The 20th century perceived radical metamorphosis in practically every field of human activity. The period observed astonishing technological innovations which resulted in the development of New Media, coined to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the late 20th century. With the materialization of New Media, the exposure to sordid and appalling details is a growing concern within society. On one hand, one method to attenuate the accessibility to such information is through the sense of censorship. Censorship refers to a policy of suppression of public expression or deletion of communicative material which may have the capacity to undermine the governing authority. On the other hand, censorship acts as a double-edged sword since it does lead to several drawbacks. Therefore, I do agree that with the emergence of New Media, there will be a greater need for censorship. Nevertheless, it is foolhardy to impose excessive censorship. It should also be complemented by other programmes such as educational campaigns in order to be more effective.
Censorship curtails insidious influence of objectionable ethics which could be picked up by the public, deliberately or subconsciously through the New Media. The ubiquity of certain dubious materials in the New Media would likely erode the moral fabric of the community as these materials distress the fundamental values of people. Take, for instance, pornography which is easily available in the New Media. It brutalises and insults society, perverts young impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity, as well as undermines the general principles of the public. Censorship hence protects society’s values and is requisite to stave off negative influences given that the community may disintegrate under erroneous ethics. However, according to some cynics, awareness of violent examples in the New Media does not bring about greater aggression. These examples merely reflect humankind’s innate inborn hostile impulses. While there is an element of truth in their assertion, I think their conclusion is too sweepingly pessimistic. Brutal illustrations in the New Media heighten the likelihood of a rise in the number of murder cases, rapes and assaults owning to imitation. Due to the rampancy of inaccurate and controversial information in the New Media, I consider there to be a greater need for censorship.
With the emergence of New Media, there will be circulation of sensitive materials on themes including religion. There is a greater need for censorship to ensure internal security and perpetuate stability. A lack of censorship may result in the promulgation of certain information which will be to the advantage of the enemies such as a country amassing of weaponry and a government’s military strategies. It is also mandatory to censor certain religion-sensitive material to maintain national stability as well as to thwart the distortion of orthodox religious beliefs. Racially-tactless material or incendiary remarks about religions can bring about misgivings, misconceptions and disharmony among the various racial and religious communities, therefore, giving rise to civil unrest and disorder. Information in the New Media that disparages or derides a specific ethnic group, suggests racial pre-eminence, disseminates bigoted standpoints, or incites preferential acts is justified to be censored. Thus, with the emergence of New Media, there will be a greater need for censorship, extremely so for a multi-religious multi-ethnical society such as Singapore.
However, a greater extent of censorship threatens individuality and stifles creativity thus it might indirectly curb a state’s progress. Public taste should not be dictated and an individual has the responsibility to practice self-censorship by ignoring unwholesome materials. In addition, censorship in a modern and developed society such as Singapore may be futile due to the readiness of travel as well as global communication channels. Furthermore, censorship may encumber consumers from forming informed assessments. The New Media should be given the autonomy and onus to function without restraint in order to supply free access to information and ideas to the public. Hence in spite of the emergence of New Media, censorship should not be imposed disproportionately and hastily since its disadvantages might outweigh the merits.
As nations do not have jurisdiction of content available in the New Media beyond their borders, censorship is an efficient and primary tool employed to straighten people’s access to explicit content. The quintessential solution would be an international convention prescribing dictums for the New Media on a worldwide scale. Lamentably, due to cultural and constitutional divergence especially with reference to obscenity and freedom of expression, the very issues that induce the highest degree of regulation, it would be a tedious task to garner agreement from all countries. Hence, I envisage a near future of implementation of censorship in the New Media.
