Information has never been more readily available than it is in our modern world. We can gather news from across the globe and carry a full library of knowledge in our phones. However, many countries have also restricted access to certain content, offering various justifications for censorship. With such a vast ocean of information available to the public, it can be difficult to agree on how much censorship should be allowed.
On one hand, making dangerous content difficult to access is understandable. Many of the people using the internet or reading books will not always have good intentions. Learning how to make a bomb is one example of how too much information can lead to negative consequences. There is also a flurry of hate speech and ill-intended organization that is prevented by government involvement.
On the other hand, too much censorship can be just as harmful as too little. Limiting public knowledge can lead to more linear thinking and discourage conversations involving different viewpoints. China is one such example, with social media and internet access restricted to maintain favorable control over citizens. Such control can be linked to a decrease in intelligence and autonomy, as certain truths may be twisted to promote state narratives.
This leaves us with the only viable option: maintaining a delicate balance of censorship, guided by responsible oversight. Restrictions based on age can help ensure that certain content does not reach impressionable children and preteens. While violent information should be more difficult to access, censorship should not extend to suppressing freedom of speech. If the information is not inherently dangerous, then it should be allowed to exist.
