Topic:In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there if little or no censorship.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs?
My Essay:The extent to which government should interfere in the censorship of television and radio programs is a perennial subject of argument, involving a conflict between individual freedom of speech and governments' responsibility in protecting public interest. In my assessment, public interests take automatic precedence over the individual ones. I based my view on the following reasons.
First, the harm of offensive language and behavior is both palpable and profound. People, especially youngsters, who are exposed to insulting media programs, are liable to be influenced. Ample anecdotal evidence establishes a vital correlation between distasteful TV programs and the audiences' imitatively abusive languages and aggressive behaviors. For example, a study by AACAP found that TV violence gives youth the message that violence is socially acceptable and is the dominant way to solve problems. Such phenomenon teaches us that it is necessary for government to regulate the order of media market.
Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect citizens to consciously boycott the offensive programs without government's intervention. A variety of media sources have sprung up to cater to different consumer tastes. Some captive audiences are harmed in unconscious. Others may manage to gain access to the obscene programs just out of curiosity. Consequently, both common sense and our experience inform us that governments' unusual authority is the guarantee for our civilization.
Admittedly, in an entirely liberal country, citizens all enjoy complete freedom of speech, regardless of color, race or creed. Accepting information as audiences and expressing ideas as media sources are natural human rights protected by constitution. Government censorship which restricts inappropriate languages and behaviors might disobey the principle of democracy more or less.
However, there are limits beyond which the freedom may in turn do harm to the society. Try to imagine a society full of offensive people freely presenting their individual viewpoints. Would that be a real democracy country? Certainly the answer is "No". Excess abuse of freedom, for individuals, has a pernicious impact on social relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward unscrupulous and antisocial conducts. Both ramifications would tear apart the social bonds that connect a society together. Moreover, freedom and order are not incompatible as long as they share the same start point, i.e. to protect the social interest. Accordingly, government censorship of obscene programs not only complies with the real democracy substance, but also fosters a more elegant moral for society.
In conclusion, considering the adverse impact of offensive programs and the doubtful feasibility of citizens' self-control, a government assumes the supreme role in the process of screening insulting programs. Even though it might be in conflict with individual freedom of speech, censorship enjoys advantages that outweigh any of its pitfalls.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs?
My Essay:The extent to which government should interfere in the censorship of television and radio programs is a perennial subject of argument, involving a conflict between individual freedom of speech and governments' responsibility in protecting public interest. In my assessment, public interests take automatic precedence over the individual ones. I based my view on the following reasons.
First, the harm of offensive language and behavior is both palpable and profound. People, especially youngsters, who are exposed to insulting media programs, are liable to be influenced. Ample anecdotal evidence establishes a vital correlation between distasteful TV programs and the audiences' imitatively abusive languages and aggressive behaviors. For example, a study by AACAP found that TV violence gives youth the message that violence is socially acceptable and is the dominant way to solve problems. Such phenomenon teaches us that it is necessary for government to regulate the order of media market.
Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect citizens to consciously boycott the offensive programs without government's intervention. A variety of media sources have sprung up to cater to different consumer tastes. Some captive audiences are harmed in unconscious. Others may manage to gain access to the obscene programs just out of curiosity. Consequently, both common sense and our experience inform us that governments' unusual authority is the guarantee for our civilization.
Admittedly, in an entirely liberal country, citizens all enjoy complete freedom of speech, regardless of color, race or creed. Accepting information as audiences and expressing ideas as media sources are natural human rights protected by constitution. Government censorship which restricts inappropriate languages and behaviors might disobey the principle of democracy more or less.
However, there are limits beyond which the freedom may in turn do harm to the society. Try to imagine a society full of offensive people freely presenting their individual viewpoints. Would that be a real democracy country? Certainly the answer is "No". Excess abuse of freedom, for individuals, has a pernicious impact on social relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward unscrupulous and antisocial conducts. Both ramifications would tear apart the social bonds that connect a society together. Moreover, freedom and order are not incompatible as long as they share the same start point, i.e. to protect the social interest. Accordingly, government censorship of obscene programs not only complies with the real democracy substance, but also fosters a more elegant moral for society.
In conclusion, considering the adverse impact of offensive programs and the doubtful feasibility of citizens' self-control, a government assumes the supreme role in the process of screening insulting programs. Even though it might be in conflict with individual freedom of speech, censorship enjoys advantages that outweigh any of its pitfalls.
