Constantly throughout history, the subject of censorship has been debated and has caused many to question who has the right to set the limits between something that is appropriate for viewing by the public eye or not. The morals of individuals are often repeatedly questioned and concern often arises when the topic is brought forth. A solution to the problem is however unattainable because of the inability to please everyone. In an article for the Atlantic Monthly, a writer discusses that the placement of nude statues and mature books in public places should be allowed and be based solely on the opinion of the majority of the people.
In the article, the writer discusses the effect of the public's opinion upon the issue of censorship. He uses the example of publically allowing the placement of nude statues in public museums and certain books in public libraries. However, the writer's argument contains many holes which give it a weak influence upon the topic. The writer depicts people's view upon statues in two ways; as moralists and artists. When he says, "Moralists will justify it for one set of reasons; artists will acede to it for another," the writer means that the opinions of each of the two groups will contradict each other. The writer than begins to explain his solution to the problem by relating the placement of the statues to that of library books. He believes that, "That if a certain book offends any considerable number of persons, it should be placed on the reserved list
The same procedure should be followed in arranging the statues in a museum open to the general public." This however proves to be inadequate because the status of the person who decides on whether or not the form of art is suitable for the public can vary between moralist and artist, which would lead to one class of people to be more satisfied with the decision than those of the opposite class. However the biggest hole in the article applies directly to that of the modern world...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document