ISSUE224 新手求拍~

GlastiumUID: 2638821

感觉大体是按照xdf那种套路写的吧，自作主张小创新了一把。谢谢！各位帮改的可以留link互改哦～

TOPIC: ISSUE224 - "Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified."


大意：
第一段：总述
第二段：censorship其实是对付敌人的武器
第三段：即使censorship初衷是好的，但外人无法鉴定此censorship确实是好的
第四段：censorship是以让人不能讲话为实来实施的，这当然是unjustified的
第五段：总结废话重复讲了一遍

Censorship is long been used as a tool for the dominators to strengthen their reigns. So far, what censorship works for has hardly changed, as the authorities still abuse censorship as a powerful weapon against attacks on their weakness. It's never to be hard to find out how they censor any content for their own profits - parents censor websites where their children read and watch in order to exclude anything they think improper for children, media censor news which reveals fraud and corruption for their alliance. What's worse is, even now, censorship is crowned as a irreplaceable tool against anything the public doesn't like, and people still cheer for it.
This twisted view of censorship comes from the very deep of a human being's thought, where subconscious force people to dislodge those potential threat from outside. These threats can be real, also it can be just a ridiculous illusion, while people still find themselves feared of unpredictability, and it's time to get rid of them once and for all. This attitude is nevertheless sick, and racist is its best representative. There's nothing different between what Nazi did to extinct Jews and some governments forbid nonmainstream political views, in which the former fears the latter will outwit them, defeat them, and replace them. This uncertainty and worry lies so deep that people can only excuse themselves by claiming their work is justified, other than anything else to feel less guilty. The censorship is a bad beginning, which will eventually leads to self-destruction because once evolve is impossible, then it comes revolution.
The case censorship is good is again presented by some government agencies. They say censorship is necessary to stop state secret before it's distributed all over the world, so that it's good for protecting citizens from terrorism. At the first glance, it seems to be a positive use of censorship, while think of the side effect it may brings. What if you try to tweet and receive a message saying your message just violates a severe federal law and it's required for an inquisition before you post your next message? Don't forget even the government agencies try to do something the same as what you want, but any individual from the agency who has the right to censor can abuse the power on anything and others won't be able to find out - since what is censored is never able to be seen by outsiders. Maybe setting up an organization upon these agencies who censors, but the action how the organization supervises the agencies is still another mutation of censorship, and still without censored.
Some may argue that censorship is not for eliminating voices of their opponents, but a positive approach to protect people from being hurt. Admittedly, restricting teenagers from pornography is kind of strong evidence of good censorship, while the truth is even this restriction is rarely justified, since it's unfair to enforce it on someone who cannot speak for themselves or their voices are not strong enough to be recognized and acknowledged. Thought it's not clear to tell whether teenagers can be responsible of what they do, but the significance is that their will cannot be omitted. Similar experience is never to be unfamiliar, since only hundreds of years ago most whites thought blacks are lesser race and cannot be responsible for their action.
To sum up, it's easy to tell that censorship is mostly good for those who support certain censorship, or they'll not support it. And anything that's just good is scarcely be justified, as people often make unjustified choice by intention or unintentionally. Maybe it's possible to make a specific censorship more likely justified, but there's neither approval nor guarantee that it'll work, since there's way to examine it violating its purpose itself.

GlastiumUID: 2638821

自己顶一下=.=

huchengbinUID: 2817854

我来回拍了呵呵。
Censorship is (这里是用has?吧) long been used as a tool for the dominators to strengthen their reigns. So far, what censorship works for has hardly changed, as the authorities still abuse censorship as a powerful weapon against attacks on their weakness. It's never to be（to be删掉，我没见过这种表达，个人觉得是有语病的） hard to find out how（是不是用why？） they censor any content for their own profits - parents censor websites where their children read and watch in order to exclude anything they think improper for children, media censor news which reveals fraud and corruption for their alliance. What's worse is, even now, censorship is crowned as an irreplaceable tool against anything the public doesn't like（这里用doesn't like表达感觉不准确，是不是用anything that may threaten the public好点或者直接用dislike？）, and people still cheer for it.
This twisted view of censorship comes from the very deep of a human being's thought, where subconscious force people to dislodge those potential threat from outside. These threats can be real, also it can be just a ridiculous illusion, while(这里的while在这里有转折连词的意思影响了你的逻辑关系） people still find themselves feared of unpredictability, and it's time to get rid of them once and for all. This attitude is nevertheless（前面说了ridiculous这里又用转折，晕了。这关系不对啊） sick, and racist is its best representative. There's nothing different between what Nazi did to extinct Jews and some governments forbid nonmainstream political views, in which the former fears the latter will outwit them, defeat them, and replace them. This uncertainty and worry lies so deep that people can only excuse themselves by claiming their work is justified, other than anything else to feel less guilty. （跳跃思维，这句话我是不知所云了。。）The censorship is a bad beginning, which will eventually leads to self-destruction because once evolve is impossible, then it comes revolution.（老实说这段我读得好痛苦，你的句子写得长，逗号巨多每句话里面逻辑关系好混乱，思维跳跃比较大我现在水平有限，难把你的意思读懂。。）
The case censorship is good is again（奇怪的表达。。） presented by some government agencies. They say censorship is necessary to stop（用keep） state secret before it's distributed all over the world, so that it's good for protecting citizens from terrorism. At the first glance, it seems to be a positive use of censorship, while think of the side effect it may brings(这段无论语法还是逻辑，肯定是有问题的要么删掉要么想点让大家能看懂的）. What if you try to tweet and receive a message saying your message just violates a severe federal law and it's required for an inquisition before you post your next message? Don't forget even the government agencies try to do something the same as what you want, but（这个but又是哪里的转折？） any individual from the agency who has the right to censor can abuse the power on anything and others won't be able to find out - since what is censored is never able to be seen by outsiders. Maybe setting up an organization upon these agencies who censors, but the action how the organization supervises the agencies is still another mutation of censorship, and still without censored.（这句话的语病自己找下吧。。fragment.)
Some may argue that censorship is not for eliminating voices of their opponents, but a positive approach to protect people from being hurt. Admittedly, restricting teenagers from pornography is （a） kind of strong evidence of good censorship, while the truth is even this restriction is rarely justified, since it's unfair to enforce it on who cannot speak for themselves or their voices are not strong enough to be recognized and acknowledged（on的两个宾语， who, their voices太不合常理了这句话我也读了好久才明白你意思). Thought it's not clear to tell whether teenagers can be responsible of what they do, but the significance is that their will cannot be omitted. Similar experience is never to be unfamiliar, since only hundreds of years ago most whites thought blacks are lesser race and cannot be responsible for their action（审查呢？姑且不说句子让人郁闷，这例子也跑题了）.
To sum up, it's easy to tell that censorship is mostly good for those who support certain censorship, or they'll not support it. And anything that's just good is scarcely be justified, as people often make unjustified choice by intention or unintentionally. Maybe it's possible to make a specific censorship more likely justified, but there's neither approval nor guarantee that it'll work, since there's way to examine it violating its purpose itself.（还是基本没看懂）


我说几句恨的楼主不要见怪啊。
一，句法滥用标点和逻辑连词生造长句，已经达到让人看不懂的地步了。而且逻辑词用得很不准确让人误解。。

二，思维跳跃。

三，可能题目难吧，分析的话也写得费琢磨。

我觉得最大的问题还是在句子和逻辑上。
不知道楼主有没有专门背诵过新三之类的材料, 你写出来的句子真的让我好崩溃, 如果没有的话还是先练练语言，毕竟你思维再活跃你写出来的句子大家看不懂或者让人有误解这是很吃亏的啊。