The Instigator
jwood94
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
krz
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should the government censor television and other media?

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 1 vote the winner is...
krz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2014 Category: TV
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,194 times Debate No: 48282
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jwood94

Pro

As a mass media major I feel that the government should be allowed to censor certain things on TV. In 1975 the Federal Communications Commission made it so there was a certain time period on TV known as the "Family Hour." This hour allowed TV shows to only have certain things in them such as family friendly language and actions.
I feel the government should put something like this into place today. If you turn on the TV today it"s nothing but blood, sex, violence, cussing, and drugs. In my opinion children under the age of 17 shouldn"t be viewing things like this. Even though most of us have become desensitized to things like this it doesn"t make it right to put them on TV. Grant it they can view things like this all over the internet, but the internet is now an extension to TV media, and I feel the government should be able to put some type of censorship on it as well.
Also I feel that we as citizens should be allowed to choose whether our kids can or cannot view certain things on TV or the internet. If the government will put censors on media they should allow parents and guardians to choose how much or how little their children can view. People say the government has too much control in our lives already so giving this option would allow us to have our own opinions still and be able to accomplish censorship.
krz

Con

Thanks to my opponent for initiating the debate. Best of luck!

Blood, sex, violence, cussing, and drugs are all parts of today's society, despite how objectionable they may be. The censorship of television and, by extension as stated by my opponent, the Internet, simply cannot eliminate these things from society. Children will see fights in school; sex is extremely prevalent in today's society; acts of violence take place every moment; we are all guilty of swearing; and one can walk into the seedy part of town and buy some Adderall whenever they went. Furthermore, sheltering America's youth does more harm than good. One cannot live in an idealized utopia--and censorship would only goad young individuals into the belief that problems don't exist in the world today.

The drawbacks to media censorship are myriad: it works against creativity, can lead to ignorance within society, allows the government to manipulate information, and compromises the entertainment value of many films and books.[1] Should we not allow teenagers to watch a classic film such as The Godfather because it contains violence? Should we withhold from a younger generation a great number of classics simply due to an amount of questionable content?

Internet censorship in particular can cost a great deal of money and resources. In addition to the cost of labor and equipment to create the system of filters or firewalls, said system would have to be periodically upgraded and prepared.[2] This is money that could go to far more important areas.

What my opponent does not mention is the fact that many television shows and films that receive air-time on a television channel are often censored into oblivion. Many scenes involving violence are cut out, sex is watered down to a morally acceptable level, and most swear words are edited out.

My opponent also fails to realize that, as times have advanced and technology has come along for the ride, parents have a way to censor almost anything their children can view, be it on television or the Internet. Many television providers allow for parents to create settings that restrict movies of certain ratings, or even certain channels they may deem questionable--all in favor of the children. On the Internet, websites can be easily clock, and even on sites such as iTunes, one can be restricted from purchasing explicit songs. Parents already have plenty of control over what their children can and cannot see in regards to the media.

Finally, I staunchly disagree with this statement made by my opponent: "People say the government has too much control in our lives already so giving this option would allow us to have our own opinions and be able to accomplish censorship." The two issues I find with this:

1. Censorship by the individual (i.e. a mother telling her children they can't watch Taxi Driver because of the violence and Jodie Foster's portrayal of a child prostitute) is not censorship on a government level. This is on a purely individual and subjective level. The government has no need to intervene in cases like this--rather, all cases. Each individual has the choice to make the Internet and television safer for their child as they see fit. Again, no need for government censorship when the tools for individual censorship already exist.

2. Censorship, by definition, only gives the government more control. It gives the government the power to choose what the public does and does not see, wrenching the power out of the hands of the individual.
Debate Round No. 1
jwood94

Pro

jwood94 forfeited this round.
krz

Con

I extend all arguments and sincerely hope that my opponent will participate in the final round of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
jwood94

Pro

jwood94 forfeited this round.
krz

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by krz 2 years ago
krz
I neglected to include my sources for my first round. I'll post them here, though they may or may not be taken into account by voters:

[1] http://www.buzzle.com...
[2] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
jwood94krzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con's counter-arguments went uncontested, and sufficiently countered Pro's arguments to the point where they needed to be addressed. I thought, originally, that Con had plagiarised his/her work (with the source marks, but no sources provided); but I think that Con just forgot to put sources in at the end. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeits.