The Constitution of the United States of America contains the basic rights of citizens ofthis country.
There is, perhaps, no right more controversial than the First Amendment inthe Constitution, first introduced on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment states,?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress ofgrievances?(1st Amendment, Internet). Due to the indecisiveness of this Amendment,arguments over the interpretation of the words written by the founding fathers haveflourished for years. One of the main arguments that has arisen over the years is over theinterpretation of what is meant by free speech and free press. While this argument hasstemmed off in many directions, one of the most recent and heated debates is over thegovernments ability to censor material to the public. Some of the major forms ofcensorship occur in television, music, literature, and most recently, the Internet.
Censorship has taken place in various forms since the earliest rulers existed. Theseearliest forms of censorship existed through a leader of some sort trying to keep his peoplefrom saying bad things about him. This censorship, while fairly undocumented, has takenplace in various governments throughout time in most areas of the world. Whilecensorship today has taken a different form in the United States, the same basic principleshave remained the same. Censorship is basically an attempt by the government to limitwhat the public sees, hears, or absorbs. I believe that all forms of censorship are basicallya violation of the basic First Amendment right that so many people take for granted.
Some limit must be put on the ability of the government to censor any kind ofcommunication in the United States, or the basic rights of the people will be infringedupon. One of the biggest forms of censorship that takes place in the United States todayexists in one of the largest mediums of communication we know of. This medium isknown as the television. In 1999, it was reported that over 99% of all Americanhouseholds have at least one television, with a majority of the households having morethen one set available(Chafee, 173). This startling statistic is accompanied by another factthat shows the average American watches 30 hours of television weekly(Chafee, 173). With this kind of participation from the American public in any kind of medium ofcommunication, it is no wonder why some people consider the idea of censorship with somuch enthusiasm.
However, adults have the right to view material they please, andtherefore, their rights should remain intact. The problem that most people have withviolence, sex, and profanity on television comes into play when considering the number ofchildren that watch television without a parent or any sort of controls on their viewing. Ithas been reported that 10,000 acts of media violence are witnessed in one year by theaverage American child(Zeinert, 88). One must keep in mind that this statistic does notinclude any sexual content or profanity children may view. The American public hasexpressed some concern over the material their children view each day, and that has beenthe beginning and the continued push behind the need for some sort of censorship oftelevision.
It wasn’t until the dramatic increase in violent crimes committed by children,however, that there was a strong public demand to censor the material children haveaccess too. While the claim that something needs to be done to at least reduce the amountof violence, sexual material, or profanity that American children view has began to pick upsupport among the American public, the means by which to accomplish such a task haveyet to be resolved. Some argue that censorship is the only way to accomplish such a largescale problem, but others argue that the problem starts at home. A survey conducted bythe Roper Center concluded that over 50% of parents do not monitor what their childrenwatch at home. This figure shows me that parents are not taking the responsibility towatch their children, and instead are just relying on television to show programs intendedfor younger viewers. With the help of some electronic blocking devices, such as theV-chip, parents can monitor what their children are able to watch, without getting thegovernment involved.
The V-chip can help parents watch their children even when they’renot home. This new safeguard is the best alternative to censorship. Since many programsare beginning to contain a rating system displayed at the beginning of each show, parentscan get a basic idea of the content of the show without having to sit through each programtheir child wants to watch. Instead of censorship of the whole community, it wouldmerely become an issue of parents dealing with their children(Zeinert, 89).
I believe thisissue is much less controversial and should help relieve the push for censorship inAmerica. So why do we need censorship of television when the parents, assisted bytechnology, can monitor what their children watch while still being able to watchprograms they would like to see themselves? The simple answer is, we don’t. A second area in which censorship has started to interfere with is music. Musicwas originally censored much the way free speech was.
In the 1700’s, New York’sGovernor Crosby attempted to keep a group of citizens from singing songs that wentagainst the King of England(Chafee, 182). More recently, however, censorship of musichas taken place due to explicit lyrics. Similar to the worry of violence, sex, and profanitybeing shown to children on television, the worry of children listening to explicit lyrics inmusic has caused concern. The first real case of this occurrence occurred when a rapgroup known as ?2 Live Crew? was banned from areas of Florida because of their songslyrics(Zeinert, 82). ?2 Live Crew? was arrested for public obscenity, but they won theircase in the appellate courts based on the idea that it was illegal to ban entertainmentgroups from performing or selling their act(Zeinert, 83). In 1985, the Parents MusicResource Center was the first company to put stickers on compact discs and cassettesgiving a warning of ?Explicit Lyrics,? and giving ?Parental Advisory? (Chafee, 195).
I feelthis is the first step in the right direction. Instead of trying to censor music lyrics, theParents Music Resource Center is trying to inform parents what their children arelistening to. They leave the decision of what children can listen to up to the parents,instead of trying to censor the entire nation. Again, censorship seems unnecessary, and aninfringement upon the rights of citizens of the United States of America. A third area in which censorship has taken place is in literature. Censorship inliterature has increased dramatically in recent years.
In fact, from 1991 to 1994, there hasbeen more than a 50% increase in the number of demands that books be banned in schoolslibraries as well as public libraries(Zeinert, 109). Some of the books being demanded tobe removed from libraries nationwide include, Huckleberry Finn, written by Mark Twain,Forever, by Judy Blume, and The Bridge to Terabithia, written by Katherine Paterson. These American classics have been removed from shelves due to various reasons. MarkTwain’s novel, for example, has been attacked for its use of the term ?nigger?, as well asits portrayal of African American slaves.
?The state office of the National Association forthe Advancement of Colored People issued a statement, Feb. 3, 1998, claiming that MarkTwain’s classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is offensive to black students andshould be banned from classrooms across the state? (Meyer, Internet). This kind ofcensorship, whether it be from public or school libraries, not only denies the authorfreedom expression, but denies the reader the ability to judge for themselves the contentsof a book. Many children learn about racism, sex, abuse, or drugs through books thatsome libraries have banned.
Without these books, some children will not come toconclusions about these subjects until they are encountered in the real world, and someimportant lessons such as trusting yourself, knowing what you believe in, and havingtolerance will not be learned until the children are adults(Chafee, 199). It is not right todeny people important lessons in life by denying them the right to choose which materialsthey read, just because some might find it offensive. Once again, rating can be placed onbooks that give parents the idea of what they are reading before even opening the book,and so censorship is not needed, but only information. The final, and probably most controversial, issue on the topic of censorshipconcerns the Internet. In the past ten years, the Internet has become one of the hottestareas of debate dealing with censorship. Once again, the majority of concern comes inwith the nations youth.
The Internet, a tool by which great amounts of information can befound, also holds profanity, violence, and especially sexual material. With over 60% ofAmerican households owning a personal computer, and over 90% of children in theUnited States having access to the Internet in some way, there needs to be a way tosafeguard these children from harmful material(Meyer, Internet). Once again, censorshipis not the way. It is unconstitutional to censor, ban, or control any Internet sitescontaining sexually explicit material(Meyer, Internet). However, due to the fact that alarge percentage of the nation’s youth has access to the Internet, it is not unreasonable toexpect some sort of control on sexually explicit material. After all, it is illegal for a minorto purchase pornography.
In the same way, children should not be allowed to viewsexually explicit material on the Internet. By the same reasoning, sexually explicit materialcannot be banned from the Internet, because adults have the right to purchase, andtherefore view this material. Instead, Internet sites have been forced to at least advertisethat their site contains sexually explicit material, and that you must be at least of legal ageto enter(Meyer, Internet). This is not enough protection for the youth. New technology,such as the E-chip, much like what can be used to help parents limit what their childrencan watch on television is now available for the Internet. This technology allows parentsto control the type of material their children can view on the Internet without censoringmaterial for all people.
So once again, the parents are in control of the process ofcensoring, and not the government. This leaves the legal issues of the First Amendmentand the freedom to speech out of the picture while still helping limit what children see. In1997, President Clinton has voiced his support of such material and parent involvement, aswell as stricter enforcement of laws prosecuting those Internet users who intentionallybreak pornography laws(Meyer, Internet). Clinton has also pushed popular Internetproviders such as Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator to provide free programs withtheir products to allow parents to control what their children can access(Meyer, Internet).
Once again, this steps back from censorship and violating the rights of American citizens,and steps towards giving parents the tools they need to protect their children. People should be able to express ideas in any type of medium without governmentregulations. All the areas that currently concern censorship have created a lot ofcontroversy in the United States courts. Due to the nature of the Constitution, thesecontroversies may never be fully solved. However, it is clear that censorship is not thebest answer to many of the issues it directly deals with. Instead, giving the ability forparents to control what their children have access to in everyday life is a much betteralternative.
Not only does this method refrain from infringing on the rights of citizens, butit also allows parents to individually choose what they see fit for their children. Thegovernment needs to continue to support such ideas as the V-chip and E-chip, that giveparents control. Not only will it help keep the government out of family affairs, but it willstop them from having to make laws that may reduce peoples rights and cause furtherproblems. Bibliography?1st Amendment. ? 1999.
Internet. Accessed on 04/10/99 athttp://www. hinton. k12. ia. us/hinton/Rusk/1STAMDT.
htm/Abrams, Floyd. ?Clinton vs. the First Amendment. ? The New York Times Magazine. 30March 1997: 42. Chafee, Zachariah Jr.
?Free Speech in the United States?. Versions of Censorship. Ed. John McCormick and Mairi MacInnes. Chicago: Aldine, 1962.
172-200. ?Constitutional Law. ? 1999. Internet. Accessed on 04/20/99 athttp://members. iex.
net/~jriley/ps401. htm. Gelfand, Ravinia. The Freedom of Speech in America.
Learner Publications Company. Minnesota: 1967. Hogeboom, William H. ?Censorship vs.
Censure-ship. ? Billboard. 27March 1993:6. Mayor, Federico.
Unfettered Freedom. Unesco-Courier, may 1995, p. 38. InfoTracSuperTom full text, November 1998.
?Prayer and Religious Instruction in Schools. ? 1999. Internet. Accessed on 04/23/99 athttp://www.
witchvox. com/white/wscourt_schools. html. ?Supreme Court Cases. ? 1999. Internet.
Accessed on 04/23/99 athttp://laws. findlaw. com/US/. Zeinert, Karen. ?Free Speech?.
New Jersey: Enslow
