With the advancements in technology, government censorship of information citizens see is becoming more and more common. An example of this censorship comes from 2025, when the CDC instructed their scientists to not use terms like "LGBT," "non-binary" and "transgender" in their publications. This resulted in scientists having to pull publications solely for using terms that fell under the "woke ideology."
We can also see this here in Wisconsin with the Watertown School Board's decision to ban high school students from playing "Mother of A Revolution" by Omar Thomas because it is dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights activist Marsha P. Johnson. This censorship of a piece with no lyrics was devastating to the students who had been working on the piece for months.
We can see this censorship in many things, like the banning of books or publications for being progressive or having ideas that don't agree with the government. For many things, like what happened in Watertown, it is because of controversial topics. However, people, especially children, should be able to build their own opinions on topics.
This government control is causing people to only see what the government wants, and not easily form their own opinions.
Letter: Bicyclists need to follow rules of the road or face fines
Giving in to government surveillance means no privacy
I am writing this to express my strong opposition to governmental surveillance. People may argue that we may benefit from government surveillance because it would make our streets safer, but we also have to recognize that if we fully give in to having government surveillance all around the United States, we will have close to no privacy. Personally, I would not trade my privacy for a chance to live in a safer country.
A key counterargument is that widespread surveillance is necessary for national security. A famous claim that people make is that since citizens have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear. This counterargument is redundant as they are blatantly suggesting that people who follow laws would not suffer from having their privacy taken.
The main reason why this counterargument is flawed is because that is not the true meaning of privacy. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing, instead it is about protecting personal information and preventing the abuse of power.
Advocating against government surveillance is crucial for future privacy within our community. Although this would be a positive use of artificial intelligence, it still does not positively impact the people, which should be our main concern.
Letter: Tiffany said restitution 'possibly' owed for Jan. 6 rioters
Tips for getting your letter to the editor published
Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state:
-
Please include your name, street address and daytime phone.
-
Generally, we limit letters to 200 words.
-
Cite sources of where you found information or the article that prompted your letter.
-
Be civil and constructive, especially when criticizing.
-
Avoid ad hominem attacks, take issue with a position, not a person.
-
We cannot acknowledge receipt of submissions.
-
We don't publish poetry, anonymous or open letters.
-
Each writer is limited to one published letter every two months.
Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: [email protected] or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Watertown music ban was an example of government censorship | Letters