Creative artists should be given freedom to express their ideas (words, pictures, music and films). However some people think government should take some restriction with them. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Give your reasons with own knowledge and give examples.

Although

putting a hindrance to artistic creativity is thought by some to be crucial for society, others claim that artists should be totally free to give voice to their beliefs and emotions. I lay my thought alongside the opinion of the latter, due to the arts and freedom of expression, both are the rudimentary elements of human rights. Some individuals believe that arts are brash, intricate instruments, which can transgress the moral, religious principles;

as a result

, these blasphemies have to be restricted severely. To illustrate more, several years ago, a youngster from Denmark drew a picture of Mohammad prophet and pose the wrath of Muslims all over the world.

Therefore

, it is potential that artists exploit their liberties so as to trample the rights of other people with different beliefs and religions worldwide. The opponents of the art’s limitation state that

such

creative activities are the basic form of human expression and if the media are controlled by despots, arts will be sole instruments to demonstrate the fact, poverty, adversity, and even corruption.

Moreover

, they are of the opinion that local ethics are not conclusive and should be evolved. Thereby, artists can manifest equality, diversity, and unity,

thus

, we can refer to it as a meticulous measure rather than immoral ones. In conclusion, despite the fact that some creative masterpieces, once in a while, are considered intimidation for ethical dimensions, but they scrutinize what it means to be human, so liberty is an integral part of that as a pivotal, basic human right.