I am interested in exploring the history and current condition of government censorship, especially in relation to the first amendment and particularly regarding free speech (depending on where the evidence takes me). I want to compile evidence and make an argument about what condition our first amendment rights are in and what should be allowed or not allowed—or at least ask some questions about the philosophy of censorship. The idea of government censorship is relevant today especially because of pop culture and political happenings happening now—from the war in Iraq to the library mall preacher, to allowing porn on the UW Campus, to protests happening in front of the catholic church and Memorial Library. My focus will be on a bigger, more national level but the points will be broken down into palpable, applicable theories/proofs.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire
The Focus:
The meat of my paper will be looking through places where censorship worked, failed, should have been used, should not have been used, etc. and trying to quantify the evidence into some kind of conclusion about its effectiveness, or even whether it is necessary. Is censorship more helpful than hurtful? Who does it discriminate against? Who does it help? Are some people denied rights because of it? I can see running into the problems of defining a “right” of man, but I would like to avoid that kind of debate because it will be unproductive. What I want to focus on is the government’s responsibility/power to censor the public eye, and whether that power is appropriate, used well, or needed (ex: dirty pictures/porn, burning books/flags, politically correct speech, FDA having guns, indecent speech, anti-political/anti-American commentary, government news management).
Methods:
I think a combination of both a survey (conducted by me) and articles online would be effective. I like the idea of using online sources because they are the easiest to verify and the most up-to-date. But I want to avoid gathering a lot of information and spitting it out again in a new form. Some of that is bound to happen in a research paper, but hopefully if I conduct a survey and put it in my paper I can keep my focus straight and stay on track with what interests me about censorship. It also helps me feel responsible for the claim I’m making (instead of copying other people’s claims). It is obviously important to use credible sources and reliable experts, but the issue of government censorship is broad enough that even though a lot of people want to get their two cents in, the history of government action and political stances (professional findings, essentially) is very accessible and easy to weed out. My favorite resource so far is the International Society for Independent Freedom because they are fighting for the first amendment rights globally, which means they have a lot of evidences to prove the need (the site is mostly about America, the philosophy is more international). I am also very interested in the United States official positions on it, so for that I will rely on court cases to speak for the nation (Roth vs. United States, Alberts vs. California). The Supreme Court is going to be a great resource on finding out what the official position on censorship is. It is not as official, but the Berkeley law blog has some really interesting ideas with the trend of American’s freedoms and believe that they have been declining since 1964. I may include some things like that as well.
Possible implications:
My preliminary findings are that there are going to be multiple solid evidences for both sides, and that it could be more of a moral issue than a political or social one (should kids be allowed to see pornographic magazines in grocery stores? how much information should the government tell the American people and release to the press?), but I am going to try to steer it away from opinion if I can, or at least make claims that are concrete ideas to form opinions from. I hope it will, by the end, help my fellow undergrads think about what they really want to/should know because it’s “out there.” I hope that they learn some temperament, and concede that it takes a lot of discernment to figure out what they should and should not be exposed to, even in a democracy. Some things are just not healthy; some things are downright dangerous not to know. I hope they feel empowered to decide for themselves which they want, and to base that conclusion on information instead of opinion or definition (i.e. “liberalism”).
It seems to me like the issue you're focusing on is the government censorship of free speech and whether or not it's ever warranted. It's a pretty broad topic, but it seems as though you've managed to pare it down to some more specific ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think you could go multiple ways with this, and focusing on one group (i.e. UW students) is quite easy, as you can simply focus on the issues regarding censorship that apply specifically to them.
It seems as though the purpose is simply to enlighten the audience as to the history and current state of the issue, as opposed to taking one side or the other. There wasn't a clear thesis or thought of which side was the correct one to take.
I'm not sure how much research you've done so far, but it seems like you've got a good grasp on the sources you want to use, and I think you're at a good place right now to keep moving forward with it.
It's definitely a thought-provoking topic. It's tough, since the issue has been rehashed so many times over, to make the argument your own- it seems as though you've taken that into account though, and have some good ideas on how to accomplish just that.
This seems like it is going to be a very interesting paper. I look forward to the final product. I like how you are going to look at this on a national level because I feel that will allow you to have more sources, and get a better test group for how our government works. I do have a question on if you are going to concentrate on one form of censorship, or multiple forms. Do you think it would be better to concentrate just on interenet cencorship or magazine censorhip? Or would it be better to concentrate on everything as a whole? I do not know which would work out better. I think if you look at your sources, they will probably lead you in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure who your audience would be in this paper. I know that you could easily focus on everybody in our nation, but that might be a little large. I think that sticking with a smaller group would make it a little easier to form an argument, since you could show how it directly effects this one group (like Students).
I think that the purpose of the paper is to find out if censorship is a good thing or a bad thing. I think that is a good question, however, I don't think it can ever be fully answered. That is why I suggested to focus on a smaller group, so you can get a better answer.
As far as a claim goes, I do not see one yet. I think that the question still needs to be answered, but that will be taken care of with the research.
The thing that I am looking forward to is how the sources play out. I feel that there are going to be large amounts of sources for both sides of the argument, so it will be interesting to see which way you go.