The Ethics of Censorship:
Should Governments Cover Our Children’s Eyes?
CHRIS REINHARD
» Download PDF
Introduction
American society prides itself on freedom of expression. Yet
forces larger than the individual control what we see, hear and ultimately
determine as appropriate. Censorship—defined as “the official
government suppression of any public expression that a governing
authority believes to threaten either its power or the accepted social and
moral order” 1 —is a tool that currently restricts children (classified as
persons under the age of 18) from material deemed ‘obscene’ by
government organizations. This analysis will demonstrate that a set of
criteria used to establish the level of obscenity in media is beneficial to
the wellbeing of the general public. It will also argue that lawful
restrictions for exposure based on said criteria and set by any
organization other than an individual’s own legal guardian (whether it be
a parent or otherwise, and henceforth referred to as a parent) are unethical and impede on ‘common American nature,’ defined henceforth
as living a morally hygienic lifestyle.
In order to argue the ethics of censorship in film, television (cable
and network formats), music and the internet, we must agree to a set of
defined terms that relate to the status of media viewing in the present
era. The following premises are used to support my ethical analysis:
- Governments are capable of and therefore responsible for
outlining the concept of objectionable material in film, television,
music and online, but not for restricting it.
- Children are individuals by nature and react to experiences as
such; therefore, children cannot be restricted from decidedly
objectionable content on a group basis (namely by age).
- Parents—and no other source—maintain a deontological duty for
subjecting their own children to appropriate media content.
- Without a system of ratings and standards for media content,
parents are unable to protect their children from potentially
traumatic obscenity.
Duty of Governments to Outline Obscenity in the Media
Let’s begin by differentiating the duty of the government is to
advise its citizens of objectionable content from its tendency to restrict
content to certain segments of the population. The current definition of
morality in media maintains that obscenity can be divided into three basic
categories: violence, sexuality, and linguistic obscenity. At present,
government agencies like the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA) are responsible for determining what content is appropriate for children, and what content should be classified as obscenity and therefore
inappropriate for children. These agencies preserve a duty to advise
responsible parents against allowing their children to view objectionable
material. However, that duty does not extend to determining the age at
which an individual is mature enough to legally access such content,
because a government is incapable of assessing the individual reactions
people have to specific content. Therefore, a barrier between advisory
and enforcement should be set in place. It is, after all, a parent’s duty to
raise their child, and not the government’s. The government should act as
a vehicle for the suggestion of morally acceptable behavior.
This barrier is well-understood in television, as shown by recent
advancements through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act
states that “all new television sets with a picture screen 13 inches or
greater (measured diagonally) sold in the United States be equipped with
a device that can block certain television programming”. 2 The “V-Chip”
provides television owners the ability to personally restrict certain
television content based on outlined ratings: “[S]ex (S), violence (V),
language (L), or suggestive dialogue (D),” as well as “a designator for
fantasy violence (FV)”. 3 This model can be applied to both cinema and
music.
What is acceptable in the mainstream commercial media is
debatable. However, there are widely accepted norms dividing content
between appropriate (proving suitable for general audiences) and
inappropriate (proving suitable for adults, who we will accept as persons
over the age of 18). While preventative measures set through government
ratings are helpful, parents are still the only authority that can truly
restrict the material to which their children are exposed. Take note that
there is no method of determining when children are capable of internalizing obscene content as a group because children are inherently
different, and setting an age limit for viewing certain material infringes
upon a parent’s right and duty to raise their child in a way that they
personally see fit.
Consequences of Mass Ratings Restrictions for Children
All children react differently when exposed to profanity, violence
and sexuality at different ages. Environmental factors such as geographic
location, sibling influence, and parental support all factor in to a child’s
reaction to obscenity, and more importantly, the effect that obscenity has
on that child’s developmental process. To assume that all children react
equally to violence or sex in the media is impractical. A child raised in a
closed, rural society may react very differently from an urban-raised child
to television programming about violent crimes. A seventeen-year old
whose family has been broken by infidelity may not be affected at all by
programming reflecting this reality, whereas a seventeen-year old in an
opposite situation could be very affected. “When a 5-year-old boy in Ohio
set fire to his family's trailer home in 1993, killing his 2-year-old sister, his
mother blamed the act on her son's love for MTV's animated teenage
vandals” 4 . A situation of this kind, referring to the popular 1990s
television show Beavis and Butt-Head, is an obvious example of how
individual behaviors and reactions do not reflect the norm, but are
actually anomalous. It’s absurd to suggest that even a fraction of children
exposed to questionable material are prone to committing similar acts in
daily life. A recent study performed separately by North American and
British researchers produced only “weak evidence” that that a child who
has been watching screen violence will be directly motivated to commit a crime. 5 Mass ratings restrictions put in place by the MPAA, the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) and other government agencies
restrict children from media content via a common age barrier. Yet these
restrictions directly abuse the government’s duty to dictate what should
be considered obscene material. Freedom of expression is not a
government-granted right, and should supersede any national rule. Why
should the US government condone restrictions on what certain
individuals can and cannot access in the media? A parent should restrict
its child from viewing objectionable, inappropriate material as it is
outlined by the MPAA; but the MPAA is unethical in acting as the
authority that restricts it.
The debate over whether violence, sexuality and strong language
in the media have any effect on children is more prevalent in modern
times than ever before. In fact, in the wake of limitless internet content,
these elements are actually crucial to the development of wary and
mature adults. And through the development of V-Chip and MPAA
ratings, “[producers] will reduce the level of violence” in programming so
it can be seen by as many households as possible. 6 Clearly, the
infringement upon these rights by the government has begun to even
convince the producers of media content that—if they contain
questionable material—their forms of expression will never even reach a
large enough audience to be successful. One would be hard pressed to
find a more creative disruption of freedom of expression.
Duty of Parents to Restrict vs. Government’s Duty to Rate
The duty of governments to outline criteria for obscenity in their
respective nations coincides directly with a parent’s duty to intelligently utilize the criteria when determining the types of material that are
appropriate for exposing to their own children. The current movie ratings
system inhibits parental decision-making by restricting children from
viewing certain content at all, even if a parent is willing to supervise. As
suggested before, it is important that governments note the level of
obscenity contained in programming; but the parent should make the
final decision for their child in regards to potentially abhorrent material.
The United States has fostered a specific set of cultural standards for good
parenting in recent decades; and an integral part of good parenting is
protection from the outside world. More and more, online and TV media
has become a child’s most immediate source of influence, and while the
government can advise parents to protect their children from obscenity,
only the parents themselves are capable of monitoring internet use and
TV viewing in the home.
Not only does a parent have a duty to protect their child from
harmful outside influences—oftentimes found in the media itself—but
they must also avoid the consequences of a child brought up to be unfit
for mainstream, decidedly normal life in America. Allowing negative
media into the consciousness of a child can be potentially harmful, and
studies have shown that when children access violent content early in life,
they are more prone to committing violent acts as adults. 7 In US culture,
parents are seen as the great guides to their children’s development, and
therefore should accept responsibility for that child’s actions.
Consequences of Abolishing the Ratings System
The ratings system currently in place for American film is crucial
to the proper development of children. The MPAA has devised a very important standard for content that should help parents determine what
their children can and cannot watch if they want them to become
upstanding, respectable adults within the framework of a morally hygienic
lifestyle. These standards are necessary for the virtuous progression of
modern society. To suggest that censorship should be abolished would
quite likely bring about anarchy. How can society progress if its negative
elements are not weeded out?
However, when restrictions are placed on ‘R’ and ‘NC-17’
material, an unethical line is crossed because they effectively deny
American citizens of a basic right to freedom of expression. No matter
how degrading or vile a person’s expression may be, they are still legally
allowed to tell anyone their beliefs, be it through film, music or on any
manner of soap box. Ratings remove that right from filmmakers by
removing the ability to profess their work to anyone and everyone.
Osborne states that censorship maintains a few justifiable forms,
including national safety, and interference with the fair and orderly
administration of justice8 ; neither of these includes suppression of one’s
inalienable freedom of expression.
Yet children can be positively affected by the application of
government media ratings. When parents utilize these ratings as a
method of determining what their children should watch, they are
protecting them from potentially harmful content. The morality of the
mass media comes into question when children commit egregious acts
(like that of the child who burned down his parents’ home after watching
Beavis and Butt-Head) 9 and base their influence on the media itself; but
there still exists no method of accurately mapping what children as a
group are essentially ready to see or hear at any particular age. So, with
that being said, the current ratings system should remain in place, but only as a tool for parents to judge the moral value of media and
determining its appropriateness in a situation involving children.
Conclusion
The United States government’s current stance on censorship in
the media is flawed. Prohibition of morally injurious or offensive or
otherwise indecent content including violence, sexuality and linguistic
profanity in public media, and recently the Internet,
has been deemed
unconstitutional 10 , but ratings sources like the MPAA and V-Chips have
prohibited children in the physical custody of their parents from viewing
certain content in movies and on television. The role of the parent in
current society has been removed from its prominence and given a back
seat to government regulations. This is unethical because the
deontological role of the parent to have a final say on what their children
do, see, and experience should always take precedence over a
government’s duty to outline harmful material in the media. Therefore,
instead of restricting and censoring content, the government should
encourage media agencies to sharpen and solidify a set of ratings criteria
that better assists parents in determining what content their children
should or should not see. While retaining the ability and upholding its
duty to inform the public of obscenity, the government of the United
States will not infringe upon an individual’s right to object himself to
whatever material he deems appropriate, nor will they strip parents of
their duty to restrict content to their children.
Works Cited
1. Osborne, Burl. (1993). Morality of the Mass Media. University of Texas \
at Dallas.
2. Smith, Marcia S. (2001). V-chip and TV ratings: helping parents
supervise their children's television viewing. Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress.
3. Ibid 2
4. Stevens, Dana. (2005). Beavis and Butt-Head: Reveling in the Beckett-
like purity of MTV’s dumb-ass duo. Slate Magazine.
5. AFP. (2005) Review finds violent media affects kids' behavior. ABC
News.
6. Ibid 2
7. Torr, James D. (2000). Current Controversies: Violence in the Media.
Greenhaven Press.
8. Ibid 1
9. Ibid 4
10. Ibid 2
11. Hamelink, Cees J. (1999). Preserving media independence : regulatory
frameworks. Unesco Publishing.
12. Lane, Frederick S. (2006). The Decency Wars: the campaign to cleanse
American culture. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
13. Heard, Andrew. (1997). Human Rights: Chimeras in Sheep’s Clothing?
Simon Fraser University.