Curiosity killed the Cat and Censorship the Virgin

I don't believe public censorship is necessary, for a multitude of reasons. My view is made clear through discussion of the level at which censorship should be enacted and the preservation in censorship's destruction.

The Quran is an interesting source to turn to when tackling the topic of censorship. It mandates censorship of hair through hijaab, yet warns very strictly against the possibility of censorship of the Quran. In fact, all Muslims must learn to read and write Arabic and read the Quran in the original language in order to ensure that no parts were censored or meaning lost in translation. Thus, we are presented with a desire to censor the physical and opposition to censoring ideas and knowledge.
Now, when presented with the idea of censoring sex and violence on TV, a dilemma is created: this is precisely where the spheres of the physical and the ideal meet. After all, are reproduction and blood not part of the essence of humanity?
Enter the idea of "Shariah Reasoning"(Kelsay, 340) is a fairly controversial one. Whereas it does not censor any part of the Quran, it reinterprets it for "changing times"(Kelsay, 340). This accounts for the disparity between modern and "extremist" Muslim beliefs. Those many call extremists are simply those who feel premodern ideas should be "not so much interpreted as applied"(Kelsay, 340).
Now, we can take Shariah Reasoning outside of the context of the Quran (although I'm pretty sure relating censorship of the Quran with that of Sex and Violence is very blasphemous), and apply the general idea of reasoning to media censorship.
Regardless of what you may believe should be censored, the more important question is - who is to decide what should be censored? It is a very controversial issue, and we all have our own opinions. This is mind, can a government truly decide so casually what the people feel? For this reason I believe that by citing the great American values of Democracy and free will, the duty and decision to censor falls upon the individual. There are some things children should not watch- so don't let your children watch them. If parents aren't going to make an effort, then children will see sex in violence in alternate forms. For this reason it is most beneficial to vote for candidate A, who opposes all media censorship.

Hunting renders a child much more capable of violence than video games do.

Questions immediately arise- seeing sex and violence on TV will encourage underage people to have sex and kill people! Incorrect assumption. Studies have shown that video game violence does not affect aggression negatively. Rather it serves as an outlet. Serial Killers are often those found outside, torturing animals. Sociopaths are those who enjoy tormenting others much more than killing any pixel-made man. We can look to the lack of censorship in Europe, and although there is more sex in Europe, there is much more SAFE sex. In our changing world, we cannot expect everyone to remain chaste and not have sex out of wedlock, but the least we can do is educate them. Sex is already very strongly suggested in our media, but it is not shown, leading the viewer to be curious. And as we all know, curiosity killed the cat and apparently censorship the virgin.
Linking back to Islam, Dinesh D'Souza vouches that lack of censorship has lead Muslim countries to believe that popular culture and "the immorality of blue America... represent[s] all of America"(D'Souza, 278), thus fostering anti-American feelings. There is a simple response- since when do we care? No, just kidding. However, it is important to note that lack of censorship does not mean that every show from Barnie to America's Next Top Model will become Girls Gone Wild. And as society becomes comfortable with uncensored media, there will not be as much of it. It's very much like the child that is told he cannot have chocolate. When he is finally on his own and able to buy as much chocolate as he wants, after a period of obsession comes moderation. I believe this theory will apply in our case as well. Additionally, international perspectives are not entirely based on media. The uncensored media of Europe is not scrutinized by Middle Eastern countries. Thus, this is a faulty source of resent. Additionally, it is a misconception that all Muslim societies promote Burkhas. Try watching a music video in Iran, where a sweaty man and woman dressed in sexy clothes trade glances. It's not only America.

Poking a little fun at "middle eastern censorship."


Conclusively, censorship is the duty of the individual, and perhaps lack of censorship benefits maturing members of our society.