HiH Clubs

The government should be allowed to censor products such as music, movies, magazines, video games, etc because they are aimed for the youth age group. These children, preteens and teenagers often don't have the cognitive abilities to distinguish between morality traits. This is actually usually achieved at its greatest sense during the early adult years (according to my textbook on the science of development of the human body, a psych course).

esrielle//ravenclaw

From:

We censor the use of alcohol to an age when people are more responsible and have developed good judgement. Consequently, the precedent has already been set to sensor products which youth are not yet able to digest fully or constructively or sensibly. If we don't protect the youth of our country no one else will.

esrielle//ravenclaw

From:

yellow-eyes.livejournal.com

The government should not be allowed to censor the media. Parents should ultimately take responsibility for their own children, not the goverment. If there is a certain song or movie parents do not wish their children to see, they should take the iniative to be sure that they do not. It is a very simple thing, making sure you know what your children are doing, and most parents do this anyway. Also, I live in the United States, in which we have freedom of speech, which allows someone to say whatever they feel without reprocusscions from the government. Lastly, any store which would play a song by Eminem loudly on speakers doesn't exactly seem like a proper store for young children, at least not in my view.

Lauren//Gryffindor (first post, by the way- hope it was OK!)

From:

Lauren, it is awesome. Glad to have you.
Es

From:

ohthatisbadnews.livejournal.com

Fine! It was great!

From:

rindiggfelt.livejournal.com

In my opinion, governments SHOULD be allowed to censor media content. No matter how much freedom we want, we can't deny that certain materials are just not suitable to be viewed by all. Children should not be viewing programmes with explicit scenes simply because they are not mature enough to say that "This is fiction, I cannot do this and it's only for entertainment." Children are curious by nature, imagine showing them something suggestive like a violent fight scene involving gangs and knives and the next thing you know, they're experimenting on themselves.

Yes, curiosity is not a bad thing, but at the time when their minds are open to all kinds of possibility they won't be able to stop themselves from trying out what they see on tv.

One more thing. Parents may be the ones who know better than to let their kids watch inappropriate stuff, but not all parents are around their kids all day long, making sure they do not learn anything stupid on tv. We as adults may be able to restrain ourselves, but the younger ones are slowly learning, so the government no doubt has to step in and take action.

Irene//Hufflepuff

From:

Unfortunately, in today's modern and expensive world it often takes both parents to work and make ends meet so they are not always with their children. Second, just because someone is a parent, doesn't make them a good one. You aren't given licenses or guidebooks on parenting. There are good and bad one's so government censorship of mature subject matter whether in film, music or publication is just the safe way to go.

esrielle//ravenclaw

From:

yellow-eyes.livejournal.com

Just because parents aren't good ones doesn't give them an excuse. Honestly, this responsibility shouldn't have to fall back on the government, really. I mean, though you are correct in saying that parents aren't given licenses and manuals, but anyone should have enough common sense to know where a young child should and should not be. And if you were to allow your own young child to enter a store without you, problem number one arises. Secondly, if you entered with your child and heard such a song, common sense tells you that maybe that isn't the proper place.

Lauren//Gryffindor

From:

The government should not be able to censor media as every individual should have the right to make their own choices and decisions. By censoring various media forms the government is in a sense taking away ones liberties and freedoms in which they are supposed to be protecting. Is it not enough already that album's and movies must carry various labels proclaiming their "obscenity", as is strictly guidelined?

trent | slytherin

From:

The government should be allowed to censor products such as music, movies, magazines, video games, etc because they are aimed for the youth age group.

I believe this statement to only be a partial truth as many companies target various marking groups when selling products. Not to mention it is commonly known that a majority of those products, namely movies, music, video games, etc) are purchased by those individuals over the age of 18.

These children, preteens and teenagers often don't have the cognitive abilities to distinguish between morality traits.

While I do agree with you on this point I would have to argue (coming from a tradition American stance) that there is no set standard in regards to "morality" traits as they very form region to region, culture to culture. Thus, it would be quite difficult, for the government to state one set of traits as being superior to another without offending a large portion of the population.

This is actually usually achieved at its greatest sense during the early adult years

So do we simply slap another age limit on these items/products? No, as as these cognitive abilities are gained at various ages for various people thus it is impossible to state that because you are 18 you are able to make sound decisions, thus not truly solving the "problem" at hand.

trent | slytherin

From:

We censor the use of alcohol to an age when people are more responsible and have developed good judgement.

We assume that individuals are more responsible and have developed good judgment. Using the United states for example where the current legal drinking age is 21 there are more accidents & deaths involving those under the influence of alcohol then in those countries where the drinking age is lower.

Consequently, the precedent has already been set to sensor products which youth are not yet able to digest fully or constructively or sensibly

Just because the precedent has been set does not make it correct (i.e. the europeans invading the americas and taking over the land, the ideal of slavery in american, the use of atomic bombs, the list could go on.

If we don't protect the youth of our country no one else will.

We as individuals need to educate, not shelter our youth, the government should play a minimal part if any. As the saying goes it takes a village to raise a child, not a reigme.

trent | slytherin

From:

In my opinion

in debates personal opinion should be checked at the door as we simply try to argue the facts.

governments SHOULD be allowed to censor media content. No matter how much freedom we want, we can't deny that certain materials are just not suitable to be viewed by all.

Some can, and many will. This is a decision that each of us individually should have the opportunity to make. By placing a limit on media intake the government is indirectly stifling individuality, not to mention they are disabling various art forms.

Children should not be viewing programmes with explicit scenes simply because they are not mature enough to say that "This is fiction, I cannot do this and it's only for entertainment."

Some are, some aren't thus this point is relative to the individual at hand.

Children are curious by nature, imagine showing them something suggestive like a violent fight scene involving gangs and knives and the next thing you know, they're experimenting on themselves.

ALthough the relationship between acts of violence and video games is correlated it has yet to be proven as a causal relationship. Thus making your point null and void.

Yes, curiosity is not a bad thing, but at the time when their minds are open to all kinds of possibility they won't be able to stop themselves from trying out what they see on tv.

This is again assuming that the parents play no role in the raising of their children. This also assumes that children are drawn to this ideals and forms which are considered to be "negative" which is perplexing as you state curiosity as not being bad.

One more thing. Parents may be the ones who know better than to let their kids watch inappropriate stuff, but not all parents are around their kids all day long, making sure they do not learn anything stupid on tv.

the same argument can be used in reverse as many parents do watch over their children ensuring that they are raised in the manner that they see fit.

We as adults may be able to restrain ourselves, but the younger ones are slowly learning, so the government no doubt has to step in and take action.

Interesting enough, you use the term may when referring to adults being able to restrain themselves, as I am sure you will agree that many "adults' are unable to restrain themseleves form certain actions/thoughts/etc. What defines restraint? Are those not of legal age incapable of some if not any type of self restraint simply because they have not reached a certain age?

Trent | Slytherin

From:

Unfortunately, in today's modern and expensive world it often takes both parents to work and make ends meet so they are not always with their children.

This still is not reason enough for the government to implement such rash action as nationwide censorship. Parents are still able to monitor what their children see on tv & the internet through the various technological advances. Parents are also able to keep track of what their kids invest in (i.e. magazines, cds, movies) simply by paying attention to what their childrens money is being spent on.

Second, just because someone is a parent, doesn't make them a good one. You aren't given licenses or guidebooks on parenting. There are good and bad one's so government censorship of mature subject matter whether in film, music or publication is just the safe way to go.

the same argument can be used for governments. there are good and bad ones. there are no licenses or guidebooks on how to run a government; at least none that apply universally. Thus how can individuals be sure they are being lead in the "right" direction?

Trent | Slytherin

From:

rindiggfelt.livejournal.com

You touched on the topic of individuality a couple of times, and yes, I do agree that everyone's mindset is different; some may mature earlier, some may not. But just how do we gauge that? We do not just whip out a questionnaire to determine if they are alright with watching and obtaining materials with mature content. It is just like education; can we rightly say that every job needs you to be highly educated to do well in it? Certainly not. But it is a gauge of one's ability to handle certain things. And until we can come to a decision on how to determine if one is old enough to make his own choice and not cause more harm than good, censorship steps in to provide some kind of control.

Interesting enough, you use the term may when referring to adults being able to restrain themselves, as I am sure you will agree that many "adults' are unable to restrain themseleves form certain actions/thoughts/etc.

I used may because nothing is absolute. And I'm sure you'd agree with me. However, the probability that an adult is able to view certain materials without wanting to follow what he/she sees foolishly is definitely higher than a child in the same situation. Age may not mean everything, but it does serve as an indication of how much people know, how much experience they've had, and how able they are to judge for themselves what is right and wrong. There will be those who are younger and yet are able to make better judgments than those much older in years than they are, but they are the minority.

Irene//Hufflepuff

From:

Unfortunately, letting your three year old child walk down Broad St. in Columbus in only a diaper on a February morning doesn't give the parents an excuse either. However, action must be taken to protect the child. The same is true in the case of mature media. It's everywhere and trying to avoid it is difficult if not impossible. Yes, it sucks but it should be censored to protect our youth.

esrielle//ravenclaw

From:

Monitoring how a child spends their money? If the parents are at work, how can they monitor how a child spends their money? (Please note, not an attack just a point). Let's face it, kids are on their own more today than ever with more money than ever to spend.

Esrielle//ravenclaw

From:

Let agree that not all adults are mature. Now moving on from there. After doing some research, the majority of music buyers and piraters are the under 18 age crowd. Thus, the problem. Censorship sucks but not all parents and many just aren't computer or electronics saavy. Young people tend to be more so because of classes at school. Censorship is needed, no one said we had to like it.

esrielle//ravenclaw

From:

troughgirl1.livejournal.com

I definately think that the government should be allowed to censor Music/Movies/Magazine/Video Games/Etc. I mean, look at some of the CD covers for rap artists. I totally understand that they want to express themselves, but come on, smoking or lighting up some Mary-Jane on a CD cover? It's insane! What ever happened to just a picture of them doing something that normal people do? I also don't understand why on some movies they have to be so graphic. I mean, there are some scary movies out there, but you don't have to put someone with a chain saw on the cover. It definately will get my attention, but I'm not going to want to watch it! I'm going to want something that looks good but that will fool the common eye. For example, just put the setting or the good part of the movie on the cover so that it looks like a good and nice movie and then scares the living poop out of me when I find out what it really is, hence fooling the common eye!

Stephanie -//- Hufflepuff

From:

The government should at LEAST be able to regulate when and where you can listen to/watch subject matter inappropriate for younger consumers.

I should NOT have to sit in my car, held hostage by a red light, and be forced to listen to :
We only like gangsta shit
Cause I drive a gangsta car
And street niggaz run this shit
We only like gangsta broads
If you wanna see gangsta shit
Then push me a lil too far
Cause street niggaz might not quite
You gone have to call the law

being blared in the car next door. We shouldn't be subject to listening to it through the walls of our apartment during "non quiet hours."

Bach or even Weird Al is one thing. Salt n Pepa or Public Enemy is one thing, this shit is quite another.

OOH so they have to warn parents when they put explicit lyrics in the cd's and that caused an uproar. Free speech! Free speech! What about Free Peace? Every man has the right to persue happiness, and sometimes that happiness is NOT enjoying another person's taste in music.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

From:

We cannot make the assumption that people are responsible and have good judgement. A woman fairly recently put her RV in cruise control then left the wheel to make herself a sandwich then successfully sued the RV manufacturer! Holy Crap!

We are asking our GOVERNment time and time again to save us from ourselves by instituting rules and laws that are for our own good.

We need laws in place to stop Nebraskan middle-class tweenagers from dressing up and walking around like they're from the 'hood. It's for their own good and it's for the good of everyone around them. They are cheapening REAL ghetto culture and being pretentious, and honestly just looking like asses.

If they weren't exposed to such explicit lyrics, they wouldn't try to engage in drive-by ~~cow-tippings~~ potato-gun shootings.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

From:

It was great, I'm chiming in to get points- don't take debates personally ok?

Parents are NOT taking responsibility for their children. They're not even taking responsibility for themselves. Laws are needed to protect us from ourselves. Violent lyrics breed violent thoughts which in turn breeds violent behavior.

Freedom of Speech in America is an absolute illusion. You can't even speak out against the President without being marked as a suspected terrorist, and treated accordingly. The "Patriot Act" has just passed another addition wherein suspected terrorists ON US SOIL may be interrogated and held without due process! That's not freedom of speech.

The store might not be a place for young children, if it's blasting Eminem, sure, but what about the mall? What about walking past the store? In a free marketplace society, where all are free to say and do as they wish, in theory, shouldn't one also be free to NOT have to listen to "Smack my Bitch Up?"

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

From:

The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. Individualism is overrated. We aren't long for this earth- why must we always be all about individual pleasures?

The greater need for society to be able to coexist peacefully should outweigh one person's need to hear or see violence.

They used to have Public Decency laws, where guidelines were created to keep things at a happy medium, but OH NO people had to prove how EDGY and sophisticated they were by debasing it. They had to prove what REBELS they were for ratings, and now everything's fallen to shit.

The furor over being subjected to Janet Jackson's boobage during a family football game is proof in the pudding. You've already got blood and violence during football- you need boobs too? Non-cheerleader boobs I mean. Boobs are great, don't get me wrong, I like them, I keep a couple as pets, but that doesn't mean I want to SEE them when I'm munching cheetos with my kid, yknow?

Imagine if you will me trying to explain the pasty as not-a-part-of-Janet's-original-anatomy.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

From:

We're already being censored. Rather than censoring incindiary political speech, we're just ~~being forced to say~~ sayin' that the government should regulate what we're forcibly subjected to by others who have no taste.

Come on- Britney Spears' "Baby One More Time" is NOT good music. Tweeners don't understand what the lyrics are about, hell GROWNUPS have a hard time understanding it's not actually supporting and promoting spousal abuse. BSDM should NOT be a mainstream image my child can see on commercials during Elmo.

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

From:

You are subjected to the tastes of others no matter where you go. Even if those tastes aren't your own, shouldn't they at least be free of offense in the form of vulgarity, nudity, and sexuality?
I'm all for a person expressing those things, but in the proper place and time- and that time is NOT where my child and I could be happening by. When I have the choice, I make the correct one. All too often, I am not given the choice of what my daughter sees. (once is too often, actually- I'm fairly uptight about my kid ;) )

Karina Black, Ravenclaw

From: