Trigger Warnings

Trigger Warnings

Introduction

We are living in a world with different technological innovations, and notably, individuals have their rights to express issues within their existence. And while individuals have the freedom to express their selves, they are limited to some extent. Censorship renowned in contemporary society serves as a restrictive measure to vast unauthorized information. Thus, censors serve to restrict free speech. While exercising the freedom of speech, individuals ought to be aware of sensitive information. Individuals should be given information before engaging the content. Therefore, while exploring trigger warnings, this paper seeks to analyze different journals on the benefits and cons of censorship and free speech on trigger warnings.

Arguments Related to Free Censorship/ Free Speech

Censorship entails the act of converting a message between the sender and the recipient. It also incorporates the process of deleting that suppresses free speech to make the processing of information objectionable (Ingram 45). Often, issues that are controversial go through censorship to limit its impact on individuals.  As for the advantages, censorship aids in protecting individuals from inciting different forms of violence. Also, it reduces incitement panics that would cause further harm to individuals. For instance, it prevents people from encouraging functional yet controversial movements by the government. Also, it can be applied in cases of offensive content and material, thereby protecting the vulnerable, i.e., children from misleading information and actions.

Although proponents of censorship argue that it reduces individuals’ access to different harmful activities, the process is flawed since individuals are denied their rights to various forms of information through censorship. Besides, it allows for tyranny more so among individuals who oppose the matter that brings about the controversy (Ingram 46). Thus, the process represses a group of minorities in favor of the majority’s needs. As such, censorship requires individuals to develop a narrative that takes the place of truth in society. Thus, censorship serves to reduce the overall intelligence of diverse individuals who cannot express themselves freely.

As for free speech, it entails the freedom to address one’s opinion in a public situation. Also, it involves the ability to experience other people’s opinions without any form of restraint. The advantages of free speech manifest in multifold for instance, it protects an individual from the influence of other people with particular interest (Ingram 48). For example, in an organization, free speech allows individuals to express their concern on issues that affects them as employees. Thus, employees can protect themselves from moves that threaten the subordinates within the organization. With the use of free speech, individuals’ opinions contribute to the overall decisions made in organizations. As such, compelled actions amid individuals with unique interests are eliminated. Besides, free speech serves as a regulator of unlawful activities within society. It is because it sets norms and values that direct individuals to behave in a certain way. Thus, an individual is not entitled to speak in a manner that offends other individuals in society. As such, free speech limits people’s behavior in an attempt to safeguard other people’s existence.

The disadvantages of free speech include its ability to facilitate the spread of outright lies and other forms of false information. The process has been accelerated through the innovation of the internet and other social media platforms. Thus, individuals can incite violence, which may affect individuals in society. It is because, in some instances, free speech facilitates a mob mentality. The mentality has diverse adverse effects on the society and the overall government since it serves to create a mental picture of wrong in an individual (Ingram 50). Besides, it reduces individuals’ desire to compromise different activities within society. It is because free speech gives individuals rights and opinions, which allows individuals to achieve what they want. As a result, individuals can function in an incontinent manner. Thus, free speech has advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Free Speech and Censorships on Trigger Warnings

Lesh, Matthew. “Triggering censorship.” Institute of Public Affairs Review: A Quarterly Review of Politics and Public Affairs, The 68.2 (2016): 16.

The journal “Triggering censorship” discusses trigger warnings as applied in different situations in contemporary society. The author presents the use of distressing contents in the media program or books. The information concerning distressing content presented at the beginning before the actual content serves to warn individuals against distressing content. Thus, an individual can choose to pursue the content or not depending on their emotional state.

The author explains the advantages of censoring trigger warnings to protect individuals from harmful content. For instance, its application in educational institutions aims at safeguarding students from distressing information. It is because they benefit and protected from harmful adverse effects from ham. Moreover, employing free speech remains beneficial as individuals can express themselves without bias. Also, censoring trigger alerts, and the exclusive contents aids in safeguarding freedom speech as individuals are not accountable for sharing the uncensored information. The author of the journal depicts that trigger alerts limit individuals’ freedom of speech. Therefore, censorship of a particular content allows individuals to exercise their freedom of speech on good content that does not limit an individual.

Moreover, the researcher argues that free speech plays an essential role in contemporary society. The author of the journal presents information on free speech and how it allows for individuals to engage and make their opinions regarding the sensitive issues. It is because the trigger warnings allow physical and psychological experience for individuals. Thus, it provides a safe environment for individuals who once experienced a traumatizing event. Among individuals who are likely to feel emotional discomfort, censorship is applied so that they cannot be exposed to distressing content. Besides, the researcher argues that trigger alerts can be used by individuals, more so, to skip classes and fail to prepare for different assignments. Thus, censorship and limiting alerts to individuals are fundamental in learning since it allows for the removal of harmful contents. Hence, individuals can learn adequately without getting discomfort from different insensitive content.

Boysen, Guy A., et al. “Trigger warnings in psychology classes: What do students think?.” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 4.2 (2018): 69.

In the journal, the authors have it that stress from sensitive content negatively impacts individuals, which leads to adverse health outcomes. Therefore, trigger warnings ought to undergo censorship so that to avoid stressors. The journal adds that in contemporary society, the misuse of trigger alerts by different individuals prevails. For instance, in various institutions, especially in learning faculties, a professor may present a topic as sensitive and hold separate entities accountable for not yielding excellent performance. The action does not contain the professor liable for not providing adequate information. Instead, trigger alerts are used in self-defense, and the students are blamed for a mistake they did not perform. So, censorship on trigger alert remains in being useful as it prevents misinformation and unlawful activities in different institutions.

Bentley, Michelle. “Trigger warnings and the student experience.” Politics 37.4 (2017): 470-485.

The Journal by Bentley, Michele illustrates that censorship should be applied to trigger warnings. The author argues that trigger warnings can be used as a political tool in learning institutions. Therefore, censorship limits such situations as it limits the display of sensitive contents.  The author gives an example of a school situation and why the alerts should be regulated. For instance, in a school setting, a professor may be subjected to various investigations on failing to warn students about the sensitivity of the content. Therefore, censorship is essential to censor the material so that such occurrences are limited. Similarly, trigger alerts put individuals under undue pressure of having to prepare. Thus, the authors argue that sensitive information is left out to protect individuals. More so, among students and their professors since it serves as time-wasters since many procedures ought to be undertaken to establish the trigger alerts correctly.

Disadvantages

Stringer, Rebecca. “Reflection from the field: Trigger warnings in university teaching.” Women’s Studies Journal 30.2 (2016): 62.

Works Cited

Ingram, Peter G. Censorship and free speech: some philosophical bearings. Routledge, 2019. (45-50)

The peer-reviewed journal aimed at presenting the disadvantages of using censorship and free speech. Often, trigger warnings aid individuals seeking certain content to be well prepared for the discomfort that awaits them. Thus, censoring trigger content hinders individuals from some beneficial aspects of the material. In the author’s viewpoint, trigger contents are not as bad as it is useful in twofold. First, individuals are enlightened through the forewarnings of the negative emotion before engaging the distressing stimuli. Therefore, trigger warnings are trivially helpful to individuals and should not be subjected to censorship. The author also explains that restriction on trigger warnings causes more harm due to the predisposition of vulnerable individuals to potentially adverse effects. It is because individuals are not given options on whether to engage in the information or not. Thus, they are unable to choose from harmful influences and hence may be emotionally affected owing to the lack of knowledge.

Besides, the author presents the necessity of trigger warnings for individuals with post-traumatic disorders. The author has it that trigger warning, especially in the classroom setting, gives students with trauma from different occurrences heads-up on the material they are likely to encounter. Similarly, trigger warnings protect individuals with trauma from sexual abuse. Thus, removing the trigger warnings will impact negatively on the entities. It is because the students may be unable to take the pain due to the reminiscence of the memories.  The authors explain that sensitive information has essential values. So, trigger warnings should serve to warn the victims that the content has a likelihood of triggering emotions. Through the notification, an individual can acknowledge the possibility of discomforts besides the content playing a role in encouraging entities. Thus, censorship on sensitive content hinders the access to content, and so trigger alerts should be uncensored.

Campbell, Bradley, and Jason Manning. “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and the Language of Victimhood.” The Rise of Victimhood Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. 71-104.

The authors of the journal illustrate that often, natural occurrences do not alert individuals on different events. The authors give their thoughts on sanctions that allow for censorship of trigger alerts. Notably, censored content potentiates many effects and discomforts on the audience. Therefore, trigger alerts as applied in varied platforms forewarns individuals that the content they are about to visualize or read consists of harmful effects. Thus, the content prepares the individual rather than harming them with sensitive information and activities. It also warns individuals against reading or watching the content, as it may lead to diverse health effects on them. Often, trigger warnings appear in capitalization or highlighted. Therefore, the information is conspicuous for individuals skimming through to visualize. Thus, trigger warnings are mostly never meant to shut the process of making information unavailable. Instead, they serve as warnings against contents; it is renowned that censorships shut the information such that they are inaccessible to the public.

In conclusion, trigger warnings are both beneficial and have their disadvantages. Often, trigger allows for addressing specific concerns without catching the readers unaware. Thus, for individuals suffering from traumatic episodes, mental illness, and sexual assaults, among others, trigger warnings remain in being beneficial. While the authors illustrate the matter by presenting the benefits of trigger warning, they offer the importance of uncensored and free content. Ultimately, the researchers have it that censoring trigger alerts to limits content availability among emotionally unstable individuals. As such, the benefits of triggering alerts overwhelm the disadvantages; thus, policies should support the strategy.