Is America capable of handling the truth? Censorship has always been a part of society. Now, in the digital age we live in now with continual access to the television or Internet for sources of information, there is now a plethora of unprocessed, unfiltered data that could contain anything especially on the internet in which anyone at any age range can be exposed to. Is censorship necessary in the media? The only way to define censorship is that it’s a filter, or a restriction to suppress material. Censorship has been a part of society ever since writing was invented in Mesopotamia 5,000 years ago. However, now with the war on terror in Iraq and the events prior to that, 9/11 in which thousands of innocent lives were lost on American soil, only more questions are being asked. Besides that, since last year numerous amounts of school shootings have occurred in which students involved lost their lives in vain, which creates speculation about the violence in our digital age today especially in movies, and video games that can in a sense, have kids today become soldiers raised on video games. People seem to think that the media is the one to be blamed and assume the most probable course of action to take is to increase censoring. However, this censorship only violates our first amendment- freedom of speech and expression, as well as the people’s right to know. However, how much censorship is too much, too little and do the ends justify the means or is it just merely a practice of futility? Should there be media censorship? For what it’s worth, it hasn’t done much as to making a more model society and contradicts what America is all about- freedom and autonomy. America does not need media censorship because there’s no clear definition, doesn’t necessarily help, and we have the choice of viewing, or not viewing content that is immoral, violent, or un-American.
The problem with censorship is that it’s a very broad term, as to what should be censored and what shouldn’t be. There is no absolute, clear cut, definitive answer which is why this is an issue to begin with. It is difficult for people to agree on what should be censored, and to define it in terms that are clear enough to put publishers and distributors on notice of what is banned.” said Marjorie Heins and Christina Cho. This is true because all what really determines what is to be censored is a person’s morals, ethics, and religious beliefs, which all vary. If, a person’s morals, ethics, and religious beliefs wasn’t a factor then defining censorship would probably be much easier to define. “All censorship requires that one person or group of persons define what is appropriate for another person to see, read, or hear.” (Steffens) The problem with that is again, what may seem inappropriate to one group may seem totally acceptable to another individual. Groups like the FCC( Federal Communications Commission) censor what we see on TV, and show off their political masculinity by suing the creators of a movie or show that they deem “inappropriate” and leech money off of it, which enables them to stay intact as an official government body. However, it’s not just these groups who predetermine censoring of something- individuals can as well, like parents.
A particular pet peeve of any protective parent is to of course, protect their kids from viewing anything too violent or too provocative with sexual expression or innuendo for it could have an influence on their later lives. Today’s calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence causes people to act in destructive ways.” (Burns) The response to that were the ESRB and the MPAA, or the Entertainment Software Rating Board, and the Motion Picture Association of America, with ESRB in charge of determining video game ratings and the MPAA with movies. These groups determine whether certain content is considered “Rated R”, “Rated Mature”, or appropriate for everyone. However, they don’t necessarily help- “There is no way that a censorship law or a simplistic letter-or-number rating system can make these judgments.” said Marjorie Heins and Christina Cho because in most cases, if a child is unsupervised they will look at that mature rating and curiosity will set in to wonder why it’s only appropriate for older people, which only makes this rating system only ironic and rendered useless. “Censorship also creates taboos that make the forbidden material more attractive.” (Heins, Cho) So are the ESRB and MPAA actually accomplishing their objective in which to make sure kids aren’t viewing inappropriate material? Not necessarily.
However, most would argue that censorship is needed in society to keep everything orderly. It is true that we may not need censorship in the media, however for the sake of the future generations, our children, we cannot expose them to any content that would give any ideas that may promote violence or sex or it could influence their lives later on. With censorship, we can be sure to teach children by replacing inappropriate content with strong, American, Christian overtones. Ideas lead to actions and bad ideas often lead to bad acts, bringing harm to individuals and possible ruin to societies.”(Stay) Children, especially young children with inexperience and an inability to understand right from wrong can be influenced by content on TV or video games, and he or she will carry out that action with whatever material that has been viewed to serve as a role model for it.
Admittedly, the exposure of sex and violence to children could influence their later lives, though on the other hand, we are not forced to view this type of material, and we have a choice whether we want to or not. “A free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants-or does not want-to receive or donate” (Burns). America, which is a free society being that it is based on democracy, allows people to decide for themselves as individuals on what they want to see or not see. If a child is exposed to it, it is senseless to have the media as the scapegoat when the parents are to be blamed for not watching their kids better. As said earlier, when a child is unsupervised, the taboo of the rating system makes the content much more attractive. I have had prior experience with this because I was exposed to violent video games and horror movies at a young age. Did it make me a depressed, psychotic serial killer on the verge of breaking? No, it actually did the opposite- it traumatized me for years with nightmares, especially the horror movies I was exposed to. After that I learned on my own to stay away from those movies at a young age and learned the hard way. Even today I’m still fine, so parents act a little too overzealous these days. However, besides censorship of media, there is also manipulation of it.
Censorship is not needed because there’s no clear definition, doesn’t necessarily help, and we have the choice of viewing, or not viewing content that is considered inappropriate. It is unconstitutional because censorship is based on an individual’s morals, religious beliefs, and ethics and hence, does not have a clear cut definition on what to censor, and therefore a number or letter rating system to determine appropriateness is practically useless. With censorship, the news can morph or bend events to their liking for a biased or glorified view for the sake of money, and so people should start taking some of the things they say with a grain of salt. Censorship is inevitable as it will always be a part of any society. However, if one were so inclined to do something about it, you could join NCAC, or the National Coalition Against Censorship and support their cause. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars.” In this digital age, one could be easily manipulated by the media and advertisement when not given the proper information. It is senseless to complain about content we don’t like because we have the choice of not viewing it. If the show is inappropriate, turn the TV off or just change the channel. It’s as simple as that. If you were all about censorship and devoted yourself to your country and go against creative thinking, then go live in a country that follows a totalitarianism government. The ends do not justify the means. No matter what however, even when there is no censorship whatsoever, conspiracy theorists will always find something to preach about on their soap boxes.
Works Cited
– American Civil Liberties Union. “Government Censorship Would Be Harmful.” Contemporary Issues Companion: Censorship. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. San Francisco Public Library. 17 Apr. 2008 .
-Marjorie Heins and Christina Cho. “Teaching Media Literacy Is an Alternative to Censorship.” Contemporary Issues Companion: Civil Liberties. Ed. Jill Karson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. San Francisco Public Library. 17 Apr. 2008 .
– 20 years of Censored News, Carl Jensen, 1997 Seven Stories Press 1997
New York
– Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints, David Bender & Bruno Leone, 1990 Green Haven Press, San Diego,CA
-Storck, Thomas. “Censorship Can Be Beneficial.” Opposing Viewpoints: Censorship. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. San Francisco Public Library. 18 Apr. 2008
