Yes, people have the freedom for speech and expression, however, if their freedom somehow give an offence to an individual or a group of people, they show no respect for the other's freedom. Then there's no need to respect the one's freedom either. For example, if one makes a painting that have some matters that can make people think that it's racist, a group of ethnics would be offended and their culture, family and themselves would be hugely violated. All humans have the right to be who they are, and if some people can't respect their freedom and draw an offensive painting, we can also show disrespect toward that person by censoring their work (that are considered offensive).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Parents know their own kids better than anyone else, so, they should be the ones to set up parental controls and decide what the kid should and should not see.
As for censoring content for everyone, it is not anyone's job to parent another grown adult. If you are an adult, you should be allowed to see, read, write, and create whatever you please. Also, no one forces you to read an offensive post, look at a naked statue, or etc. If you don't want to look at it, you don't have to, but just because you don't want to, doesn't mean you can tell everyone else they can't.
Censorship is obstructive towards art, a medium used for expression and creativity. The "it will offend people" argument is the laziest one I have heard for those that are for censorship. All opinions and perspectives should hear seen and heard and if people disagree with it, they should debate respectfully or walk away.
Art shouldn't be censored because in doing so the essence and meaning to it would be lost. The artist would not be able to freely express their emotions and views. Yes, some works of art can be explicit, vulgar, and downright offensive but they should be treated with respect because they are the views of another person that also has the right of believing whatever the heck they want.
Censorship is very damaging to the arts community, because it leads to self- censorship, which is when artists take out certain things they think will cause them to get a fine, and this dilutes the artistic integrity of the artwork. Furthermore, censorship also removes the chance for the audiences to ponder or debate about certain issues portrayed in the artwork. Censorship basically shows the government's insecurity and refusal to listen to dissident voices. What good is art if it does not make a person think? What good is art when it makes the viewer or audience feel comfortable?
Also, in a pluralist society, it is theoretically supposed to accommodate diverse views. Censorship in a pluralist society is just like saying," People in a pluralist society can have many diverse and sometimes opposing views, but any view which portray someone or something negatively is not allowed."
Hence, because of the primary role of art, which is to make a person think, censorship is not necessary, because it limits the artists tremendously, and it is ironic for a pluralist society to have censorship.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?!?!
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.