Amazon.com Widgets

In a pluralist society, is censorship of the arts necessary?

  • The Necessity for Censorship

    There will always be things deemed as offensive or things that should be censored. While I agree with the freedom of speech, it is of utmost importance that censorship is in place especially when it is overly offensive. A censorship would be able to reduce the unacceptable content to young children. For example, it isn't protecting the children when we let them be exposed to images of nakedness. And that is where a line needs to be drawn, where the need for censorship rises.

  • The Necessity for Censorship

    There will always be things deemed as offensive or things that should be censored. While I agree with the freedom of speech, it is of utmost importance that censorship is in place especially when it is overly offensive. A censorship would be able to reduce the unacceptable content to young children. For example, it isn't protecting the children when we let them be exposed to images of nakedness. And that is where a line needs to be drawn, where the need for censorship rises.

  • In a pluralist society censorship of the arts if necessary since minimization of pain or cruelty is incommenseurate by definition of the pluralist point of view.

    For one the definition of pluralism is the belief that many of our deepest moral values such as equality, minimization of pain or cruelty, dignity etc are incommensurate and balancing them as best as possible should therefore govern one's political philosophy, under that definition art should be censored to some extent so it does not hurt anyone of any race, or creed deeply, but at the same time you couldn't censor a lot since it would hurt people its censoring on the otherhand.

  • Censorship

    is always a part of life, even when dealing with the land of the free. Art should be able to be appreciated by anyone who wants to appreciate it and if there is art that greatly offends many people, it must be censored to protect the social values that art is supposed to promote.

  • Censorship of the arts is necessary in a pluralist society, because it protects traditional family values.

    Censorship of the arts is necessary to protect both children and adults from images and other artistic content that lack redeeming social values. The promotion of traditional family values is beneficial to society, because it encourages strong family core beliefs, which promote efficient working values and economic growth. Artistic content that opposes traditional family values and lacks other redeeming social interests is harmful to society and should be opposed.

    Posted by: TriteEzequiel
  • Yes, I believe censorship of the arts is necessary in a pluralist society, due to the potential offensiveness of some art.

    It is imperative that there remains censorship of some of the arts in a pluralist society. Because of the diversity within a pluralist society, there are people with very different backgrounds cultures and religions. Some art symbols can be offensive to them. Therefore, in certain situations, these pieces should be censored to protect them.

    Posted by: StupidShawn59
  • Art is to be considered

    Censorship is a cautionary step to take, but is really unnecessary. Responsibility is always in consideration, you can censor anything in the world but you can't kill the ideas people get & utilize the freedom of expression to create a work that is to be considered. Not taken seriously to the point of offensiveness.

  • A reaction, not a rating

    The reason that art is so intriguing is because it is meant to cause a reaction inside of you, one that won't be found in any other person. Yes, art has the possibility to offend some people with certain views but they can exercise the right to walk away. Alongside the small number of people that are offended, there is a group that found that piece of art beautiful.

  • Artistic censorship isn't necessary in any free country.

    Whether it is the US or UK, artistic censorship should be prohibited. Artists are simply expressing themselves and perpetuating their creativity. If people don't want their kids looking at inappropriate images, then they should simply be more careful about their kids' viewings. Also censoring views would violate the freedom in most developed countries. Musicians in their videos tend to reveal parts of their bodies which may be inappropriate for younger viewers. There are parental controls to terminate that.

  • Stop the creativity crackdown!!!

    As a thirteen-year-old developing artist, I find censorship of the arts offensive. There is a reason it is called FINE Art. The reason is that the piece shows something that is meaningful to a certain person, often the artist. Also, whatever happened to "Freedom of Speech"? By restricting the artwork available to the public, you are taking away the artist's ability to express themself. That could be considered a breach in their rights!

  • Censorship on art is a very vague tool

    Just because governmental powers have decided certain age ratings on certain content does not mean that all children have the same maturity level and/or educational level and, therefore it does not make it fair for the parents of those children because it is depriving the parents of their rights to raise their children in a manner that suites. There are many different levels of maturity and educational levels between our youth and our children. Nobody is forcing anybody by gunpoint to view something so, why should we have limitations on what our eyes wish to see?!?!

  • It's a restraint on artistic freedom.

    Censorship of art defeats the main purpose of art: the right to freely express opinion and reflect society as it is seen by an artist. Art allows new ideas and perspectives to be given on important social debates, and by censoring pieces, society is asking for opinions then dismissing all those who don't agree with the mainstream.

  • Fear no art.

    The only thing that censorship does is close the discussion initiated by the art. The fear of art is simply the fear of contrary or divergent perspectives. The connection to a piece of work, opens minds and contributes to ideas and discourse on the message contained. That communication of ideas and perspectives leads to greater expansion between the people involved. That becomes the basis for cooperation and compromise to insure growth as humans.

  • Art is an important way of expressing our thoughts and perspectives etc.

    Censorship of the arts doesn't make any sense. Art is the way that artists express their feelings and point of view moreover it reforms our problems of society. How can people be uncomfortable with other's perspectives? We should just accept the art as art and respect it. Theres no point in censoring one's artistic way to express.

  • Art is a way of expressing yourself.

    If you are censored as to what you feel, you cannot truly be living in a free country. Art is how we as people can escape the society we live in. If you take away our art, we do not live in a free country. Art is expression, and you cannot censor how a person feels. Its like restricting us and putting us in chains.

  • "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

    This quote by Mark Twain can simplify quite nicely my opinion. Wanting to censor something is just saying that you are not mature enough to completely understand the point of view the artist wants to show through any kind of media he/she chooses. It also shows that you are not sure enough of your own beliefs and opinions since you are afraid that it might possibly change your current point of view towards something. Someone with a strong religious belief wouldn't be afraid of living among atheists. (I'm using the religious topic as imagery to support this topic, not because this must necessarily be a religious topic, but because it is what most people can relate to when talking about morals and ethics.)


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.