Author: Julia Dwyer Government Regulation: Protecting Our Safety or Diminishing Our Rights?
Class: English 9 Honors
Block: 2
Date: Jan. 8, 2009
It is completely necessary for the government to censor our media and regulate our press, because without this strict control our children, the future of tomorrow, would be corrupt by violence, sexuality, drugs, and all other obscene corruptions that will impair our children’s’ fragile minds when such profanities are conveniently accessible to all viewers, young and old, on public television, the news, and all other accessible media sources. The typical American parent wants nothing but the best for his or her own child which is perfectly understandable, but is censoring every sentence, every word, every thought that passes through our airwaves really the best and most accurate way to maintain safety and produce children who will grow into mature, thoughtful, independent adults who will eventually lead our world in the near future? Many intellectuals and critical thinkers such as Socrates, and the Founding Fathers, believe that censorship is unjust and against natural human rights. So while the government claims it is just trying to protect us, many people believe that censoring our press and media is not the way to do this and that the government should be more trustful and open to U.S. citizens because holding all this information from us by regulating the press and media, could give the government, the representatives of the people, more power than the people itself, and too much power can lead to chaos or even dictatorship.
Going all the way back to around 500BC, scholars and highly intelligent men have been standing up against censorship and its harsh clutch on society. It is said that Socrates would rather lose his life than allow censorship of his teachings. He defended free discussion as a great public service (Censorship par 6). Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson also joined Socrates as strong believers in freedom of speech and human rights. In writing the Bill of Rights, they made it a point to include all the most important rights directly in the First Amendment: freedom of religion, right to assembly, right to petition, and most importantly, freedom of speech and of press (Myers par 2). So if some of the wisest men of our country, the founders of our nation, believe in freedom of speech and press, then certainly we should practice their wise words and truly allow these freedoms. With U.S. government censoring organizations popping up left and right such as ICANN, and internet control group, and FCC, a private government agency which establishes and enforces laws restricting media, specifically television and radio, it continually gets harder to protect our human rights (Broadcast par 1, Internet par 1). It becomes harder and harder to protect our own freedoms when our opponent, who is supposedly “defending our rights”, is so much more powerful, and is doing quite the opposite. If the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of press,” then how come these government established groups such as ICANN and FCC have the right to censor and control our media (Myers par 1)? Doesn’t that make these actions unconstitutional and hypocritical against these groups that are supposedly protecting us? In fact, the Congress itself passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in 2004, which imposed heavy fines on violators, or people who presented offensive material in the media (Broadcast par 3). If the government is keeping certain information from us, it becomes an important question to ask, what is it trying to hide? Could the reasoning behind it’s strict censorship be information it doesn’t want us to know? A similar situation to this is present the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. When the government fails to actually locate Montag on a chase to find him, a decoy is planned and the community is mislead to think that the “delinquent,” Montag has been captured and killed; “The search is over, Montag is dead; a crime against society has been avenged.” In reality, Montag had escaped and the government covered their tracks by lying to the community. This can be related to the U.S. government and how it keeps information from society. While Congress and government groups are continually performing actions such as theses that contradict their goals in protecting our rights, many people, including political leaders, argue that these strict guidelines of censorship are necessary in cleaning the nations airways. Along with political leaders, a great deal of parental figures feel that in order to protect a child’s safety, we must monitor everything passing through his or her innocent, absorbent mind and prevent unnecessary harmful messages from reaching this child’s brain. To support that argument, it makes perfect sense for parents to want the best for their children, after all, they will be the leaders of tomorrow, and violence and other harmful messages will only impair a child’s view on life; or will it? Could it be possible that exposure to such things as murder, rape, and drugs, on TV could actually strengthen a child’s morals and conduct? AS long as parents take control and make sure to enforce upon the child that, drugs are bad, or “that word is a no-no.” Such language and violence could actually provide a prime opportunity for an enriching learning experience for a child, allowing him or her to recognize the difference between right and wrong. If a child is never exposed to wrong, he won’t know its wrong until he tries it out himself. So why not skip the dangerous step of experimenting with drugs, violence, or swears, and expose your child from the beginning? If such solutions as this could be worked out by families in the U.S., is it really necessary for the government to intervene with our private lives and control what we watch and listen to? Also, who gives the government the right to do so if the Constitution certainly doesn’t? Control of information should be given to its owner, and the receivers who it will affect. Many U.S. citizens are starting to agree that control belongs to the receivers and owners of the information. Why must the government monitor our viewing habits, when we can self-monitor? Many producers and providers of the media have even started to create their own systems to help us control our own viewing habits such as the MPAA, who has created ratings for movies such as G, PG, and R (Censorship par 30) and Gary Ackerman, a Representative in the House of Congress acknowledged viewers who are concerned about their children when he said, “They can change the channel. They can change the station. They can turn it off,” (Broadcast par 33). U.S. citizens should not allow the government to control yet another aspect of daily life which they can easily control themselves. So is it completely necessary for the government to censor our media and regulate our press? Because without this strict control, our children, the future of tomorrow, would be corrupt by violence, sexuality, drugs, and all other obscene corruptions that will impair our children’s fragile minds. Think again. As a nation, we can self-monitor, turn the TV off, teach the right lessons. We can gain back our rights given to us at birth and retrieve our freedoms. Since the government controls almost all other aspects of the lives of U.S. citizens, it is vital to secure our rights and put the power into the hands it really belongs in… the hands of the people. Works Cited Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. New York, NY: Ballentine Books. “Broadcast Decency Rules.” Issues & Controversies On File. 30 Apr. 2004 Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.2facts.com> “Internet Control.” Issues & Controversies On File 23 Dec. 2005 Issues & Controversies Facts On File News Services. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.2facts.com> “Censorship.” Encyclopedia. Reproduced in Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. 3 Dec. 2008 <http://www.2facts.com> Myers, Linda. “United States Constitution.” 2000. Cornell University. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution.billofrights.html>
Comments
Very well done
Hi Julia,
I'll have to say, this is another very well written article you posted. The article is well researched and your presentation is quite articulate as well. I wish more young people would take an interest in how their government is representing (or not representing) them. With your permission, I would like to re-print your work in an upcoming newsletter? In fact, I would be receptive to creating a "youth" section in the newsletter if you could produce this level of material on a regular basis. I think your work would be rather inspiring to other young people wanting to understand the systems around them and illustrate that this is a subject for our youth to be involved in. Great job.
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance!