Issue224审查制度不厚道呵呵~欢迎进来瞅瞅,会回拍的!

花之颜色UID: 187195

自我感觉例子不丰富,特别是后两段,希望牛人帮助提供~多谢先
------题目------
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
提纲:
1审查制度为政府统治服务,难以公平
2标准难以确定
3没有有效的监督
------正文------
Has censorship ever been justified? I concede that on certain occasions like protecting the youth from the impact of violence and eroticism, censorship plays a crucial role. However, in most cases, censorship is always unjustified, which is dependent on its purpose, uncertain standard, and lacking effective surveillance.

To begin with, it is because the government unfairly makes use of censorship to rule out some information stacked against its domination. In history, censorship was established to safeguard class interest, which usually was adverse to public good and impeded social advancement. Since modern newspaper was born, British government had legislated a law, which stipulated that newspaper should not cover anything about the parliament. And before Independence War, American newspaper was also under strict control from British colonists. Any defiant reporters would be punished and persecuted severely. In fact, these cases are very common in the process of media development. Even today, the strict control on information's circulation is everywhere. See some American employees related to media, who had been dismissed because during Iraq War, their reports went beyond the allowed range. These cases illustrate that the censorship, serving for the government's reign, is seldom fair.

Besides, it is difficult to establish a reasonable standard of censorship, which is another possible reason to explain why censorship is rarely justified. For one thing, many artworks, beyond the common one's understanding, may not be accepted by the mediocre censors. In fact, they do not have enough skills and knowledge to appreciate the value of artworks. And their imperious interference has two consequences. These unlucky artworks will be either completely excluded or cut down whimsically, which greatly damage the integrity of the artworks. For example, many foreign movies suffer this arbitrary abridgement and lose their artistic values. What’s worse, the incoherent scenarios often puzzle the audience and disturb their comprehension. For another thing, the censors, for the sake of their self-interest, unfairly eliminate the works of some honest artists who would not like to give them money or gifts, or permit some unqualified works. Furthermore, cultural clashes and political stands also contribute to the unfair consequence of examination. Obviously, it is these unwarranted interferences that destroy the credibility and fairness of censorship.

Since there is no organ that serves as a supervisor for the censors, the justice of censorship will remain unsecured. As we all know, the greater the power, the greater the abuse. Without monitors, there would be no restrictions placed on the censors, which make them boldly and arbitrarily eliminate or tamper with others' works. If so, the censorship would never be justified. On the contrary, the reasonable surveillance will not only help to establish a scientific standard to assess the censors' professional qualifications but also act as a deterrent to avoid the misuse of their authorities. Both benefit the justice of censorship.

To sum up, the censorship, as long as it serves for the government alone, cannot be justified unless there is a scientific and proper supervisory organ to control the boundless authority. Also, the government should be more tolerant to the diverse cultures and arts to adapt to the globalization tendency.

flyingwindUID: 189320

写的不错！
开头第1段更是简单明了！

花之颜色UID: 187195

自己打捞一下,希望有人帮偶再瞅瞅

LSDUID: 157855

------题目------
Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified.
提纲:
1审查制度为政府统治服务,难以公平
2标准难以确定
3没有有效的监督
------正文------
Has censorship ever been justified? I concede that on certain occasions like protecting the youth from the impact of violence and eroticism, censorship plays a crucial role. However, in most cases, censorship is always unjustified, which is dependent on its purpose, uncertain standard, and lacking effective surveillance.[很好的开头，很清晰的说]

To begin with, [it is because the government unfairly makes use of censorship to rule out some information stacked against its domination.] In history, censorship was established to safeguard class interest, which usually was adverse to public good and impeded social advancement. Since modern newspaper was born, British government had legislated a law, which stipulated that newspaper should not cover anything about the parliament. And before Independence War, American newspaper was also under strict control from[of??] British colonists. Any defiant reporters would be punished and persecuted severely. In fact, these cases are very common in the process of media development. Even today, the strict control on information's circulation is everywhere. See some American employees related to media, who had been dismissed because during Iraq War, their reports went beyond the allowed range. These cases illustrate that the censorship, serving for the government's reign, is seldom fair.[这段写得很好啊，例子很贴切，词语变化多样，学习]

Besides, [it is difficult to establish a reasonable standard of censorship, which is another possible reason to explain why censorship is rarely justified.] For one thing, many artworks, beyond [the去掉] common one's[populace’s] understanding, may not be accepted by the mediocre censors. In fact, they do not have enough skills and knowledge to appreciate the value of artworks. And their imperious interference has two consequences. These unlucky artworks will be either completely excluded or cut down whimsically, which greatly damage the integrity of the artworks. For example, many foreign movies suffer this arbitrary abridgement and lose their artistic values. What’s[even] worse, the incoherent scenarios often puzzle the audience and disturb their comprehension. For another thing, the censors, for the sake of their self-interest, unfairly eliminate the works of some honest artists who would not like to give them money or gifts, or permit some unqualified works. Furthermore, cultural clashes and political stands also contribute to the unfair consequence of examination. Obviously, it is these unwarranted interferences that destroy the credibility and fairness of censorship.

[Since there is no organ that serves as a supervisor for the censors, the justice of censorship will remain unsecured.] As we all know, the greater the power, the greater the abuse[这句有点难以让人信服哦]. Without monitors, there would be no restrictions placed on the censors, which make them boldly and arbitrarily eliminate or tamper with others' works. If so, the censorship would never be justified. On[to] the contrary, the reasonable surveillance will not only help to establish a scientific standard to assess the censors' professional qualifications but also act as a deterrent to avoid the misuse of their authorities. Both benefit the justice of censorship.

To sum up, the censorship, as long as it serves for the government alone, cannot be justified unless there is a scientific and proper supervisory organ to control the boundless authority. Also, the government should be more tolerant to the diverse cultures and arts to adapt to the globalization tendency.
[楼主词汇量好大阿，学习]

花之颜色UID: 187195

多谢意见和称赞呵呵~意见很好,偶又学会一个词populace,以前没用过,不错~the greater the power, the greater the abuse这句好象是某个牛人的名言,所以偶就直接抓过来用了,没想太多的说!另外,偶的最大问题就是45分钟写不完的说,老是差几句,比较郁闷~