November 19, 2004

arguments

My paper is about the censorship of modern art. I support not censoring art. The argument of my opponents that is the hardest to refute is that bad art should be censored. It is tough because no one wants to look at bad art but the other problem is that bad art is a matter of opinion. Everyone has a different idea of what art is bad. I have one source that argues for censoring art very well. I will use multiple ways of discrediting this argument. For one of the arguments I will use value questioning to discredit this argument. One does not have the right to judge what is good or bad for someone else. And we have the first amendment to protect us. I will also discredit the argument by disproving the premises. What is bad art does not hold true in all cases.
The other argument for censorship of art is not all art is appropriate for all viewers. This one is hard to refute because not all is appropriate for everyone. I will refute this by asking who defines what is appropriate? That would be a moral issue. I could also disapprove premises because it doesn’t stand in all circumstances. The only thing an organization can do it state that the art may not be appropriate for all ages.

Posted by head0046 at November 19, 2004 11:25 AM