- 最后登录
- 2009-11-23
- 在线时间
- 11 小时
- 寄托币
- 8907
- 声望
- 7
- 注册时间
- 2004-1-6
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 帖子
- 9
- 精华
- 5
- 积分
- 966
- UID
- 152834
- 声望
- 7
- 寄托币
- 8907
- 注册时间
- 2004-1-6
- 精华
- 5
- 帖子
- 9
|
The speaker asserts that government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum whishes to exhibit, whether the museum is public or private. While I agree with the speaker in that censorship should never be imposed to private museums, however, itWhat is "it"? Incomplete! is reasonable to public museums.
Likeprep.?->As firms produce various goods, museums "produce" various displays. If we think private producers have the right in deciding what they produce, there is no reason to deny the private museums' correspondingIs it proper?->similar right in deciding what they displays. DefinitelyI have never seen it in model essays., this right is not absolute and must not conflict with laws. But we should distinguish censorship from lawsYou went too far, I'm afraid.. Whereas the laws enact some rules that people should not break, the censorship often does not stipulateA super word! definite rules. While whether behavior is lawful depends on results it generates, whether a display can pass censorship depends on censors' judgment on its contents and speculation on its possible effects. But we all know that this kind of judgment and speculation is rarely, if never, justifiable and objective. It's hard to imagine a democratic society in which the aesthetic standard, or further, the standard->criteria? of "good" and "evil" is set by a few authorities and so-called experts in censoring committees. In this sense, censorship is dangerous and harmful to society. If we are acquiescentAnother super word! with its development, we can expect in future mass media, various publications, speeches and so on->forth are all under censorship, and finally we can find we have gone too far in the " road to the slavery."A little extreme.
Too long. Try to divide the paragraph into two!
On the other hand, even if the contents of displays should be confined, the censorship is also a bad choice because of its moderation and inefficiency. For instance, laws are more effective in limiting or prohibiting those "evil" displays than censorship. The first reason is that punishment is more intimidating than only prohibition, which is the severest result in censorship, to private museums. The second reason is that laws, which only deal with those illegal displays, are more efficient than censorship, which must deal with all displays.Examples needed! Reasoning needed!
Why do you favor law so much? I can see you have some thoughts on law, but here is not a right place to talk about them.
However, toNot "as to"? public museums, the situation is different. Government must decide or censor the contents of displays that public museums exhibit, because these decisions are just part of its daily administration. At the same time, as public institutions mainly financed by tax, the public museums must be responsible for taxpayers. Thus, the contents of their displays should accord with public interests. In addition, because government can appoint the leaders or curators who are different in knowledge and tastes to public museums, it can effectively control the displays and assure the diversity in its contents as well. Leaders different in knowledge can control effectively? Why?
This body is quite good. But again it needs some examples for support.
In sum, censorship is an inefficient butWhy not "and"? dangerous weapon?? to control the displays of private museums. It could encroachSuper! the base of a democratic society and encourage the expanding in?? power of government. As for public museums, censorship is unavoidableActually different from what you discussed above. What we need and should do is not necessarily what is unavoidable., but even so, its negative effects should be limited as much as possible.Too far. You should have mentioned it as the final analysis.
Generally, you have made considerable progress. Keep working! |
|