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

On the one hand, painters should be completely free to express their ideologies in their art. This is attributable to the fact that a considerable share of their audiences are primarily adults who are capable of independent and analytical thinking. To clarify, even if adults are exposed to hatred-evoking materials toward certain groups of society, be it religious or racial, they have the capacity to think for themselves and are thus able to distinguish if the author is justified or not. Moreover, painters do not explicitly illustrate provoking visuals in their works, mostly tending to use distractors to encourage others to think. For instance, when an artist attempts to demonstrate violence, they usually paint animal figures, such as a predator feeding on prey. This means that even if children were to be exposed to such visuals, they would be unlikely to comprehend such nuances, viewing it as only part of nature.

However, music and movie producers should be subjected to a certain level of intervention. Considering that songs are listened to by millions, including children who are often impressionable, songs that contain hate speech or promote violence ought to be censored. Meanwhile, movies pose an even greater threat to society if left unchecked. This is because movies openly display violent content, such as massacres or incidents resulting in countless casualties. Hence, it is more prudent to allow films to be released in theatres or on platforms, such as Netflix or Prime Video, provided that they are age-restricted or viewed under parental supervision.

To conclude, while paintings can be made by artists without external interference, as their influence is narrow, movies and songs should undergo meticulous scrutiny before they are made public.