Young Writers Society

Television is going to destroy our family unit. It's already begun. However, that's a different issue.

I'll use an example from school to illustrate my point--In our mailboxes we recently recieved some unsavory anti-war propeganda. It was terribly inappropriate, but what choice did we have? This unknown group went through and stuffed these pamphlets into out boxes! Now, I don't and would never deny these people the right to express their views on the war, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of expressing one's opinion. Pictures of dead children, and anti-soldier sentiments stuffed into mailboxes isn't one of the appropriate ways.

Not every group out to overthrow the government will be able to afford programming slots. Furthermore, most groups have a good sense of what is and is not appropriate tactics. Targeting children is an inapporopriate tactic, but adult programming after 10pm (which is one of the critera set forth by those that make brodcast rules) has little chance of impacting young kids.

Furthermore, I don't think it would hurt if our government was over thrown. It's about damn time we did something.

incandescence-

there IS a way to keep your children from watching television. its called getting rid of it. you dont need to have a tv. you have a computer, you can keep up with things. you can put channel locks on televisions to keep them from watching anything you dont want them too. you can keep the television from your children. put it in your room, lock the door on your way out if you need to have one. sure they will be curious, but they wont really know how to get to it until they're old enough to not be seriously affected by it. encourage reading instead of television. there are a whole array of things you can do other than watch television, many more with your kids.

Right. Which is a good method, and I totally agree with both QiGaui and Galatea; however, there is a certain irrevocability that must come with government, and that is censorship. Whether or not it thrusts public morality in a positive way, we are a nation, as are others, whose paramount ideals are at stake. As capitalism, the living crux of democracy, waxes degeneracy, it is the government's and the people's responsibility to recessitate it.

Of course, Bush is a terrible commander in chief. But the outlook for capitalism is this: (I'm going to go off topic here, so you might want to skip on down.)

A lot of people voted Bush because he was the only candidate who had a plan to fight Islamic extremism. Now, if Bush succeeds in the War in Afghanistan, which he is, and the War In Iraq, which he is not (yet, anyway), then he will be held as the greatest visionary of the 21st century and all conservatives will follow his model.

If Bush loses these two wars, then America will join Europe in the retreat, we will no longer be a superpower, and the great economic engine of the 21st century will be China.

Back to the topic at hand:

Censorship is necessary for government to exist. You can't escape it. You have one or the other, there is no middle ground.

1984 was a good book. an interesting story. you should read it, because with what your proposing, thats where we're headed.

unfortunately bush being seen as a visionary might be true. often times the most effective and remembered leaders were aslo the most hated.

this government is built on the idea that censorship is bad. it functions now, as it has in the past, very well without it. true, there are some things that musn't be published. for instance... gps coordinants of solders hiding in the desert. or the exact inner workings of our secret aircraft. some secrets are better off being kept. but what we watch on television has nothing to do with the government. it is a peoples right to voice their opinions, and i hate to break it to ya bud, but thats what television is. i doubt you can find more than a handfull of programs that dont express a governmental opinion in some form or another at some point.
if we cant voice our opinions, if these things dont reach television, which until very recently was the leading source of information, and is still very nearly tied with internet communication, then we are doomed to ignorance. they say ignorance is bliss, but thats only true as long as your ignorant... once you start learning, it was the worst thing that has ever happened.

I agree, all television shows have political shades at some point or another. Petty distaste for a leader expressed through wit and satire is one thing; what needs to be censored from television, and what is, for the most part, is the extreme anti-Americanism abroad. Airing such things would only cause a revolt against the world, and it's the government's job to maintain the peace. Inciting anger into Americans by showing brutal acts of torture due to who's in office is a mistake, and the government knows it. I've read 1984, and those on the Left love to claim we are sprialing into an Orwellian destiny, but the fact is, we aren't. There's common sense and rationality and then there is irrationality. Censoring out American television shows for making fun of the president is irrational; censoring out al Quaeda's broadcasts of extreme anti-Americanism is rational. People don't want to hear their country, themselves, or their ideals trashed.

ok, see heres the thing. there will always be people like you who think restriction of that nature is progressive. and the more restriction there is, the more they will want. so we are in fact moving towards that society, if restriction is allowed to continue.

Well, take a look at what we restricted 200 years ago, and you'll see restriction on things is not increasing but descreasing. Likewise, racism is decreasing, not increasing. Who was going to defend racism, in and of itself? I mean, you'd have to be an ignorant hick to do so. And most of them are now against racism, too.

Despite government regulation, we are still a market-driven economy, meaning that few people would be able to afford cable television so extensive as to include such broadcasts, and I'm not sure there is a company in the US that would pick up foreign radical anti-american programming as a regular thing, since it would not be in high demand, lose ratings, and probably cost more than its worth. Incan, you and I are arguing that the censorship of just about everything is irrational--I like that we agree on that point, but I believe that the radical programming will censor itself eventually, through each citizen's choice to self-censor, the government need not do it for us.

I also don't think it would be a bad thing to get an idea of what is said about us in other countries. Even the radicals are entitled to their opinions, and perhaps it would help to bring about an understanding--or at least an acknowledgement--of the rampant anti-americanism popping up world wide. We can't hide from it forever.

Just for reference:

Main Entry: cen·sor
Function: transitive verb: to examine [a publication or film] in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

There are MANY definitions of censorship availible at dictionary.com and dictionary.oed.com, but this is the one I found most useful in my last paper for my Censorship and Contemporary Lit. class.

I don't like censorship.

At the same time I don't think we should be swearing like sailors around kids under ten.

That being said, I had a fluent knowledge of curse words by the age of three.

I think that they're our language. I just think there's a time and a place for everything. And when you're just in a "normal" conversation, sh*t, f*ck, shouldn't be mixed in every five words or so. It just sounds awful. Kind of... immature.

Have you ever heard those nine-year-olds on the playground curse? It's sad and funny at the same time, cause they have no idea what they're doing.

Other then curse words, though...

Um... I prefer sex to violence. I'd rather see someone f*ck then get shot. I don't think making love hurt anyone quite as much as a bullet.

Unless, of course, it's rape. Which happens a lot, yeah. But I think there's this whole supression thing we have to factor in, there. I think if people had more of a knowledge of sex instead of violence, they wouldn't turn sex into violence.

I dont' know...

I just don't like censorship.

first off, whats wrong with being a hick?

secondly, the decreasing trend should show you that culture is never stable. the current trend is to keep things open and unrestricted, and so therefor, restriction is going down. however, if the trend becomes a restriced controlled one, then censorship will eventually, inevitably, give way to control.

What seems to be the problem here is the difference between how things should be and how things really are. Ideally, we would need no censorship, and if there was something objectionable on TV, parents would be able to teach their kids to stay away from it. But the fact of it is that parents these days hardly even see their kids now that both parents are working, and so they leave their kids to watch TV all day, and kids are curious, so dangerous things are happening. The real question is whether government should take care of the kids that parents are virtually abandoning, or whether it should leave the parents to see the reprecussions of leaving their kids unsupervised with TV being uncensored.

Also, are we discussing more censorship as far as government workings, or more violence, sex, vulgarity, etc. that children shouldn't see? Or both? Because people seem to be making their opinion on one or the other without considering the other aspect.

with the move to a market economy, as things moved away from the house to something that can be bought, parenting moved too. as parents left the house, they took their children with them, in the form of day care. kids dont stay home all day by themselves. day care, pre school, nannies, they are all available for purchase. i wasnt available to watch television unless it was the weekend, and even then, if i watched it after noon any time before dinner, i got in trouble. i got kicked out the door, so did everyone else my age in the neighborhood. there wasn't a television to watch.

It's true that many parents have day care and such, but that's only for the younger kids in many cases. One of my friends is pretty much at home alone all of the time and his dad has been divorced multiple times, and... well, I guess I'm getting off topic now, but I just wanted to point out that parents have virtually stopped raising their children. So should the government do it? I think that maybe it would be a good idea to let parents see what happens when they don't teach their children, but then there are people like me that don't want to hear or see those things even though I am old enough to understand and everything, but when I flip channels, I don't want to limit myself but I don't want to stumble onto something bad either. Meh.

I'm extremely opinionated on this topic. I believe censorship depends on the cicumstance. Now I'm not saying I'm RIGHT, these are only PERSONAL OPINIONS.

On Obscene language

Swearing is just another way of expressing yourself, and while it is prefferable that it is only used as a means of expression, and is not overly used (Infact I'd prefer that other expressive words be found, if possible, and obscenities used as a last resort) I see no problem with it.
Of course, small children younger than 6-8 might be negatively affected by harsh langauge. As I will most likely say again, it varies from child to child.

Nudity

It's skin. That's all it is. There is no harm in it, and should not be an embarrasing matter. Now I'm not saying that children should shown porn flicks. Definately not! That is a different matter entirely, because of certain actions envolved. I will not go into detail here. But I find i silly to rate movies PG-13 for showing one shot throughout the entire movie of a person's rear end. Anyone here seen Calendar Girls? That type of nudity I find acceptable, as long as it isn't...well, you get the point.

Drug Use

Now here is one thing I do not approve of exposing young children to without thier parents having proper talks with them first. Drugs in movies can have the same effect on children that the movie 'Easy Rider' did back in the 60's/70's. Of course the cases are slightly different, but the concepts are the same. Hollywood glorifying dangerous things in children's/teen's eyes. Parents should address children about drugs as early as possible, and make sure they know about them and thier long-term affects. These substances should be brought up to the kid not as entertainment, but by the child's parents as a serious and dangerous matter.

Violence/Horror

If there is one thing I will definately agree that shoud be censored untill the child is older, at least 11 years of age, are horror images. Nightmares are not fun, and neither is lying awake terrified of the dark because of something they saw on TV or a movie. If there is one thing I hate to hear that people are afraid of it's the dark. Those of you who know me know that I love the dark, and that I prefer not to use electrical lights--ever. I was introduced to the night and the dark long before I was introduced to any form of horror. I was allowed to play in the woods at night, and never saw any ghosts lurking among the trees because I knew no such thing. These days I love horror films. They would have to be my favorite type. But afterwards I am not left terrified that I will be eaten, which, I would imagine is much more pleasant.
as far as violence goes, some images are just far to much for young children to take phsychologically. Here is another matter that the child should be aware of, he/she does not need to grow up in a world beliveing that it's all cake and candy all the time. Children NEED to know the truth just as adults do. However, violence in movies these days has in itself become horrifying. Boys are naturally and instinctively more tolerant of violence than girls. where as they may be shown movies containing images of dying soldiers, covered in blood at the age of 7, girls might take a few years longer. (All the numbers given here are approximate, not exact. The age where a child may be able to be exposed to certain images depends not only on the childs gender, but also on his/her own individual personality, based on certain experiences.)

Oh dear, that was a long post. I'd say more...but I believe I've taken enough space. If you did actually take the time to read that whole thing, thanks for bearing my ramblings...I think I'll just...go over here...