I recently watched a television seminar series named, "Popular Culture: Rage, Rights and Responsibility." In response to the seminar I quickly developed a new interest on the subject matter of censorship. While there are various types of censorship such as political censorship, religious censorship, educational censorship, etc. The type of censorship I would like to discuss at hand is censorship of media in the United States. More specifically, the effects that the media has on children in the United States and worldwide. While I understand and completely feel that it is most important for the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of choice to be implemented into the law system I feel that media corporations have an obligation to censor certain content. Realistically, children everyday are being exposed to audio and visual materials that consist of strong content that they are vulnerable to. Many parents do not set parental controls on televisions in their homes and millions of parents are at work while their children come back home from school before their parents are home and watching contents they should not be exposed. The main question here is what do you value more? Personal choice or what is in the best interest of society. I would say the majority of people would try their best to uphold the first amendment, but in a circumstance like this, there must be some limitations for the greater good of society. Asking for corporations to limit or change the times of shows and radio stations to censor out certain content is not asking for too much if it will significantly save lives. Children are being heavily influenced these days by media content at young ages and acting in negative ways and even as extreme as murdering in some instances. Parents do regulate and raise their children based on what their own morals are and what they feel best for them but in certain circumstances the government does regulate what people are exposed to such as the media. Believe it or not there are many parents out there who have no problem at all letting their children play video games like GTA "Grand Theft Auto" under the age which a person is allowed to play the game. This type of content does not affect the far majority of society in negative ways but to the minority who immorally take the game seriously and go out in public and murder innocent people who is to blame? Those who feel the government should not regulate certain contents, I strongly disagree. The government does not put an "R" rating on a movie just for the heck of it. It is put there for a reason. Just like anything else the government does whether it be attaining an alcoholic beverage or a license. There are regulations set for the greater good of society. If you don't feel that people should do what's best for society then I would say shame on those who feel that way for their ignorance and self-centered ways. What's at stake is the future of children and their well being. Perhaps Frank Zappa's satisfaction of freedom of choice to produce content was more important than the children that have to suffer because of those particular individuals who produce strong content. Censorship is absolutely necessary. Realistically it is not being censored enough. The method diluting "bad" content with lots of good content is not a solution. A solution is combating the source, by exposing individuals like David Harleston, Def Jam Co. president who are so "drowned" with money they could care less what anybody thinks except about how much money they are making. When an innocent person is murdered because of their decision to release the content they make excuses such as, "Well, let's find out what the kid's background is and family situation is before we just to conclusions." Obviously a kid's background can influence a child's actions but do you have any doubt that the potent audio and visual content has some contributing effect to these young and vulnerable children? The point is not to block out all strong content from children. The point is to block out the content from children that is not appropriate for their age and minimize the amount of violence, hate etc. that is coming from these types of content. Obviously when a person is 17 he or she may see a rated "R" movie because they are mature enough to handle the content and react in a way that the majority of people who listen or see certain content act. By not acting or feeling violent or aggressive etc. but rather enjoying and possibly relieving stress etc. This issue must be recognized and action should take place. This is not a matter that can be afforded to be overlooked.

Link Directory