Mediaboss Marketing

First of all, my opponent is trying to turn this debate into a moral issue. Morality should never be the basis of government. Justice and fairness should be.

Pro, argues that this debate is no about "Can the government censor?" but about "Should they?" As I stated previously no they shouldn't. Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean we should do it. I can stuff my face with 10 slices of pizza, does it mean I should? No

Pro, also mentioned I have not given example why censorship is bad. As you can read, I did.

I can give a list why censorship is bad in all corners. Here we go.

1. Dictators use censorship to promote a flattering image of themselves and for removing any information that goes against them. Whose to say the government can't do this too?

2. Political parties around the world already use media censorship for their own benefit. It stifles the opposition, broadcasting only a particular point of view.

3. Censorship makes us believe what were are told, not what we are not. Why do conspiracy theorists exist? Because they believe the government isn't telling us something.

4. Area 51, 9/11, New World Order. Do you really think the gorvernment should keep all those things censored.

5. It makes the US complete hyprocite. The Constitution says we have Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Petition and Protest, so why does the gorvernment censor this? For there own benefit.

Thank you. By the way, the voters can vote for whoever they want. Vote whatever you like! 🙂

As to his rebuttals, they are also contradictory. I have not said that he did not give instances of bad censorship, I merely pointed out that a few bad examples does not imply that censorship in all circumstances is immoral. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to refute my ethical system of utilitarianism or propose one of his own that is not logically contradictory. Under my ethical system, government should censor when the results of said censorship maximize happiness or minimize pain. Until my opponent addresses this point, I should be considered the winner.

See the article here:
Debate Argument: Censorship | Debate.org

By: Chad Hawthorne CS3604, Spring 1997

The definition of censorship from the American Library Association is, "The change in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes." [3]

A debate on censorship could cover volumes of law books. There are hundreds of modern day cases on the subject, many of which have reached the Supreme Court. This page is not an attempt to delve into every aspect of censorship, a task that the author finds daunting. This resource explores American's beliefs on censorship, some examples of censorship in academia, and how the issue of censorship relates to digital media, including the Internet.

Censorship takes many forms in our country. From the outright banning of books and information, to the more subtle censorship of persuasion. Despite the importance our country places on freedom of thought and the freedom of speech, there have been countless efforts throughout our history to curb those freedoms. Frequently these efforts are successful, either in the outright banning of information or a curb in the freedoms once allowed. According to UPI the censorship of textbooks, novels, and classroom materials was at its highest level in 10 years in 1992.[2] An organization dedicated to protecting constitutional liberties, People for the American Way, reports that "'censors' were more active in 1991-92 than in any other year, with 376 'attacks on the freedom to learn in 44 states." [2] Not only are these 'censors' more active but their efforts are more successful than at any point in the four years previous to 1992. According to the People for the American Way, "Forty-one percent of the materials challenged were removed or restricted in some fashion."[2] Censorship is not limited to books and physical media, it also has effects on the Internet and the digital world. Censoring material on the Internet has become an important issue for countries around the world. Censorship is an ongoing issue and the battle to stop censorship is one that has roots in the very beginnings of our country.

To understand Americans beliefs on censorship it is valuable to learn exactly where these values originate and to learn how they are being challenged. Our beliefs in freedom of speech and our values that limit censorship are exemplified in our constitution and the associated bill of rights. The framers of the constitution drew their values and concepts of civil liberties from many sources, including the ancient Greeks and contemporary English philosophers. From the ancient Greeks came forth the idea of 'natural law' and the concept of equality. [5]

Another more contemporary influence was the writings of the 17th century English political philosopher, John Locke. One of Locke's major contributions was the idea, "[T]he end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom."[5] This idea translated into our bill of rights, ratified December 15, 1791. The first item in the bill of rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "[5] This first amendment to the constitution serves as the basis for our freedoms of speech and the cornerstone of censorship debates in the United States. Many efforts to censor ideas, books, and electronic media have been challenged based on this amendment to the constitution.

One of these challenges to the law came in a 1982 Supreme Court case, Island Tree School District v. Pico. This case answered the question of who has the right to remove books from a school library and on what basis. The Island Tree Village school board removed from the school library ten books that it considered, "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."[4] Some of the books banned included classics such as, Kurt Vonegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Richard Wright's Black Boy, and Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice. The Supreme Court admitted that the school board has discretion to create and maintain a school curricclum and to further appropriate civic and moral values. However, the Supreme Court announced important limits on this discretion; it said that the First Amendment extends to "the right to receive ideas" in the context of a school library, where "a student can literally explore the unknown."[4] The court stated that school officials may not engage in the "narrowly partisan suppression of ideas" by removing books from the library simply because they contain ideas that they disagree with.[4] This case was the basis from which all other school censorship cases would be evaluated. Six years after this historic case there came another case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.[4] This case brought up the question of weather the school administration has the right to censor and limit the content of a school newspaper. It was decided that the school administration does have the right to review and edit the content of a school newspaper. The court qualified their decision by stating that administrators decisions must be based on, "legitimate pedagogical concerns."[4]

The fine line between "legitimate pedagogical concerns" and "narrowly partisan suppression" is constantly being redefined and challenged by new censorship cases. These cases involve old forms of media and information, as well as new digital media. Censorship is not promoted by just one political group or social advocacy organization, however, according to the ACLU, "the greatest threat today comes from the fundamentalist right, with its ideological hostility to other religious or philosophical systems, to homosexuality, to sex education, and indeed the basic idea of secular education."[4] The censorship debate in academia is frequently a debate about children. It concerns what is appropriate for children to read, learn, and see. It involves censoring teachers and school administrators all in the name of the children. This debate about what children should learn is the basis for censoring the Internet here in the United States. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 censored most forms of digital media on the basis that children were getting obscene material over the Internet.[1]

In the United States censorship of the Internet reared its head in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act. In the Telecommunications Act there is embedded in Title V a measure called the "Communications Decency Act" or CDA. The CDA limits "obscene, indecent and offensive material" on the Internet.[1] This act makes it illegal to distribute pornography or other indecent material to minors over the Internet or any other digital media. It is a bold step in censoring the cyber-world, and limiting free speech. There was a tremendous debate about weather this law was needed and what effect it would have on the Internet community. Previously there were few laws governing the Internet and it was generally considered as bastion of global freedoms. However, this new law signified an effort by the government to censor peoples thoughts and ideas, under the guise of protecting children.

Other countries are also trying to grapple with the problem of indecent material on the Internet.[6] All of these actions have the effect of limiting personal freedoms and censoring the general public. Although other governments have different values and ideas about freedom of speech, their values and decisions affect everybody in this increasingly global environment, including us in the United States. The Internet has given citizens of every country the ability to communicate and transfer information across borders. This presents a problem in the area of censorship. If one country passes a law governing the use of the Internet, how is it to be enforced in this global environment? For example , "A German court has already acted to prevent users in that country from accessing sexually explicit Internet discussion groups. The court forced CompuServe, a US-based online information service, to block access to about 200 of the thousands of "Usenet" groups to be found on the Internet."[6] Clearly the laws and regulations made by one country have an effect on the Internet community at large, regardless of where a user lives. The ethics and censorship beliefs that Americans hold so valuable can conceivably be challenged and thwarted by the laws of another country.

In conclusion, the censorship one country takes to limit personal freedoms can have a ripple effect through governments around the world. This censorship often stems from the need to protect children from obscenity and "adult" topics. The need to protect children is most obvious in the nations schools, where censorship is frequently carried out, and even upheld by the courts. Now, with the development of digital media, children are learning about the world from the privacy of their homes. Must this digital media be censored and freedoms curtailed to protect children? Hopefully a solution will be found that protects children and freedoms.

See the article here:
What is censorship? - Undergraduate Courses

Music provides a powerful form of expression that at its most basic level helps to entertain while containing the power to cause revolutions -- both cultural and political. Musics inherent power scares some people who are afraid of the powerful potential to shape attitudes and beliefs. The banning of music sets a dangerous precedent for the censorship of other forms of expression -- with dangerous consequences for a free society.

Why is music censored? Factors may include clashing moral values, racial motivations, generational value gaps, and fear.

Music has historically been, and continues to be, censored in an attempt to enforce morality. Its not a coincidence that music censorship in America began to accelerate during the 1950s, when traditional and conservative values began to unravel. At the time, order, strict obedience to authority, and conservative values were part of the accepted mindset. With the advent of rock n roll, however, young America began to loosen attitudes on issues relating to morality. Technology also played an important part in shaping the moral power struggle in the 1950s. For example, the 1920s era saw similar complaints against flappers and jazz musicians; however, radio wasnt as dominant at that time. In the 1950s, radio provided access to new types of music that challenged traditional morality and created the dynamics for music censorship.

Moral authorities aim to determine what behavior is acceptable for individuals and for society. Drugs, violence, and especially sex are topics moral authorities attempt to regulate. The end of the 1950s witnessed many members of society, particularly young adults and teens begin expressing new attitudes about these topics: Sex and drugs were no longer hidden and secretive acts, but something to be exposed and celebrated. This shift in outlook began breaking down the traditional moral order in many aspects of society especially music.

Race may seem a strange factor in music censorship, but it has played a significant role. In particular, the 1950s and early 1960s saw a new genre of music -- rhythm and blues -- emerge onto the national music landscape. R&B music included freely expressed sexual desires, clear drug references, and other features that were not as prevalent in other forms of popular music. R&B was and still isdominated by black musicians and traditionally was enjoyed mainly by black audiences. When its audience expanded to include mainstream white youths and young adults, this was a problem for many older whites who considered R&B music as a threat that corrupted young people and promoted immoral behavior.

This phenomenon prompted moral authorities to take action. In 1955, for example, Houstons Juvenile Delinquency and Crime Commission banned more than 30 songs many by black artists. A Chicago radio station promised to censor any controversial music, especially R&B, after receiving letters from angry listeners. (Sparrow)

Racially motivated music censorship is not a practice limited to the past. More recent cases involve MTV refusing to air videos from many black artists in the infancy of the network. In 1983, during a live interview, David Bowie suddenly asked, Why are there practically no black artists on the network? (Why it Took MTV So Long) Michael Jacksons Billie Jean from the album Thriller, released in 1983, is credited with being the first black video aired on MTV in heavy rotation.

The argument can be made that racial motivations also played a large role in the FBIs 1989 letter to the rap group N.W.A. (Nuzum) The F.B.I.s intent was to notify the rap group that their song Fuck Tha Police wasnt appreciated by the government. N.W.A. supporters argue the group was only expressing the frustrations of inner-city blacks and holding a mirror to their everyday reality. While no legal action took place, the example helps give context to the pressures behind government and music censorship.

Generational value gaps are a large factor in music censorship. Older generations use their power to try to censor the music of younger generations because the new music doesnt reflect the values of the old. The R&B and rock n roll of the 1950s and early 1960s contrasted greatly with the values of the greatest generation, which grew up during the Great Depression, fought in World War II, and started the production that led to Americas global economic dominance. As a result, obedience, respect for authority, and order were important values for this generation. Conversely, the music being made during the mid-1950s and early 1960s reflected attitudes craving individuality, questioning authority, and exploring freedom, drugs, and sex. In fact, many times the music flaunted these things to societys elders.

For example, in 1965, the Rolling Stones and the Who were banned from radio stations nationwide because of sexual references in their songs. (Sparrow) In 1968, The Doors song Unknown Soldier was banned from many stations because of its anti-war theme. (Sparrow) In 1971, the FCC threatened to take away broadcast licenses from stations playing songs that glorified drugs. In the same year, songs by John Lennon and Jethro Tull were changed without their knowledge or consent. Lennons music was changed by radio station themselves while Jethro Tulls songs were changed by their record label Chrysalis Records. (Nuzum) Its interesting to consider whether entering a museum and painting over an artists paintings would be considered acceptable.

The generational value gap continued in the 1970s and 1980s, when heavy metal rock and rap music were particular targets of moral authorities. A Prince album caused controversy at a 1984 PTA meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Sparrow) The incident helped spark the debate for government censorship of music. The National Coalition on Television, which monitored the level of violence in music videos, asked for the federal government to regulate rock music on television. (Nuzum) Although the request ultimately wasnt acted upon, the demand demonstrates the push from some segments of the population, mostly conservative, for federal governmental action.

The following year, the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), pushed the music industry and the government to create a rating systems evaluating the content of artists. The PMRC also hoped for radio stations to become conscious about airing controversial content which would in turn censor artists hoping to become played on the radio. The PMRC was led by Tipper Gore and very influential wives of politicians and businessmen living in Washington, D.C. As a result of testimony before the U.S. Senate, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began labeling albums that may be objectionable, including the infamous black-and-white label Parental Advisory: Explicit Content, created in1990 and still in use today.

Generational value gaps continue to influence music and music censorship. Today the focus is largely on gangster rap and sexually explicit hip-hop lyrics. In each case, the music being censored is typically regarded as the music of youth and features values different from those of previous generations.

At the root of all of the factors that lead to music censorship is fear. There is a fear by the authorities pushing for censorship that the music will affect young people negatively and prevent them from achieving a morally acceptable life. Many believe that without censorship, society itself will be changed significantly, and not for the better. Because the unknown creates uncertainty, fear of change remains common among those who attempt censorship, even when music merely reflects, rather than causes, changes in society. For example, country icon Loretta Lynns 1975 song The Pill was censored at many radio stations more than a decade after oral contraceptives became popular. (Sparrow)

From the Vietnam War to todays Iraq War, and from the advent of the sexual revolution to todays culture wars, music is recognized as a potential source of power to change values, ideas, and beliefs as well as to influence actions. Those who fear this change try to stop it by censorship, even when, as history has shown us, censorship is futile when change is inevitable.

-- R. Andre Hall, Journalism '09

Lombardi, Victor. "Music and Censorship." Noise Between Stations. 1 Dec. 1991. 22 Sep. 2009 http://www.noisebetweenstations.com/personal/essays/music_censorship.html.

Nuzum, Eric. "A Brief History of Banned Music in the United States by Eric Nuzum." Parental Advisory Music Censorship in America. 22 Sep. 1986 http://www.ericnuzum.com/banned/.

Sparrow, Kelly. "Music censorship (part 1) : A brief history." Examiner: Inside Source For Everything Local. 22 Sep. 2009 http://www.examiner.com/x-16046-Lexington-Live-Music-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Music-censorship-part-1--A-brief-history.

"Why It Took MTV So Long To Play Black Music Videos ." Find Articles at BNET. 9 Oct. 2006. 22 Sep. 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_14_110/ai_n16807343/.

Continue reading here:
Music Censorship - Lehigh University

Internet Censorship Debate

Censorship refers to any action taken by a society to control access to ideas and information. Throughout history, many different types of societies, including democracies, have used censorship in various ways. The issue is increasingly important due to the rapid development of new communication technology. As innovators continue to create new ways for people to share information, many people are now arguing over the issue of censorship.

For the proponents of censorship, restricting the access of information is something that can provide benefits to society. By censoring pornography on the internet, children are less likely to encounter it. By censoring certain types of images and videos, society can prevent offensive or vulgar material from offending those that it targets. For example, some would argue that society should censor material that is insulting to a particular religion in order to maintain societal harmony. In this way, censorship is viewed as a way to protect society as a whole or certain segments of society from material that is seen as offensive or damaging.

Some argue that censorship is necessary to preserve national security. Without using any kind of censorship, they argue that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy of information necessary for protecting the nation. For this purpose, censorship protects a state's military or security secrets from its enemies who can use that information against the state.

Those who are against censorship argue that the practice limits the freedoms of speech, the press and expression and that these limitations are ultimately a detriment to society. By preventing free access to information, it is argued that society is fostering ignorance in its citizens. Through this ignorance, citizens are more easily controlled by special interest groups, and groups that are able to take power are able to use censorship to maintain themselves. Additionally, they argue that censorship limits a society's ability to advance in its understanding of the world.

Another main issue for those who are against censorship is a history of censorship abuse. Those who argue against censorship can point to a number of examples of dictators who used censorship to create flattering yet untrue images of themselves for the purpose of maintaining control over a society. They argue that people should control the government instead of the government controlling its people.

See the original post here:
Internet Censorship Debate | Debate.org

censorship cases...

Lauren Myracle's teen/tween fiction series starting with ttyl, the first-ever novel written entirely in the style of instant messaging conversation, was the most frequently banned or challenged book in 2009 due to complaints of "frank, mature content."

And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, a book about penguins raising a child, was the 2nd most banned for objections that it "makes homosexuality sound normal." It ranked no. 1 for most banned book in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The "Twilight" book series, which have turned into a blockbuster film franchise, ranks as the 5th most requested books to be banned by public libraries. Stephanie Meyer's stories of vampires and teen romance have been criticized for sexual content, religious views and being "unsuitable for the age group."

For years, various religious groups have protested the themes of wizardry in J. K. Rowling's books, which don't appear on the current top 10 list, but Harry Potter's tales remain in the Top 100 Most Challenged Books of the Decade.

"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers." - Judy Blume

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech." -Benjamin Franklin

"Libraries are places of inclusion rather than exclusion." - American Library Association

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." - William O. Douglas

Follow this link:
Delete Censorship.org