<doc.id=2011.a3>
<title> Censorship (necessary protection or big bully laws? </title>
The increasing violence in the western world is one of our major concerns, and in the search for reasons and cures, television has become one of the scapegoats. TV violence might very well be a contributing factor, but more distinct is the fact that action movies are products of the audience's demands. In spite of the market's yearnings, the governments have given themselves both the task and the freedom to cut out parts they do not approve of. Is it right for a small group of people to have that power over the media?

 I find the whole concept of censorship disturbing. It is a big brother mentality claiming that the state has superior knowledge to ordinary citizens', concerning what is good and bad for us. Don't we want the opportunity to decide for ourselves? I would like to be able to choose what I watch, based on advisories, reviews and commercials, and not on the authorities' recommendations. 

Censorship is most often considered harmless. Perhaps cutting off a few action sequences is not such a big deal, but seen in a larger perspective it shows great lack of respect. Firstly towards the creator of the feature. Art is not to be altered and refined by others than the artist. Secondly, censorship is lack of respect towards the viewers. The public is capable of distinguishing between fiction and reality, and not in need of the protection inflicted by censorship. Furthermore, it can even make considerable changes to a feature. It can draw forth a rather different sense in the film than the one intended by the creator. That, I believe, somewhat violates the freedom of expression, which is a serious problem.

The step from reducing the amount of violence in a film to deleting unwanted statements is not very big. In many countries not only violence is rejected, but also opposing political opinions, and certain degrees of nudity and sex. The proverb give them an inch, and they will walk all over you suits this situation. I fear that if we let the authorities censor violence, other restrictions will shortly follow. Television is supposed to be our chance to see both sides of the coin, our chance to take a stand. Allowing the government to hamper with that limits our freedom. Nevertheless, some people claim that censorship is important, even necessary, calling it the least evil.

Many pro-censorship advocates argue that television violence is harmful to children, and that a lot of the criminality among youths is a product of that. I must say that I agree. Watching a beaten man bounce up again like jack-in-the-box does not give children a fair view of human endurance, and this might encourage to rougher games and brutality. Still censorship is not the solution. It comes with the parental responsibility to protect the children against dangers, and controlling their TV habits is one important task. The TV should not be regarded as a nanny. Still I maintain that adults should not be deprived of this kind of entertainment due to some parents' lack of supervision. Watching kids is not an easy job, but there is a solution. The V chip, discussed in the Bellafante article, is an effective tool to achieve this, limiting children in their search for thrills and action, while allowing adults to choose their diversions freely.

There are so many alternatives to censorship: thorough reviews and advisories, the V chip, and two versions of the films being a few. Why hastily jump to the most limiting solution? Bringing up issues like parental responsibility, freedom of opinion and expression, the dangers of hampering the media and the risks with authority powers, I found that the key concept in this discussion still is choice. We should have the choice to watch action. The directors should not risk having their work mutilated. The censorship department should not have the power to curb our choices. So, is censorship really a necessary protection? No, I prefer calling it a bullying law.
</doc>