All ideas, bad and good, should be subject to public scrutiny. No idea is so dangerous that it must be suppressed. Therefore, speech must never be banned because of its persuasive or emotive impact. I believe the more controversial, the better, because it has more of an impact on those that see or hear it. Speech must never be restricted because some consider it offensive, obscene, pornographic, and politically incorrect; or also known as "hate speech." Speech must never be discarded because some believe it might have a bad effect on those deemed dangerous or vulnerable -- including children. Mere possession of speech must never be criminalized. In the writer's opinion, speech is speech. How can anybody tell you that you can not say what you want when you want to? That goes against our vague first amendment and no one has the right to decide constitutionally what is right for other people.
             Censorship, by definition, is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive". It occurs when certain people succeed in imposing their personal or moral values on others. This controversial topic of censorship is not only with speech but also the Internet. Who's to say who are the censor and the censored? Those who endorse censorship say that it is to protect minors from access to harmful and objectionable material and also to protect the privacy of others. For example, during the horrible World Trade Center attacks, the media covered what it was allowed to. It went into detail about people only by permission. They could not just film anything and put it on the television; everything had to go by a censorship committee to say if it was too much for the public to handle all at one time. The censorship during that period was to help the emotionally unstable and prevent pure chaos in America. This is a noble, but an impractical point of view, which raises too many unanswerable questions. It is nobl...