Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way the wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
The issue of whether or not artistic freedom should be restricted provokes on going discussion around the world, even in countries which are considered democratic. I believe that society’s best interests are served when no limitations are placed on creative expression.
Freedom of artistic expression is important in its own right. Such freedom gives the widest scope to the exchange of ideas in a society, and this, in turn, promotes the general level of culture. It is also essential, however, because it is so closely linked to free speech in general, in particular political speech. Once a government passes laws restricting artistic expressions on political speech without freedom of speech, the development of a democratic society is greatly curtailed.
Most advocates of limiting artistic freedom will say that they are not only for restrictions “in certain cases”, for example for political content, or sexual content, or even perhaps religious content which is contrary to the majority religion of a country. However, in the first case, suppression of political expression is very often a question of stifling legitimate criticism of corruption or abuse of power by the government. Secondly, prohibiting artistic expression with a sexual content has not been shown to have any effect on lessening sex crimes, and thirdly, outlawing minority religious views only creates greater tension and potential for conflict in society.
In conclusion, creative freedom is an ideal worth defending. It makes possible the flowering of culture, and it is also inherently linked to broader freedoms.
(248 words)
