SPEW!! DEBATE!!

[ohthatisbadnews.livejournal.com]

Click on the picture to join!

The monthly SPEW debate is here! Wanna know whats going on? Look under the cut!!


Imagne going to the record store, and blaring from the loud speakers is an artist like Eminem. You have your two young children with you. Should they have to listen to that kind of music, even if you think that it is immoral?
The Topic of the debate is a popular one. Should Music/Movies/Magazine/Video Games/Etc. be censored? Should the government be able to say, "No You cannot put that on your album" or "That is too vulgur for our youth to see on the big screen!"
What I Want I want you to debate over this issue. Gryffindor//Slytherin will be arguing that the government SHOULD NOT be able to censor the media. Ravenclaw//Hufflepuff will be arguing that the government SHOULD be able to censor the media.
Rules
-Only qualifing comments count! They must be signed, be at least 3 sentences, stay on topic, and stay on your assigned side.
-Keep it civil. If you don't agree with what someone says, let it slide off your back, and don't start an argument. You will not be allowed to participate in the contest for SPEW.
-Have fun! Thats what I want most of all

The Break Down
-10 points for first comment.
-5 points for each additional comment.
Deadline
-The debate will end THURSDAY, Mar. 2nd, at 8 P.M. EST!

Thank you!



DEBATE OVER! Sorry, I had to end it a little early, but I have a paper due tomorrow, and it will take me the rest of the night to finish it.

Comments

[troughgirl1.livejournal.com]

Who's to say that the government is raising our children? Just because they censor these profanities does not mean that they are raising our children. Maybe every parent can't go down to the local music or movie store because they have to work and they're a single parent, or maybe they don't have the time to learn how to use a computer/the latest technology. Have you ever considered that? I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but not everyone has time to go down and just say what they want/keep up with technology. Plus, if you go to just one music store, who's to say that our children aren't going to go to a different music store to buy the cd they want? I know that if my mom went down to a store and said, "Censor this cd/movie, etc., etc." then I'd definately just go to a different store (I have values and morales, but keep in mind that I am very obstinate). That's why it's a better idea to go to the government because they won't just target one music store, they can go to a whole group at once!

Yes, everyone should have values, but unfortunately some aren't as lucky as some of us. Therefore, the government should atleast take a little action so that this won't continue. Plus, (I think karinablack said this) kids that are exposed to things like sex, drugs, and other profanities are more likely to express aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings. So, if the government finally takes some action, the crime rate could probably drop, not by much, but it will definately decrease.

Stephanie -//- Hufflepuff

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

Not to mention what they could obtain from their friends burning songs or movies for them, or downloading them onto an ipod.
While a clerk may be required as a part of store policy to ID someone before s/he sells them a cd with explicit or NC-17 lyrics, the internet does not.
Karina Black, Ravenclaw

[weirdointhecorn.livejournal.com]

I've been working the internet for nine years, and I've been restricted accordingly by my parents with the help of America Online. I was never exposed to any 'suggestive' sites when I was younger. Additionally, with my computer settings, I was blocked from downloading anything, especially music-sharing programs. I could not go to the library and look up rated-X sites, because they were restricted there too. I could not do it at school, because the web pages we visited were logged and monitored. In reality, there was no way, even if I wanted to, look up 'detrimental' subjects.

This is another example of how it is more feasible to monitor things on a smaller, nongovernmental level. Imagine if I was still censored from viewing things now: I couldn't even have a Livejournal! Now that I'm older, and have my own values, I feel I should have a right to see things myself, at least to know to stay away from them. Because, like it or not, people will express themselves in their own ways and the profanity will seep out from under the cracks. It's better that I view it now and learn to avoid it, rather than be drawn to it so much like a forbidden treasure.

But you also bring up an interesting point: can the World Wide Web even be censored? This means as a whole: a mature adult with 'full access' would still be restricted to view boring family-safe, nonobjectionable vanilla-white content. My hypothesis is an emphatic 'no.' The WWW is an international, sweeping entity, (with millions if not billions of users) and any boundaries put on it would be swiftly broken. Not to mention the issue that it would still be largely unfair to confine all users to a set of binding protocol like that.

Lisa//Slytherin

[karinablack.livejournal.com]

It's been proven that it's impossible to censor the web, I think that's why the debate is only in regard to mass media: videos, cd's, books, television.

But, in that vein, my mom still can't boot up without help. You know that phrase, "The internets are broken! OH NOES!" Actually uttered in my house. My brother and sister grew up with NO rules in regard to what they watched or listened to.

The V-Chip? My mom? Uhh... no. She thinks it's a form of birth control.

Even if it were theoretically possible, it doesn't heighten the probability that it would be done, even by those who would like to see it done.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw