Tuesday, June 24, 2008

CENSORSHIP

I have just begun reading Amusing Ourselves to Death. As early as the beggining of chapter one, Postman opens up explaining to the reader how the format from which we gain knowledge controls what kind of knowledge can be displayed. He gives an example of this by saying that smoke signals cannot relay philosophical discussions. He relates this back to how our media today is not conducive to political philosophy. It reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 and Lois Lowry's The Giver. In these books, the fictional rulers prohibit certain words and images . Orwell goes so far as to have a character explain that if people do not have words or images for revolution or change, they will never demand revolution or change. Based on this, I pose these questions. How does the format of our media censor us? What do you consider censorship? While I believe that censorship is any type of ruler or government stopping an individual from doing or saying whatever it is that he or she pleases, I also think it is necessary in order to prevent chaos. I also agree with Orwell's theory that if people don't know about or understand revolution, they are less likely to question their leaders and create revolution. What are your views on the matter?

Tashiana Hudson
Posted by at

4 comments:

AFletcher said...

I love this line of thinking. Love it love it love it. Anyone else hear the sidewalk cracking outside? Questions like this can shake up the world.

June 24, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Unknown said...

Censorship would be a violation of our freedom to say what we want, read what we want, and write what we want.

How does the format of our media censor us?

For one thing, it is harder to get ideas that do not follow the natural order of things out there to the masses. Controversial documentaries may find it harder to make the big screen, nonetheless be retailed commercially on DVD. Now, while the general producers may not claim to censorship, you can bet your money’s worth that ideas are shunned when not pleasing. Does anybody remember the whole incident with a university student saying some not so popular remarks at a John Kerry question and answer session getting taken down by police...? John Kerry is a great civil rights advocate.


And, I am interested in knowing why you say that some censorship is necessary to avoid chaos. I was a little skeptical at first, seeing as though people may revolt against censorship...
But if they have no idea what revolution is, well then, we have ourselves a controlled society [granted if Orwell's theory is correct].

My views, let the people say what they want, read what they want, and write what they want, so long as it is expressed in a civilized manner not consisting of violent acts/remarks, racism, or unnecessary comments[ yelling FIRE in a movie theater].

June 24, 2008 at 10:38 PM
AFletcher said...

How can we think a thought if we don't have a word for the thought? (I often look at my dog and wonder about this very thing. What is going on in that little doggy head of hers?)

You've heard it said, I'm sure, that native cultures of the far north have many words for snow, whereas we have just a few. Here in Southern California, the one word "snow" will suffice.

If a generation or a class of people have no language to express a dissatisfaction with the status quo, will they appease themselves with Big Brother, Halo, and their iPods instead?

I have a little theory that many teenagers fall over-the-top in love with certain musicians because they are experiencing deeply complicated and sometimes overwhelming emotions but don't have the words to express what it is they are feeling...so they rely on lyrics -- the poetry of the people.

June 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
tashiana said...

Thank you Ms. Fletcher, and I am interested in your theory. I think sometimes it might be correct, since people often relate to the music they love. However, some songs are pretty much nonsense and lyrically devoid of meaning, but teenagers love them anyway just because they are fun to listen to.

SPlatero, I liked your comment, as well. I really agree with what you are saying about ideas that are unpopular being shunned. To answer your questtion about my belief that some censorship is necessary, I basically believe what you said. People shouldn't be able to say or do things that harm others either through violence, racism, or unneccessary comments. A person should be able to do and say what they please, but once they begin to affect other people negatively, it might be necessary to censor them. It all depends on how the person is affecting other people and how damaging their violent acts or negative comments are.

June 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)