Propaganda and Censorship.

Can propaganda and censorship be justified on any grounds?

In today's information age, it appears freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to do whatever one deems necessary for "public" interest should be protected at all cost. It has become a buzzword for protecting the people from a "rogue" government or ruling class.

Flipping the coin on it's head, who is to protect the people from "rogue" causes then? At the same time, can malicious motive- like destabilizing of internal politics- hide behind seemingly altruistic actions and causes?

Hence wouldn't the idea of "freedom of speech", "freedom of association and assembly" impede actions taken by security forces- both overtly and covertly. At the same time, it would be easy to typecast the actions of security personnel as infringing on "rights of freedom and speech" and therefore seen as undemocratic and coercive.

The images of journalist and activist being locked away and put under cuffs by the media and led by stern faced police personnel portrays an intolerant and repressive regime bent on putting down any dissent. It almost seem that these disparate group of people is bullied into submission- and therefore sympathies and heart would always go to this people; and independent of the guilt of the infringement.

An assumption is therefore made on the prevailing government as repressive and heavy-handed but the innocence or guilt of these people eludes the viewers. At the same time, we would never know the true outcome due to security concerns. This put a veil of secrecy of which it would almost appear that the perpetrators are tortured and made to confess.

On the flip side, the idea of "freedom of speech, assembly or association" and democracy and it's often espoused benefits is that it provide a check on the government. It's idea is that more often than not the people would get it right more than they get it wrong. Hence even if the protest proves disruptive and counter-productive to the function of society, economy and state, it is therefore a necessary inconvenience and evil.

It is therefore that activist, protesters and alternatives are tolerated and even celebrated as heroes- regardless of whether their actions have proven to be beneficial.

But the conservatives and security sector of a society would take this view otherwise. The conservatives view would be one of invasion of traditional values and consequently dilution of national identity, values, culture and unit.

In other quarters, these activist or protesters are seen as unhealthy agents tasked to cause internal disruption and to assert it's unwelcome influence. The world of foreign policy and global politics is one which most citizens are ignorant of hence vulnerable to. Therefore certain section of governments would think that the citizens must be protected from these unwelcomed influence and unwittingly become a nuisance to themselves.

It is at this juncture that the question of propaganda and censorship comes into play.

The question therefore would be one that does the people have the ability to discern the right from the wrong or does the government with it's informational superiority decide and therefore impose it's view on what is said and what is not.

Related to the above question do we take the bet that more often than not, the people would get it right than wrong- and the more rights would outweigh the wrongs. In other words, the wrongs are a necessary evil and inconvenience to ensure that the system actually works.

I do not know of any country that do not practice censorship and propaganda. All states and government know that "freedom of speech and thought" is a myth. In fact the idea of "freedom of speech and association" is a propaganda in itself.

In theory and in law, our rights are protected- but in practice, what we know, watch and read have already restricted, vetted and aligned and even if we have the freedom to say it; we do not have the language to articulate it out in the first place.

It is therefore that most if not all states recognized that essentially the "citizens cannot be trusted" to make the right choice- and therefore have employed censorship, propaganda to further their national objectives; and even the most free nations are not immune to this.

In the end, as citizens of so-called "free" and "democratic" world, it is extremely disheartening to know that we have been dumbed down. In utopia, we do not need to make choices, but in the one that we lived in, take it as a necessary trade-off of which we have to make in order to live in a less chaotic world governed somewhat by something you and I would understand.

At the end of the day, just don't take things so seriously and knowing a little lesser things and giving in just a little more wouldn't hurt; I think everyone would do just fine.