Self Censorship In China

During the Nazi rule of Germany in 1933, any books considered un-German were burned. This is an act of censorship. Censorship is when people succeed in dictating their personal, political, or moral values on others. The government deemed the content to be offensive or inappropriate without taking into consideration the individual’s thoughts or beliefs. The words, thoughts, or actions of an individual should not be censored by either social pressure, the Internet, or government worldwide.

Censorship of the arts is not limited to a governing body, in fact some of the worst censorship comes from the artist themselves. When an artist censors themselves, it is considered self-censorship. A reason for wanting to self-censor would include offending
China is a prime example of internet censorship as their censorship laws are especially strict on political groups against the People's Republic of China. The internet is a place for people to find other like-minded people so China targets the internet with its law extensively. For example, when China finally went after Google for giving Chinese citizens access to content the government wanted restricted, Google complied and had to create a separate Chinese version. As mentioned above, Google was self-censoring themselves by disallowing search results and therefore lessening traffic to those websites. Up until May of 2009 all business was well between Google and China. In May of 2009, Chinese censors blocked YouTube, which is owned by Google. It was blocked because a user had uploaded a video of Chinese police brutality and was quickly being shared around the internet. Google suffered majorly because of China wanting to omit this information from its citizens. Google was tired of having to deal with the special version of Google designed specifically for the overbearing laws of the Chinese government, and in January of 2010 they let search results bypass the barrier of the filter. China immediately responded and blocked all of Google. Trying to mend the wounds of what happened just two years ago, in May of 2012, Google announced it would
They have decided what morals are okay for society to have. Why not let an individual dictate their own desires for entertainment? For one, most politicians who are pro-censorship present us with scientific studies that supposedly confirm the idea that fictional violence leads to real-world violence. If that were true we should ban the Bible as many murderers, serial killers, and other convicts justify their acts with it. If the government were to abolish entertainment irrational people enjoyed then little to no material would be protected from censorship. One study experimenting with kids and violent television programs show that after the child has watched it aggressive behavior occurs. This aggressive behavior is considered “object aggression” and is when, for example, the child pops balloons or hits dolls. Also, this aggression only appears in some of the children, not all. Another piece of evidence against violent media bringing forth violence in an individual is that in Japanese television shows and movies are well known for its intense, graphic nature and there is a very low crime rate in Japan. These studies have only proven that violent media has a very small chance to make one violent and it is most likely that the individual was already violent or was unstable. The government has no justification to censor an individual’s choice of entertainment for the sake of “protecting”