Censorship concepts and applications

¶ … evolution of censorship, namely to understand how and why the standards of this specific process have changed throughout time. In order to do that we will begin by presenting the definition of censorship and some episodes which best illustrate its development in the U.S.A. The paper will analyze censorship as applied to the media of television and the radio.

Censorship is a process through which things are valued and examined with the purpose of preventing them to be communicated to the others. The purpose of censorship is that of protecting the people from things that are harmful (language, meanings, art objects, anything). The main criterion which is applied when having in mind censorship intentions is decency. Anything that may be considered indecent, not by the entire society, but by a segment of it, is subject to destruction (or is withheld from publication).

Right from the beginning it must be underlined that the standards according to which censorship is being imposed have loosened considerably since the 40s. Some voices argue that this phenomenon can be explained through the sociological changes, in the sense that they are the ones which have affected the relaxation of the censorship mandates. Other voices (such as the right-wing conservatives) claim that the reason is to be found in religion, namely in Christianity which influences the degrees to which something is socially acceptable or not. There are also people who claim that in the case of words, the subjective dimension of interpretation plays a crucial role in defining what can be said on air and what can not. For example, words such as "twat" or "pussy" can be said on major networks such as ABC or CBS, but others such as "cum," "fuck" or "tits" can not. The channel representatives say that the latter are potentially stimulating for ideas, while the others are not (this is highly debatable).

Taking these data into consideration one could ask himself if there is just a single entity which decides upon what ought to be censored. Who is behind the censorship process? Society in general or just some specific authorities? In other words, are the general morals the ones which impose what people can see and hear in the public communication media or are there just some people who decide and impose their standards because they actually own the mass communication media? In theory, the deciding factors ought to be the standards of morality of society. In practice some might argue about the power that the media corporations have. The reality is that it is enough to look at the reactions that the public has to various types of censorship or its absence to be more specific in order to understand that the mechanisms behind it are questionable.

There is a legislation in the field and programs and music are moderated according to the content that they present. Ratings such as "G, PG or R" are known by everyone. However, there are shows in which the host make it very clear to the audiences what they are talking about and they even say the first syllables of the words that they shouldn't be saying. The parties who should decide upon the censorship mechanisms are represented on the one hand by the politicians and on the other hand by the large audience. Under the circumstances in which the mass audience does not say anything to question the policies adopted by the politicians or the manner in which the public figures respect them or not, then these will be under the impression that the public has nothing against such forms of expression. The permissive attitude of the public is one of the factors which may influence the fate of censorship. While the public may be too permissive at times, this does not mean that politicians are always unbiased. In addition, numerous times the discussions of the official authorities often remain just that, rhetoric- without being translated into solid principles efficiently applied.

In the 60's words such as "god damn" or "son of a bitch" were inconceivable. Today they are allowed. Some might wonder why. I believe the transformation which has occurred at various levels, from language to morals. The boom of the media and the development of technology has allowed for models of behavior and speech to be transmitted in a manner which was not yet possible in the 60s. Some expressions were used as a part of slang only in certain situations and environments. Today, together with a phenomenon through which life values are actually turned upside down, people can become attracted to manners of speech which they believe to be appealing-because others have told them that they are appealing.

Another reason is to be sought in the people's desire for freedom of expression. Fifty and even 40 years ago the standards according to which society judged the individual and labeled him were a lot more severe than nowadays. Revolutions have taken place through important modifications in people's mentality. They have also been supported by the technological developments and the various discoveries, ranging from the fertility pill to the automobiles or the possibility to undergo sex change operations. Today most people have the impression that they are the rulers of their own world and that they want to be able to say anything they wish in whatever circumstance without having to "pay" for it.

However, looking at what happens in the media, it is safe to say that various contradictions exist. Pornography has become part of the mainstream culture, all the media are trying to impose beauty ideals and life styles in which sex and physical appeal are key factors. Artists such as Lady Gaga or Rihanna have achieved universal popularity through their provocative image and attitude with a very strong sexual appeal. The more provocative you are, the more people appreciate you. However, when Janet Jackson's nipple accidentally came out during a dance routine an entire scandal broke loose. There seems that double standards exist. Why is this so?

The answer may be found in the contradiction between the declared values of the people and the real ones. Showing a nipple, even by accident is considered indecent, yet the porn industry is the most prolific in the world. There is a lot of hypocrisy, but not only that. The lack of education and the lack of respect for the fellowmen are other factors which contribute to the existing situation. How else can one explain cases such as the one in which words are beeped over when everyone knows exactly what these words are? If people hated this type of language, then they would not tolerate it, not even when the "beep" method is used. The audience would sanction the people who use inappropriate language. Instead, the figures of television and the radio benefit from an aura of superiority, in the sense of omnipotence and omniscience (if he is there, then he must know what he is talking about- then I should accept what he says and behave like he does). A better education for the masses- focused on solid values and principles would be a means through which these double standards could be eliminated.

It is safe to say that there is a close relation between sexuality and morality. Sex has always been a tabu and people have always done more than they declared to have been doing. This happened because they were afraid of being judged by the others and rejected. The truth is that people have the need to aggregate, to be accepted by social groups. Belonging to a social group creates a feeling of safety and also contributes to the creation of the personal identity.