Humans are born free - free to express and investigate. Is the government then justified in acting as a censoring body, deciding what we, as the public, should see and know and what we shouldn't? I believe that, while it is necessary to uphold norms of the society, it is the right of every artist to communicate his expressions to the public by his artistic works, and the right of the people to know facts about the past, shocking or otherwise.
Censorship of artistic works curbs an artist's freedom of expression. It may be argued that the purpose of censorship is to filter controversial and questionable work, and provide the public with a healthy dose of artistic expression. However, it is an artist's desire to express his thoughts, emotions and sentiments by way of his work. And after doing so the artist seeks an appreciation of his work from the general public. By regulating what the artist can express the government tends to discourage the artist in his or her artistic pursuit. When the artist knows that a certain work will not reach the public and hence will remain unappreciated, he or she will lose interest. Censorship confines the artist's expressions. For example, if an artist wishes to express his or her unhappiness with status quo through a painting, he or she must be allowed to do so. By curbing this desire, the government is violating his right to expression.
Censorship of historical displays too can prove detrimental to society. The purpose of historical displays at museums is to inform and educate the general public about events of the past. These are proof of the happenings of the past. While it may be argued that some selfish bodies may fabricate historical evidences to serve their own ends, it is true that they may even abuse censorship and withhold true information for the same purpose. By limiting the displays, the regulatory body is limiting the public's access to information.