Why censorship is important

And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines.

And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible. But what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.

Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively but not actual criminal violence against another person.

There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other. Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate -- much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare. What the sudies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is -- not much.

The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.

Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most expert believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors. Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch. In , the U. Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a page report, "Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence," which concluded, "The effect [of television] is small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with the real violence of our society.

Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public's attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good. What would be left if all these kinds of programs were purged from the airwaves? Is there good violence and bad violence? United States, the Court overturned a court order stopping the newspaper from continuing to print excerpts from the "Pentagon Papers", saying such prior restraint was unconstitutional.

In this June 30, file picture, workers in the New York Times composing room in New York look at a proof sheet of a page containing the secret Pentagon report on Vietnam.

Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images. Censors seek to limit freedom of thought and expression by restricting spoken words, printed matter, symbolic messages, freedom of association, books, art, music, movies, television programs, and Internet sites. When the government engages in censorship, First Amendment freedoms are implicated.

Private actors — for example, corporations that own radio stations — also can engage in forms of censorship, but this presents no First Amendment implications as no governmental, or state, action is involved. Various groups have banned or attempted to ban books since the invention of the printing press. Rowling and Judy Blume. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press, integral elements of democracy.

Since Gitlow v. New York , the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Kuhlmeier that school officials have broad power of censorship over student newspapers. Finley, used with permission from the Associated Press. Freedom of speech and press are not, however, absolute. Over time, the Supreme Court has established guidelines, or tests, for defining what constitutes protected and unprotected speech.

Among them are:. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Categories of unprotected speech also include:. Determining when defamatory words may be censored has proved to be difficult for the Court, which has allowed greater freedom in remarks made about public figures than those concerning private individuals.

In New York Times Co. Sullivan , the Court held that words can be libelous written or slanderous spoken in the case of public officials only if they involve actual malice or publication with knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. Lampooning has generally been protected by the Court. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell , for example, the Court held that the magazine had not slandered Rev.

On the issue of press freedoms, the Court has been reluctant to censor publication of even previously classified materials, as in New York Times v. United States — the Pentagon Papers case — unless the government can provide an overwhelming reason for such prior restraint.

The Court has accepted some censorship of the press when it interferes with the right to a fair trial, as exhibited in Estes v. Texas and Sheppard v. Maxwell , but the Court has been reluctant to uphold gag orders , as in the case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart In Chaplinsky v. Since the backlash against so-called political correctness, however, liberals and conservatives have fought over what derogatory words may be censored and which are protected by the First Amendment.

In its early history, the Supreme Court left it to the states to determine whether materials were obscene. Acting on its decision in Gitlow v.

New York to apply the First Amendment to limit state action, the Warren Court subsequently began dealing with these issues in the s on a case-by-case basis and spent hours examining material to determine obscenity. In Miller v. California , the Burger Court finally adopted a test that elaborated on the standards established in Roth v.

United States Miller defines obscenity by outlining three conditions for jurors to consider:. In the s, some individuals thought anti-war songs should be censored. In the s, the emphasis shifted to prohibiting sexual and violent lyrics. In general, rap and hard-core rock-n-roll have faced more censorship than other types of music. Caution must be used in this area to distinguish between governmental censorship and private censorship. To begin…. Restricting people's freedom of speech is not only against the law, but it also limits access to information - no matter how sensitive the topic.

This leads to ignorance, which causes problems in our society. Censorship has created this common occurrence for artists to…. They believe that "censorship of language is often an attempt to control language change, " pg and takes away human rights and freedom of speech. They explain that "language does not equal thought, so attempts to center thought by censoring language are both misguided and bound to fail" pg. Censoring language by replacing the word with a less-offensive one, does not neccsarily make it much better, and controlling the words does not always control the thought Many individuals share these thoughts on censored language, because it does not allow for free expression, therefore neglecting basic human rights.

They have every right to speak their mind, except when it is harming or hurting another person. However, people may argue no matter how hateful and disturbing the speech is, they should not have restrictions. Additionally, that those that were target should not take offence. They should just have the ability to ignore the speech. This is not always the case, however, some people really take offence to such words.

Two conceptions of art and entertainment are often confused, thus these works would be regarded as pornographic content, when artists create the works including body art or updating thinking. For example, distinguishing both the conceptions is tricky, especailly defininng the content with sexual components. The laws show that if content includes sexy images or relative components, so that people who disseminate these would be punished Heins, , p.

However, in the territory of art, sex, sin and negative thouhgts have increasingly become a main social issue Heins, , p1. This censorship is considered justified by some and outrageous by others. Clifford states in his essay The Ethics of Belief that it is immoral to hold beliefs that are based on insufficient evidence.