Intellectual embargos and absolute censorship are far less effective than literate intellectualism and sound moral logic in keeping society on a level course, observes Syerleena Abdul Rashid.
The screening of the No Fire Zone movie was disrupted
Every now and then, Malaysian government (or the state) propagates moral crusades against obscene literature, offensive material and anything considered a threat to Malaysian way of life.
It is not uncommon when the powers that be go all the way to ban books and movies. They may even go as far as censoring sensitive words like beer, Allah, drugs and any human reproductive part.
This is nothing but a form of escapism, an easy way out that the government adapts when dealing with anything complex or subjective. It can potentially be a deceptive system to command and force down moral standards accredited by the ruling elite (or coalition).
In general, the rulers of the state (the authorities) consider themselves the custodians of virtue. There is an unmistaken sense of self-righteousness to suppress any threats that may influence or weaken their support. Again, the Malaysian government has systematically eliminated all things considered haram, immoral or politically sensitive even if such material may have scientific evidence or can be proven to be historically accurate.
How effective is censoring literature or articles, where one can obtain an uncensored copy through the Internet?
And how can Malaysians deal with this form of bluenose tyranny namely selective censorship?
Where do we draw the line between artistic freedom and public offence?
How do we define what is morally and culturally acceptable without being smothered by the authorities?
Go here to see the original:
With rise of internet-savvy communities, censorship no longer effective