Good Article Review On Censorship Essay

In this essay the author talks about Censorship in Media and discusses where censorship is welcome and needed and where it should not be enforced. According to the author the internet is an area where censorship should be enforced to the maximum so as to prevent kids from accessing age-inappropriate content and Education and books, areas where there should be no censorship as it impinges on the reader’s and students right to knowledge. The article is thus about censorship and media and how and where it needs to be enforced to have the maximum impact.
When it comes to the author’s views on censorship in books, the argument is rather weak. The author gives examples of books with similar content, and in which only one was banned. The author opines that censorship of books is not good and that it should not be enforced as the books clearly state the fact that they are targeted at adults. The reader is then made to believe that censorship is not needed when the content has clear instructions as to who the intended audience is. If this argument is to be taken as valid for the existence of censorship in media, then all it manages to do is fall flat. Using the author’s stance it can also be argued that the porn sites and other violent sites mention that their content is for adults. In this case, these sites should also exist outside the purview of censorship as they clearly mention their targeted audience. On education and censorship the article takes a positive stance whereby it calls for no censorship in one particular case. The author states that the students should be free to learn about science when it comes to the question of evolution of the planet and the human species and that they should not be taught only the religious explanations for evolution. Although this is a bad case of censorship in education where the government and the school authorities decide on what the kids should learn, this should not exactly call for the non-existence of censorship on education.
Without a board to regulate the content in school syllabus there is no saying what kind of content the students would be exposed to. It would then be easier for the authorities to include content that could be one-sided and carry their personal beliefs. Although the author makes some convincing statements as to the necessity of censorship and the places where it is not needed, the argument is not very substantial as the author does not mention any studies or give the reader any statistics that can be verified. Since what the author is discussing is not a universal truth and that different people have differing opinions on it, making claims without providing any evidence weakens the position that the author takes. It could have been better if the author had given more examples about education and media. There is just one single view and that makes the argument quite biased and ineffective.
Any good rhetorical piece be it a speech or a written work should appeal to the emotions, the logic and the intellect of the reader. It should also be placed in a relevant context for it to be taken seriously and for it to make sense. In this article, the author appeals to the emotions of the reader. By bringing in children and their vulnerable state with regards to exposure to unsuitable content, the author makes sure that the reader is emotionally involved with the issue. Readers could also be expected to support this stance of the author as it appeals to their emotions. However it fails to appeal to the logical and rational nature of the reader. Such a claim leaves the argument open to many debates and is not convincing enough. If the author had used reliable statistics from the government or a reputes research institute or even an academic study, the claim made by the author could have been taken seriously. It would have then appealed to a larger audience, not just the ones who would be emotionally influenced. The author finally makes an argument for internet censorship using the example of China. Mention is made of the strict laws governing internet censorship in China and how the users are monitored. The author suggests that the UK government should also make such an effort to ensure that internet censorship is successful. This however is a bad and dangerous example.
Unrestricted access for the government over the internet and censorship will lead to a dictatorial state where the freedom of information of the citizens would be violated. Taking China as an example would set a bad precedence in this issue for other countries. Making rules to favor one group can result in the violation of rights for the majority or for other groups. The government cannot have draconian laws when it comes to the internet as in some countries it is the only source through which people can get information about what is happening in the rest of the world. It is also the only remaining media that has a modicum of freedom when it comes to information sharing. Calling for strict censorship in the internet is akin to the curtailment of freedom and rights of a citizen,
The article contains a lot of grammatical errors and sentences that are not fluid. Arguments that the author makes are conflicting and this brings down the overall effectiveness of the article. Proper sentence construction, the use of other studies to substantiate the claims made and a strong position would have helped the author take the message across to a wider audience in a more effective manner. In talking about the pitfalls of the internet for children, the author fails to mention all the advantages that exposure to the internet brings to kids. Thus the article seems unduly biased. It would have been effective if the advantages had been mentioned too. If that had been the case the reader would have been given a chance to make an informed decision instead of being only given the author’s views on a particular subject. In essence some of the very valuable and pertinent points made by the author becomes ineffective due to the lack of substantiating evidence and bad presentation.
An article to be effective has to appeal to the audience in various ways. The context should be proper, the reader should have some sort of an emotional reaction to the article, there should be logic in the argument and it should not take for granted the intelligence level of the audience. Taking these requirements into consideration the article at best makes a few valid points but is weak overall. The definition of censorship could have been more succinct and the claims should have been substantiated to give it more authority.