Can censorship of the media in a free society ever be justified? For many individuals the answer to this question is no and most often governments adhere to a no censorship policy even when this has negative consequences. For example in Alberta during the year 2003 a single cow was found with mad cow disease. The premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, jested that when the cow was discovered it should have been shot and buried and then everyone involved should shut up about the incident. This is not what happened. Instead the media was allowed to go public with the finding which devastated the Alberta cattle industry costing in millions of dollars as the United States closed their borders to imported beef. Regardless of the economic damage done if the media has been censored then there was a potential that human health could have been affected and the media was allowed to report the incident. Excellent

There are circumstances however, where a government is justified in censoring the media. During World War Two the Canadian government censored the media such that news of the war could be filtered. This was done in an effort to keep the morale of the Canadian population high which was important for the war effort as high morale on the homefront would translate into higher enlistment numbers, a larger number of victory gardens, and encourage the purchase of victory bonds, all of which played a crucial role in Canada's overall substantial war effort. Without this support Canada's contributions would have been drastically reduced. In this case the Canadian government was justified in implementing censorship of its media as it greatly enhanced overall war effort. Excellent

The issue of when censorship can be justified is a complicated matter. Nonetheless there are instances were governments are justified in media censorship. A government of a free society is only justified in censoring the media when it is used to further the war effort of the country but is not justified in censoring issues of domestic origin. This is essentially two synthesis principles which is not what you want. There is no dichotomy that is set up here. In the case of the cow with mad cow disease in Alberta, this was a domestic issue that could potentially threaten human health so the media was not censored. In the situation of World War Two Canada was justified in censoring its media in order to keep the country's morale high which was crucial for the overall war effort. Nonetheless, censorship of the media in a free society is rarely justified. A synthesis principle you could have used here is war vs. peace which is a dichotomy that easily separates your two examples.

A true and open society can be characterized as a democratic country which allows its citizens freedom of expression through press. Press can be anything that is published or printed. However, there are some nations that are democratic but unjustifiably impose censorship on the media to preserve the government's control over society. Sri Lanka is named the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, therefore it should retain the democratic values of freedom of speech and expressing one's opinion through popular media. In contrast, the Sri Lankan government does not let any reports published by the press about the mistreatment of the Tamil Hindu minority in Sri Lanka. It is not a hidden fact that the mistreatment by the Sri Lankan majority Singhalese government plays a major role for the Tamil minority to enter Canada as refugees. The documentaries published by the approval of the Sri Lankan government only show the peaceful side of the country including the prosperous economy but it does not show the the civil war between the Singhalese community and the Tamil minority. In this case, censorship is not justified because the majority government is trying to maintain its control over the minority by eradicating any opinions or facts that go against the government and question its legitimacy. The censorship in the news prevents any other country to enter Sri Lanka for the aid and protection of the Tamil people. Excellent

Conversely, a democratic country can implace limitations on the freedom of expression by regulating the media in order to protect the society. There are censorship boards in a democratic society such as Britain that requires the omission of profane words or any racist comments from the newspaper to protect the society from any offensive intentions. word choice Recently, there was an incident where a British sports commentator made a racist comment and swore, believing he was off-air. It was reported in the press three ways; without mentioning the offending words (one racist, one obscene); using asterixes to replace letter; or by printing the words. It is justified from the perspective of the government to use censorship to remove comments that can offend the general public. It also becomes the responsibility of the government to give an equal representation to the citizens regardless of a derogatory comment made by one person. ?? This example is good. The description could use improvement.

Hence, a democratic society cannot justifiably regulate the press via censorship if it interferes with the protection of the public. It is wrong to place censorship when the government is trying to maintain its authority over the public but censorship is acceptable if it is done for the purpose of protecting the public. This synthesis principle is okay but it does not set up a dichotomy. The other problem is that it is ambiguous. For example, the Sri Lankan government may argue that their censorship is for the purposes of protecting the citizens. In Sri Lanka, censorship did not give equal representation to the Tamil minority by not exposing their mistreatment by the majority. However, the purpose of censorship in Britain is to give a fair representation to the whole public by making sure that no offensive comments are released by the press. The synthesis principle applied is not the synthesis principle laid out.

In a truly free, democratic society, the people of a country are empowered to speak their minds and opinions openly, without punishment. This freedom is especially important when it comes to the press because that is where most people obtain their information about local and global politics and news. Solid opening. In countries such as Cuba that are not true democracies, the press is often censored. In fact, speaking out against the government is considered treason and comes with a very heavy punishment. Worse still, the press is often used as a tool by leaders such as Fidel Castro to spread false news and propaganda to fulfill his own political goals. When the press is not free to report the truth, uncensored by the government, the people are not free to make informed decisions - they are essentially improsioned by their government. This example is okay. It indirectly supports the prompt. An example where there was a free and open society where there was an unjustified censoring of the media would have directly supported the prompt.

There are, of course, limitations to the freedom granted to the press. Recently in England, it was discovered that publishing giant News of the World had used, on many occasions, illegal telephone taps to obtain information. The newspaper tapped the telephones of government officials, victims of crimes, and families of deceased soldiers, and subsequently printed information obtained through this illegal activity. As such, many innocent people were hurt by the practices of News of the World. This example could work but not in the way it is explained here. There is a description of the example but it is not focused on addressing the refuting task.


The press is an important source of information for many people and it is essential that the news be true with fair representation of all opinions - untainted by powerful officials, as is often seen in undemocratic societies like Cuba. Sometimes, however, it is necessary for the state to limit this freedom, as was done with News of the World where criminal charges have been laid against those that obtained information through illegal wire taps. When the press is reporting the truth and informing the public it should not be censored, but if the information causes harm to innocent people it may be necessary to censor the press, particularly if the information was obtained illegally.
Your synthesis principle needs to be expressed at the beginning of the synthesis paragraph before discussing your examples. The first part of your synthesis principle does not apply well to your supporting example. The synthesis principle would be stronger if it was a dichotomy.

Ask any immigrant that has just arrived to Canada why they chose our country, and they will almost always bring up the freedom and equality that are intimitely a part of our Canadian way of life. Indeed, fundamental rights and freedoms form the basis of truly free and open societies, and are a source of great pride for democratic nations around the world. Some of these rights and freedoms include freedom of speech, which allows you to express your personal thoughts and feelings openly without facing consequence, as long as they do not threaten the well-being of another fellow civilian. This fundamental freedom is essential to the press in a free and open society, as it allows for complete transparency regarding the way a nation is being run. Everyone is able to know about and discuss how government officials are using their tax dollars, how electoral parties are working together to respond to the nation's needs, and if anyone is up to no good and should be penalized. It also allows for individuals to express their opinions and perhaps shift public opinion on certain matters. The discussion thus far is all general. It takes too long for you to get to your specific example. Even though opinions may be controversial, such as the one expressed through the Danish cartoon depicting Islamic prophet Muhammad as a terrorist in 2005, constant discussion and questioning is important in order to further our understanding of the world, its issues, and how we can improve legal and societal systems. Thus, censorship of the press can never be justified in a society that prides itself on openness and freedom. The example is underdeveloped. This discussion is okay but not strong. There are a number of irrelevant details that don't contribute to addressing the writing prompt. The discussion needs to be more focused on addressing the writing task.

Nevertheless, instances do exist when censorship of the press might be justified in order to protect the general public. For example, if an American reporter had by some ingenious means found out about the top secret raid that was being planned of the Pakistani compound where Osama bin Laden was hiding, and divulged this information in the media, chaos would have ensured and the operation would have been compromised. This would have been a perfect example of a situation in which a ban on publishing information concerning the matter would have been completely justified, as absolute secrecy was needed for the success of the operation and the removal of one of the most dangerous terrorist leaders on the planet. Thus, censorship may be justified in special circumstances when secrecy is needed for the safety of the greater public. This is a hypothetical example and hypothetical examples are generally weak. This example is also an unlikely scenario which weakens it further.

The debate whether censorship of the press can be justified in a free and open society is a difficult one to resolve. Nevertheless, the guiding principle should be that censorship is never justified in a democratic society, no matter how controversial opinions may be (such as those expressed in the Danish cartoon), unless information about to be published concerns sensitive top-secret information that could put public safety at risk if divulged to the world. This last scenerio refers especially to war-time operations, such as the bin Laden raid which, had it been exposed, would have prevented the US army from removing a serious threat to national and international safety.
Problems: 1) The synthesis principle needs to be expressed in a clear and concise manner at the beginning of your synthesis paragraph. 2) The synthesis principle here is weak because it does not set up a dichotomy and lacks depth. 3) The simpler the synthesis principle, the more elegant it is.


Couldn't really think of a good counter example:( Is it ok to use hypothetical examples? Thanks for your help!

Thank you!!!
When the Declaration of Universal Human Rights were grammar drafted by the United Nations, one of its main backers, US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt ensured that the four fundamental freedoms of Western democracy were included in the declaration. The four basice freedom of grammar western democracies are freedom from want, freedom of religion, freedom from fear and freedom of speech. The importance of the freedom of speech in a free and open society is explemified by its incorporation in the declaration. A free and open society can be defined as a democratic society in accordance to the ideals of a Western capitalist model of democratic society where the government is under oath to protect the fundamental freedoms. The freedom of speech can be focused on the ability grammar of the press to report current events in society without interference from the government. When the government interferes with the accurate reporting of current events, not only is the freedom of speech violated but the safety of that country's critizen may be jeopardized.
It takes you too long to get to the discussion of your specific example. Trim down your introduction by writing more concisely.
For example, when the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant in the former USSR suffered a melt down and spilled radioactive material into the atmosphere, the Soviet government censored all reports concerning a possible meltdown at the powerplant. It was not until two days after the accident, when Swedish scientists detected an abnormally high radionucleotide background in their instrument and pressed the soviets for answers, did the soviet government admitted to a nuclear meltdown. During the two days, when the Soviet government censored the press from reporting an accident at the Chernobyl powerpoint, radioactive elements were absorbed by the children in Eastern Europe. The effects of the childrens' exposure to the accident is only becoming clear now as there is an abnormal increase in thyroid cancer for 20 to 30 year olds living in the former eastern bloc. As the chernobyl accident demonstrated, a society which censored its press not only violated a fundamental human right, it puts its critizen at increased health risk. This example is excellent. However, the discussion is too long and diluted by a number of tangential ideas that do not contribute to addressing the writing task. More is not always better. There are also a number of spelling and grammatical errors.

Yet, there can be instances where a free and democratic government are justified in inferring with the reporting of current events. During the October Crisis, the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudean enacted martial law on the society of Montreal as an reaction to stop the terrorists plot of the FLQ. Only after the crisis, the Canadian government admitted to under reporting the severity of the crisis to the press. For examples, paliament members who were reported missing were actually found murder but the Canadian government witheld certain details to prevent mass panic. It can argue whether the government was justified in witholding certain details but the October Crisis was resolved with minial civilian causalty. This example is very good. It needs to be a bit more focused on addressing the writing task. Numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes make it difficult to read.

Thus, the question of when is a free democratic government justified in censoring the coverage of current events by the media may depend on whether the civilians are at risk when the government interferes with the media coverage. If the interferance of media coverage can decrease civilian mortalities, the government may be justified in censoring the media from reporting certain details about a current event. For example, the Canadian government may be justified in downplaying the severity of the October Crisis to prevent mass histeria. Yet, when government censorship of media coverage, which can alert the population of certain environmental dangers, resulting in increased health risks for civilians, the government is not justified in censoring the press in this scenerio. The previous scenerio is analogus to the Soviet authority's handling of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The synthesis principle here is okay but ambiguous (perhaps the Russian government thought it was protecting the citizens) and the application lacks depth.