While US media censorship has gained recent attention due to exposure of Janet Jackson on live television, and careful attention has been paid to what information has been aired since the Iraq War, censorship is not a new problem. Censorship laws have existed in the media for decades, securing privacy and restriction as the need arises. However, censorship laws do not end the battle in their necessity (or lack of it), opposing sides continually put the costs against the benefits of censorship in the media, specifically the news media. It seems to be the same general theme around the center.
Censorship practices benefit the US government.
But this discussion depends on various subtopics, from which side the matter of controversy is approached. This paper will discuss the most common and common of these issues.
First, those who engage in anti-US censorship typically claim the First Amendment, or the right to free speech, to argue against censorship in general. As stated by the National Coalition Against Censorship, “Freedom of communication is a necessary condition of a healthy democracy. In a pluralistic society, it would be impossible for all people to agree at all times on the value of all opinions and morals; it would be fatal to artistic and intellectual growth if it did.” In fact, they claim that First Amendment rights are a necessary element of our democracy because of our inability to create a single, correct table of values for society.
In addition, concern is expressed over the infringement of these First Amendment rights because of the “chilling” effects they appear to produce. According to Julie Hilden, a FindLaw columnist and attorney expert, such a reaction as experienced after the Janet Jackson scandal is causing Congress to enact excessive and unnecessary new laws for such reasons. Even if one thinks that censure is necessary despite the First Amendment, Congress states that it tends to impose blame and censure orders on parties who have no fault in the incident: Indeed, Congress not only violates First Amendment rights, but punishes those who violate the rules, regardless of the amendment, and punishes bystanders, regardless of their lack of involvement or guilt.
However, the opposing camp brings the argument that Constitutional interpretation, and the first amendment clause of free speech cannot be as black and white as it seems This section asserts that the conflict is found with the Constitution being read too literally, and that it is being misused today by those who insist more on civil liberties. In fact, according to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA professor specializing in the First Amendment, when the Constitution was written “…it is not even clear whether the First Amendment covers criminal punishment for false political speech. Many have argued that it could only be applied to ‘the former way,’ such as an injunction or prepublication rule of censorship.’ In addition, as quoted by Findlaw.com, the amendment in its original form, “The people shall not be deprived or diminished of the right to speak, write, or publish their opinions; and the freedom of the press shall be inviolable, as among the great safeguards of liberty.” It shows the full freedom of the media to censure the intention of the Congress.
Another work of censorship is cited by these in favor of a controlling government, that censorship is necessary for the protection of foreign forces. By mandating censorship of stories about the war in Iraq, the government is protecting both the public from disturbing images and the forces from being attacked because of leaked information. The issue of public protection has recently been brought up in support of President Bush’s 1991 policy that would not allow the media to send pictures of the flagging pockets back home. This public policy seems to be supported, as in a survey of 100 students at Louisiana State University, most said no, as cited in a recent Seattle Times article. The fact is, the public neither needs nor wants to see the terrible images of war. As David Perlmutter, author of two books on mass media and professor of communication, said, “You (don’t) want to see public acceptance, and undermine the war effort. The Normandy invasion was a success, but how did we feel at the time if the pictures of all those dead American soldiers in had we seen the shores?
In addition, the issue of censorship does not flow to supporters for arbitrary reasons from the public, but to protect foreign forces and to protect the interests of the war in Iraq. The damage that can be done by the example of non-censorship of the media can be seen by the example of Geraldo Rivera and Leak of the military site. By drawing a map in the arena of local military operations, he potentially exposed them to the risk of attack by insurgent forces. As Desert Storm veteran Clyde Long said, “Everybody’s really clueless and thinks Saddam doesn’t have it. Where’s the horn?” ?
However, critics of this type of criticism claim that they can use such policies to soften the public’s severity of war, and in fact deprive them of the truth. In the first case of banning the images of the box, those against censorship cite the dangerous view American War. It allows them to be numb because, although words have an impact, pictures have much more, and the lack of those pictures creates ignorance in the public. While I do not deny this lack of appeal to the public, since most studies find that the public does not prefer to see graphic images of war, the self-censors against such images undermine their credibility as news, and in effect, are biased toward the public. According to David Swanson, a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Echo photography company on war, “The lack of images has removed death from war: It is war, whether you agree with it or not … death must be exhibited. You must know what you are losing before you commit so many lives. The country must be reminded 18 years ago already passed away and Memorial Day and Veterans Day” are not just days for picnics on the beach.
Even in terms of media censorship of the news coming from Iraq, who protest against such censorship, the state is deceptive. While it is true that the media should not provide specific locations and policies, the majority of news coverage from Iraq censors themselves, deceiving the public in terms of severity and events. The three-year conference held by the World Court in Iraq supported these findings, citing that the West media was “guilty of violence and people in their report deceiving from Iraq.’ The Tribune continues to cite the government’s full control over information and from Iraq, through which journalists have been purged from reporting and what information they deliver. a href=”https://e-info.vn. /tag/vietnam-war”>Vietnam War. In fact, they (the government and the media) present a false opinion about the war to those they approve of the report, putting the lives of those who report being independent are at risk.
Finally, the issue of censorship becomes a field with the media of censorship and the feelings of young people considered. Supporters of censorship cite the news media, and their possible use of harsh language or images can be detrimental to the values instilled in children. their parents This is especially true in terms of Internet news sources, which are not yet held to such strict standards as those held by the FCC for broadcast media. Both parents and activists claim that both internet news and search search on the internet presents questionable material to young people.
First, they question the reliability of the information. According to NetAlert, an internet safety forum, “…information on the Internet can distort the truth, be outdated, skewed, or false. For example, racist websites can tell or represent the truth about complex social, cultural, or historical issues in seemingly logical and plausible ways Allowing children access to such information can give them a false impression of the truth.
In addition, proponents of censorship cite the free internet as a way to access questionable material. Not only do they point out that search engines often refer visitors to sites of questionable behavior, even though they are specifically seeking academic information, but that news stories are available online on television. For example, although, as stated earlier in this paper, images of flag bags cannot be published, they are circulated on the Internet. Another example is the disturbing video of Budd Dwyer, which despite being noted by the television media, is now doing the rounds on the net. Access to such information by young people has been proven to be disturbing through the news media, as they did not want it aired, so why should internet standards provide different standards? In addition, supporters of censorship fear that, as legitimate news links, they often bring young people to sites of questionable integrity, including pornographic sites.
However, the opposite side suggests that such information is critical for young people in search of news and information. Since the internet can have some weak sources and questionable issues, there is a greater risk in noticing all the information. As stated by Marjorie Heins, an author who completed a comprehensive study of the issue, “It is not a small issue about minors’ First Amendment rights. It is not some murky, ivory-tower abstraction. Young people need access to information and ideas, not indoctrination and ignorance of the controversy. In fact, because they are in the process of identity formation, censorship would harm young people by preserving their abilities.
In addition, it was discovered that internet filters are also imposed by the government in schools for the protection of children. they are subject to false positives and negatives. Therefore, not only important news content is blocked by this kind of censorship, but also by allowing “question” sites.
Opponents of such censorship also typically recognize the possibility of harmful access to information for children, but say that, as in all situations, it is up to parents to decide what is right and wrong for their children to see. They see this as a logical alternative to government-mandated internet blockers. For, as stated by the ACLU, if such blockers continue to organize, “Without free and unfettered access to the Internet, this exciting new medium could become, for most Americans, little more than souped-up, G-rated network television.” In fact, children would be given what they felt through the base of the site available for allowing children to think and access information.
As you can see, there is no consensus on the issue of censorship and the news media. While some laws exist, there is also the issue of personal and societal ethics when it comes to deciding whether to air a material or not. However, journalistic ethics are questionable in either case. Do you hold criticism, or offending? Is what you answer correct?
Sources Cited
Eugene Volokh – 1st Amendment
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/volokh200401050906.asp
David Perlmutter/Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001909526_coffinside22m.html
Information on internet censorship
http://www.netalert.net.au/01655-What-is-Unreliable-Information-on-the-Internet.asp
Information in case of pictures
http://medialit.med.sc.edu/wardeadphotos.htm
American Civil Liberties Association
http://www.aclu.org//privacy/speech/14800res20020213.html
Background information on censorship
http://www.fepproject.org/fepp/aboutfepp.html
National Assembly against censorship
www.ncac.com
Resource for censorship laws
www.findlaw.com
An article about the council on the practices of the Western media
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0214-07.htm
Congress ruling on FCC censorship laws
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040217.html
David Swanson – Photographer for Echo Company
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/echo_company/9327452.htm
