The debate about creative artists’ regulations about their freedom to express their own thoughts, such as words, pictures, music, or film, has sparked a heated argument. Some believe that government restrictions are necessary as they prevent unwanted conflicts and provide social balance. From my point of view, I completely stand with this viewpoint, as free will might bring new problems and develop an unwanted mindset in society.
To begin with, strict and clear regulations towards people, especially artists, can prevent social harm and unwanted conflicts. While artistic freedom is valuable, some argue that certain arts or expressions that artists make can be used to create friction between groups. For instance, artists can put harsh sarcasm or mockery in their art that might shift other individuals’ perspectives about the targeted communities. Regulations, therefore, act as a safeguard, especially for vulnerable groups who may be affected by harmful illustrations.
Secondly, restrictions on the arts will maintain social order and balance. Although censorship can be controversial, it can also prevent the spread of misleading or destabilizing ideas. In some cases, the government may censor art to prevent it from undermining political goals or being brought to a halt. For example, some nations banned modernist art as they labelled it “degenerate” and might distract society from seeing their original goals. Moreover, this can build a more healthy artists with proper and desired goals.
In conclusion, I believe that government restrictions are a completely rational decision supported by many great factors. This decision not only maintains social order but also prevents social harm. While creativity is important, it should operate within boundaries that safeguard society as a whole.