Silencing Expression: Unmasking the Censorship Conundrum (GP Topics: Media, Art, Society, Politics)

In a world that thrives on the exchange of ideas and the celebration of artistic expression, censorship emerges as a formidable force, tightening its control. It has become a catalyst for fierce debates, igniting the passion of those who champion the freedom to speak and create, as well as those who seek to safeguard society from perceived dangers. As we venture into the intricate landscape of censorship, we find ourselves grappling with questions that transcend time and borders: Should certain voices be silenced in the name of protection? Where does the line between artistic freedom and societal well-being truly lie? 

Media censorship takes various forms, including state intervention, government surveillance, and media ownership concentration. Many argue that state censorship is necessary to protect vulnerable populations, preserve cultural values, and prevent the spread of harmful ideas or propaganda. For one, Germany has strict laws prohibiting the dissemination of Nazi propaganda and hate speech. The censorship of such materials aims to protect vulnerable populations from the potential resurgence of neo-Nazi ideologies and the promotion of hate crimes. By prohibiting the spread of harmful ideas associated with Nazi propaganda, Germany seeks to maintain social harmony and prevent the incitement of violence against marginalised groups. In Singapore, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) empowers government ministers to issue correction orders or take-down notices against online content deemed false or misleading. It aims to address the spread of misinformation that can cause harm to individuals, society, or national security. Proponents argue that POFMA provides a necessary mechanism to combat deliberate disinformation and safeguard the public from potential harm. 

However, many emphasise the importance of free speech in fostering a diverse and democratic society, even if it means tolerating controversial viewpoints. Concentrated media ownership raises concerns about limited access to information and a narrowed public discourse, and the subsequent oppression of the masses. One dangerous and almost dystopian case study would be the passage of Turkey’s “censorship law” serves as a chilling example of the dangerous and harmful effects of state censorship. This law, enacted just before the 2023 elections, introduces strict measures that deepen online censorship and restrict access to information. It criminalises the dissemination of false information, grants extensive powers to the government-controlled Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK), and imposes severe penalties on tech companies for non-compliance. The law effectively forces social media platforms to become complicit in state censorship, stifling independent news sources and critical online commentary. It instils fear, encourages self-censorship, and enables the prosecution of government critics. By suppressing freedom of expression and limiting access to independent news, this law undermines democratic principles and poses a grave threat to individual liberties in Turkey. These restrictions create a narrowed public discourse that promotes the official narrative and suppresses dissent, ultimately leading to the oppression of the masses by silencing their voices and preventing them from engaging in meaningful civic participation. 

Another case would also relate to the aforementioned POFMA in Singapore. There are legitimate concerns regarding POFMA’s implementation and its impact on freedom of expression. Concerns have been raised that the law gives excessive power to the government, allowing them to determine what constitutes false information without sufficient independent oversight. This raises concerns about potential abuse of power and curtailment of dissenting voices. For example, Brad Bowyer, a former member of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), was issued a correction direction in 2020 for Facebook posts discussing the financial state of Temasek Holdings and state-owned company Surbana Jurong. The government stated that his posts contained false statements and required him to issue corrections. These challenges underscore the need for a careful balance between the power of free speech and the responsibility to provide unbiased information.

Another way that enables people to more implicitly touch on sensitive or controversial issues is through art, yet this medium is not often talked about. Local examples include the ‘To Singapore, With Love’ film that focuses on political exiles who left Singapore and their stories, exploring sensitive topics related to politics and national identity; and ‘Undressing Room’, a performance art piece. The performance involved Ng cutting off his pubic hair as a symbolic act against censorship and artistic restrictions. The piece sparked public outcry. Ironically, however, this daring piece led to the removal of the artwork from the exhibition by the National Arts Council. 

Censorship of arts – like media – could be justified in the same way. Art that promotes hate speech, incites violence, or perpetuates harmful stereotypes should be censored in order to maintain a safe and respectful society. Censorship acts as a safeguard against potential harm caused by extreme and offensive art, ensuring the well-being and unity of our communities. 

For example, it could prevent the exposure of explicit or provocative content that may influence adolescents whose minds and worldviews are still developing. Additionally, provocative political art such as The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye may undermine national stability, especially since art is easy to consume and understand, so even the ordinary citizen can be influenced by the criticism due to art as an engaging medium. Arts then, could be divisive and harmful, and censorship would be justified.

Nonetheless, the censorship of art could also undermine the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and stifle the progress of artistic development. Art has a long history of challenging societal norms and provoking thought and debate. Perhaps one can even say that the primary purpose of art is to incite emotion in its audience. By censoring art, we risk limiting our ability to question and explore difficult topics that are essential for societal growth and cultural evolution. Instead of censoring, we should foster open dialogue and critical thinking to address any concerns that may arise from controversial art. Thus, art, even if provocative, serves a crucial role in stimulating discussions, promoting empathy, and encouraging social change.

All in all, artists do have a responsibility to consider the potential consequences of their creations and exercise a certain level of restraint. Artistic freedom should not absolve individuals from the ethical considerations and potential harm that their work may cause. Meanwhile, individuals too have the choice to either reject or engage with the art, and if they disagree or find it offensive, they can express their dissent through peaceful means such as critique, dialogue, or boycotts.

For A Level GP Paper 1, many questions surround or enable students to discuss how justifiable censorship is. Students can use the examples of state censorship, such as Germany’s laws against Nazi propaganda and hate speech, and Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to argue for the necessity of censorship to protect vulnerable populations and maintain social harmony. For balance, do also take note of the harmful effects of state censorship especially when taken to the extreme, such as Turkey’s “censorship law” that stifles independent news sources and suppresses dissent. These examples can be used to argue against censorship and highlight its potential dangers. The same goes for censorship of art, where the brazen local pieces or performances that were mentioned can be used as examples of art challenging the status quo and inspiring change, but could be provocative and divisive all at the same time.

In conclusion, the debate over censorship in the media continues to challenge societies worldwide. While some argue for the necessity of censorship to protect vulnerable populations and maintain social harmony, others emphasise the essential role of free speech in fostering a vibrant and democratic society. Striking a balance between expression and responsibility remains a complex task. As we navigate the intricacies of censorship, it is crucial to promote open dialogue, critical thinking, and respect for diverse viewpoints, thereby fostering an environment where both freedom of expression and societal well-being can coexist.