Written by Tasha Ann Miller
September 3, 2021
Antivaxxers, political pundits, and in general critics are defined as persons to be censored when they’re largely alienated opinions breach the dominion of the accepted truth. Should they be censored though? The control of information whether factual or not is being highly threatened these days by the liberty of free speech. The restrictions that governments and social media accounts now impose are a cause for concern if they begin to misuse the advantage for more than a misinformation block. At the top of technology giants today is a huge data pile of personal information and mapping which is unregulated and may prove detrimental if it gets into the wrong motive.
Censorship is the ban on free speech. In some countries globally there is no right to speak freely against the government due to harsh press freedom regulations and the killing and imprisonment of journalists. In Jamaica, there is a right to freedom of speech, however, there are censorship regulations for the media.
Tension is created as censorship is seen as imposing on fundamental human rights like access to information and to a larger extent the right to express oneself. It is therefore oppressive.
The pandemic has brought to the forefront, the difficulties with censorship and the perseveration of facts. Could it be that the pendulum has been swinging to one side for too long? Governments should be held accountable to the people. Social media companies have breached their use of citizens data in the past. So who censors an individual’s right to have a choice in expressing themselves? Present the facts, enforce the integrity of the facts, and allow people to make their choice. However, individuals who hold influential roles must be monitored and clear strategies presented to improve the efficacy of the facts.
The truth will decide against the naysayers but never a controlled suppressive system that makes room for rebellion and social unrest.