Name: Sorab Baheti

Roll No: 12725

Assignment 3
Answer:
I do not completely agree with all four statements made individually but I believe that each one
of them imparts some sort of correctness to how censorship should be understood. I believe
censorship is like a living thing constantly evolving with time and changing with different
cultures and societies. It’s difficult and complex to state regarding censorship. My views for
censorship may be fit now according to me and some others like me but that is what I think and
have experienced in my life ,it may not be correct in even a near future time. We can see with
all four perspectives their pros and cons one by one.
As M.Holquist says that it’s not a relevant question to ask that there should be any censorship
or not, censorship should be there as a fact, rather the question is about what should be level
of censorship that should be done. His views are completely justified and something to which I
relate most. It is correct to assume that censorship is needed to moderate what we are
receiving in terms of information as we cannot have a child be exposed to obscene and
incorrect texts building up his character with violence or no respect for anyone, we need to
have a control on certain aspects of it. But this has flaws as it’s questionable in every matter
that who decides that what should be and how much something is to be censored.
In fact what if there might come a time in which it’s felt by a majority of people that there
should be completely no censorship. Similar to what Milton as a book lover has its views
believing each books censorship to be more offensive than killing a human being, accordingly
that a book treasures a person’s views, experience and take on life beyond his own life and a
good book is precious and should not undergo corruption of censorship. I support his ideology
of providing every idea and information to people and let people choose and decide what is
good and bad for them as who is anyone else to decide that what knowledge is available or
kept from me. We need all kind of books as we don’t know what a good man might gain from
an unlikely work. I totally agree with his view as at certain responsible age we all need all kind
of examples to differentiate good from bad as we are all humans who learn from their mistakes
and it should be left on our consciousness. We learn what we see and understand.
But what if some of what someone stating is disrespectful to only a targeted group of people
and hurt their sentiments, and then such ideas are been promoted and learnt, basically
oppressing them on purpose. They would want that to be discontinued .Coming on to Plato’s
views point that all that which is incorrect and not acceptable in society should be banned by
law and strictly followed to even cease to exist this is a bit harsh on literature to be followed
but in some cases this what is required, for e.g. if texts of provoking nature are written against
some people and they are allowed and respected on grounds of different view point but
ultimately leading to clashes among people then this is no good ,it’s good to censor it. His view
point on restricting expression in third person through performance and gestures is though
something that I find hard to understand.
So even though Plato’s valid point is harsh on literature but it’s needed but then again question
come to what extent as people can get their sentiments in between for like anything and
everything on their requirement of personal or political in nature. Stating what as Mr. R
Bradbury says, it’s a mad world out were different set people get hurt and they have every right
to do that but just at point where his books and his stories start people don’t have any right to
control as it’s his world there with his rules. Which is correct as altering text to get it cleared
from censorship kill soul of what was meant to convey (like what happens with Shakespeare’s
work), then it’s better not to be conveyed at all. Which again brings us to no censorship with all
its dangers of a total mayhem.
Seeing that each perspective cannot on its own be agreed upon I feel that censorship should be
described something which is flexible with situations time and is dependent weather its
implication is not harmful to people and society on large scale and is not hindrance to our life.