Censorship

by: Andrew Fiorillo
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That is from the preamble to the constitution; a document which has been used to found and maintain this country’s most crucial laws. The Constitution also has a section commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights - it’s use it

rather self-explanatory. The Bill of Rights, which is really just a nickname for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, contains 10 inalienable rights. The first, and quite possibly the most commonly cited amendment refers to the Freedom of Expression in all ways, shapes and forms (as long as those forms don’t break any laws.) This particular amendment is famous for the fact that it covers Freedom of Speech, which has been regulated with different methods for centuries, if not longer. Since the majority of the readers of this article will be from Florida, I will make a reference to their specific Bill of

Rights - “Every person may speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right.” In the simplest of terms this is stating that no person shall have their speech limited. However, if their personal expression comes with consequences they must take responsibility for their expression. The only occasion where the expression of a particular person can be limited is when that particular person is on private property. In such a case, the expression can not be limited but the consequences can be modified to a point where the person will be compelled to limit

their own expression. When such an act takes place in a public location, a publicly owned forum, or on a particular person’s own private property; it could be considered unlawful. This brings me to the point of why I wrote this article and, for that matter, this entire publication: to voice my opinion about how limiting censorship is to society, how irresponsible it is carried out by particular censors, how it is in fact unlawful, and why it should be, but is not, a reason to prosecute the censor himself for restricting the right to Freedom of Expression and the Press. This publication, the publication that contains this pub-

The First Addition (to the Edition)
The Darfur Genocide is geting less press than it deserves.

Stephen Colbert’s Presidential canidacy has been put to a hault because the South Carolina democratic ticket decided that he is not able to run in the 2008 Election. Christmas is coming up, don’t forget to start buying everything off the shelves. New Year’s is almost here, marking yet another end of a year.

Censorship
continued
lication, and many other publications are censored irresponsibly. Such an occasion had taken place when I had written an article in the November Issue of The Charmer. The article itself was pertaining to the subject of computer safety. However, the headline of the

reference to a condom. This method is a common way of attracting attention to the headline, and thereby the article

article itself is what became controversial. The original headline of the article was “Always Use Protection” referring to protecting your computer. The title was intended to make a double entendre in the sense of the common adage for sex; “Always Use Protection,” in

itself. The double entendre was not taken in the objective sense and therefore censored to the point where the headline became “Always Use (Virus) Protection”. I found this use of censorship authority irresponsible, seeing as how it is a common tactic used in public

broadcast. I do not wish that The Charmer were to pay the price seeing as how The Charmer itself is not responsible for censoring my work, nor is the Editor, nor any other member of the staff. It is solely the censor that determines what exactly is and is not responsible journalistic technique, what is and is not responsible expression and it is the responsibility of the censor to use his or her censorship ability in a responsible, objective, and understanding manner, while still actually performing the original duty of a censor - to remove “obscene”, “indecent” and “inappropriate” content from a medium.

If you found any of my writing or opinions interesting, you could visit my website:

thisisandrew.net
This website is my blog where I write about my opinions on a semi-often basis on a truly free forum.

This could quite possibly and will most likely be the last issue of

however this is far from the last segment to my blog. The Editon Addition is not in anyway representing the opinions of the publication, The Charmer. This publication is funded, written, edited, and designed solely by Andrew Fiorillo for the purpose of spreading his opinion on a public forum as well as advertising his website. Please submit any opinions, complaints, or suggestions via email to ea@thisisandrew.net.

The Editon Addition