Government Censorship and the Fate of Political Speech – Term Paper

Censorship refers to the suppression of the communication or the free speech. On the other hand, government censorship is the suppression of free speech or communication when it deems harmful, sensitive, and objectionable and might inconvenience the government and other public authorities (Spinello, 2010). Censorship has been considered as something that takes place not only in the United States of America but also in other countries. Basically, government censorship is the control and supervision of ideas and information which are circulating in the society.

The Government Censorship and fate of political speech would stand in the senate house. It would majorly target the politicians and the media. The politicians frequently make the speeches which are sensitive and may spark off hatred and violence in the society. It is thus important to suppress the information that may have been made during the political rallies and other public gatherings when such information is deemed objectionable, harmful and also sensitive as far as the peaceful coexistence in the society is concerned. The positions of the politicians and the media might be opposing the bill since they consider that their freedom of speech is curtailed by the bill.

Government censorship is the suppressing of peoples speeches or communication which might bring harmful effects to the society. For example, when a person or media house makes a speech which is sensitive, such information can be suppressed by the government by denying to be aired to the public (Spinello, 2010). However, the government censorship should consider the legality human rights and fairness to people regarding the rights to speech. 

The policies which apply include the rights to free speech without harming other people. The court cases have been involved. An example is when the media files cases on their decline for airing news from investigative sources and eventually win. This harm the government as it feels exposed and threatened. In such cases, both the media and the public are helped. This is through unfolding of the events that would remain hidden to the public. The cultural benefits to the society include the upholding of respect, cultural values and ethics. The government and the public will benefit from the bill.

On the point of legal and ethical issues both the law and religion have different ways of viewing censorship. The liberal minds believe that hate speech restriction is one of the ways of enforcing the social regulations in the society. On another perspective it is believed that hate speech is one of the triggers to violence through incitement and its restriction is of essence. Both sides have to be respected however on a general view censorship has both its advantages and disadvantages. Vices in the society can be exposed while on the other hand absence of the law could result in defamation by opponents.

References

Spinello, R. (2010). Cyberethics: Morality and law in cyberspace. Jones & Bartlett Learning.