I feel this is an extremely intelligent question and it should be answered with certain tact, not just by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
What is censorship? Censorship is the fact that there is power vested in a person or group to restrain free expression, be it written, vocal, artistic or visual. Censorship as such can only be invoked in case of a dire need to protect a small group or a whole group.
In case of war, (not civil war), the proper authorities are duty bound to protect the inhabitants from, say, false information provided by the enemy to disseminate fear and discontent.
However, in normal circumstances, this censorship should be restricted.
What happens when an artistic work promotes values that are against the establishment of an orderly society such as, ‘stealing is not reprehensible’ or ‘taking the law into your own hands is the order of the day?
Before answering this question we need to know the meaning of faith. What is faith?
Faith is the deep expression of a person who is involved with God and who expresses his or her behaviour in line with the teachings of God, or his leader, or the Church. It is complete trust or confidence especially without logical proof. As we are all aware there is more than one faith because every person has the right to follow and worship the faith of his or her choosing without impinging on the freedom of faith of others.
However, not all members of a particular faith are strong. Some are just born Christians or Catholics and in order to protect these persons, the group in authority, namely the leaders of that particular faith, are to factually explain the contents and impact of the artistic work in question.
Thus, the viewers or patrons, as the case may be, would be in a better position to know whether they should proceed to participate or patronise the artistic event or wait for an appropriate time.
In this case, we are speaking of a guide towards that particular artistic event, as the case may be. Thus, the member of that particular faith is in a better position to know when, and if, he or she can go and watch or participate in the entertainment, drama, fiction, with an intelligent, informed and responsible opinion.
Censorship is only a guide and should never be invoked as a tool to protect faith. I strongly believe that teaching and education, together with the right information, are the proper tools to promote faith, live it and enhance it.
In this way, freedom of expression is also protected. The sentiments of the faithful are respected and the general public would grow in its own faith, or lack of it, but not thanks to that particular form presented by the work of art.
Emily Barbaro Sant
The question of the rightness or wrongness of censorship in general has today become almost if not totally obsolete. Happily, in my view, the electronic media of communication and especially Internet have made any system of censorship by any Government even employing the most efficient of secret police impossible to operate effectively. Today even China which has been able to keep out of reach of ordinary citizens large swathes of the Internet has a decreasingly effective censorship.
Now, Philosophers of Law including notably St. Thomas Aquinas agree that it is bad to have any law that is going to be more broken than observed. Consequently it would be foolish for any state especially with the characteristics of ours to impose any system of censorship.
There are some areas, however, on account of which it is reasonable for the state to maintain legislation in this regard. These areas are those concerning the protection of the young in which the state is bound and to a significant extent capable of complementing parental authority.
In practically all other cases what the state should try to prevent is not so much the diffusion of harmful material, such as paedophilic pornography, but its production. Of course attempts at its diffusion may be the occasion for its discovery by the authorities. But offence should be primarily the making of the material, not its communication to adults.
It has been argued that the diffusion of material such as cartoons or films that offend the religious or other sensibilities of some people should not be allowed publication. In general hurting people in any way is bad. But sometimes it may be necessary or even advantageous to them. The greatest caution needs to be exercised before any constraint is imposed and, in any case, the prohibition should be primarily of production and not of communication.
The principle that a law should be such that it does not fall into contempt because of general neglect or unequal application implies today that the prevention of the communication of unjust or harmful messages is better entrusted to the education of a sense of responsibility in people rather than to the enforcement of State control.
In particular, the use of censorship to protect the faith of people could only be justified in situations in which the culturally weak needed protection from the culturally powerful.
In a pluralist knowledge society, it is simply absurd to think that a faith adherence to which can be rationally justified even if its contents may well be beyond any rational proof can be safeguarded by censorship of the communication of critical or denigratory or otherwise adverse view points.
Rev. Professor Peter Serracino-Inglott
|
