Censorship is necessary to protect young impressionable children. However, I feel that most children are going to be prone to hearing foul language at an early age. I think it is good for the networks to show what the PG level is for every show and that way the parents can decide.
There should be degrees of censorship on media and TV to not expose children to different types of things that they don't need to be around. However, there need to be options for adults who don't need censorship. And example would be like HBO who has racy programming but it's just for adults.
I think that censorship is necessary to protect young
impressionable children. It’s no
different that regulating what is allowed to be shown on television during
family time. I feel that movies,
television, and music should be censored to some extent in order to protect the
impressionable minds of very young children.
Censorship is necessary to protect children. No one wants their children to see explicit sex and violence on television or in movies. This kind of censorship does not violate the first amendment because it is only aimed at children. The political rights of adults remain protected and intact under the law.
Censorship does more harm than good. It is a slippery slope to allow such a thing to occur with the "sake of the children" as the reasoning behind it. It is up to the parents of the child to determine what they want them to see and hear. Once they determine that, it is up to them to prevent the child from having those negative impressionable moments.
Censorship should not be used to protect children. Who is to say that this child you have not met will not be able to handle certain books or shows. From a child's point of view, censorship has not protected me from those things, but made them worse when I found out. On top of that, some of the books they have banned are for the dumbest reasons. Some of these books are Brown Bear Brown Bear What do You See, Where's Waldo, Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, and Charlotte's web. People do we really need to protect our children from a brown bear that sees a purple cat.
It should be up to the parents to decide what there kids see. If the government steps in and just cuts or edits what they feel is not appropriate then the parents learn nothing, and keeps the people of the country under their control completely. It should be up to the parents not the major religion of the nation.
If censorship is such a good thing why does no one censor themselves? This might sound strange, but why do we not force disfigured people to wear masks in public? I mean, if you're really concerned if a child sees a monster on television, than why not cover the faces of monstrous looking people? Listen: If you make a claim for one thing to be censored than everything like it must be censored as well, understand? And if you think censorship is proper for the children, and that the children will be scarred forever if they see some nudity, you are not thinking in the children's best interests. Listen: If the great medical scientists didn't confront their own fears we would all be extinct right now, you know? If children cannot learn life's harsh realities on their own they are worse off, because you have stopped them from confronting life's human truth. Who are you pro-censorship people to say that a child who learns about pornography has less understanding of sex than an adult who has never watched pornography? What if the child who grew up on pornography has more time to process it and differentiate it from actual coitus? What if this is true for violence, too? Huh? What if the kid who sees a fictional murder at the movies has more of an understanding about how wrong it is to murder when they grow up? After all, most movies involving bloodshed as a theme contain moral messages. "The Shawshank Redemption" informs the viewer of the cruel reality of prisons, and, more importantly, what happens when you take away a person's freedom, and the importance of friendship. Are you pro-censorship people gonna tell me these are not good lessons to learn young? Listen: If these lessons were learned younger than they are, because of the current censorship in place, than you can reason that we'd have less bullying in the schoolyards as a result. This pro-censorship belief that all children should be given soft entertainment to watch is ridiculous. What does childish fantasy do for a kid that's having the crap kicked out of him at school? What would realistic stories about true life do for that same kid? Don't you think, maybe, he might be able to hold off on suicide if he is made to understand that he's not the only one getting beaten up? Comprehend: By censoring, even if you think it's in a child's best interest, you are making your child more naive. Now, sure, you can argue about these school shootings in the news, but school shootings have multiple factors associated with them, for instance guns are involved in school shootings, and most of these shooters are mentally unstable to begin with, and though they might watch shows like "Dexter" and "American Horror Story", it might be good to keep in mind, a lot of them have absent parents. Bottom-line: There is no justification for censorship.
I don't believe that government or network censorship is necessary or should be done. I am okay with a ratings system to help parents make informed choices, but I think that it should be parents who ultimately decide if their child is mature enough to handle different situations and media.
Censorship is not necessary to protect young impressionable children. If parent want to protect their kids, then it is up to the parents to watch their kids and allow or not allow them to watch it. It is not up to censorship, but to the parents to raise and protect their kids.