Issue224 我的第三篇,欢迎修改!

gts2000UID: 183202

ISSUE224. "Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified."

Point: Censorship is rarely justified.
syllabus:
1. All kinds of censorships hamper the people's freedom.
2. In most circumstances, it is true that ruling class use censorship to protect their vested interests.
3. Admittedly, sometimes censorship do protects partial interests of the public.

In our society, the governments of the most countries usually censor artistic works, historical displays, mass media, political speech, and so on. Some people think that censorship is necessary and beneficial to the whole society. But in my point of views, I am favor of the point that censorship is rarely justified because of several following reasons.

First of all, whether in democratic countries or autocratic countries, most people always long for freedom because freedom is the born right that is endued by the God. But all kinds of censorships hamper the freedom of the public. For example, political censorship hampers people’s freedom of speech. Political censorship always censors speeches by the criterion whether those speeches are of benefit to ruling class, instead of the objective fact. Without political censorship, people can freely speak of national affairs and publish own viewpoints, whereas are possibly threw into the prison, even sometimes die. In China, what took place in the Cultural Revolution in the 70th is a typical example. At that time hundreds of innocent people are persecuted because their speeches that persist in the truth are censored by the authorities.

Secondly, in most circumstances, it is true that ruling class use censorship to protect their vested interests. News censorship in some countries, for example, always prohibits the speeches that are of disadvantage to the authorities are published. Those who publish violated speeches will be punished. Two months ago my colleague privately told me a message that an influential forum in the internet in this city has been forced to close because this forum published some articles which are disadvantageous to some government officials. Sometimes this kind of censorship can lead to disastrous consequences. At the beginning of SARS Virus spreading in China, for instance, Ministry of Health forbade the fact that in Beijing several people have been infected with SARS Virus to be published in order to keep nice image of Beijing. But, in fact, to do so results in many innocent people being infected with SARS Virus, even die, because of no taking some prophylactic actions in time.

Admittedly, sometimes censorship do protects partial interests of the public. Movie censorship, for example, prohibits those movies with bloody, violent and obscene scenes to be seen by children. Sometimes censorship can prevent the rumors from spreading in order to maintain the stability of the society. By doing so, ruling class can better maintain their rules. At the same time this also objectively protects the interests of the public.

In conclusion, I hope it has been shown that censorship usually protects the interests of ruling class and hamper the freedom of the public. Even if sometimes it objectively protects the partial interests of the public, it is obvious that to do so is for better ruling the country.

Thank you!

littlegoldUID: 174599

In our society, the governments of the most countries usually censor artistic works, historical displays, mass media, political speech, and so on. Some people think that censorship is necessary and beneficial to the whole society. But in my point of views(view), I am (in) favor of the point that censorship is rarely justified because of several following reasons.

First of all, whether in democratic countries or autocratic countries, most people always long for freedom because freedom is the born right that is(删去) endued by the God. But all kinds of censorships hamper the freedom of the public. For example, political censorship hampers people’s freedom of speech. Political censorship always censors speeches by the criterion whether those speeches are of benefit to ruling class, instead of the objective fact(“For example.... Political"两句话用because相连，并用it代替后面的Political censorship，虽然句子长了些，但能增强两句间逻辑上的连贯性，同时减少用词的冗余。后一句话的意思同第三段有交叉，删去也罢). Without political censorship, people can freely speak of national affairs and publish own viewpoints, whereas are possibly threw into the prison, even sometimes die（这句话语法有问题，不如改成如下句子：If there were no political censorship, people can freely comment on national affairs and publish their own viewpoints without being thrown into prison or even facing the possibility of death）. In China, what took place in the Cultural Revolution in the 70th is a typical example. At that time hundreds of innocent people are(were, 注意时态) persecuted because their speeches that persist in the truth are(were) censored by the authorities.

Secondly, in most circumstances, it is true that ruling class use censorship to protect their vested interests. News censorship in some countries, for example, always prohibits the speeches that are of disadvantage to the authorities are published. Those who publish violated speeches will be punished. Two months ago my colleague privately told me a message(删去) that an influential forum in the internet in this city has been forced to close because this forum published some articles which are disadvantageous to some government officials. （可以再从反面论述censorship是如何被统治者利用的，如"In order to avoid this tragic fate, many publishing corporations and internet forums have to cater to the needs of the ruling class by unfairly exaggerating their political achivements.  The mass media is thus expoilted by those in authority instead of the public...."）Sometimes this kind of censorship can lead to disastrous consequences. At the beginning of SARS Virus spreading in China, for instance, Ministry of Health forbade the fact that in Beijing several people have been infected with SARS Virus to be published in order to keep nice image of Beijing. But, in fact, to do so results in many innocent people being infected with SARS Virus, even die, because of no taking some prophylactic actions in time. （"Sometimes...in time"与本段的主旨相离，建议另起一段作为第三条分论点）

Admittedly, sometimes censorship do protects(does protect) partial interests of the public. Movie censorship, for example, prohibits those movies with bloody, violent and obscene scenes to be seen by children. Sometimes censorship can prevent the rumors from spreading in order to maintain the stability of the society. By doing so, ruling class can better maintain their rules. At the same time this also objectively protects the interests of the public. (把这三句话的意思连贯一下吧:At other times, censorship prevents rumors from spreading in order to maintain the stability of the society, or to be more accurate, to strengthen the ruling of the authority.  这样，重心就落到了后半部分，与全文的主旨相符，而且与结尾更好地呼应)

In conclusion, I hope it has been shown that censorship usually protects the interests of ruling class and hamper the freedom of the public. Even if sometimes it objectively protects the partial interests of the public, it is obvious that to do so is for better ruling the country.

这篇文章总的思路还是可以的。需要注意每一段的论述应该紧扣分论点，一段就应该是一个意思（中间可以有递进和转折，但最好有明确的连接词作“路标”，使行文思路更清晰）。语法上（包括一些时态，句子结构）有些小问题，写的时候注意点。GRE的作文最重要的就是逻辑了（Critical thinking!），语言也很重要，至少要读上去通顺。

gts2000UID: 183202

谢谢littlegold的修改!
你提的建议很好!
对于("Sometimes...in time"与本段的主旨相离，建议另起一段作为第三条分论点)
我本来的意思是:有时候保护统治阶级的利益是以牺牲大众的利益为代价的.
这样子应该可以在一段内了!
可能我原来写出来的意思有偏差.
谢谢!