Cover Your Eyes! - Censorship is a Parent's Job

• To censor, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to examine in order to suppress or delete anything objectionable.

Censoring what your children (specifically ages 6-13) watch is simply to limit the amount of obscene and vulgar content that they will find on television and movies. This is easy to do when the family is together but the point of censoring is to instill in the children that such content is to be avoided even when the parents are away.

Along with many others, I have had that "stern talking-to" when you are watching something questionable. After that, I knew what I should and shouldn't watch. Even though I am not a parent, I have seen it in effect and I fear that this practice is beginning to wane.

Simply, violence and sex are aspects of media that are censored.I do not share Jack Thompson's view on violent video games or the assumption that such games may lead to violence in the real world, but it still is something to consider for all media forms. There is a reason for the rating systems, and the intention is that both parents and children can increase their viewing range as they become older. Rutgers University professor Jeff Robbins stated in the article "Missing the Big Picture" that "It is estimated that by the age of eighteen, the average American child will have witnessed 15,000 simulated murders" (120). That is a startling amount, or at least would be if I had not grown up in the "Grand Theft Auto" generation.

To suggest though that simulated violence will lead to real life violence is fallacious. Richard Rhodes, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author asserted that "To become violent, people must have experience with real violence. No amount of imitation violence can provide that experience" (58). However, it can be attributed to desensitization; becoming numb to the violence because of its prevalence in popular media.

However, sex is becoming more and more prevalent in primetime media. Overt sexual acts are still being censored, as they should, but inneundo is not. This is a problem for parents because it is very difficult to self-censor something that is unregulated. You cannot limit yourself to constantly watching what the children do; it's just not feasible. Sooner or later you will watch something suitable for yourself, not your children

Societal norms fluxuate from generation to generation and right now the nation is in a relaxed view on these two topics. Television ratings are still very high on primetime, mainly because they appeal to a wide audience without crossing the line too far. The show might do something to slightly offend the viewer, but largely it is a fleeting moment; they are still tuned in.

Rhodes, Richard. "The Media-Violence Myth." Rolling Stone. 23 Nov. 2000: 55-58. Print. 

-

Robbins, Jeff. "Missing the Big Picture." New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Science. 27. (2010): 118-22. Print. 

Actually, they have tried to in years past. They can also intervene in the form of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when there is an egregious violation of the standards for content. However, a sweeping reform of the system has not come at the national level, partly because it would be nearly impossible to create a law that doesn't come into conflict with a previously established law or ruling. Movements have started as local and state actions.

For Example...

• Butler v. Michigan- In 1957, the Supreme Court overturned a Michigan state law that essentially made it illegal to sell any media form that could corrupt the morals of a minor. This is including but not limited to foul language and nudity. This law was overturned on the grounds that the state may not "reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children" (Koppelman 37).

Koppelman, Andrew. "Does Obscenity Cause Moral Harm?" Columbia Law Review. 105.5 (2005): 1635-79. Print. 

 Well, the founders wouldn't have know how our society is shaped today. It's the job of the courts to interpret and apply the laws in context, as well as modify them sensibly to adapt to the present environment.

That being said, Miller v. California concluded that obscene material can't be protected by the First Amendment. In short, one could not mass mail fliers of their strip club to a community if they had suggestive poses and/or nudity. However, art exhibits could get away with it because it does have "value", in the sense that it is tastefully done.

Government these days seems to have enough trouble managing itself, let alone playing "nanny" to millions of children. The point is that it's about parents taking responsibility for their children; no one else should have to. The FCC has seen rising numbers of complaints, which at least shows that some progress is being made by the public.

This is data from the FCC between 2000 and 2004 on the number of complaints received about programs and their content.

• 2000- 111 (111 programs)
• 2001- 346 (152 programs)
• 2002- 13,922 (389 programs)
• 2003- 202,032 (375 programs)
• 2004- 1,068,802 (314 programs)

So what does this data tell us? It says that the public is taking a stand against indecency in media and are increasingly doing so because people have found that their opinion does matter. The exponential growth in complaints during this five year span shows serious signs of empowerment. It also shows that since the number of programs cited in complaints have dropped since 2002, the FCC is doing their job in regulating the content.

It's about leading by example. Children are so impressionable and seem to have a desire to be like their parents that if they know you watch "adult" shows, such as pornography and excessively foul languaged and/or violent programs, chances are that may want to do the same. If they do, correct them that this isn't what they should watch and change the channel. An assertive, yet neutral stance is key to ensuring that the children will follow your guidelines.

 "Evolution of Indecency Regulations." Congressional Digest. 84.2 (2005): 35-36, 64. Print.