Part (2 of 2)
July 10, 2015
First and foremost as a valuable employee to this company please let me say that I am pleasured by you taking the time to read this letter but with that being said let me be frank in my letter by saying that what we are really talking about here and thinking about doing here is called censorship of a constitutional rights to our basic freedoms of speech and information through publication, am I right? Well let me say that, that to me can be a very slippery. First yes I do agree that there is a lot of miss represented information out there to be had by miss informed minds to do what with in which they please so yes I do think that some information should be left out of the publication of print but who am I to say what should or should not be printed it might take a stronger person than me to fill those shoes, to be able to tell one person that the information that they want to print is ok for general public yet at the same time I would be telling another that there information is to risquÃ© to be put out in the open.
I guess what I am trying to say is that what and how we chose to use the information that we read or watch on films and in books is more damaging to a society than to be printing it in the first place.
I err caution upon the idea of censorship because once that idea is put into motion it would be a hard door to close and even a harder door to defend.
We are a nation of intelligent free thinking individuals that are always open to new ideas and new ways of thinking and when an agency or a free rouge corporation or governmental entity has the ability to censor what we see or do, then to me it is not that much more of a grasp to think of George Orwell’s “1984’ society, and how much closer we could be edging towards it.