Issu224【07-10G Superstar大帖 7.31 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

TOPIC: ISSUE224 - "Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified."
WORDS: 606          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2007-7-31

Does censorship seldom or never justified, as the speaker asserts? After consideration I partially agree. The censorship on media, like the speaker says is rarely, or even never fair. But censorships in sciences and arts are in many cases justified and the situation varies in different societies.  

When censorship has something to do with politics or the interest of nation and government, as the speaker says, it is rarely justified. Any government, no matter democratic or communist, both make use of censorship to make the constitution stable and for the interest of the government. For example, during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the Western, all the countries have a censorship system on media and public press, at least make influence or pressure on those opinions that contradict with the governments'. In that time one can never see any words that favored the Western culture and politics while in Western opinions that support the Communism was also very rare. Many opinions and articles were deleted before newspapers were printed by the censor systems. This kind of censorship is seldom fair for its nature, that is, to serve for politics. The goal of this censorship is to eliminate different ideas and values, and the only criteria  is whether the ideas are accepted by political leaders but not whether the ideas are right and progressive. So I think the speaker's assertion has merit insofar as in politics.

When it comes to the field of science, the situation has a little change, that sensor system in many cases are fair and justified while in others unfair. Many nations now has a relatively loose censor system on science research and most process of censoring or checking are conducted by peer panels, which can best make the censorship fair to scientists whose works are censored. Because in most cases the peer panels concentrate only on sciences but not on the potential political and commercial influence the works may bring about.  However, not all censor systems on science are fair even if peer panels take part in. In Soviet Union, governments directly take control of peer panel and only those who affirmatively support the party are permitted to join the peer panel. As a result, many scientific programs are cancelled only because the communism party unfairly considered them useless. And during the Soviet Union times few great scientific achievements beyond the research of weapons had been made.  So in the science world the censorship is fair and justified in some circumstances while in some extreme cases not.

In the area of arts, the situation is similar to that of science. In democratic societies the goal of censorship is not to serve for the government and politics but instead, for people. For example, movies are divided into different classes to prevent some movie from making negative influence on young audience. But those political ideas in the movies can not be censored or permitted for the sake. In some nations, including China, where I live, censorship on movie is still extensively influenced by politics although the influence from politics declines in recent years. Some movies made by both Chinese and foreign directors are not permitted to be shown now, while some of them have already been watched though Internet and received widely praise. So, in general, censorships on arts are fair, although in some cases of a few nations exceptions exist.

To sum up, the speakers has absolute merit in censorship on public media, but in field of sciences and arts the claim is not totally right for the censorship is fair and justified in democratic societies.   

desirermimiUID: 2108321

Does censorship seldom or never justified, as the speaker asserts? After consideration I partially agree. The censorship on media, like the speaker says is rarely, or even never fair. But censorships in sciences and arts are in many cases[in most time] justified and the situation varies in different societies.  

When censorship has something to do with politics or the interest of nation and government, as the speaker says, it is rarely justified. Any government, no matter democratic or communist[民主和共产主义是对立的吗？其实俺们社会主义也是讲民主的挖，况且好象还没有到了共产主义阶段的政府吧：D], both make use of censorship to make the constitution stable and for the interest of the government. For example, during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the Western, all the countries have a censorship system on media and public press, at least make influence or pressure on those opinions that contradict with the governments'. In that time one can never see any words that favored the Western culture and politics[in the Soviet Union] while in Western opinions that support the Communism was also very rare. Many opinions and articles were deleted[filtrated筛选] before newspapers were printed by the censor systems. This kind of censorship is seldom fair for its [original]nature, that is, to serve for politics. The goal of this censorship is to eliminate different ideas and values, and the only criteria  is whether the ideas are accepted by political leaders[are beneficial to the politicians’ interests] but not whether the ideas are right and progressive. So I think the speaker's assertion has merit insofar as in politics.

When it comes to the field of science, the situation has a little change, that sensor system in many cases are fair and justified while in others[这个是什么？我没读懂你要说的“其它”] unfair. Many nations now has a relatively loose censor system on science research and most process of censoring or checking are conducted by peer panels, which can best make the censorship fair to scientists whose works are censored. Because in most cases the peer panels concentrate only on sciences but not on the potential political and commercial influence the works may bring about. [这个because弄得我还以为后面接着来个结果呢，原来是解释了前面的：D] However, not all censor systems on science are fair even if peer panels take part in. In Soviet Union, governments directly take control of peer panel and only those who affirmatively support the party are permitted to join the peer panel. As a result, many scientific programs are cancelled only because the communism party unfairly considered them useless[可以说不符合政治需要]. And [as a result]during the Soviet Union times few great scientific achievements beyond the research of weapons had been made. [这句话没必要了，它对于你要说的合理还是不合理没有帮助] So in the science world the censorship is fair and justified in some circumstances while in some extreme cases not.

In the area of arts, the situation is similar to that of science. In democratic societies the goal of censorship is not to serve for the government and politics but instead, for people. For example, movies are divided into different classes to prevent some movie[movies，什么样的电影，可以简单举例说which include sex and violence contents] from making negative influence on young audience. But those political ideas in the movies can not be censored or permitted for the sake. In some nations, including China, where I live, censorship on movie is still extensively influenced by politics although the influence from politics declines in recent years. Some movies made by both Chinese and foreign directors are not permitted to be shown now, while some of them have already been watched though Internet and received widely praise.[为什么这样的电影被禁止播放呢？没有说清楚，可以和上面一样简单举例带过] So, in general, censorships on arts are fair, although in some cases of a few nations exceptions exist.

To sum up, the speakers has absolute merit in censorship on public media, but in field of sciences and arts the claim is not totally right for the censorship is fair and justified in democratic societies.   [结尾单单是总结有些单薄了，可以升华下，比如展望下，呵呵，如果时间够的话：D]

[小结：恩，发现你现在比较喜欢采用在同一个段落既正面又反面，但是我不太敢采用还是选择走保守路线吧。
总的来说，很棒了在限时以内写成这样！
保持状态！]