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.


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 (английский) 1:

Давайте предположим, что вы находитесь в позиции родителей. Вы бы, чтобы ваши дети читали ни одной книги они хотели, не проверив его содержимое? Вы бы взять своих детей, чтобы увидеть любой фильм без предварительного выяснения, является ли это подходящим для них? Если ваш ответ на эти вопросы "да", то вы либо очень разрешительный, или просто безответственно. Если ваш ответ "нет", то вы работаете ваше право, как родитель, чтобы защитить своих детей от того, что вы считаете нежелательные влияния. Другими словами, действуя в качестве цензора себя, вы признать, что есть веские основания для цензуры. Некоторые люди думают, что это позорно, что цензор должен вмешиваться с произведениями искусства. Кто этот человек, говорят они, чтобы запретить эту великую книгу или вырезать что великий фильм? Никто не может установить себя в качестве высшего существа. Но мы должны помнить две вещи. Во-первых, где подлинные произведения искусства, то, современные цензоры чрезвычайно либеральный по своим взглядам - часто гораздо более либеральным, чем в значительной части общественности. Художественный заслуга это то, что цензоры четко признать. А во-вторых, мы должны иметь в виду, что большая часть книг, пьес и фильмов, которые приходят до цензора очень далеко от "произведения искусства". При обсуждении цензуру, поэтому, мы не должны ограничиться великих шедевров, но следует учитывать огромное число публикаций и фильмов, которые составляют основную часть индустрии развлечений. Когда цензурные законы расслаблены, безнравственные люди получают лицензию на производство практически ничего названием «искусство». Существует растущая тенденция отождествлять с «художественным порнографического '. Подавляющее рынок порнографии будет быстро быть использованы. Один из величайших вещей, что цензура делает это, чтобы предотвратить определенные людей от жира прибыль, развращает, умы других. Спорить в пользу абсолютной свободы, чтобы доводы в пользу анархии. Общество действительно было бы беднее, если она лишила себя мудрым советом и сдерживающее влияние, которое обеспечивает цензор.

Результаты (английский) 2:

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. Other words In, by acting as a censor yourself, you are admitting that there is a strong case for censorship. 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 (английский) 3:

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.


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 a 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 this 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 in which a censor provides.