The speaker approaches the podium, prepared to give his speech. He has prepared his address for months. He takes a sip of water and clears his throat. He begins his speech, but something seems odd; no sound comes from him. His lips move in perfect synchronization with his silence. He gestures appropriately for his audience. His speech lasts for two hours ... two hours of silence. The speaker finishes his speech as the audience begins to applaud. The speaker steps down from the podium. Later he receives high praise for his enlightening speech. True, he didn't utter a single word, but he didn't offend a single person. The speaker has embraced censorship and spoken in a way that would please everyone. By not stating his views he avoided the risk of being branded racist, ageist, sexist, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, anti-Semitic, socialist, fascist, republican, democratic, gay, homophobic, or individual. He has maintained a diverse following by pleasing everyone and because of this, the speaker now has total power over his adoring fans.

Imagine it, a world ruled by the amazing speaker, the one that pleases all. We should all follow his example and remain silent so as to please everyone else. Sure, we might not enjoy it, but at least everyone will like us. In fact, since we're giving up our free speech (for the better good of course), let's give up our religion (don't want to be branded anyway). While we're at it, why not just let the speaker decide what we should think, say, and do. The speaker should determine the words we read, the visuals we see, the activities we do. Soon enough we'll be letting the speaker decide what groups we should associate with and what material goods we should buy. Finally, we will become the speaker, or at least clones of him; first by emulating him in every way until modern science finds a way to create truly equal citizens through genetic engineering. Imagine it, a perfect utopia, all at the cost of individuality.

Sounds like a good trade off, no? Your individuality for a perfect society. Your personality for total acceptance. Your soul for the wisdom of the almighty silent speaker. This is the price of censorship. Sounds farfetched, doesn't it? The situation may be exaggerated, but it still occurs (to an obviously more subtle extent) now just as it has for the last five thousand years.

Censorship has existed since the first primitive humans created the concept of taboo. However, taboo, unlike modern censorship, was usually imposed on things that cause harm in some way (i.e. eating poisonous foods or intermarriage). Modern censorship started with the Roman Catholic Church, whose primary concern was preventing "heresy." If your views or beliefs didn't coincide with those of the church then you were executed. This period brought us the Inquisition, the Index Librorum Prohibitum (Index of Forbidden Books), and the scientifically disproved, yet still religious doctrine, earth-centred universe. Then came Martin Luther and the fall of Church control. Fortunately, censorship was taken over by the state. Government censorship exists to maintain social stability, national security, and public morality. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Saddam's Iraq all practiced mass censorship, which worked fantastically for them. The United States practices excessive censorship on a daily basis after every major tragedy (Columbine, Oklahoma City, 9/11, etc.). Sure, censorship to maintain social stability and national security makes perfect sense; but where do they draw the line on moral censorship? Luckily another censor has stepped up to assist the government.

Minority censors like PETA, the Parents Music Resource Centre, or the Roman Catholic Church (look who's back) have taken the interests of society into their hands. Censoring everything from music to film. I’m sure society has reason to fear The Diary of a young Girl by Anne Frank, Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Harriet the Spy by Loise Fitzhugh, or Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein. Van Morrison's Brown Eyed Girl, Olivia Newton John's Physical, and Peter, Paul, and Mary's Puff the Magic Dragon have all fallen victim to the minority censors. The censors themselves are affected by censorship, the film The Silent Scream was banned from Catholic High Schools despite the fact that it demonstrates valid support for Church doctrine all because pro-choice groups find it offensive. Mass media censor Clear Channel Communications pulled over 150 songs from its play lists after 9/11. Songs like Jet Airliner by Steve Miller, Highway to Hell by AC/DC, Dust in the Wind by Kansas, Only the Good Die Young by Billy Joel, and Great Balls of Fire by Jerry Lee Lewis pulled because they contain metaphoric themes that reminded of the tragedy.

Censorship has existed since the first primitive humans created the concept of taboo. However, taboo, unlike modern censorship, had a purpose. What is the purpose of modern censorship? Will we die if we listen to Puff the Magic Dragon? Will we some how cause harm to others or ourselves if we choose to believe that the sun is the centre of the solar system? Modern censorship, unlike taboo, exists only as a form of control. Censorship is used to create the society desired by the censoring body. It is used to impose the beliefs of minority groups upon the majority. It is used to keep the censors in power by silencing the opposition. Censorship is control. By allowing others to censor what we read, hear, or say we allow them to control the way we think. When they control the way we think, they control the way we act. When they control the way we act, they control the world. How can we let the minority control us? There is only one majority ... the human majority.

The minorities claim to censor to protect the majority from the evils of ... itself? What gives the censors the authority to say what the public should be exposed to? The people being silenced by the censors are just as much a part of society as the censors. Should they not have the right to speak their mind? If the censor frowns upon their method of expression, should their message be silenced? What if their message could influence people in a positive way? Consider if their message is one of peace and love, however the censor’s agenda is one of war and dominance. Which message would you want to hear? The point is; we're not all Catholic. We don't all support PETA. To some of us, Puff the Magic Dragon is just a song about a dragon named Puff. We have the ability to think for ourselves. We can decide what is right and what is wrong. We don't require a censor to experience our experiences for us. Despite this we still allow the censors to dictate our lives. How can we let this injustice continue?