Dear Mariam

there are many definition of Censorship, but the real question is if it is always necessary in all aspects or not, especially about world news!

Supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society. In modern times, censorship refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be objectionable or offensive."

        -- Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia

'Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

Regards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

What is censorship?

Censorship is the intervention by authority to stop certain information to be disclosed to the general public / intended audience.  Whether the information justified to be censored or not is in the eye of the beholder e.g. the authority, general public, intended audience or other stakeholders.

@Han Ping Fung, I agree with you sir

Freedom is the distance between the hunter and the hunted. -- Bei Dao

I agree with the above given suggestions.

Dear Mariam

there are many definition of Censorship, but the real question is if it is always necessary in all aspects or not, especially about world news!

Supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society. In modern times, censorship refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be objectionable or offensive."

        -- Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia

Censorship, from one point of view, is manipulation.

Dear Ping Fung,

I do agree with you that the intervention comes from the authority. As for the justification of such remains as you put it, "in the eye of the beholder".

Thank you for your kind feedback.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Aristidis,

Censorship is basically suppressed communication ascertained by certain authorities or even self authored. That soft censorship is predetermined and also it may not all be illegal. Still, it is indeed as you put it  - a "manipulation" of sorts. And it needs to be conformed otherwise we would be enmeshed with the surrounding "legal" issues.

Thank you for your kind feedback.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Robert,

It is a relevant proverb.

Thank you.

Best Regards.

Mariam

Dear Oluwafemi and Zahir,

Thank you for agreeing with the relevant researchers for the wonderful input.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Parisa,

True enough, there are many definitions on censorship. Dealing with it is another issue too. The manifold action towards the enforcement of censorship dictate that all sorts of publication including those of mass broadcast, electronically, socially or printed fall under some sort of censorship act. Realistically, it includes a restriction to freedom or speech too where one could and should not utter certain words or phrases that would command an instant censorship against x party(ies). Therefore, censorship is here to stay, wherever we are.

I do appreciate your kind feedback.

Thank you and best regards.

Mariam

It is removal of obscenity. 

What if the truth is obscenity?

Who can be against the truth?

Dear Jayaram,

I agree with you that the removal of obscenity is one way of dealing with censorship.

Thank you for your kind input.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Robert,

Obscenity is subjective. If the truth is obscenity to a person, group(s) or the authorities - they can determine their own actions. If it is personal, one can adopt a self-censorship by removing all the obscenity element(s). Should it be group-based, obscenity could be censored by blocking all material(s) or element(s) that the former creates. The authorities or government handle the obscenity truth differently, They could be put forward into a ban or legalised constitution accordingly. Ergo, obscenity is in the eye of the beholder and actions are required as they deem fit according to the situation. That is when censorship comes fully-formed.

Thank you for your kind feedback.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Mariam,

What if to say "the authorities have done wrong" is considered an obscenity by the authorities" (that is,  the eye of the beholder when the beholder is corrupt) And if this is put in the constitution, then corruption becomes part of the state. Then censorship damages everyone, not just the sayer of obscenities.

In your opinion is this good or bad?

Dear Robert,

Thank you for kind feedback.

If "the authorities have done wrong"; (that is, the eye of the beholder when the beholder is corrupt), it is the duty of the public to punish them during the election period. If it has become a constitution, the bane lies in the fact that the public fail to protect their own rights. That is why censorship is very sensitive and highly damaging.

It is good if it benefits the public like the government filtering all obscenities in the form of pornogrophies from the internet, although it is highly not feasible to obliterate this altogether considering the servers lie at remote country(ies) and beyond the government reach. The effort is considered non-corruption.

Censorship becomes bad if a mere obscenity(es) like showing human anatomy, sex education or operation done on sexual parts are banned totally when they are beneficial to those who are willing to understand better on the subject matters. These are mental corruption that need to be addressed even more so by the public.

My opinion is censorship is useful on certain aspects like the obvious truth of propagating pornography but not for putting it into constitution the education of "obscenities" under the pretext of mere censorship for political gain/votes/fame.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Mariam Ahmad,

Censorship is a system of state supervision over the content and dissemination of information, printed products, musical and stage works, works of art, cinema and photo works, radio and television broadcasts, websites and portals, in some cases also private correspondence, Prevention of the dissemination of ideas and information that the authorities deemed undesirable.

Censorship is also called the bodies of secular or spiritual authorities, exercising such control.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear Shafagat,

Thank you for the definition and elaborate information on censorship. They are the most appropriate ones.

In case you are worried that we transgressed about obscenity in censorship, please do not. I was merely trying to reply to a question on censorship with regards to obscenity - a subset and one of the subject that falls under censorship which is "deemed undesirable". The medium as you mentioned are correct. The purpose and intent are proper. The control body is rightly so.

Best regards.

Mariam

Censorship is a system made by the authority of the country over the various contents that comes into public domain such as music/ cinema/ art/ media/ news/ internet etc. even private accounts like blogs/ face book accounts/ mails can be blocked and consider for ban depending upon the harmful content. It can be anything related to hurting feelings of a larger section of people....like terrorism/ religion/ indecent sexual acts on media etc...which are again decided by a set of guided rules.

yes...censorship still enforced in our country.

Asoori,

What is the penalty for breaking censorship in your country?

Paying a fine, or jail time, or both?

Does anyone consider breaking copyright to share non-blasphemous information online the same as censorship? If not, then how is it different?

this:

http://boingboing.net/2017/06/12/sharing-is-caring.html

versus this:

http://gizmodo.com/man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemous-facebook-comment-1796018170?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Dear Asoori,

Censorship, as you pointed - is a system, a form of controlled medium and content.

Thank you for the information as to whether censorship is applicable to your country and aforementioned feedback.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Robert,

Breaking copyright to share non-blasphemous information online would lead to  censorship instead.

It is different if prior written consent is derived or it is of fair use in nature. For these, censorship is excluded.

Best regards.

Mariam

https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information that may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self- censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Dear Ahmed,

Thank you for your wikipedia reference.

Our colleagues and myself have expanded the aforementioned information as stated in this thread. Nevertheless I do appreciate your effort in including this piece of information which is deemed relevant and remain so.

Best regards.

Mariam

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about these questions. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a long line of Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces.

Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"-- the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous -- or just plain bad.

The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.

The definition of censorship from the American Library Association is, "The change in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes

Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.

Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life.

To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books.

The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated.

Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU.

Dear Abdulkareem,,

Thank you for your interesting feedback.

Suppression in all forms - tangible or non-tangible is repressive and unhealthy. Private group censorship is limited to their own circle. If public participation is not considered, then the governmental censorship is indeed unconstitutional.

When the court is involved over the freedom of expression, it takes into account that emotional bearing is difficult to prove unless it is videotaped, recorded and projected live in the social media.

Neutrality can only be adopted base on the expression and intent providing the  basis to judge the person(s) and group(s) acting at that point of time.

When harm is included in its slightest form, there is no need for an iron claw to dictate. Such damaging expression is good enough not to censor and censure but to jail without further recourse.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Dhia,

Thank you for deliberating the evolution of censorship information.

Censorship agreeably has started from remote ancient time. Though it comes in many forms and features, it is still censorship. 

The censorship could be personal, group or governmental-based etc..

Depending on who is eliciting responses to such censorship, the countermeasures could be similarly obtained. For example when a person does not tolerate pornography, he/she could simply stop acknowledging or refrain from all pornography-related activities. This is called self-censorship.

Regardless of all instances, censorship "spawns" from all sectors - as you mentioned,  even on "unique historical considerations". Thus understandingly, censorship is here to stay - even today.

Best regards.

Mariam

Dear Tariq,

Thank you on your feedback that your country censorship "needs to be controlled". It is all enforcing in mine too.

Best regards.

Mariam

Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous.

For more details , you can visit the following link:

http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Why is censorship necessary?

Censorship is necessary to avoid offending people, and is also necessary to avoid exposing people of certain age groups to particular things that may be unsuitable for them. This may include music or images. Due to censorship, certain music albums containing explicit lyrics must bear parental advisory stickers on the covers. Movies must provide ratings that tell the viewers about the appropriate age groups that may watch certain movies, as well as warning viewers about potential content that they may find objectionable, especially in terms of inappropriate content for younger viewers.

On terrestrial radio, censorship makes sure that any music being played is a clean version of the song. The same thing applies to certain movies that may be broadcast on television. Instead of broadcasting the explicit version on cable television, an edited and censored version is shown instead. This form of censorship allows things to be broadcast to a broader audience with a lower chance of offending the viewers."...

Please, go to the website for reference...

https://www.reference.com/world-view/censorship-necessary-35a3c6cc84c3da08#

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Parental Censorship: Why is it important?

By: EFUA HAGAN

The entertainment industry is one that has become more and more inappropriate for child viewers and over the years and has incorporated an escalating use of explicit language, violence and sexual content.

Children are the most vulnerable members of the viewing public. They are naturally inquisitive and once the television is switched on and a program of inappropriate content is showing, many will continue watching out of genuine curiosity—even when a movie is scary, the child might remain glued to the screen until it has ended, by which time the damage is already done.

One of safest ways of preventing children from being influenced and polluted by what they watch on TV and movies is censorship.

TV censorship can be done in two ways; firstly, by using a censorship package, (like the ones that come with DSTV), which when activated assures parents that what their children are watching is safe at all times.

And secondly, by the parents physically monitoring what their children are watching whenever possible.

Many believe that it is the sole responsibility of a parent to censor what their kids watch because if they don’t, who will? What children watch ultimately shapes their character or affects their decisions in life, for example; if the child continually watches movies that have a lot of violence, aggressive images will then dominate the mind and consequently reflect in their behavioural patterns.

However, the practicability of parental censorship at all times is a big challenge especially in the case of working parents who in most cases are still at work when their children arrive home from school and switch on the television.

As a result, it has become increasingly difficult for parents to implement censorship and monitor what their children watch, however it is the best way to ensure that children are not being persuaded or seduced by a variety of unwelcome habits.

The truth is, the only place your child can be protected is within the confines of your home. Once they walk out the door, they are bound to be exposed to all aspects of society that won’t care what is filtering into their minds."....

Please, go to the attached website as a reference ....

So what are your kids REALLY watching on TV?

You will never know 100 percent, and the most a parent can do is to do their best to monitor this as best as they can.

The sad fact is that there are some parents who neglect this aspect of raising their children and often kids are left to decide for themselves whether a program is suitable or not. As a result, they end up watching movies that may end up being potentially harmful in the long run.

http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/94971/

Dear Ahmed,

As you mentioned, censorship is a hallmark of dictatorship.

It is when the dictator can affect all the channels of information (Guriev & Treisman,, 2015).

The government has zero tolerance for negative coverage that forced more than a dozen foreign correspondents to flee abroad after they covered a massacre of anti-government protesters (CPJ, 2015).

Obviously, the channel and certain content in all forms of publication are government-censored and subject to dictatorship.

Thank you for your kind feedback.

Best regard.

Mariam

https://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/PSPE/pdf/2015/Guriev.pdf

https://cpj.org/reports/2006/05/10-most-censored-countries.php

Dear Hazim,

Censorship does help to control hate when information that is slandering certain religions, race, companies, or individuals are curtailed to avoid the development of prejudice or discrimination based on false information or propaganda (Flow Psychology, 2016).

Censor Free- Terrestrial radio is limited in what it can transmit and what it can’t (Ahadi, 2017).Yet the originality of the music could be ascertained in that censorship is removed as the songs are "filtered" for the good of the audiences. This is also true for conventional TV broadcasting. The masses could enjoy the "clean" song accordingly unlke online media.

Thank you for your interesting feedback.

Best regards.

Mariam

https://flowpsychology.com/8-pros-and-cons-of-media-censorship/

http://goodherald.com/enjoy-music-10-reasons-youll-love-internet-radio/

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, see....