It seems
like your proposal is for the media to show both sides of the war—the good and
the bad. The reason why I say “it seems
like” is because near the end of the essay I get confused as to what your
proposal is. However, I believe the
previously stated proposal is what you are trying to get at. Your body paragraph chunk begins with an
example of literature and censorship. I
find that a clever move since you show how censorship has tried to be applied
on books such as Huckleberry Finn.
The downside of this is that you focus too much on the literature aspect
of censorship when you should briefly talk about the literature censorship then
move on to censorship of wars. If you
condense the literature portion into one paragraph then proceed onto your main
point, your proposal as a whole will seem more precise and on topic.
Now on to
the proposal itself. The problem you
bring up about censorship of wars does sound solvable since censorship would
violate the First Amendment. Therefore
it would seem reasonable to not censor information during wars any more since
you can indeed impose legislation against censorship. As for the support you have for your proposal, your first point
seems to propose another proposal where the media can use censorship during times
of peace but not during times of war.
If that is what you meant by this support, you should find another
source of support since this does not follow up with your main proposal. When you bring up the Constitution, I find
that the strongest support against censorship.
If you want to strengthen this paragraph, you may want to quote the part
of the Constitution that supports the unconstitutionality of censorship. As for the effectiveness of your solution,
you don’t seem to provide any consequences of your proposal if it were to be
carried out. You may want to find
possible consequences or just plainly state that you do not know the end result
of your proposal. You could always look
to see if any other country has stopped censorship of the media and see the
results of their actions. As for the
opposing argument, you have one argument about the leaking of military and
government secrets, and you defend your proposal, which is great. However, there can still be more negative
consequences from not using censorship.
You should maybe find at least one more possible negative consequence
from your proposal and either refute or accept it. As for the cost of your proposal, there doesn’t seem to be much
physical cost (money) involved since the proposal is basically allowing the
media to publish almost everything from both sides.
In
regards to other possible counterproposals, I cannot think of any since this
basically only needs legislation to be carried out. However, you may want to strengthen your proposal with maybe one
more support, then you should be set.
