Imagine that you were expected to build a house without instructions, read a novel while being illiterate, or paint a picture with no hands. Would that not feel unfair, like you were on the losing side of a battle? Wouldn’t you wonder how people ever expected you to succeed with all these disadvantages? Now, imagine that you were expected to maintain a non-violent, peaceful society without ever being exposed to violence. Wouldn’t that seem strange? Wouldn’t it feel like the people who implemented the rule wanted you to be violent? Well, for many people in the world, this is their reality. Internationally, governments censor violence, making it harder for people to understand the effects of violence. Governments claim that they are doing this to maintain a safer, more peaceful society, yet studies show that they are creating the opposite. There are hundreds of studies that show the negative correlation between censorship and violence. Despite this, world-wide we see people censoring violence in the name of peace. In spite of this, the government should not censor violence in the mass media because of political bias,a lack of understanding regarding violence, and an increase in violence.

Throughout history, totalitarian leaders such as Nero, Constantine, Hitler, Stalin, Pot, and Putin, have used their ability to control what violence is and isn’t shown to empower their political ideologies. According to Stalin’s manifesto The Road To Power, “In order to truly change public perception, you first need to be able to control what they see. If you expose them to viewpoints that differ from the ones that you are trying to teach them, they will be more hostile to your way of thinking, which will make it nearly impossible for you to mold their minds to your way of thinking.(...) Instead show them violence that reflects poorly on your enemy, in order for them to steer clear of the enemyś tactics” (The Library of Congress). This type of politically-motivated censorship of violence is not exclusive to the past either. Donald Trump ran on a platform which included censoring violence and continually connected mass shootings to violence in the media. With that in mind, through his large social media presence, he exposed his supporters to intense violence that reflected poorly on those he disagreed with. When The Washington Post ran a study on how much of the violence Trump censored reflected negatively on him, they found that it was “96%” (Lopez). Additionally, when the paper ran a study on how much of the violence he shared reflected poorly on his opponents, it was found to be “99.8%” (Lopez). This isn’t just with high standing officials. Harvard ran an experiment where several teachers were given the ability to control what was and wasn’t put out by the students and faculty. “It was found that 94% of what the educators censored reflected poorly on them or their ideas”(Harvard). This shows just how appealing the ability to censor can be. Despite this, it is not the right thing to do. Everyone should be able to see multiple viewpoints, and content that doesn't reflect well on a particular political party. Censoring this limits ideas and thought, which can lead to violence.

People also need to understand the negative effects of violence. Censorship of violence can keep people from understanding the negative effects that their words and actions can have in regards to violence. In Nora Cairon’s memoir  The Bleeding Children, Cairon tells the story of her daughter’s murder; all the while explaining why people need to see images of gun violence. “Much of the time, when people try to discuss gun violence, they end up sanitizing it in such a way as to ´protect feelings´. In reality what they are doing is depicting a false world, a world where children are not shot on their walk home from school. A world where everyone lives through childhood- and experiences all that life has to offer. But that isn't the real world. And we can't pretend that it is¨(Cairon). People need to be able to see and understand gun violence in a raw form. However, many people feel uncomfortable seeing this imagery and try to get it censored. According to The Chicago Tribune, ¨A study conducted by the University of Chicago found that 93% of violent offenses that occured in Chicago during 2019 were not widely reported, and 98.7% of what was widely reported was incredibly censored and sanitized¨(Roman). When people don't see violence, they don't understand violence. This is most obvious in relation to students. In a study conducted by Yale University in 2021, ¨According to the 250 students asked about violence, only 11% said they fully understood violence and itś negative effects, while 82% said they had little knowledge of violence and itś effects, while 7% said they had no understanding of violence and itś effects¨ (Richardson). Without an understanding of violence, one can not help to create a safer society. This is why we need to see the effects of violence, but we aren't being shown them enough.

Violence causes tragedy and ruins lives. That is why it is disheartening to see the increase in violence that has occurred lately. According to Baltimore Afro-American,¨In 1992, 6% of deaths in the United States were caused by purposeful violence. In 2022, 11% of deaths in the United States are caused by purposeful violence. This is a 5% increase¨(Muhammad). This illustrates the problem with censoring violence. There is also less being done to stop violence. When The Florida Gazette ran a study to see how much action was taken to stop gun violence in response to the Parkland shooting in 2017, as compared to the amount of action in trying to stop gun violence in response to the Columbine shooting in 1999, they found that it was a ¨83% decrease¨ (Johannsen). This illustrates the negative correlation with censorship and gun safety. What does this increase in violence have to do with the censorship of violence? As it turns out, quite a lot. According to criminal psychologist Edward Vanderbelt,¨When someone is not exposed to violence, they will not understand it. This can lead to them feeling that violence doesn't have any consequences. For someone who may be more prone to committing violent acts for any number of reasons, this lack of understanding regarding violence due to censorship can lead to them committing the violent act without a complete understanding of their actions.¨ (Vanderbelt). Bad people will always be out there, but without an understanding of violence, we give those bad people opportunities to cause harm. We need to take those opportunities away, and that starts with showing violence as it is.

Violence is a horrible, complicated issue, and there will never be a perfect solution to ending all violence. With that in mind, censoring violence is not the answer. Censoring violence leads to political bias, a lack of understanding regarding violence, and an increase in violence. It reaps ignorance and ruins lives. We need to stop violence in other ways. We need to take guns out of the homes of those who aren't responsible enough to use them. We need to educate on gun violence more directly. We need to pass laws that create safer streets. But, just like someone who wants to build a boat needs an instruction manual, someone who wants to stop violence needs to see violence in order to truly understand it.