Let us suppose that you are in the

Let us suppose that you are in the position of a parent. Would you allow your children to read any book they wanted to without first checking its contents? Would you take your children to see any film without first finding out whether it is suitable for them? If your answer to these questions is 'yes', then you are either extremely permissive, or just plain irresponsible. If your answer is 'no' , then you are exercising your right as a parent to protect your children from what you consider to be undesirable influences. In other words, by acting as a censor yourself, you are admitting that there is a strong case for censorship.

Now, of course, you will say that it is one thing to exercise censorship where children are concerned and quite another to do the same for adults. Children need protection and it is the parents' responsibility to provide it. But what about adults? Aren't they old enough to decide what is good for them? The answer is that many adults are, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all adults are like yourself. Censorship is for the good of society as a whole. Like the law, censorship contributes to the common good.

Some people think that it is disgraceful that a censor should interfere with works of art. Who is this person, they say, to ban this great book or cut that great film? No one can set himself up as a superior being. But we must remember two things. Firstly, where genuine works of art are concerned, modern censors are extremely liberal in their views -- often far more liberal than a large section of the public. Artistic merit is something which censors clearly recognize. And secondly, we must bear in mind that the great proportion of books, plays and films which come before the censor are very far from being 'works of art'.

When discussing censorship, therefore, we should not confine our attention to great masterpieces, but should consider the vast numbers of publications and films which make up the bulk of the entertainment industry. When censorship laws are relaxed, immoral people are given a license to produce virtually anything in the name of 'art'. There is an increasing tendency to equate artistic with 'pornographic'. The vast market for pornography would rapidly be exploited. One of the great things that censorship does is to prevent certain people from making fat profits by corrupting the, minds of others. To argue in favor of absolute freedom is to argue in favor of anarchy. Society would really be the poorer if it deprived itself of the wise counsel and the restraining influence which a censor provides.

Результаты (эстонский) 1:

Oletame, et olete vanem asendis. Te lubaks oma lapsi lugenud ühtegi raamatut nad tahtnud eelnevalt kontrollida selle sisu? Võtaks oma lapsi näha filmi esimene leidmata, kas see on neile sobival? Kui vastus neile küsimustele on "jah", siis on kas väga leebe või lihtsalt plain vastutustundetu. Kui vastus on ei, siis teie füüsiline koormus on teie õigus kaitsta oma lapsi mida teie arvates, tuleb soovimatute mõjude vanem. Teisisõnu, tegutsedes tsenseerida ise, teil on möönis on igati põhjendatud Tsensuur.Nüüd, muidugi, te näidatakse öelda, et see on üks asi kasutada tsensuur, kus lapsed on mures ja päris teise sama tegema täiskasvanutele. Lapsed vajavad kaitset ja on ka lastevanemate vastutuse pakkuda seda. Aga kuidas täiskasvanute? Nad ei ole piisavalt vana, et otsustada, mis on neile hea? Vastus on, et paljud täiskasvanud on, aga ärge tehke seda viga, mõtlesin, et kõik täiskasvanud on nagu ise. Tsensuur on ühiskonna jaoks tervikuna. Nagu õiguse, aitab hea ühise Tsensuur. Some people think that it is disgraceful that a censor should interfere with works of art. Who is this person, they say, to ban this great book or cut that great film? No one can set himself up as a superior being. But we must remember two things. Firstly, where genuine works of art are concerned, modern censors are extremely liberal in their views -- often far more liberal than a large section of the public. Artistic merit is something which censors clearly recognize. And secondly, we must bear in mind that the great proportion of books, plays and films which come before the censor are very far from being 'works of art'. When discussing censorship, therefore, we should not confine our attention to great masterpieces, but should consider the vast numbers of publications and films which make up the bulk of the entertainment industry. When censorship laws are relaxed, immoral people are given a license to produce virtually anything in the name of 'art'. There is an increasing tendency to equate artistic with 'pornographic'. The vast market for pornography would rapidly be exploited. One of the great things that censorship does is to prevent certain people from making fat profits by corrupting the, minds of others. To argue in favor of absolute freedom is to argue in favor of anarchy. Society would really be the poorer if it deprived itself of the wise counsel and the restraining influence which a censor provides.

Результаты (эстонский) 2:

Oletame, et teil on seisukoht lapsevanem. Kas lubate oma lastel lugeda kõiki raamatut nad tahavad, ilma et kõigepealt kontrollida selle sisu? Kas te võtate oma lapsi näha ühtegi filmi ilma teada, kas see sobib neile? Kui vastus nendele küsimustele on " jah", siis oled kas äärmiselt leebe, või lihtsalt vastutustundetu. Kui vastus on "ei", siis on kasutada oma õigust kui vanem, et kaitsta oma lapsi, mida teie arvates olla soovimatu mõjutustele. Mis teisisõnu kohusetäitja nagu tsensuur iseendale, siis on tunnistada, et on olemas tugev juhtumi puhul tsensuuri. Nüüd, muidugi, siis on pehmelt, et see on üks asi, mida kasutavad teised tsensuuri kui klausel on lapsed mures ja hoopis teine ​​asi on teha sama täiskasvanutele. Lapsed vajavad kaitset ja see on vanemate vastutus seda anda. Aga täiskasvanud? Kas nad pole piisavalt vana, et otsustada, mida on neile hea? Vastus on, et paljud täiskasvanud, kuid ei tee seda viga, mõtlesin, et kõik täiskasvanud on nagu iseennast. Tsensuur on heaks ühiskonnale tervikuna. Seadus Like, tsensuur aitab kaasa ühise kõik hea. Mõned inimesed arvavad, et see on häbiväärne, et tsensuuri ei peaks sekkuma Kunstiteoste. Kes on see isik, nad ütlevad, et keelata seda suurt raamatut või lõigatud, et suur film? Keegi ei saa seada ennast kui hea on. Aga me peame meeles pidama kahte asja. Esiteks, kus tõeline kunstiteosed on mures, kaasaegne tsensorid on väga liberaalne oma seisukohti - sageli palju vabamalt kui suur osa avalikkusest. Kunstilise väärtuse on midagi, mida tsensorid selgelt tunda . Ja teiseks, Me peame meeles veel meeles, et suur osakaal raamatuid, näidendeid ja filmide, mis on tulnud enne tsenseerida väga kaugele olemist "kunstiteosed". Sest rääkides tsensuur, seega me ei piirduks oma tähelepanu suurteost, kuid peaks kaaluma suur hulk trükiseid ja filmide, mis moodustavad põhiosa meelelahutus. Kui tsensuuriseadustest lõdvestunud, ebamoraalne inimesed on andnud loa toota peaaegu kõike nime "kunsti". Kasvab tendentsi võrdsustada kunsti koos "pornograafilise". Valdav turul pornograafia oleks kiiresti võimalik ära kasutada. Üks suuri asju, et tsensuuri ei on vältida teatud inimesi tegemast rasva kasumit demoraliseeriv, teiste mõtetes. Et räägivad absoluutne vabadus on väita kasuks anarhia. Selts oleks tõesti vaesemad kui ta end ise ilma tarka nõu ja lähenemiskeelu mõju, mis tsensuuri annab.