The right to express, to free speech and to information often come in clash with censorship which is never an easy subject to write about. There is a conventional understanding of the idea, where censorship entails withholding information, destroying or altering information and self-censorship.

Self-censorship is said to be a natural corollary of censorship. Conventionally speaking, censorship comes at the hands of states and governments, and is then internalised by individuals and institutions, arts and media, through s sense of latent fear. It is self-censorship that lets freedom take a back seat. Censorship is thus antithetical to creativity which owes itself to freedom. In the larger scheme of things, it is even counter-productive and thwarts the forward march of history and progress.

Censorship is not a permanent state either. Many works of art and literature that were banned or banished in their time were later accepted with open arms. Yet states have often tried to shape societies, restore a certain kind of social order, through censorships of various kinds.

In modern times, the situation has become more complex and censors of more kinds have cropped up. The lure of market is one big censor, which in most cases is not even acknowledged as one. Yet, in modern times, more antidotes to censorship have also evolved. The curbs on media have been sidelined in a way in the domain of social media. But social media operates under large internet companies that too operate on principles of market than professional media ethics.

Also read: On censorship

It is this complex debate of censorship that we have tried to open on our pages today. The context, of course, is Pakistan where a sense of unsolicited constraints by the state and other actors is palpable and is reflected in the worst forms of self-censorship. Read these essays for a better understanding of the subject and reflect.