Summary Of Sometimes Censorship Is Necessary
In the article "Counterpoint: Sometimes Censorship is Necessary," Cushman and Witherbee state, "despite what people will tell you, hardly any American is actually opposed to censorship in all cases" (1). This quote means people are not against censorship, most are either neutral or for it. That is because censorship protects people from harmful material. Censorship is a highly debated topic because of what people think about the material being seen and produced. Nevertheless, censorship is required in today's society. censorship is necessary in a lot of cases, but one specific example is about free speech. For example people can't say something derogatory and have that be protected. As Cushman and Witherbee stated, "even the Supreme Court
…show more content…
Witherbee argues that pornography and sex are not that inappropriate it is how people perceive it. It is all up to their definition of inappropriate. She gives an example of sexuality and experience. To elaborate further she said "human sexuality is purely a product of the social customs and personal experiences of the observer" (2). WItherbee's argument, however, contains a fallacy, and there are no statistics to back it up. One person can't say what should and shouldn't be blocked or censored. Pornography shouldn't be open as it is because minors could see it. There are many things wrong with that. For example, it is illegal and it distorts how males perceive females. They will have higher expectations that what's actually there. In addition, opponents' further add on that some censorship won't affect people because they are too young to understand. The example given is about 7th graders and swimming pools being political. As Witherbee states, "the censored references between swimming pools will probably not make a good deal of difference to a seventh grader either way" (1). Her argument contains a fallacy by giving an opinion. She has no idea if it will make a difference or not. Also, why would a seventh grader have to learn about economic injustice through references to swimming pools rather than learning about it
Witherbee argues that pornography and sex are not that inappropriate it is how people perceive it. It is all up to their definition of inappropriate. She gives an example of sexuality and experience. To elaborate further she said "human sexuality is purely a product of the social customs and personal experiences of the observer" (2). WItherbee's argument, however, contains a fallacy, and there are no statistics to back it up. One person can't say what should and shouldn't be blocked or censored. Pornography shouldn't be open as it is because minors could see it. There are many things wrong with that. For example, it is illegal and it distorts how males perceive females. They will have higher expectations that what's actually there. In addition, opponents' further add on that some censorship won't affect people because they are too young to understand. The example given is about 7th graders and swimming pools being political. As Witherbee states, "the censored references between swimming pools will probably not make a good deal of difference to a seventh grader either way" (1). Her argument contains a fallacy by giving an opinion. She has no idea if it will make a difference or not. Also, why would a seventh grader have to learn about economic injustice through references to swimming pools rather than learning about it