Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restriction on what they do To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Freedom including speech is one of the most fundamental rights for every citizen. Artists who inspire society through their creativity are encouraged to be free to use literature, pictures, lyrics, and movies without the authority limit. I;

however

, disagree with

this

perspective because of the below reasons.  My

first

justification is that a writer or a song composer is not an ordinary citizen thanks to their influence on the public. It is no exaggeration to say that their work like a best-selling book might, to some extent, change the readers' viewpoint along with the writer's opinion.

Therefore

, these creators should be exclusively treated by the government, compared with others. Another reason is the appropriateness of the artwork. It is an unfortunate fact that not all creative things are suitable to society's values or age. A bomb film with high rates seems to be unhealthy for preschoolers with scenes of full violence and racial discrimination

for instance

. In

this

case, censorship by authorized departments plays a vital role in preventing vulnerable subjects from bad behaviours.

Last

but not least, a considerable number of artisans tend to insert their real-life experiences into their pieces of artwork making up pessimistic thoughts. These widespread quickly to their fans who are negatively impacted.

For example

, listening to a gloomy song is apparent to neither have optimistic prospects of life nor contentment.

As a result

, creative work should be submitted to the authority before publication. In conclusion, I contend that artists should be regularly censored by the authority to make sure ideas going to convey to the community are appropriate; and

this

censorship should be deliberate to let imagination be alive.