Censorship

Imagine a time when television didn’t exist. For most, this idea seems irrelevant. Rightfully so, the majority of individuals alive today have never known a different world. As the precursor to the internet, television is able to grant audiences a glimpse into new experiences. Numerous television channels beam images ranging from talk shows, cartoons, sports, news and other themes into living rooms across America. All these images are conceivably born from real life relations. With this in mind, why then should certain commercials and programs be subjected to censorship? Since real life can’t be censored theoretically, why then should the small box version of life be subjected to such? This question’s relevance stems from one’s definition of right and wrong. With these questions in mind, let’s review the issues surrounding television’s regulations.

It is often believed that media censorship is a necessity during the early childhood years. The previous statement is generally agreeable amongst all advocates for censorship. There is a disagreement however, on the way censorship should be provided. Common censorship regulators range from individual parenting, governmental regulation, or scrupulous parental groups. The emphasis on early censorship is often seen as a preventive measure. Studies have shown a typical American on average will view 100,000 acts of violence on TV before the age of thirteen. (Hoffner) Whether or not these actions affect young minds is still up for debate. A large issue with censoring television shows is that not all violence comes from a predictable source. Many violent acts are presented through the news.

Once again the question of censorship is provoked. How can adults stay up to date with current events? Advocates of parental censorship would say avoid television news altogether, reverting instead to printed materials. This being said, many against censorship will ask what is the difference between a child reading about and seeing a violent act? Examining this question in depth, leads into a much deeper discussion on total censorship, a discussion which is eternal. Let us stay focused on television.

A big step toward censorship was achieved in the mid nineties. This accomplishment in turn placed more responsibility for censorship on parents. Many view the law as a way for the government to address the rising issue of censorship without choosing a side. In 1996 Congress passed a law that manufacturers of television sets were to install a special computer chip called the V-chip into every television, this device would allow parents to block shows with inappropriate material. (V-Chip Organization) For the V-chip to be effective, a rating system was developed. When the law was passed, opponents saw the requirement as a threat to the free speech right provided by the First Amendment. This argument well true provided a step away from governmental interference into citizens lives. Instead it can be argued that parents are the only ones enforcing censorship. In several ways the V-chip is important. The chip prevents access to inappropriate programs for children, allows adults to still view their choice of programming, and can help prevent all parties from viewing offensive content. (TV Boss Organization) Jacqui Cheng, an expert on the issue, explains how the rating system works: “The box will read either G, meaning it is expectable for general audiences, PG, parental guidance suggested for that program, TV14, meaning it is not suggested for children under 14 to view that

program, or M, which is intended for audiences 18 years or older.” (Cheng) History has shown a general support for media censorship. Hollywood, often blamed for producing violent, sexual, and racist content in films, continues to abide by content in which a movie is rated. These ratings similar to television provide a list of material that causes the program to receive a specific rating. Based on the rating system, parents are able to make an informed decision on what to allow their children to view. (Ghose) Likewise these ratings can be used as an aide in the viewing decisions of adults themselves. Television censorships’ greatest enemy is the argument defining true life values. Opponents question why real life reenactments should be subjected to unrealistic censoring, and where do the rights of one individual cross with others. A good partial response is, not all programs on television are based on common life events. Other then news reports, how can it be determined what the actor/actress chooses to say? Answering the question of civil rights is a much more difficult task.

Everyone watches television. In fact it is currently estimated that "the average American watches up to 6.75 hours of television daily. On a larger scale that adds up to approximately 7 continuous days of television consumption in one year. The vast majority of Americans believe television has become a necessity in today's society. (FCC) Since television is apparently important to all, should not the content assumingly be suitable for such? In recent years there has been a growing cry from individuals and groups alike for the monitoring of content deemed unethical. (NCAC) This in turn raises the question of what is ethical. (MBC) Many adults that are advocates for television censorship watch the same programs they cry foul on. Television censorship is tricky due to the differences in opinion.

What may be deemed offensive to one person may be okay with the next. (Roth vs. United States) In reaction to this problem the government decision for the V-chip seems a logical verdict. This allows each individual to impose their own ethical standards. It is a widely accepted fact that children in the early stages of life learn a great deal from the interaction they have with the outside world. This is often a reason used in defending television censorship. The difficult part of this argument is deciding when children are able to think independently, how they have been shaped by the world around them. The thought by those in favor of censorship is that by preventing the viewing of inappropriate material their child will not act in such a manner, as to avoid immoral actions. Opponents will in turn say the individual is born with a predisposition to such acts. This thought would be equivalent to the belief that our DNA makes the majority of a person’s decisions, even before birth. It is in the genes. (Adam Thierer 86)

There are some television shows that really offend people. This is certainly a problem. At the same time adults are expected to make informed decisions individually. Similar to the V-chip argument, adults need to be responsible for the material