Fridays

جهت مشاهده Writing تصحیح شده فایل PDF را دانلود نمایید.

Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in word, pictures, music, film) in whichever way they wish. They should be no public or government restrictions on what they do. Do you agree or disagree? Censorship of art is always a controversial topic. A Group of people believe any kinds of censorship is against the meaning of freedom and democracy, and another group believe if there were no restriction, it would lead to social anomaly. In my opinion, being the source of art, creativity should not be censored because it does not let people to be much too creative and prevents them from thinking out of the box. Furthermore, artists not only can be a symbol of a protest but also make the next generation aware of what is going on in their time. I believe you cannot censor art completely since an artist can always find a way to express their his feeling and fulfill their mission. For example, we have lots of poems of Akhavan Sales- who foallows modern Persian poetry – which literally talks about nature and figuratively about suffocation of by the establishment. In an opposite view/by contrast, some of these modern trade arts can adversely affect the society in a negative way. For example, a caricature which was against religion and showed it derisive, created a buzz and resulted in a violent genocide massacre attack by a radical religious group for Charlie magazines' staffs which who printed a caricature of Mohammad- the prophet of Muslims –. Lots of people think that if there was no restriction or control in these pieces of arts, artists would go abroad, hence these kinds of sad happenedevents. To sum it up, although censorship is in opposition to the meaning of freedom, in from my point of view, only when these kinds of arts hurt parts of society, should there be have some limits are which hurt part of society and there should be some rules for arts which are broadcast in on television or social media.