Media Censorship

Well this is another controversial topic up for debate.

The question being, should the government control what the media airs?

I did a little research and the two main points i could come up with were:

pro:

Eliminates subliminal programming- i.e passing on messages hidden in adverts e.t.c

Against:

Goes against freedom of expression

 

I feel that there should be enough censorship to prevent outright deception. As you said, subliminal advertising (if it actually worked ), the media cooperating with the government to twist the facts, etc.

If the media is not trying to deceive us, then there should be no censorship, regardless of how controversial the message is.

 

It works

Take for example cigarettes. Cigarettes are harmful to ones health- it says so in bold on evry single pack. Yet how many movies have the hero/heroine smoking, giving the impression of it being "cool" e.t.c - like Resident Evil Extinction for example were on of the heroes goes out smokin the last cigarette- or another example the comedy simpsons which outrightly supports teenage drinking of beer.

Studies have shown wrestling shows, and game manufactures actually hire psychologists to make the products more addictive and appealing to the general consumer- especially the use of famous celebrities to promote their product. The celebrity is associated with success, hence viewers are unconscienciouly deducing that the product being advertised is necessary.

Also, which media house is "undeceptful"? Sadly their profitmaking organisations and strive to make money, hence even if they were aware that the cigrette/alcohol advert would adversely affect its viewers, they let it play. Moreover, think of all the gossip mongers not excluding magazines- as that is visual media who rapidly spread contorted or half truths about people in order to victomize them and draw public attention with scandals.

According to the "freedom speech" law, it is all legal, but is it really ethical?

On a final point, suppose that such a newscast did exist that is free from personal objectives and aired news merely fro the purpose of informing. Is it alright to air information, like that of riots that will incite a civil war? Or perhaps to film national defences that will allow terrorists to bypass them and kill innocent civilians? Or perhaps as a "documentary" film how to make a bomb or incendiary device, air it on television then watch as the casualties trickle in... Finally in court, secret witnesses being filmed have their faces spread all over the news- it is undeceptive, yet totally eleiminates witness protection, will anyone truly stand up against criminals if this "freedom of speech" is completely allowed?

Well that all i can think for now ..lol

 

That's not subliminal advertising. Subliminal advertising is when the advertising isn't obvious to the conscious mind. For example, during a movie, a picture of hot dogs flashing extremely quickly will, in theory, be registered by the subconscious.

Airing information of riots is perfectly all right. If the unbiased truth would cause a just civil war, then civil war we should have.

Airing national defenses I do not approve of. Clearly, the potential harm is larger than any possible benefit.

Civilians should be allowed to know how to make bombs. Freedom of information wins here.

Showing secret witnesses faces undermines their right to live securely.

You have a good point (several, actually). There are cases where freedom of speech does not apply, but I cannot really think of all possible examples.

 

If someone is smoking in a movie its called product placement. ie If a big truck with Coca Cola writen on the side was parked infront of something. Or all the characters drank Cola during the movies. But sub-liminal advertising does work.

 

But placing the items so that people view it and don't realise they are viewing this is the same thing as Subliminal Advertising.

Subliminal Advertising is not necessarily a quick picture of the product, it can be putting logos in movies very often so that you don't notice it at the moment on a conscious level.

Example- During shows many logos use to be blocked out, but if you ever watch American Idol, all three judges have large Cola beverages on the table with the logo pointing towards the cameras. Its just little things that are suppse to effect your choices.

 

I think it is right to censor somethings that would be meant for children, as for adults, they should have their own choice as to what they watch or listen too.

 

I think it violates the 1st amendment (contains the right to free speech)

 

The difference between that and subliminal advertising is that subliminal advertising can only be spotted through a very careful search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message

 

Theres too much censorship as is some of it needs to be removed as there is no need for some of it.

 

If the government regulates what is on the television it gives them the easy and going to be overused fact that they could tell us anything that they want.

Give us lies such as we are winning the war.

9/11 was planned and initiated by muslims, that we had nothing to do with it

Give us false information to give us hope, or get us to bend to their will. It simply comes to terms with the fact they they would have power over what we thought, and would corrupt it.

 

I would have to say censorship has gotten out of hand. i was watching a comedian the other night and half the show was bleeps. I dont care if you dont want to hear god on tv, but your ruinning my shows

 

Sadly, any privilege is almost always abused by some members of the community.

Yo, i agree with you, the censors do go overboard at time in an attempt to protect the younger members of society.

So the user will feel like a hotdog and hence buy one earning the cinema money? Hehe thats brilliant albeit evil

But where to draw the line? When does protection become oppression?

Kill its only freedom if you arent infringing on my freedom. For example, you have the right to air wha tyou want, but the moment you try and trick and decieve me into thinking of a specific product, you are circumventing my freedom to choose what i want and what i feel like.

Tho, come to think of it, i suppose you could argue that the person afterall has the choice not to buy the hotdog o.0

 

This is the lamest thing I ever heard, of course we should have freedom expression, people can choose what to watch anyways, and subliminal message hardly work.

 

Apart from when Coca Cola did it in Austrailia. I mean there profit only went fucking sky high. Nothing major.

 

Most swear words should be censored on kids channels, but adults they should be able to see and hear what they want. This violates our Bill of Rights (Freedom of Speech) and Freedom of Expression. The media should be able to put up anything on tv. The people want to know what happens!

 

Privacy is protected by tort law, precedents, and depending upon your interpretation the Constitution. including this one by the

How can we give the media more power than our own Government? I assume you have read the 4th Amendment.

The reason I mention this? Because the Media should be censored, but only in aspects that may harm others in any way. Rights that should be protected over the Right to Free Speech are:

Privacy - As I've gone on about above, this is the one thing that remains nowadays that shouldn't. Public figures obviously know that they place themselves in the public eye through their career (although they really shouldn't). Others through, including the families of public figures (Nobody has the right to follow Rudy Giuliani's ex-wives or children around. They aren't involving themselves in his public right and don't surrender their right to privacy because of someone related to them), the families of people who are appropriatly talked about in the news (It was sickening to me that the day of the Virginia Tech shooting that I heard almost as much if not more info about the shooter/victims families than I did about the incident. It took me two seconds on Wikipedia to get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Family_efforts_to_help_Cho that contains 3 pages about his youth/family and 5 pages of refrences chuck full of it as well. None of them asked to have their lives looked through with a fine tooth comb, the media needs to back off or be forced to), and films about criminals (like "To Catch a Predator". I'm all for shows like cops that has the faces blurred out, but not only is NBC making money doing a job made for the police, but regardless of what they've done plastering their face everywhere is crossing the line).

Defemation/Slander/All That Good Stuff - If you don't know what this means, then stop reading this and head into the Community General forum. Your lack of thought, grammar skills, and vocabulary will fit in better there. Shows like "To Catch a Predator" also falls under this category to a degree, but it also includes limits on the reputation of public figures (We know Lindsay Lohan is a drunk, but constantly posting the ugliest photos of her you can find everywhere is crossing the line), their family (Wonderful. Beyonce just got a divorce. Now that you've written her ex-husbands name everywhere, his reputation is going to be... a. Worse off b. The same c. Better off -- I think it's a.), and articles that write about things that can harm someones reputation to an extent that is excessive (That includes racism, etc), especially if it uses false information to do so.

and last but not least (Thank you Wikipedia for providing the term & definition I wanted...)

Public Interest - "Revelation of military secrets and other sensitive government information may be contrary to the public interest, even if it is true." This doesn't include opinions, publications, or quoting already announced information about any part of our Government. Essentially, if you manage to get some FBI files, you shouldn't be allowed to publish them. Yes, we should protect them better, but that wouldn't keep the people who may be harmed as a result of publishing them from being in harms way.

In the end, the media can talk about whomever or whatever they want as long as they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and aren't harmed (depends on the situation) as a result.

EDITS:

Please provide a link to where this information came from. If you weren't someone that found it super cool to post about his "x-tr3ME sex lif3" in the Underage Sex threads (Yes, plural - the one you made and the one you subsequently bumped) in similar one sentence posts I would probably take your word for it. Not trying to flame you (So nobody needs to do a nifty spin-off of my words) but you come off as unintelligent when your posts are a short combination of pointlessness, bad grammar, and strange braggings to the point that I don't consider what tyou post to be reliable. You don't have to post at nearly my length (Shredders are short and sweet, but effective and not stupid - not trying to kiss ass, but it does take me all this to argue against his points, which says something) but if you have a coherent message/don't sound like a fool I usually assume the person didn't pull their information out of their ass.

Expression is protected in the Bill of Rights too (the Bill of Rights isn't just the right to free speech like your post infers), but regardless of that when does someone become an "adult" and how do we make sure the kids don't get into the adult items? Oopsie your 8-year-old accidentally ordered "Human Remains Being Chopped Up Part III". That'll be a great influence on their future. The status quo in the US is pretty good as is in my opinion (and from the sound of things yours too).

Thanks for that well written topic advancing post.

Coke used to run a 3 second ad and just show a can of Coca-Cola. I heard somewhere (can't confirm it) that they were forced to (by government or networks banding together) to stop airing the ad, but people (including myself) at the very least thought about drinking one, and some folks I'm sure picked up a 12 pack at the grocery store when they walked down that eisle.

 

i agre with what shredderbeam says, as long as they are watching out for us and not intruding too much, the govt. should step into the media.

 

I think that what the media airs should be censored, but I also respect the authority of the US amendments. This goes against the first. (Right to free speech)

 

I think they should control some things that are put to air. That should be taken off