Here's a paper I wrote on censorship: (please ignore the numbers - they were work cited information)Censorship is the banning of content that is deemed inappropriate for a general group of people. In many cases, censorship occurs because people feel the need to protect children from the problems of the world. Adults want children to live a stress-free childhood, without being constantly surrounded with negative issues and themes. But is this right? Is it right to shelter children from what could be valuable information and experience for when they become adults? The answer is no. If children are sheltered from ?inappropriate? themes throughout their early years, what happens when they become 18 and suddenly find the whole world in front of them (4)? What if someone hears their first curse word at the age of 18? What happens when a person?s college roommate is the first person to tell them about sex? Chances are a person?s views are going to be flawed. They?ve never heard of these topics and now they don?t understand why their parents never informed them about these issues and if they?re right or wrong. With the peer pressure and lots of other kids doing it (drugs, sex, cursing?), the likelihood of an inexperienced kid to do it, is very high. People in America look at the high crime rates and feel something must be responsible (4). This is when many adults like to point their finger at the media. Actually, though, there is no proven evidence that violence on TV leads to violence in real life (4). For many adults it?s too difficult to separate what?s inappropriate for children and what?s actually harmful to them (4). While definitely some content is inappropriate for children to view, it does not mean that they are going to want to do it. In most movies, and stories of people that include sex, drugs, and cursing, the character(s) usually get in trouble and are punished. If it turns out that the character goes on to a happy life dealing drugs, attending parties, and drinking then the story is completely flawed in which case it is the responsibility of the parent(s) to tell their kids this. Responsible parents, though, will not show movies where the character turns out fine because it?s like facing a real-life problem and coming up with a fairy-tale solution. It is not wrong to show children this content, as long as the viewer turns out in a bad situation, because that?s real life. And, no matter how much you want to shelter your children from real life, real life will tear that shelter down sooner or later. So why not, while you still have the chance, instill the values of purity and honesty in your kids when they?re young? It?s highly unlikely that a 16 year-old, confronted with a serious issue for the first time, will listen to your advice more than a 10-year-old will. The 16-year-old will have to choose between their friends (with whom they most likely prefer to talk about deeper subjects) and their parents (with whom they may feel angry for sheltering them from the problems of the world and have putting them in a tough situation). In most cases the 16-year-old will choose to listen to their friends (who, at 16, probably do not have their facts or opinions straight). Your 10-year-old, on the other hand, will be able to think about these problems and be able to come up with plans of what to say and how to act when they are faced with these problems (and they will come face-to-face with them). Which one would you want to be your son or daughter? A 16-year-old learning and acting on the spot or a 16-year-old who was educated about these problems 6 years ago and is now ready to face the problem? Now imagine what would happen if the government got into the issue of censorship? Let?s be honest here: what do government officials know about video games, music, current movies, or television (4)? To be a Senator, an individual must be at least 30 years old. That means that they grew up in the 1980s / early 90s. As you can tell, there is a huge difference between American culture in 1987 and American culture in 2007. What would a Senator know about the movies that American teenagers like to watch now? What would a Senator know about how the movie may affect the teenager? After all, the Senator doesn?t even have any personal experience to rely on (4). So who are they going to listen to? The parents. The parents ? as wise as they may be ? do not know what may be affecting their children. Yes, it could be the movies. But it could also be overheard conversation in the locker room, a close, irresponsible adult, peer pressure? It could be anything. Going back to what I said earlier ? parents naturally want something to point their finger at. What?s going to be pointed at? The media. The parents cannot change the fact that their kid has to change in the locker room before P.E., hears bad words in the school yard (4), the parents cannot change the fact that their friends or relatives may influence their kids in an unknown way, the parents cannot change the fact that peer pressure exists, but parents can control what their kids watch, what their kids listen to, and what their kids read. So, naturally, the parents are going to take away the media. But that may not be the problem. It may be, but there are many other factors that could be the problem too. So the parents will take away what they can control ? in hopes of solving the problem ? but they may not be solving any problems. Going back to the political aspect ? why do the people that live for freedom of speech feel children should be protected from speech? Do they feel children are lesser in society? But doesn?t the Constitution say that all people are created equal? There is no way to for the government to enforce censorship without interfering with the rights granted in the Constitution. So, therefore, anytime the government enforces censorship they are knocking down the same pillars their jobs are supported upon. There are reasons for censorship. One such reason is that if the media could say anything they want about certain people lots of individuals would be defamed (2). There would be no privacy as the media could make up almost anything they wanted on the basis of small facts. It would damage the person mentally and damage their reputation. Another reason for censorship is the concern of verbal terrorists. If making threats were made legal we would be subject to verbal terrorists (2). The banning of censorship is also a threat to the court system. What if witnesses were allowed to provide false testimony (2)? Although these are definitely reasons for concern, they are not as much of a threat to the general public as much as censorship is. Although censorship is a nice idea ? let?s let our kids have an innocent and pure childhood ? it is not right because the world is not innocent and pure. And until the world is innocent and pure and perfect, protecting your children from the problems of the world is like saying they don?t exist even though you yourself see them everyday. It is unhealthy for your kids to lead an innocent childhood because it is a fake childhood ? nothing is real. Why in the world would you want your kids to be unhealthy? Censorship is not right because it is a violation of rights and a thin barrier that will eventually be torn apart. So why try to protect your children when the best protection is to let them experience under your guidance? The Supreme Court can decide the legal meanings of the Amendments (1), and it?s time to declare censorship illegal. What do you guys think about censorship?
I think BBW should censor your posts :censored2: On a serious note, I pretty much agree with current censorship laws. As for parents protecting their children from the truth, all that will do is make the kids receive their opinions from some misinformed sixth graders and form bad opinions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Mar 29 2007, 08:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think BBW should censor your posts :censored2:</div>I second that.
