Censorship means to filter, reconstruct or even destroy information at times. The motto accompanying it keeps on diversifying from a community to a country. Censorship dates back to 1900s and now it takes numerous forms in 21st century, where information streams from every direction. We can categorize censorship into three main fields, political, moral and religious.
In the timeline of our world, we can see multiple events which point out the necessity to censor information. It all started around the 1900s when the government required masking the freedom of speech, for the benefit of the masses or for its own. At times, organizations even tried to stop the flow of information by igniting it. The book burning holocaust in Germany has left a scar in the tales of censorship. Everything is relative in this world which granted us freedom of speech. The serene perspective of one maybe wounding for another.
An information slide down in multiple forms, one of them is art. From the time immemorial our ancestors have passed down information in the form of art, be it a picture inside the caves, or a sculpture sitting somewhere. Art is not just a way to bring the vision into something depictable, it is much more than that. Our ancestors knew the potential of information & communication, that's why they considered it vital to channel down the knowledge into future generations.
Every information is followed by a peril to be censored, art is no distinct. Spilling out imagination on a paper is an art for one; meanwhile, it may be obscene for others. From the artist's view, art may be a result of freedom of speech but, from the viewer's perspective, it may be objectionable. These disputes happen frequently in each department. A devotee of God may find art to be offending. A kid's parents may find it disturbing for showcasing adult graphic content in a public gallery. A celebrity may feel provoked by seeing him/herself in a mocked state. This makes us ask ourselves, should art be censored?
Moreover, if we examine the idea of censoring art, then what variety of art should be censored? Taking an account of children, their parents may find art to be obscene because it displays nudity. But, we can't say that art is obscene just because it involves nudity or revolves around some sexual theme. Then how will we set criteria for what's appropriate for children? Even though if we draw a thin line for what's fit for children and what's unfit, will we able to implement it? Because we can't completely censor these kinds of art, as it has a huge market in another segment of viewers. The only option we are left with is to filter a certain fraction of viewers in this case.
In other cases involving religious or political disputes, we can't previously compute if our audience will find it offensive or not. Mocking any religious idols will surely lead to outrage in people but besides that, it's troublesome to estimate if any portion of the public will accept it or not. After all, who are we to decide beforehand that who is to be blamed, the artist who put his innovation, creativity, and emotions on the canvas, or the spectators who perceived it to be misleading.
In the past, we can see numerous instances where a segment of viewers were completely outraged by the broadcasting of a magazine or a movie. One such case is of the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Charlie Hebdo is a French-based magazine which used satire to mock French Politics. Though, in a few illustrations, French Politics was replaced by Islam. In one of the publications, they printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, for which the Union of French Islamic Organizations attempted to sue Charlie Hebdo. They failed. These acts placed the community of Charlie Hebdo under the threat of Al-Qaeda. On 7 January 2015, two brothers entered the office of Charlie Hebdo, shooting 17 people, including 11 journalists and others identified as security personnel. The brothers were recognized as members of Al-Qaeda. Aforementioned reveals how elements are different from every individual's perspective & how a certain fraction of viewers get outraged by a picture alone.
One more such case is of the movie Padmavati. The movie revolves around the historical figure, Queen Padmavati. She is known for protecting her honour by committing Jauhar (self-immolation), upon invasion by Alauddin Khilji. During the shooting of the movie, a word spread through the grapevine that there was an intimate scene among the two. Upon hearing this, the Rajput community started a protest and appealed before the Supreme Court to stop the release of the movie. Surprisingly, even a bounty of INR 5 Crore was announced for bringing the head of the director. After the screening, the censor board found no such exhibitions which would hurt any community's sentiments. Eventually, the movie was released, though after a few months from its original release date.
Above examples reveal how a specific section of viewers can take the illustrations out of context, which could drive the artist or the viewer to some unfortunate edge.
I believe that we all are bound to the freedom of speech but, ultimately, there’s a line that should not be crossed. It’s blurry, but it’s there. It doesn't advocate a student practicing abusive words in school or a person giving a wicked call in a crowded place—“There's a bomb here—.“
- Sachin Kumar
In the timeline of our world, we can see multiple events which point out the necessity to censor information. It all started around the 1900s when the government required masking the freedom of speech, for the benefit of the masses or for its own. At times, organizations even tried to stop the flow of information by igniting it. The book burning holocaust in Germany has left a scar in the tales of censorship. Everything is relative in this world which granted us freedom of speech. The serene perspective of one maybe wounding for another.
An information slide down in multiple forms, one of them is art. From the time immemorial our ancestors have passed down information in the form of art, be it a picture inside the caves, or a sculpture sitting somewhere. Art is not just a way to bring the vision into something depictable, it is much more than that. Our ancestors knew the potential of information & communication, that's why they considered it vital to channel down the knowledge into future generations.
Every information is followed by a peril to be censored, art is no distinct. Spilling out imagination on a paper is an art for one; meanwhile, it may be obscene for others. From the artist's view, art may be a result of freedom of speech but, from the viewer's perspective, it may be objectionable. These disputes happen frequently in each department. A devotee of God may find art to be offending. A kid's parents may find it disturbing for showcasing adult graphic content in a public gallery. A celebrity may feel provoked by seeing him/herself in a mocked state. This makes us ask ourselves, should art be censored?
Moreover, if we examine the idea of censoring art, then what variety of art should be censored? Taking an account of children, their parents may find art to be obscene because it displays nudity. But, we can't say that art is obscene just because it involves nudity or revolves around some sexual theme. Then how will we set criteria for what's appropriate for children? Even though if we draw a thin line for what's fit for children and what's unfit, will we able to implement it? Because we can't completely censor these kinds of art, as it has a huge market in another segment of viewers. The only option we are left with is to filter a certain fraction of viewers in this case.
In other cases involving religious or political disputes, we can't previously compute if our audience will find it offensive or not. Mocking any religious idols will surely lead to outrage in people but besides that, it's troublesome to estimate if any portion of the public will accept it or not. After all, who are we to decide beforehand that who is to be blamed, the artist who put his innovation, creativity, and emotions on the canvas, or the spectators who perceived it to be misleading.
In the past, we can see numerous instances where a segment of viewers were completely outraged by the broadcasting of a magazine or a movie. One such case is of the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Charlie Hebdo is a French-based magazine which used satire to mock French Politics. Though, in a few illustrations, French Politics was replaced by Islam. In one of the publications, they printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, for which the Union of French Islamic Organizations attempted to sue Charlie Hebdo. They failed. These acts placed the community of Charlie Hebdo under the threat of Al-Qaeda. On 7 January 2015, two brothers entered the office of Charlie Hebdo, shooting 17 people, including 11 journalists and others identified as security personnel. The brothers were recognized as members of Al-Qaeda. Aforementioned reveals how elements are different from every individual's perspective & how a certain fraction of viewers get outraged by a picture alone.
One more such case is of the movie Padmavati. The movie revolves around the historical figure, Queen Padmavati. She is known for protecting her honour by committing Jauhar (self-immolation), upon invasion by Alauddin Khilji. During the shooting of the movie, a word spread through the grapevine that there was an intimate scene among the two. Upon hearing this, the Rajput community started a protest and appealed before the Supreme Court to stop the release of the movie. Surprisingly, even a bounty of INR 5 Crore was announced for bringing the head of the director. After the screening, the censor board found no such exhibitions which would hurt any community's sentiments. Eventually, the movie was released, though after a few months from its original release date.
Above examples reveal how a specific section of viewers can take the illustrations out of context, which could drive the artist or the viewer to some unfortunate edge.
I believe that we all are bound to the freedom of speech but, ultimately, there’s a line that should not be crossed. It’s blurry, but it’s there. It doesn't advocate a student practicing abusive words in school or a person giving a wicked call in a crowded place—“There's a bomb here—.“
- Sachin Kumar
Want to get published on EMN and join the community? Here is an opportunity to join the Board of Young Leaders Program by Eat My News. Click here to know more: bit.ly/boardofyoungleaders
%20(1).jpg)
0 Comments