The Instigator
Akemi_Loli_Mokoto
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,848 times Debate No: 18954
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Akemi_Loli_Mokoto

Pro

I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States. The US claims to be a nation known for it's freedoms and what not, but that is total bull. It's NOT the governments job to censor TV and Radio. It should be up to the TV network NOT the government what content is shown or what is heard on TV or radio. I don't care what the parent's want. It's the PARENT'S responsibility to regulate what their child see's or hears, not the government. Parent's can't say they are unable to control what their kids hear or see, because we do have the V-Chip now, and we can make it so radio also get's one. Besides, no child has EVER died or been hurt from hearing cussing words or seeing a tit. I DO however support the MPAA rating system, so the V-chip can be put in place. So, in closing, No more government censorship.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent states, "I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States." For this debate, we will be focusing on TV and radio, however, my opponent has made it clear that their position is for the absolute ending of government censorship, rather than just the reduction of it.

In this debate, I will argue that a degree of government censorship is needed. I will also argue that my opponent has already admitted that they support government censorship by their approval of the V-chip.

1) V-Chip is government.

Let us start with a little history of the V-Chip, to show that it is a government censorship tool, rather than a private sector censorship tool.

The V-Chip was created by Tim Colling, and he took his creation to the Keith Spicer, head of the Canadian Telecommunication Commission. Keith presented the technology to various american networks, but none of them were interested (they claimed to be, yet they took no actions upon it) [1]. The Telecommunications act of 1996, then forced cable providers to adapt the rating system, and forced manufacturers to include v-chips [2]. Since this censorship was originally ignored by the market, and had to be forced by government legislation, it would be fair to call this government sponcered censorship (as many called it government censorship at the time).

2) Government Censorship is needed for some things.

The government will often censor news reports for publishing anything classified, or certain pieces of information that may prove harmful to americans, such as plans for a battle, troop movement, or intelligence gathering tactics. Such information can easily get to military opponents and so undermine the entire effort.

Another reason for government censorship is in legal cases to prevent defamation of individuals. People can easily be accused of various crimes, and at their trials, mis-information, and fallacious information can be presented. Open courts that allow the press to report on any and every aspect can cause serious comlpications, especially with jurors that need to remain as impartial as possible. We saw such issues with the Amanda Knox trials, where news would report that she was involved in Rogue-like satanic sex rituals [3].

Yet another reason for censors is the protection of privacy and private information. It would be highly unethical (by most ethic standards) and potentionally harmful, for a news story to release a person's bank account info or social security number. While there is little reason for this to ever be done, people are known for doing things for no reason, other than spite. This becomes more likely when you come across shows the are for political entertainment. We've seen individuals place cross hairs on their opponent's homes, telling people to "stay armed" and to "reload" [4] and to "kick the bastards out" and various other stirring words. As such, a line needs to be drawn that says "do not cross." It would be ideal that telecommunication networks would be able to draw this line themselves, however, as learned from the v-chip, they will not do so unless required by the government.

This shows that there are numerous cases where government censorship is needed, and that government mandated and sponcered censorship was needed to get to where parents even have the option of control.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.docstoc.com...
[2] http://transition.fcc.gov...
[3] http://news.nationalpost.com...
[4] http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Akemi_Loli_Mokoto

Pro

Ok, I'm going to keep this short, because you obviously didn't get what I was talking about:

1) Yes the V-chip government mandated, I know that. But it's not government censorship. The chip's activation is voluntary. So it's not government censorship(which is the issue), unless the government mandates it be activated or such.

2) Obviously the kind of censorship I'm talking about is stuff like obscenity, profanity, and Indecency(since THAT is what is censored on TV and Radio). I guess I should be far more clear next time. So how about you try addressing that in the next round.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent clearly stated in the OP that "I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States." That is clearly an absolute statement, and since we are talking about TV and Radio, it is an absolute statement of censorship on those. I presented three examples of government censorship in those mediums, which have gone unrefuted.

As for my opponent's case, he has yet to provide any logically reason for why it is the parent's responsibility and not the government, or at least not a shared responsibility. Nor moral frame work, nothing. Since none will be presented until the final round, if at all, the moral frame work of different entities' responsibilities will be up for debate and challengeable.

Typically the limiting of debates, after such an absolute claim, is not accepted. A common example is when someone debates "Abortion should not be allowed" and then later tries to argue that they only meant in certain circumstances. But, in the spirit of debate, I will accept the limit and argue that government should be allowed to censor TV, Radio, Games, and other forms of entertainment for explicit material as well.

Children within a society are partially the responsibility of that society. This is because they often attend public schools, use various public resources (libraries, parks, tax credits, etc), and if they get into trouble, they can become a burden on society (damage public property, use resources of public jails, etc). Since they can become a potential burden on society, it is in society's best interest that the risk of burden is minimized. Ideally, this responsibility should fall on the parents, however, should the parents fail in their responsibility, it is better for society to pick up the slack, then to allow that risk to cause harm. Since the government is charged with protecting our society and its interests, this responsibility falls to the government.

Now that it has been identified that the government holds some degree of responsibility, we have moral justification for government actions. All that is left is to show logical evidence for censorship.

A meta-study from 2007 noted that violent video games correlated to increased risk factors for aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, lower school performance, more likely to engage in fights, etc [1]. The same study also pointed out various studies that showed the same correlation to the watching of violent movies and TV shows. Another study from 2001 showed that parents are unaware of the actual levels of violence in many games and movies/tv shows [2].

The jump from correlation to causation must be done logically. As pointed out in 2004 meta-study (which compiled studies from 1993-2004) [3], violent individuals are often the "good guys" in many video games and movies, thus providing a positive image to children that "violence is a good way to get what you want." In regards to sexual images to young ages (mostly boys), they tend to reinforce the natural urge of sex and more often than not, hide the negative effects (STDs, pregnancy, ruined relationships, etc) [4].

Since certain content within video games, TV, movies, (all forms of media entertainment really, the medium does not really matter) can have negative effects on younger children, and since the government, acting for society, has a partial responsibility to protecting and preventing certain negative effects that increase the harm to society, they have a moral obligation to censor these to some degree, to minimize these risks, while allowing as much freedom to the parents as morally permissible e.g. there is a fine balance.

The Resolution is refuted (again, under tighter rules).

Thank you,

[1] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...
[2] http://www.childrennow.org...
[3] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...
[4] http://www.media-awareness.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
Akemi_Loli_Mokoto

Pro

So what you are doing is taking parts out of my debate and leaving others out. If you noticed the "It's the PARENT'S responsibility" thing, and beyond you'd know what I was talking about. Anyway, All this is something that falls under personal and parental responsibility. If a parent worries their child will be hurt by what they see on TV or whatever, turn that V-chip on and pick their poison. It's not the government's job to regulate what people see on TV that they pay for.

Same goes for video games, If you don't want your child playing violent video games, Don't buy it, Don't give him/her money, and don't get them a gaming system. Some parent's want to rely on the government to do the jobs the parent is to lazy or too stupid to do. And these "studies" don't stand up in court(http://www.supremecourt.gov...), and they won't stand up here, and even if violent video games caused violent kids, SO WHAT?! Who's fault is it? It's the parent's fault for not controlling what their child is exposed too, which they can easily do with the Parental Control's on TV, the Internet(via free and paid software), and on Video Game systems.

The US Supreme court and lower courts have ruled recently that violent video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media(check that last link) AND the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York already struck down the FCC's Indecency Policy which basically censored what is aired on TV and radio. Currently the USSC are considering ruling on this sometime this year or next(http://online.wsj.com...)

So to recap, it's all free speech. If parent's don't want their kid to see something, there are ways to prevent that from happening without having the government decide what's good for us and what's bad. The last thing this crappy country needs is more government control over stuff. If you can not realize that, then I guess a Chinese and North Korean-like government is what you are looking for. Have fun. *Dead air*
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for remaining on this site long enough to finish this debate, despite his claims in the forums that he was leaving.

My opponent restates, "this is something that falls under personal and parental responsibility," and "It's not the government's job," however, he has provided no ethical framework for why it isn't the government's job and why it is the parent's job. He has assigned responsibility to a group of people for no reason. And since no reasoning was given, there is no logical reason to accept it and it can be dismissed. Next time, if he feels that it is the parent's responsibility, he should state WHY it is their responsibility.

We should also note, that at no point did he challenge my reasoning for why the government has a partial responsibility. Namely that these kids can become potential risks to society and so that risk should be minimized as government is charged by society to take care and protect of society (we often prefer to have government protect the rights of society, but that falls under the same umbrella).

Since my ethical frame work was not even challenged, it is to be accepted as far as this debate is concerned.

Now, let's move on to my opponent's arguments. I will be very generous and fill in the many aspects that his argument was assuming (but forgot to say) as well as accept his appeal to authority fallacy. He said that the supreme court ruled that video games are protected free speech, and implied that the protection of free speech is more important than the protection of society. However, this is not what the supreme court said. Let us actually take a look.

The supreme court was only looking at whether the state could legally stop violent video games from being sold to kids. They were not looking at the right of censorship on the whole. Summarizing the both the concurring and dissenting opinions, "the issue may need to be re-examined in future case law, considering the disparate community standards treatment of violence compared to pornography, and the changing nature of video games with continually improving technology."

The supreme court has many time held that free speech is not unlimited. Most evidently and historically in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire [1] and later, in a more appropriate to this debate, U.S. vs Thomas [2], that obscenities are not protected under the 1st amendment. This clearly points that there is a balance that must be respected, as such, should video games cross that line (which the supreme court already acknowledged exists), then the censorship of them is acceptable by the supreme court (commonly held in cases of pornographic images). We can see that this is clearly evident in our modern day law, it is illegal to sell porn to minors. California was basically trying to get violent video games into that same bucket, that only adults can purchase them. But the supreme court ruled, not that nothing is allowed to violate free speech, but that violence wasn't past the threshold to legally be placed there. This actually confirms my side, as the supreme court acknowledges that there is a line of where government censorship is allowed.

My opponent also attempts to say that the studies don't hold up in court, however the court was not ruling on the accuracy or legitimacy of the studies (since they cannot logically deny the links), but merely that even with the link of childhood violence to violent video games, it doesn't cross the needed threshold.

So, in conclusion, the supreme court has acknowledged that there is a line where government censorship is allowed, which completely removes any and all arguments made by my opponent. No refutations to any of my examples have been made. And no counter ethical frame work for what is the government's responsibility has been made.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and if he continues to choose to leave DDO for our overly oppressive censorship, I wish him the best where ever he chooses to go.

[1] http://www.bc.edu...
[2] http://www.netlitigation.com...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by awesomeness 5 years ago
awesomeness
hi
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I look forward to the day when Pro can watch lolicon on television.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I would like to appologize for arguing in the last round, but since my opponent did post any arguments until his last round, I had no real option.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Tracked
Posted by Akemi_Loli_Mokoto 5 years ago
Akemi_Loli_Mokoto
Rules? What you see is what you get. Debates shouldn't have any rules as long as you get your point across and you aren't making anything up.
Posted by Chuz-Life 5 years ago
Chuz-Life
I may be willing to accept this debate challenge. But I would like to know what the rules (if any) are.
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
i would love to accept but sadly i don't live in the US
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Akemi_Loli_MokotoOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not state the debate clearly, didnt really start until round 3, then ended the debate by referring to the US as a crappy country then comparing it to extremist nations like North Korea and China....
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
Akemi_Loli_MokotoOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest. CON provides an ethical system that is unchallenged, and provides uncontended examples that PRO fails to rebut.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Akemi_Loli_MokotoOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's up to Pro to make the resolution clear, and t was reasonable for Con to suppose that Pro opposed all censorship. Pro the failed to rebut Con's examples of needed censorship. It would have been a better debate if it had centered on regulation of "public" versus "private" spaces. The v-chip approaches that issue.