But our focus is primarily on state-supported efforts to control mass communication justified by claims of protecting the public interest, a form with profound implications for a democratic society.
But our focus is primarily on state-supported efforts to control mass communication justified by claims of protecting the public interest, a form with profound implications for a democratic society.Tags: University Of Texas Transfer EssayFormat Of Business PlanHow To Solve Pc ProblemsPhd Thesis MistakesPrimary Research PaperAre Leader Born Or Made EssayThe Fountainhead Scholarship Essay
Some censorship is largely symbolic, offering a way to enhance social solidarity by avoiding insults to shared values (e.g., a prohibition on flag burning).
It may be a form of moral education as with prohibitions on racist and sexist speech.
Authorities try (often in vain) to control new techniques of mass communication.
Three major means of direct censorship (pre-publication review, licensing and registration, and government monopolization) are preventive in nature.
More common than outright prohibition, is the segmentation of material involving time, place and person restrictions.
Direct government means of censorship must be considered separately from the availability of resources to create and distribute information, the activities of private groups and from informal censorship, including exclusion from sources of information and self-censorship.Yet most secrecy (e.g., concealing information about a surprise party or aspects of ones past) does not involve formal law and the law involves secrecy in many other ways.In a democratic society secrecy and openness reflect conflicting values and social needs and exist in an ever-changing dynamic tension.Or masquerading under high principles of protecting public welfare and morals, it may simply involve a desire to protect the interests of the politically, economically and religiously powerful by restricting alternative views, criticism and delegitimating information.Among the most common historical rationales are political (sedition, treason, national security), religious (blasphemy, heresy), moral (obscenity, impiety), and social (incivility, irreverence, disorder). What they share is a claim that the public interest will be negatively affected by the communication.It involves a determination of what can, and can not, (or in the case of non-governmental efforts should and should not) be expressed to a broader audience in light of given political, religious, cultural, and artistic standards.Censorship may involve withholding or editing existing information, as well as preventing information from being created.Philosophers have considered ethics, (Bok 1989) students of politics the implications for democracy, (Shils 1956, Laquer 1985, Donner 19 Moynihan 1998) and other social scientists have studied the patterning, processes and correlates of information control rules across institutions and societies.(Simmel 1964, Goffman 1969, Tefft 1980, Wilsnak 1980, Scheppele 1988).Given their social importance, there is a surprising lack of empirical or explanatory research seeking to understand the contours of secrecy and openness and why, and with what consequences, some forms have the support of law.Nor has there been much research contrasting different forms of legal secrecy.