right

Who has the right?

    TV censorship is a much-debated idea. In recent years many have said that what is shown on TV is getting out of hand. Victoria’s Secret parades women around in underwear like a porn advertisement, some commercials have experimented with swearing and there are way too many steamy love scenes easily found just by flipping through the TV channels. For the greater good of our nation, we must limit what our young people are watching--or should we?

    The opposition to TV censorship thinks that “once [the] government begins to limit free speech, the limitations will increase” says Yoshihiro Ozaki, writer for Topics Online Magazine. This argument is really rather absurd when looked at logically; it is reasonable to fear an all-governing Big Brother kind of government, but that sort of thing will never happen here in America. There are way too many people who fight to protect freedom and the American way. If a Big Brother government even began to develop there would be war on the government by the common man. Evidence of this is how hard people are fighting against censorship, saying that censorship of TV is limiting freedom speech. It is people like those who fight against the government coming into citizen’s homes in any way.

    Luis Vazque argues, “If I find something on television…to be offensive to me, then I will make use of the most powerful weapon at my disposal – it’s called the OFF button.” A very valid point. In opposition to this point: what about a young child who’s just flipping channels and happens to stop on a rather violent action show, or an extremely adult love scene? Can we say that the child will turn off the TV or change the channel? In my experience with children anything action packed, flashy or in the least bit interesting, will catch the eye of a child and hold their attention until it becomes boring. Most of the time violence is anything but boring and Hollywood works very hard to keep it that way. What sorts of effects will seeing some guy’s head blown off have on a young child? Could it create more Columbine incidents? Those for TV censorship believe that theses violent show are the cause of school shootings and other horrifying acts.

    I think one of the worst things we have to fear from so much violence is it becoming normal, something so commonplace that we don’t even bat an eye. It is a rather understood fact that if you want to normalize something in a culture, all you have to do is show it in a light that makes it right. Such as the hero calmly killing the bad guy. It’s rather obvious that children are being desensitized to violence. Things that would horrify children in the past are shrugged off by children of today.
“However, I would tend to think that TV censorship exercised by parents, would build a weak personality of children.” Says Monia Ayari 3EG2. I cannot believe that there are actually people who would want their children’s personalities to be formed by TV! Children learn by example. If we show a child violence or abusive language, what kind of example are we setting? Children should build personalities from good morals, and in turn form good strong people. True that there are such shows like Sesame Street that talk about and show kids kindness and friendship and other such goodness. But how will a child know what is right from what is wrong if all they see are extreme examples of wrongness with the good morals being explained in words only at the end, as it is in most TV shows and cartoons? The most powerful thing to a child is what is demonstrated; actions speak louder then words.

    I believe that the best answer to the question of censorship is having parents being the censors at home. A parent’s job is to protect their children from the cruelties of the world. One of the ways that we can protect our young is for parents to begin at home, by limiting what their children watch. By limiting harmful images shown a child we can say that we are successfully protecting that child. We can’t keep our young guarded from the outside world forever. But if nothing else, what they watch should be monitored until at least sixth grade. From there it is to the parents’ discretion what the child watches.
That TV censorship is a violation of the first amendment is the most popular of the
argument against. The first amendment is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    First off I’d like to point out that this argument is not very well conceived. The first amendment when written was not expected to have to contend with such things as radio, TV, or the web. All medias that transcend borders are automatically harder to deal with because of the mass amount of people who can be reached in a matter of moments. All we can say for sure is that Congress can’t stop anyone from speaking their mind in a public area, or thinking for themselves. It does not restrict Congress from making laws that stop people’s offensive opinions from unrestricted access into people’s homes. It’s a completely different thing if a person were to invite an idea, or an advocate of an idea that they were against, into their home; which is what some people believe TV basically is.

    “What about shows with mature content that are beyond a child’s comprehension?” asked Erica Hanson. For this I say that shows that have a content too mature for children should be restricted to prime time, when it is less likely to be seen by children and parents are normally home to regulate what their kids watch anyway.

    In the long run, censorship could be a good idea. I don’t want to scream fire when there’s only smoke, but if you were to look at what was on TV 50 years ago and compare it to TV now, you would see that there is definitely a decline in wholesome show department. You would also see that there is more sex on TV today, there is more violence today, and swearing has worked its way into a few commercials. What will this look like in another 50 years?

    According to the Publication of the Family Research Council, “75% of Americans think that there is too much sexual programming and 90% of the people think that TV violence has had a negative influence on American society”. If this is truly the popular belief, then why hasn’t censorship passed into national law?