奋斗－0806－Issue224

rickltUID: 2281556

补上日前第二次作业，不久补第三篇
224 "Censorship is rarely, if ever, justified."
   审查制度很少被证明是正当的。

Is censorship seldom justified, as the speaker contends? I agree insofar that the saying is sensible in some certain fields. At some points, however, we should not lose sight of the fact that the saying could be problematic when face to the areas where censorship really works. An contrary view would just reveal the naive and simplicity of the speaker.

  On one hand, censorship is indispensable owing to government's duty for stability and then prosperity. All the mass media try to maximize their influence by means of exaggerate what they heard or experienced. In that case, many appalling news could be forged without responsibility, which may cause nationwide panic and endanger stability of the society. We all share the belief that the world would be in great chaos, with absolute freedom of communication of information. Government, at this time, is expected to bear burden of filtering out the harmful information that would lead confusion on the large scale. Our children are kept form sex and violence because of the effective work of censorship, without which raising crime rates are predictable. The system of film classification is a excellent example, movies are classified into G, PG, R etc. levels in convenience of audience to select.

  On the other hand, everything is a double-edged blade and censorship is no exception. I follow the reasoning that the executants are human beings so that it's not a ideal state. We have various emotions and desires which effect our justice and keep us away from facing the problem directly. Providing that the emotional influence have effected our executants, that would be a disaster. 'There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes', the saying is used to point out that subject judgment hoodwinks our eyes and determines our mind. Since a person who can perfectly avoid involving in desires is not existed, how can we importune a justified censorship?
  
  Deep down a further solid argument for unfairness of censorship is that if the government-to be exact, some people- controls the transportation of information, risks exist that some politicians may abuse their right to hide certain news, scandals particularly. If we cast a look back at 2003, SARS-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome- which broke out at china, were concealed at primary time and this wrong decision caused thousands deaths. This could be the strongest evidence for the injustice of censorship.

   In sum, though injustice does exist in current censorship, we can not deny its importance and indispensable. With justification, censorship should go ahead and try to keep it impartial.