Government Censorship and the Modern World

Imagine a world, in which all of the media is filtered and treated to the point that one can only receive information the government controls. Sounds like something out of an Orwell novel right? This is happening in some countries around the globe, and it is more scary than one may think. Government censorship has taken the center stage in countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and some scattered middle eastern countries. Leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un restrict access to the internet, and to factual news, which results in most of the information given to the people being filled with propaganda (Rosenberg 1). This happens to the point where most of the citizens of these nations are completely unaware that information is being withheld from them. The plague against human rights by use of censorship is a serious problem in the world people live in today.

The right to be able to obtain true and honest information should be a basic human right, but this is being challenged by the act of censoring nations by governments of many nations (“censorship” 1). Even as technology has advanced over the last few decades, it has done little to stop the advance of censoring, as the government has advanced with it. The fact that there are people who cannot receive true world news is astonishing, it takes away from the knowledge of the people, and also creates a less educated voting class, if the country even allows their people to vote. Actions that restrict the flow of information to the people can be as subtle as passing laws that regulate “hate speech” or as large as scale as creating a gigantic firewall that restricts the internet (Rosenberg 1).

One of the most indetectable forms is the use of illegitimate news and state sponsored television. One example of this was a 2002 law, in which aimed at combating terrorism. What it did was target “extremist speech” by banning any action deemed as “incitement of hatred of hostility” and “humiliation of human dignity” (Rosenberg 1). What the Russian government did with this was take all information that could possibly be interpreted as anti-Putin, and block it from the mainstream, also taking any people that speak out and silencing them for “extremist” talk.

Even though Russia is widely known throughout the world for its false news reports, 94% of people still get their news from state sponsored television, and only 8% of those people believe that the news is false, or that information is being withheld (‘Censorship” 1). This is because the large amount of pro-Russia propaganda found on the state sponsored television. Because of the silencing of radical and extremist talk, all that is left is what the Russian government finds appropriate for the people, which of course is entirely propaganda.

Independent journalism is yet another thing that is under attack by the governments of illiberal nations, including the killing of such journalists. One famous incident of this was the killing of activist and reporter Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 (Anna 1). She was an independent journalist who spoke out against the Russian government, and wrote many politically driven books, articles, and columns. On October 7th, 2006, she was killed in an elevator in her apartment building. Eventually five men were arrested for her death, but it still remains a mystery who bought the contract for that killing (Roth 1). Many people believe it was another attempt to silence any free-thinkers by the government, this time with lethal force (Bennett 1).

Another place where the killing of journalists is rising is the Philippines. In December of 2016, newspaper publisher Larry Que was shot in the head while attempting to enter a building, which held his insurance office. Also, other members of his newspaper have received death threats after the publication of the controversial article two weeks ago. The government of the Philippines has come under fire after more than 75 journalists have been killed since the year 1992. Also coming under criticism was the president's comments about the killings earlier this year, “'Just because you are a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you are a son of a bitch, freedom of expression cannot help you if you have done something wrong.' (Kam, Roberts 1). His comment perpetuates the attitude of some foreign governments regarding censorship and the right to independent journalism.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

In a large portion of countries where censorship is used, artwork is under no exception. One nation like this is the Soviet Union, where there is a former law preventing artists from being funded by private organizations (Rosenberg 1). The only funding that artists, like painters and sculptors can accept, is from the government. This leads to the creating of politically acceptable works of art that are used to promote the state. It was only after the death of Joseph Stalin that people felt like they could express their beliefs through their artwork, leading to some artistic masterpieces from the social realism movement. Even with this law in place, some artists were still able to create art with politically motivated messages in them, such as Dmitri Shostakovich’s 5th symphony, and Vira Mukhina’s “Worker and IKolkhoz woman”. These works challenged the authority of the government by placing subliminal messages into them, which most of the citizens were able to pick up on.

One of the most extreme cases of censorship conducted by the government is North Korea’s. It is fairly common knowledge that the country of North Korea is somewhat cut off from the outside world. Its current leader, Kim Jong Un has come under fire from the rest of the world because of how censored the nation is, but it did not start with him, rather his grandfather Kim Il Sung, who founded the country in 1948. The tradition of the dictator-esque leadership roles has been passed down from generation to generation until it has landed us with its current leader, who was appointed in December of 2011.

The level of censorship present in North Korea is astounding. In the age of the internet, the United States has over 1.5 billion known IP addresses. Compare that to the surprisingly low 1,024 known IP addresses present in North Korea (“Propaganda” 1). Another example that sets North Korea above the rest is the censoring of world news. Nations like China and Russia allow limited news from around the globe, North Korea has completely shut itself off, effectively withholding every piece of information about the world from their citizens. Marketing of the state through use of billboards and state sponsored television portrays an evil and hate filled outside world, and gives the illusion that they are in the best possible place to live. The censoring of the nation has come to the point that other countries are using it as attacks.

A famous incident of when a government used censorship to attack another country was when rising tensions between North and South Korea came to a peak, South Korea began blasting world news over the DMZ, also known as the demilitarized zone, which Acts as a border between north and south Korea, with loud-speakers, informing the public about the rest of the world. This caused so much anger that China had to step in and tell both countries to “exercise constraint”.

A point that one may bring up to support censorship is that it, in some situations, helps keep the peace. If one withholds information that may cause an uproar in the population of a country, then it will prevent protests or fear, which may lead to worse situations for the nation. Although on the surface this may seem like a logical reasoning, there are reasons why this is not the best solution. An example one may bring up to disprove this claim is the pentagon papers released after the Vietnam war.

When America was first pushed into the war, Lyndon B. Johnson made the country believe that there was just cause for them to be there, including examples he used such as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It was later revealed through the pentagon papers that there really wasn't any good reasons for America to be there. Naturally this caused a large amount of anger and hostility in the people of America, but in the end, it was better for them that they knew what happened. This shows that no matter how difficult the news may be to swallow, it will be beneficial for the people of a nation to know what is happening.

Although fake news may seem to be a problem in the United States, the use of fake news and censorship is far worse in other nations. Whether it be filing state sponsored television with propaganda, or completely cutting off one's nation from the outside world, the censoring of people is a much more widespread issue than most people realize. We live in a world today where some countries keep information contained by killing those who spread it. People live in a world today where one of the most hated leaders in history is extremely loved by his people, because of the alternative facts that he spreads to his nation. The censoring of the people is a violation of our basic human rights, which are rarely taken into account by leaders of such nations, and if humanity wants to achieve any sort of worldwide peace or agreement, it begins with eradicating the use of censorship.