Is censorship necessary?

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

No not at all.. Unless the text is realistic, it shouldnt be banned.

Censorship on internet is... something useless IMHO. Yes, there are people that are doing all sorts of notorious things, spreading rumors etc, but I dont think there is a need for censorship.

These issues are too insignificant when compared to other issues that need immediate attention.

Should a film/ video/ comment be banned because it can hurt the sentiments of some section of the society?

This question is a little too vague, Seoul. According to me, a video that reflects the realities of life shouldnt be censored IMHO ..let it be a video contained of sex, religion, whatever. A video that is unreealistic should be banned.

The video may be completely realistic but it may hurt the sentiments of one religious sect or orthodox viewers and lead to riots and outcries of war. That is where censorship comes in.

However, this does not happen in India... there are people that will object to a funny cartoon, an adult movie, or anything that deals with realities of religion/rituals ,etc.

Exactly. How many films will you not release because it hurts the sentiments of some? How many books will you ban because some find it offending?

Black Friday for example, was stuck in court for 2 years before it was released. And then just before its release, another petition was filed to stop the release stating that it could have negative impact on people regarding court's verdict on the bomb blast as the decision was still pending. After a long hustle the film was finally released and gained acclaim all across the world.

Should a cartoon caricature be removed from textbook because it may influence young minds in the wrong way?

Frankly speaking, I dont see why a CARTOON is being made an issue, by both the parties - the NCERT and the petitioner. It's a cartoon afterall. The irrational petitioner should've taken it in a light hearted manner, and the NCERT chairman also should've accepted the removal instantly because the peitioner seems to be creating HUGE fuss about nothing. It's a cartoon afterall... the kids back in the 70s had NO pictures in their textbooks?

I found this 'issue' too stupid .

I agree. Personally I had those same 'cartoons' in my textbook when I was in school and rather than influencing me in a negative way they just bought color and humor in my otherwise boring civics book.

Should a book be banned because it states views which are too bold and unconventional or may contain dirt on a publicly renowned figure?

NO, not at all! I am completely against this.. because it's a human right to speak/express your views... it's not like the author is publishing his work on daily newspapers. His books are read by people who prefer to read.. Literary works, moreover should be taken as a form of entertainment, as a study of literature, writing style etc.

The Satanic Verses, a book by Salman Rushdie got violent opposition and accusations of blasphemy from some Muslims so much so that even a Fatwa was issued ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie.

Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India- a book banned in the state of Gujarat because it suggested that Mahatma Gandhi had a homosexual relationship.

This topic is very vast... I feel in a way, it's good that certain things are being censored... because, personally, I find people that disrespect and diss at the govt on social networking sites, very annoying. Such people are... nobodies TBH with you. They are literally LIVING and are able to afford a mobile phone and all because of the govt, and they tweetthrough the same mobile to diss at the govt.? How ungrateful can you get??

Just think about it, a country with population explosion and extreme poverty, with economic disparities and so many communal and secular divisions is running...without experiencing a doomsday, without experienceing sever inflation... cant you just be thankful to the govt. ??

Secondly, if you are so unhappy with the way govt is funtioning, then why dont you work hard, and become something? Motivate others to also workhard and become administrators? Or, just simply get out of this country? NO... nobody does that, it's very easy to send stupid useless tweets and act cool. act like the govt's shortcomings are really getting on your nerves. These people are gutless IMHO.

Personally, believe that a man has no right to mock at anyone or anything that is at higher pedestal than himself, that works hundred times more than his brain does. What does he know about the administration, bureaucracy, etc? I am sure 99.9% of those people that nag nag and keep nagging, dissing, abusing the govt are nobodies at life, and have no idea about how govt and administration functions, if they did, they wouldnt be so ruthless! I even wonder if they are succesful at life. Giving your opinion is one thing and acting smart is another.

LOL, I really dislike such people! 😆

I don't post hate mail against politicians on social networking sites or send texts dissing the government but I do strongly feel that the government is not functioning properly.

Those politicians who are interested in nothing but creating bottomless bank accounts for themselves, those government officials who take funds required for the welfare of the society to fill their own pockets, those transactions that happen under the table never to be seen or heard about again- I dislike all that.

Take the coalgate scam controversy for example. CAG's report is being dismissed as being rubbish while the opposition is hellbent on not letting this opportunity go to

make the PM resign.

Coming back to censorship of social media... i sorta like it ;)

Also because, it's misleading... the government should find ways to have tabs on messages, comments, images... not on stupid morphed images which hurt the egos of politicians, but ones which are concerned with communal disturbances, religion etc. These are sensitive issues... it's saddening how there was an exodus of NE people across the nation :(

Agreed.

Censorship is ¦ very ¦¦¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ in ¦¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦... I think we need a seperate channel with MA certificate...MA for a mature audience, contains coarse language, some nudity and adult themes ..😊

Originally posted by: Prometeus

Censorship is ' very '''''' ''''' in ''''' ''''''... I think we need a seperate channel with MA certificate...MA for a mature audience, contains coarse language, some nudity and adult themes ..😊

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Is censorship necessary? No, No and No.

I believe freedom of speech and expression is an inalienable edifice of any functioning Democracy. A system that is incapable of tolerating difference in opinions and suppresses its critics is its own greatest enemy and its decay is inevitable. You'll find there's a strong correlation between freedom of speech & expression and effectiveness of a democracy. Societies that restrain freedom of speech, expression and media often tend to be more unstable and flawed democracies.

I think the most common excuses for imposing censorship in India are A) Alleged indecency/obscenity/nudity in films, media and magazines B) Disfiguring eminent personalities C) Hurting religious sentiments and I'll try to offer my arguments against each of these.

First of all, I believe words like Morality, decency, obscenity, vulgarity etc have no meaning in absoluteness. They are purely subjective. Every individual has his/her own interpretation for these words. What is indecent for one might be acceptable for other and vice versa. One woman might not be comfortable in anything short of a Burqa while other one might be comfortable in a bikini or even less. To each her own and both must be allowed to make choices for their lives. You can define what is theft or what is rape or what is murder in more or less absolute terms, but you cannot provide a definition of words like *immorality*, *indecency* or *vulgarity* that can be applied universally and therefore is preposterous to try and impose a monolithic moral code upon the entire society. We must understand that every individual has different ideas, different way of seeing things, different tastes and preferences and different comfort level and no single interpretation of culture or morals can suffice an entire society. If someone finds some content of a film or print media obscene, the easiest thing s/he can do is not to watch it or even criticize it in a civilized way; however s/he doesn't have any right to dictate her/his own lifestyle upon other members of the society. Laws should concern matters that are universal and well defined crimes and not for moral policing at personal level.

Second is the case of disfiguring important personalities through books or satires. Again I think one must not curtail people's freedom of speech or expression as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone. Tolerance of criticism and obtuse opinions is crucial to the health of a society in this information age. If any published cartoon or literary work seems offensive towards national heroes, it should either be taken in light humour or addressed through debates and discussion with the author instead of issuing a blanket ban on the work. Because when you ban a book it appears as though you are suppressing the truth and indirectly garners more negativity against the heroes whom you are trying to defend. Unfortunately in India there's a strong mob mentality which has no place for individualism and intellectualism.

Last and most importantly, Offending Religious Sentiments. I think India is a very unique among all secular states, because India holds the record of being only secular state that enforces blasphemy law and unconditionally favours all sort of religious dunces and entertains their tantrums overriding the secular and democratic values it was supposed to uphold. *My Religious sentiments are hurt* is a very effective weapon at the hands of religious communities, with which they can make everyone - President downwards - bow before themselves. To blame critics of religion for provoking riots is like blaming a rape victim for inviting her rapist. Riots are not a natural reaction to criticism of religion. Riots are caused because some religious people are intolerant of contradicting opinions and its their conscious choice to restore to violence and hooliganism instead of civilized ways of dialogue and discussions. Therefore its religious communities alone who are responsible for riots, fatwas, death threats, pogroms etc etc. If anyone needs to behave themselves, if anyone needs to be made to draw the lines, its religious leaders and not secularists or critics. Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin or MF Hussain didn't pronounce death sentence on anyone's head nor did they break, burn or vandalize public and private properties. Its religious people who did all of that and therefore its them who need to realize that no matter how offended you might get, you cannot resort to violence. In Western countries both religious conservatives and critics of religion co-exist like civilized humans are supposed to do. Atheists openly deride and parody religions, books criticizing religion are published in thousands and yet no religious leader issues a death sentence on the author's head or make them flee the land. Because unlike Indians and Middle-Easterners, the Westerners have learned the basic idea of civilization which is "I might not agree with your opinion but still I shall defend your right to speak it aloud". The day our people acknowledge this golden principle there'll be no more fatwas and communal riots.

Originally posted by: Angel-likeDevil

Seoul, I'd like to add/edit my post..

Censorship... should be applied in a clever manner.

Social media(internet), is afterall, unfortunately a medium for people to express their 'views'. And, yess... the question of 'freedom to expression' does come into picture. And it shouldnt be curbed. HOWEVER, accounts that post misleading information, or post something which is communally sensitive, in short, spreads messages to people which could threaten national security must be dealt with stringent actions.

The govt, should appoint a body that monitors and looks into the activities of such people.

Cyber world is giant, and people across the nation rely on it, hence.. the online world is a very sensitive area now. The govt, shouldnt put a ban on all the social networking sites but should monitor these sites, ban the IP of people who act in a way which could pose a threat to national security.

I remember one of my friends telling me how 4 Americans got arrested for just merely joking around on Facebook that they will plant a bomb somewhere(dont remember so well) !

^^ see, the Indian Govt too can appoint moderators everywhere..

The exodus of North East Indians was just too much! This should be a lesson to the govt.

Also, finally, I believe, as citizens of India.. it is the responsiblity of people to maintain a CONDUCT. It's social media afterall... would you abuse the govt or spread wrong messages to people directly in a society?? NO. But many people rely on the online world too... hence, people should watch what they say. Like I said, expressing your opinions is one thing, and abusing and misinforming the people is another. Spreading hate messages orchestrated by online trolls - to instigate the communal sentiments and other sensitivities should be prohibited through appointed cyber moderators.

Banning the sites isnt the solution, it is infact unconstitutional... govt has to regulate and monitor the social networking sites without curbing the freedom and without letting trolls/pre-medidated cyber criminals achieve their motives.

Both the citizens and the govt should work in collaboration on this issue. Neither should cross their limits and overtake/overpower another.. Balance must be found, and here, the govt. has the upper hand to take actions smartly.