Introduction
The censorship of art has been a hotly contested topic throughout history. Critics contend that censorship limits free speech, stifles different viewpoints, and prevents the expression of ideas. Supporters contend that censorship is necessary to safeguard society from potentially harmful content and maintain public morals. This argumentative research essay will examine the issue of art censorship and present evidence in support of the claim that doing so would violate people’s freedom of expression.
It becomes clear that censorship limits people’s freedom of expression and stifles the diversity of perspectives and ideas by looking at historical examples and analyzing the detrimental effects of restricting artistic expression. Art censorship threatens individual freedom and creativity by infringing on people’s right to free expression and stifling the variety of viewpoints and ideas in society. Thus, it should not be tolerated.
Arguments Against Censorship of Art
The strongest argument for anti-censorship is that the right to freedom of speech, which enables people to express their opinions without worrying about being persecuted or subjected to retaliation, is violated by censorship. The ability of people to express themselves freely is restricted when the government or other authority figures use their power to censor artistic expression, which stifles the diversity of viewpoints and ideas in society (Laurence 12). The suppression of dissenting voices and the stifling of political opposition have historically been linked to this restriction on free speech, which is a grave violation of human rights.
For instance, during the Nazi era in Germany, artwork that was deemed “degenerate” or “un-German” was severely censored by the government, which ultimately resulted in the persecution of numerous artists and intellectuals who did not adhere to the regime’s rigid ideological standards (Nazzal). Another example is the Nazi book burning in 1933, which illustrates the perils of censorship and the abuse of power (Figure 1). Censorship must, therefore, be avoided to safeguard the right to free speech and advance a variety of viewpoints and ideas.
Censorship hinders creativity and diversity of thought and violates the right to free speech. Artists cannot experiment with fresh and original ways of thinking and creating when their freedom of expression is restricted (Nazzal). As it prevents the growth of fresh ideas and viewpoints, this hurts society and the individual artist. Additionally, censorship frequently promotes a single viewpoint or ideology, which can homogenize culture and leave the artistic community devoid of diversity (Nazzal).
For example, during the Soviet era, the government in Russia severely censored artwork that did not adhere to socialist realism, a genre that promoted socialist ideals and excluded other viewpoints (Kennedy and Coutler 124). Due to this, the artistic community lacked diversity and experimentation, and many artists were compelled to produce works that did not accurately reflect their unique perspectives or aesthetic preferences. Censorship must be avoided to encourage creativity and diversity of thought in the artistic community.
The subjective nature and potential for power abuse of censorship are among the strongest arguments against it. It takes a certain amount of manipulable subjectivity to decide what is and is not appropriate for public consumption (Killian III 9). Censorship has historically been a tool used by authoritarian regimes to stifle dissent and regulate public discourse. Even in democracies, the boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not can be arbitrary and influenced by those in positions of authority.
As a result, there may be instances where artists are suppressed simply because their opinions conflict with those in power (Malița 9). Ultimately, this type of censorship works to suppress diversity, stifle dissent, and restrict the free exchange of ideas essential for a strong democracy. As a result, it is essential to approach censorship cautiously and to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism toward individuals who claim to have the authority to decide what is and is not suitable for the general public to consume.
Although censorship can be viewed as limiting the right to free speech, it is essential to consider the potential harm that some types of speech may cause. To keep society safe from harmful or dangerous ideas that might inspire violence, discrimination, or other forms of harm, censorship may be necessary. Hate speech that, for instance, encourages racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of discrimination can have a real negative impact on people and communities and contribute to an environment of intolerance and conflict.
In this sense, Killian III states, “Those in favor of censorship regard the government as a social institution that Is morally bound to protect those who believe everything” (7). Similarly, in some situations, it may be necessary to censor content that is violent or sexually explicit to protect children and other weaker members of society (Cobbe 760). Although censorship can be a contentious and challenging topic, it is crucial to understand that there may be situations in which it is necessary to safeguard the security and well-being of society as a whole.
Another argument in favor of censorship is the fact that censorship can support society’s morals and values. Societies can uphold shared values and beliefs that help define their identity and culture by censoring immoral or offensive content. For instance, it might be thought necessary to censor pornographic or sexually explicit content to preserve the value of marriage and the family (Malița 12).
Similarly to this, it may be thought that censoring material that encourages drug use or other forms of deviant behavior is necessary to uphold societal moral standards. This argument has some validity, but it is crucial to understand that morality is a flexible and ever-evolving idea. What is deemed offensive or immoral in one society may be completely acceptable in another, and what is deemed offensive or immoral today may not be seen that way in the future. For this reason, it is crucial to approach censorship with caution and consider the possible repercussions of limiting free expression in the name of preserving morality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the freedom and creativity of individuals and the diversity of viewpoints and ideas in society are all threatened by the censorship of art. The arguments made in this essay show how censorship violates the right to free speech, restricts originality and diversity of thought, and can be arbitrary and result in power abuse. While some contend that censorship is required to safeguard society or uphold moral principles, these claims frequently rest on arbitrary or shifting definitions of what constitutes harm or immorality. As a result, it is critical to approach censorship cautiously and understand the importance of free expression in promoting a vibrant and healthy society. We can contribute to developing a more tolerant, open-minded, and innovative society by encouraging the exchange of various ideas and perspectives and allowing artists to express themselves.
Works Cited
Laurence, Cuny. Freedom & creativity: defending art, defending diversity. UNESCO Publishing, 2020.
Nazzal, Rehab. “Critical Art, Censorship and Freedom of Expression.” 2018. Web.
Kennedy, Roisin, and Riann Coutler. Censoring Art: Silencing the Artwork. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.
Cobbe, Jennifer. “Algorithmic Censorship by Social Platforms: Power and Resistance.” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 34, 2021, pp. 739-766. Web.
Malița, Liviu. “Arguing for Art, Debating Censorship.” Metacritic Journal for Comparative Studies and Theory, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019, pp. 5-35. Web.
Killian III, Thomas, A. “Artistic Freedom v. Censorship: An Ethics Research Paper Detailing The Debate of Denying Government Funding Of Controversial Artists.” 2018. Web.
Cohen, Joshua. “A Classic Novel of the Nazis’ Rise That Holds Lessons for Today.” The New York Times, Web.