The government is correct in
trying to censor what is seen on television. Censorship does
not violate the first amendment and it prevents the harmful
effects of graphic television. Many people are in favor of
censorship and it may be accomplished without violating
the rights of broadcasters or any other individuals.
Censorship "refers to suppression of information, ideas, or
artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials,
church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers,
writers, and artists themselves" (Grolier, Inc.). Censorship
can be a bad thing, and can also be positive. For television
use, it is there to protect the people, namely children. There
is a fear that the expression if not curtailed will do harm to
individuals in its audiences or to society as a whole.
"Obscene material is attacked because of the fear that it
will corrupt personal morality" (Grolier, Inc.). The first
amendment states that 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. In no way does censorship violate the first
amendment. Censorship prevents broadcasters from
infringing on the rights of the viewers. Censorship has really
been limited to obscenity and gratuitous violence or nudity
because people in the media have policed themselves
pretty harshly. The most prominent law established due to
censorship is the Children’s Television Act of 1990. It was
established to "remind broadcasters that there is indeed a
common ground outside their narrow interests, a
responsibility beyond profiteering, a common civic well
where national purposes may coalesce"
(http://www.cep.org/vchip.html). This law, like many others
was put into place to protect the public. Many people
throughout the United States feel very strongly about the
issue of censorship. A firm supporter of censorship, United
States Senator Earnest F. Hollings, from South Carolina
stated that "Television should be a way to entertain,
educate, and teach our kids how to grow, not a way to
teach them how to shoot to kill"(Congressional Digest).
Another Senator, Bryan L. Dorgan, from North Dakota
described his anger when, while playing with his two small
children with the television on in the background, the words
"Son of a Bitch" were spoken. "That word has no place on
at 8:45 in the evening"(Congressional Quarterly report).
Things like that situation should not happen. Young viewers
should not be subjected to such obscenities and TV
violence. Broadcasters argue that censorship violates their
first amendment rights, but it does not. Violence and
obscene language violate viewers’ rights. The benefits of
censorship are simple. Less violence and graphic scenes
will result in a better society. Many people believe that TV
violence encourages youths to act the same way and that
censorship will help to get rid of this problem. Broadcasters
feel that parents should monitor what their children watch.
However, many parents are not always home and this is a
very difficult task. Each day, children are subjected to
violence through television. "If you came home and you
found a strange man teaching your kids to punch each
other, or trying to sell them all kinds of products, you’d
kick him right out of the house," says Yale psychology
professor Jerome Singer. "But here you are; you come in
and the RV is on and you don’t think twice about it"
(Abandoned in the Wasteland). TV violence is one of the
culprits of adolescent criminal behavior. Violent programs
may have a negative influence on those individuals who are
already violence-prone or children who are living through
vulnerable periods of their development. Controlling what
children view on television is the responsibility of the
government in order to decrease violence in the real world.
Adult violent offenders ten to have shown certain
personality features as children. "One being they tended to
have viewed violence on television" (Congressional Digest)
The amounts of violence on television continue to grow. A
typical child watched eight thousand murders and one
hundred thousand acts of violence before finishing
elementary school. The National Institute of Mental Health
and the Centers for Disease Control say that violence on
television breeds violent behavior. "Children are uniquely
influenced by what they see on television" (Congressional
Digest). There are a few proposed solutions that are under
consideration right now. They both employ the use of new
technology. Technology is going to have a major bearing on
the issue of censorship. The first of the two major
propositions is the V-chip. The V-chip puts the power of
censorship in the parents hands. The chip is inserted in the
TV and then the parent can program into the TV what can
and can not be viewed. The V-chip was introduced in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 by President Clinton and
the broadcasters were very happy with it because it
allowed them more slack with their programming content.
The down side to the V-chip is that it makes parents the
"bad guys" and children want to see the blocked
programming even more, so they find other ways to do so.
The second major proposal under consideration is the
rating system. The v-chip provision requires television
broadcasters and cable companies to voluntarily develop a
rating system on violence (which also includes sex and
obscenity) just like the rating system now employed by the
Motion Picture. This rating system would allow parents to
see the rating of a program and then use their discretion as
to whether or not to block the show. The government has
established the Federal Communication Committee which
is in charge of regulating what is said on TV and radio.
They can not tell broadcasters what to say an what not to
say. Only "Obscene, indecent, and profane language may
be kept off the air" (Tune in Tune Out). The United States
Supreme Court had affirmed the rights of the states and
municipalities to censor. They will take advantage of that
and monitor what is expressed on television. Many more
propositions will be made and compromised on before
broadcasters can come to terms with the public on
censorship. The government is correct in trying to censor
what is seen on television. The government serves to act in
the best interest of the people. The protection of the
development of minors in society is a very important issue.
The topic of censorship has become such a prevalent issue
because of its huge importance to many people. The public
has made this an issue that the government and media must
deal with in order to make both the broadcasters and the
general public happy. It has been proven that violence on
television, as well as sex and obscene language has an ill
effect on society and it is the governments job to do
something about it. Through the use of technology, great
advances have been made, but there is still a lot to be
done. Devices such as the V-chip and the rating system are
small steps in a large gray area of politics. There has to be
a "middle of the road" on which everyone can agree, but
the government is responsible for laying the groundwork for
compromise.