supposedly a watermark that said "censor" on top of the screen, raised suspicions that the board itself had leaked the copy to spite the filmmakers. It also contained the only scene that had been cut according to the High Court order. While the censor board claimed innocence,[35] the lingering suspicions resulted in a tense release, with the filmmakers and countless freedom of expression advocates taking to social media to appeal to the public to watch the film in theatres, as a conscious challenge against excessive censorship on art in India. Kashyap himself asked viewers to wait till the film released before they downloaded it for free, stating that he didn't have a problem with illegal downloads,[36] an unusual thing for a film producer to say. The film eventually released and grossed over $13 million[37] finishing as a commercial success.

Heavy metal band Slayer's 2006 album Christ Illusion was banned in India after Catholic churches in the country took offense to the artwork of the album and a few song titles and launched a protest against it. The album was taken off shelves and the remaining catalog was burnt by EMI Music India.[38]

In 1999, Maharashtra government banned the Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy or I, Nathuram Godse, Am Speaking[39] The Notification was challenged before the Bombay High Court, and the High Court Bench consisting of B. P. Singh (Chief Justice), S. Radhakrishnan, and Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud allowed the writ petition and declared the notification to be ultra vires and illegal, thus rescinding the ban.

In 2004, Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues was banned in Chennai. The play however, has played successfully in many other parts of the country since 2003. A Hindi version of the play has been performing since 2007.

In 1961, it was criminalised in India to question the territorial integrity of frontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.[40]

Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2015 report gives India a Freedom on the Net Status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 40 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access was rated 12 (0-25 scale), Limits on Content was rated 10 (0-35 scale) and Violations of User Rights was rated 18 (0-40 scale).[56] India was ranked 29th out of the 65 countries included in the 2015 report.[57]

The India country report that is included in the Freedom on the Net 2012 report, says:[58]

India is classified as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the conflict/security and Internet tools areas and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the OpenNet Initiative in May 2007.[59] ONI states that:

As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, Indias experiments with Internet filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of Web sites and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of Internet service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamour of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.[59]

A "Transparency Report" from Google indicates that the Government of India initiated 67 content removal requests between July and December 2010.[60]

Here is the original post:
Censorship in India - Wikipedia

The Great Firewall of China is famed for the restrictions it places on what Chinese citizens can access online. If a site provides access to news from the west, conflicts with state propaganda, or criticizes China or its ruling Communist party in any way, it is blocked. But some officials are now suggesting that it's time things changed.

The impetus is not a sudden softening of the political agenda, but a suggestion from the leading advisory body the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference that censorship is damaging China's progress in terms of the economy and science.

Vice-chairman of the body, Luo Fuhe, has taken the unusual -- and potentially dangerous -- step of speaking out against the internet restrictions put in place by the Chinese government. With the government not only blocking access to key websites (including making it near-impossible to circumvent restrictions), but also actively monitoring what citizens are posting online and engaging in barely-concealed state propaganda, Luo says that researchers in China have a difficult time accessing the sites they need.

As reported by the Guardian, as well as censoring sites completely, the Great Firewall of China also makes using the internet prohibitively slow:

From within China, attempting to visit to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or a lot of foreign university website is very slow. Opening each page takes at least 10-20 seconds and some foreign university sites need more than half an hour to open.

Although China has taken steps to block the use of VPNs that could be used to get around restrictions, Luo says: "Some researches rely on software to climb over the firewall to complete their own research tasks. This is not normal."

Proponents of free speech might laud Luo's stand against the government, but there are issues. Firstly has not proposed that anything other than scientific websites be allowed to make their way through the Great Firewall. Secondly, he is doing nothing to question what the Chinese government is doing controlling general internet usage so powerfully.

Image credit: BeeBright / Shutterstock

Read this article:
Officials say it's time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship - BetaNews

Twitter introduced new safety measures this week meant to crack down on online harassment and protect people from viewing offensive material, but some free-speech advocates are concerned the changes could lead to censorship of unpopular ideas.

The social media company announced Wednesday that it would start hiding potentially menacing tweets, even if the tweets or accounts in question hadn't been reported as abusive.

"We're working to identify accounts as they're engaging in abusive behavior, even if this behavior hasn't been reported to us," the company said in a statement announcing the changes. "Then, we're taking action by limiting certain account functionality for a set amount of time, such as allowing only their followers to see their Tweets."

The so-called stealth bans could be placed on accounts, the company's statement said, if a Twitter user sent unsolicited messages to another user who was not following the sender.

Twitter said it would "act on accounts" only when it was confident abuse had taken place, based on the algorithms it uses to identify illicit posts.

This new automated stealth ban capability became a cause of consternation for Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, because she said it could easily become a solution "where there is really no problem that needs to be solved."

FILE - A Twitter app on an iPhone screen is shown.

'Mistaken' moves?

"To take action when there hasn't been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts," she said. "That raises a risk."

Twitter has been under pressure to address abusive speech and trolling on its platform in recent months after celebrities and others complained of sustained, coordinated abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones notably swore off the social media service for a brief time last year after she was targeted by online trolls and harassed with racism and death threats. The incident led to a personal meeting between Jones and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and several months later the company began introducing new tools to address online abuse.

Twitter expanded its "mute" feature to allow users to block specific words or phrases from showing up in their notifications. It expanded users' ability to report hateful conduct. And it retrained its support teams on dealing with online abuse.

These types of changes that allow users to have more control over what content they see and whom they interact with are positive steps, Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told VOA.

FILE - Twitter's Jack Dorsey is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Nov. 19, 2015. The chief executive apologized Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, after the service let through an ad promoting a white supremacist group.

Control for users

The ACLU encourages companies to focus less on a top-down approach to censorship and more "on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform," she said.

"Attempts to put the thumb on the scale on the censorship side are prone to error and prone to human biases," Bhandari said.

Newer tools introduced by Twitter, though, give the company a far greater role in controlling what content gets seen.

In February, Twitter began pre-emptively hiding what it called "potentially abusive or low-quality tweets" from conversations on the website. The tweets will still be visible to users, but only to "those who seek them out."

"Our team has also been working on identifying and collapsing potentially abusive and low-quality replies so the most relevant conversations are brought forward," Twitter said in a February statement.

VOA contacted Twitter multiple times for clarification on guidelines used to identify "low-quality" tweets but received no response.

Twitter also introduced a "safe search" feature in February that automatically removes tweets that contain "potentially sensitive content" from search results. A request for clarification on how this content is identified was not returned.

Being a private company, Twitter has no real obligation to preserve free speech on its website. But Twitter has billed itself as a platform for free expression, and on the Twitter rules page, it says it believes in "speaking truth to power."

FILE - The Twitter symbol appears above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, July 27, 2016. Twitter, long criticized as a hotbed for online harassment, has been expanding ways to curb the amount of abuse users see.

Global town square

This is a role both PEN America and the ACLU take seriously. Both Nossel and Bhandari referred to the website as a sort of global town square, where everyone's voice has equal weight.

"As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously," Bhandari said.

Nossel noted that Twitter has a financial incentive to be cautious on issues involving the balance between allowing free expression and stopping abuse.

"The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit [free speech]," she said. "And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely."

Bhandari said it's important to find that balance, because if Twitter "allows a heckler's veto to take over," it will have a chilling effect on speech that's similar to pre-emptively hiding content.

"One of the really important parts of that has to be transparency," she said.

Read the original post:
Could Twitter's New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? - Voice of America

The official Sina Weibo account of prominent Chinese feminist group Feminist Voice () has been temporarily banned for 30 days after the group posted a Guardian article on a womens strike planned in the U.S. on March 8, which allegedly violated the states laws and regulations. Netizens response to the ban has been mixed, with some criticizing the group and others expressing support. At The Diplomat, Lotus Ruan looks at why everyone should support the group, arguing that the it is ultimately about standing up to Chinas arbitrary system of censorship andinformation control.

The gag order, screenshot by Feminist Voice and shared widely by many activists, soon caught the attention of Chinese internet users. While many have joined the campaign to voice support for Feminist Voice, others had mixed reactions to the news. Under a thread asking how to evaluate Feminist Voices being banned from posting on Sina Weibo for 30 days on Zhihu, Chinas Quora-platform dominated by male, well-educated, urban middle class users expressed disapproval of the group. Seventy-three people liked a comment that says they deserved it.

This does not come as a surprise as feminism has to some extent been stigmatized or is at least faced with complicated public opinionin Chinese society. However, there is a profound reason why everyone should support Feminist Voice on this particular matter to fight back against Sina Weibos decision even if you do not agree with the groups stance. Feminist Voice has initiated a much-needed effort to question company processes for censoring content.

In the past couple days, many supporters have been challenging Sinas decision and simply asked: why, how, and what Feminist Voice offended.This is a badly needed step to push for the overall transparency of Chinas information control mechanisms.

[]As one Weibo user said, I dont agree with many things [said by] Feminist Voice and Chen Yaya [a gender equality researcher critical of letting governmental or government-approved organizations dominate the course of feminism in China]. Sometimes I even find them quite stupid. But I strongly oppose censoring them. Debates would bring us closer to the truth. Only those who pay dirty tricks would stab someone in the back. Joining Feminist Voice and others to question Sina Weibos gag order could be an opportunity to push forward a more transparent and less arbitrary information control mechanism. [Source]

From Leta Hong Fincher on Twitter:

At Sixth Tone, Zheng Jiawen explores the phenomenon of online prejudice against feminist groups in China, with a look at the use of derogatoryterms like grassroots feminist and the negative impact that such discourse has had on the progress that feminists are making in the country.

Gus article exemplifies online debate over gender issues in China. It also touches on a particularly highly charged issue among Chinas feminist community namely, the pejorative usage of the term grassroots feminists. While tianyuan, which I have translated here as grassroots, originally referred to something rural or rustic, in this case it derogatorily refers to dyed-in-the-wool, stubborn, militant feminists who refuse to countenance alternative viewpoints. To add insult to injury, the character quan in the word for feminism is often replaced with a homophone meaning dog.

In recent years, variations of these terms have been applied by Chinese netizens as a means to disparage the feminist community. Some have used the terms to describe radicals who combine fervent calls for female empowerment with a contemptuous attitude toward men. In this sense, grassroots feminists can be compared with the English term feminazi.

[]These days, the internet gives women more opportunities to participate in the discussion on gender issues and provides a larger space for feminist organizations to advocate their ideals and values. However, our prolonged neglectof feminist perspectives in both media and education has deprived the average person of the appropriate terminology that feminists tend to use. As a result, feminist discourse either appears convoluted, incomprehensible, and pretentious, or leaves itself open to being co-opted by individuals in a half-baked way, without their understanding the full force of feminist issues.

Yet the most concerning aspect of the emergence of pejorative labels like grassroots feminist is that they divert public attention away from policy-oriented debates and direct it toward the mindless mudslinging of feminists supposed radicalism or moral deficiency. The depiction of feminists and their practices as fundamentally confrontational may also prevent those who aspire toward realizing gender equality from recognizing the common ground they share with Chinese feminist activists. Even worse, stigmatizing the sometimes-unconventional practices of Chinese feminists such as advocating the occupation of mens toilets by Guangzhous female university students in 2012 weakens the power of feminist organizations at a time when they are trying to influence government policy. [Source]

Also at Sixth Tone, Earlham Colleges Yu Peng explores the question of what we can learn about the womens marches in the U.S. through the lens of Chinese philosophy, offering a Taoist interpretation of the movement that focuses on body citizenship.

Observing events from a Taoist angle sheds light on this unique political tactic and engenders a form of citizenship something I call body citizenship. Body citizenship is an innovative way of engaging with politics through dissidence rather than compliance. Borrowing insights from the fourth century B.C. Taoist philosopher Zhuangzi, body citizenship hinges upon continual processes of political engagement that keep disrupting the established social order imposed upon womens bodies.

[]Zhuangzis citizenship is thus defined by its extraordinary potential to overcome the supposed superiority of one type of body over another. Whether we speak of homosexuals or heterosexuals, black people or white people, the disabled or the able-bodied, men or women, the Zhuangzian body questions the dualistic relationships between these groups. By abolishing boundaries between them, it bespeaks a oneness that binds everyone together. Zhuangzis ideal form of citizenship, then, is one that challenges restrictive definitions and embraces us all, regardless of social status. It is a forceful refutation of social segregation of any kind, and is constantly vigilant against any attempt to isolate one body from another.

[]The womens marches allow us to transcend the confines of our own bodies. We are more than ourselves when we are the bodies of others as well. Streets become new political sites in which notions of, for example, male, gay, Hispanic, or old are not only unimportant, but also nonexistent. Momentarily, at least, we become womens bodies and in doing so, we turn ourselves from prescriptive sexual objects into objects of patriarchy-challenging power.

This, in essence, is the beauty of the Zhuangzian body. Zhuangzi probably would have surmised that by claiming Pussy Grabs Back, citizens are translating their bodies into new forms of political resistance. Against the backdrop of a magnificent protest scene, citizenship is no longer something granted and controlled by law; instead, it is something won by the dissident body, something that disrupts old rules and constantly hankers for the new. [Source]

Read the original:
Feminist Group Gains Support, Detractors After Censorship - China Digital Times

Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Everyone would agree that censoring society from potential evils protects and benefits the people in the long run, wouldnt they? Of course, they wouldnt. Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Though I may not be proud of it, I have experienced censorship firsthand. Witnessing an innocent little boy being bullied by my friend in our local library didnt seem to trigger my preteen brain to spring into action. Not realizing the full severity of the situation, I decided to censor my words and actions in order to not lose my friend. Though I grew to learn that my decision was incorrect, I negatively impacted society by letting a bullying situation go untouched. I could have easily stopped this incident, if not for my personal censorship.

American author Charles Bukowski told how censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence (Bukowski, Charles Bukowski on Censorship).

Essentially, hes describing the simple principle of how censoring is only us pushing away reality, and it is unhealthy for us to do so. Chinas censorship of critical health information validates Bukowskis beliefs that censorship is used by those who want to intentionally withhold facts from others. In 2012, the World Health Organization estimated that about 4,000 people died each day in China due to severe air pollution, a devastating7 million each year (Jolley, End the censorship). Chinese citizens reacting to this created Under the Dome, a documentary created to grow awareness of this increasing health issue. However, the film, as well as posts regarding it, were deleted from the public eye. The Chinese government was trying to protect their image by not having society understand this issue, though it truly hurt China as a whole in the long run, considering this problem continued to worsen at the expense of human life. Meanwhile, President Xi announced that he was fully involved in cleaning this polluted air and expected all his people to be as well (Jolley, End the censorship). However, that idea of society helping out is unattainable considering how people arent even allowed to discuss it openly. This unnecessary censorship put not only China but also bordering nations at risk, considering how air doesnt remain within borders.

Another excellent example of censorship harming society revolves around global warming. It's well known in the media how burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide adds to the gradual worsening of the climate, though its barely known how arctic ice sheets containing tons of methane are melting extremely fast in some locations (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). As methane enters the atmosphere as ice melts, it damages the environment much more than carbon dioxide would. American Journalist Dahr Jamail stated that a 2013 study, published in Nature, reported that a 50-giganton burp of methane is highly possible at any time, and that would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide...since 1850, humans have released a total of approximately 1,475 gigatons in carbon dioxide (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). He also spoke about how a massive, sudden change in methane levels could, in turn, lead to temperature increases of four to six degrees Celsius in just one or two decades - a rapid rate of climate change to which human agriculture, and ecosystems more generally, could not readily adapt (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). Since this isnt talked about in the news, the majority of society is unaware of how terrifying this situation is and that it is happening right now. The media believe that they are helping by keeping the people in the dark about this horrible issue, though it only leaves us without the knowledge to stop it.

Taking away books from the public is another form of censorship that is incredibly hurtful toward society. Judy Blume, an American writer, notes how tragic the idea is that there are some books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers (Blume, Judy Blume Talks About Censorship) When books are taken away from society, this unexplainable connection we have to books is cut, as well as the possible knowledge that it could provide us.

There are multiple forms of censorship that are damaging to society and individual life. Whether it be a countrys government withholding critical health information, or swallowing your words when witnessing an act of bullying, censorship is detrimental toward people on both sides of the act. Overall, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to censor your voice or opinion out of fear that you may harm others, remember that your censorship will only do more damage to both sides in the end.

Katie O'Brien

Tyler Lane

Middleton

Read more:
Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging - Wicked Local Boxford