Greetings,
For your final blog entry, write a reaction (based on the reading, the notes posted, and your own experiences/observations) on the following:
Media Law and Social Effects
As you know, the First Amendment is especially important to our society-- particularly to our political system. The problem is that the Constitution also affords other "rights" such as the right we have to protect the citizenry.
Sometimes, a battle of rights ensues.
Suppose, for example, that I am a television producer and I create a show-- a gritty cop show-- that is filled with extreme violence and lots of "f" bombs. As a proponent of the First Amendment, I believe I have the right to tell my story the way I see fit and that no one has the right to tell me what I can or can't include.
Then again, as a society, do we not also have the right to protect our children from material that may affect them negatively (we know that exposure to extreme violence can influence kids, for example)?
Who should win such a battle-- an individual's First Amendment's right, or a a society's right to protect its children?
Why?
Post your reactions as comments here. The blog is due Wednesday, by midnight.
Peace,
Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Determining who should win a battle between an individual’s First Amendment’s right and a society’s right to protect its children can be extremely difficult. Both parties have the right idea for themselves and are both trying to get their own messages across. It is especially difficult when this battle is over a violent TV show. The producer wants to express his cop show the way he wants, with the violence and swearing. On the other side, parents do not want their children exposed to this sort of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s society there are many ways for parents to stop their children from seeing things. Television shows now have ratings, and parents can block whichever programs they would like. If the producer makes his show the way he wants, parents can block the show on their televisions, and if they are interested in viewing the program they can record it and watch it on their own time, like after the children go to sleep. Parents do have a right to protect their children, but with today’s technology, parents can keep their children from seeing just about everything.
Also, the producer may decide to show the show later at night, after young children have gone to bed. With the violence, and the language, this show is clearly for adult viewing, and should be shown when many adults watch television. It will be clearly marked with the appropriate rating, which will allow parents to block it from their children and let them know what the show will entail. The producer has a vision of how to get the exact message across to the viewers, and with the technology of parental blocking, late night television, and channels to buy, such as HBO and Showtime, the producer should be able to make his show viewable to those who wish to see it while also protecting children from seeing content that may affect them negatively.
To start out, I notice that Media Law talks a lot about news, which I believe should be regulated as far as containing flat out lies and presenting them as fact, when they are proven not to be true. Reporters and journalists have no business attacking people for their ethnicity, orientation, or faith etc. and that should certainly be regulated on news sources. As far as censoring art goes, however, the only situation where I would condone censorship in movies, television, or theater etc. is if the government is funding them for educational/cultural purposes.
ReplyDeleteI would say in your scenario, the government should absolutely not stop you from putting your content on TV, but they should not consider giving you money or government grants that would give you the right to take donations, be non profit, and have people donate and get a tax write off. That being said, I don’t really think that your situation calls for any intervention because the kind of show you’re talking about sounds like a commercial, for-profit oriented pure entertainment.
I believe what the Social Effects chapter says about media influencing children to be true. However, parents have a responsibility to protect their children. Hopefully they know their children well enough to make informed decisions about what they should or should not watch, but, if a child does appear disturbed, whether it’s by violent media or violence in their lives, inflicted by the parents, then child protective services have the right to intervene with the parenting.
One thing that I find to be a double standard on the government’s part is that they spend money on all kinds of unnecessary things (most things spent on) that are unconstitutional types of regulation. The FCC is an expensive organization to run and it violates the first amendment, the same way that enforcing laws based on Christian values violates what America was founded on. On top of that so little of our taxpayer money goes into child protective services or social services as it’s technically referred to as. Parents and teachers are breaking laws by inflicting abuse more often than media laws are violated and our government is putting their money and enforcement into the less important issues. In other words, our system of regulations and freedoms are hypocritical.
Anyway, to get back to this specific situation, I would say that your show should go on the air at the expense of private funding and children who are vulnerable should be sheltered from it by the parents.
Michael Mathews
ReplyDeleteBlog entry #8
I believe that if you want to produce an adult television program, movie, or anything else with questionable material, then you should be allowed to do so. I also believe that there is a strong argument here when talking about parents’ rights to socialize their children in a way that doesn’t corrupt them. No question that children today rely on television as their main source of entertainment and are heavily exposed to its content. The programs viewed by the children could shape attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs if the child belongs to a neglecting family who doesn’t teach him/her right from wrong. If these kids are viewing this content in heavy loads it could even further the damage on them. Research shows that mass media can play a significant role socially, in creating a negative or positive attitude in heavy T.V. viewers.
Although it’s difficult to determine the exact cause and effect of this, research proves that children definitely can be affected by the media. In 1972, and then again in 1982, research projects show that exposure to T.V. violence could increase the possibility of antisocial behavior. After presenting both sides to this argument I would like to put in my own opinion. The world can be a very dangerous and violent place and sometimes this is portrayed by the media on television or other sources of entertainment. I think that it’s the parents’ responsibility to secure their child and teach them right from wrong. Parents’ have several opportunities to disable certain programs with the use of technology today. Parents’ also have several opportunities to talk to their children and teach them good morals that they won’t learn from television programs. With that said I believe it’s the right for anybody to express themselves over the media with violent or controversial programs, it’s the parents fault if their kids were socialized in the wrong way.