Censorship; a topic of many heated debates and sometimes deemed unconstitutional. IS it really unconstitutional though? Does it do more harm than good? I believe in moderate censorship, and here is why.
Though before I get started I'd like to define (according to dictionary.com) the terms CENSOR and RESTRICT, and ABRIDGE and INFRINGE. These words are very close to meaning the same thing (paired).
CENSOR: To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
RESTRICT: To confine within bounds.
See... not too far off. Now for the next two.
ABRIDGE: To diminish or reduce in scope.
INFRINGE: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate
Also, not too far apart from one another... close cousins if you will.
Now, lets look at the First Amendment.(although it is important, the amendment actually wasn't the first one. It was the third. The other two were voted down during ratification - just a fun fact).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let’s look at the notion of freedom of speech and in no manner can this protection be considered absolute.The television is a medium for mass communication and should be considered under this rubric.
If you look at the forms of mass communication, they fall into three basic categories: the printed media, which include books, newspapers and magazines; the electronic media, which include sound recordings, movies, radio and television; and the persuasive media, which include advertising and public relations and recently the Internet. Some would place journalism is this category, too.
The printed media face the fewest restrictions on freedom of speech, which is generally synonymous with freedom of the press. The printed media can face restrictions through laws governing libel, defamation, invasion of privacy, and placing individuals in false light.
Sound recording faces limitation on free speech through federally mandated labeling. The movie industry has adopted a series of voluntary guidelines to prevent particular groups, mainly those under the age of 18, from exercising a right to view objectionable material.
Radio outlets face actual government regulation through licensing and protection against the use of indecent materials, usually prescribed as the seven dirty words.
Over-the-airwaves broadcast outlets also face government regulation through licensing, including the restriction against the portrayal of pornographic materials during specific hours when children might be present.
Advertisers face even more restrictions, including governance by the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. I recall one ad, for example, for a dietary drug in which the following side effects might occur:
* Drowsiness
* Headaches
* High blood pressure
* And even possible birth defects for children if a pregnant woman even touched the drug
The company was forced to make these pronouncements—a clear abridgement of its right to freely speak or freely ignore the possible side effects.
Irrespective of the medium, the law prohibits obscene material, which means individuals are engaged in a sexual act, bestiality, or other acts that do not simply cause titillation; the material has no artistic or scientific value; and offends local community standards. Also, the law prohibits any production, purchase, and sale of child pornography.
The leaders of our society with the support of a majority of the public have restricted freedom of speech in many ways. Then again, we live in a majority rule society.
So how should society deal with this medium [Network TV / Public Radio]?
Some would argue that the television has existed as a free-wheeling libertarian society and should remain that way without any significant restrictions on speech. Others want to impose federal legislation to restrict pornography and other forms of expression on television. I however just feel that Network television should be free of profane words and gratuitous nudity.
Censoring the Censor?
The African Proverb "It takes a village to raise a child" comes to mind. Censorship picks up the slack for parents who do not do their job. However, with the the need for a household to have dual-income it becomes increasingly hard for parents to constantly monitor what their child is watching, or listening to. Devices such as "V-Chip" are required by law in all televisions manufactured after 1999. It simply decodes the line 21 data, compares it with the parent's allowed rating and then either blocks the signal or lets it through. However, what one parent may find appropriate to one child may not be the same level of appropriateness that another parent feels. Regardless, the "V-Chip" acts as a censor, the only difference is that the parents must enact the role of censor, not the government. It also requires that the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board makes sure that the rating guidelines are applied accurately and consistently to television programming. The Monitoring Board has a Chairman and six members each from the broadcast television industry, the cable industry, and the program production community. The Chairman also selects five non-industry members from the advocacy community, for a total of 24 members. However, the PTC says that the system fails due to inaccurate ratings.
Raising a child in today's world is hard enough and will become increasingly hard as this world "evolves".
Imagine if you will a scenario where your child watches a TV show, that explicitly uses one of the big seven. He or she hears "Whats up bitch?" and decides that it is cute (since the audience on TV laughed). The child goes to school and says "Whats up bitch?" to a female student thinking it to be cute or that a few of their peers will get a chuckle. Hearing this, a teacher intervenes and explains that it was an impolite action.
Why is it impolite? Because it can be taken in several different ways: Ad-Hominous, jokingly, or ignorant to name a few. Still, the word used was inappropriate and there is never a way to be 100% sure how the comment will be taken, even by someone you didn't direct it to.
How do you explain to a child that it is okay to hear the words but not say them? Eventually the words won't be spoken if we teach them to hear but not say. Children emulate actions and behaviors they see on TV. They are very smart but also very naive, think back to when we were children- How many things do we think back on and say "I was wrong", or "Wow... was I stupid or what?" How often do you see a group of kids in a mall acting up? Of those times, how often do we stop and think "What's wrong with kids these day?" Can wee honestly say that the act of censorship prohibiting them from seeing, and hearing certain things does harm to a group that doesn't need MORE bad influence?
We have a responsibility to not only ourselves but to each other...
Anti-Censorship advocates drive home points about how it is okay to show nudity on TV, and pollute the airwaves with words like "FUCK". Sure, among adults on TV channels like HBO and Cinemax, this is fine. There is the option to NOT order those channels from your cable provider. However, on network television where censorship NEEDS to be, I'm sure these same people would take arms if their kids sat down and heard "NIGGER". Both words are offensive, but what makes one more offensive than the other? Nothing. People are offended by different things, and as such it is our responsibility to do our best to keep everyone happy out in public.
This topic mainly boils down to an impedance on Freedom of Speech, and clearly freedom of speech will be restricted. But freedom of speech is not and should not be absolute, irrespective of the medium, including the television.
