Censoring Censorship: How to Stop the Unnecessary Censoring of Our Media

On April 20, 1999, two deeply troubled students opened fire on their peers at Columbine High School, Colorado. This marked the first time a school shooting of this magnitude had taken place, and what resulted was an ever-popular round of the blame game. In the constant frenzy of finger-pointing, the biggest finger wound up pointed straight at the entertainment and media industry. The students' violent and shocking behavior was blamed on bands like Marilyn Manson and Metallica, whose violent lyrics and songs dealing with death and teenage angst were cited to cause thoughts of violence in kids. Since that day over eight years ago, the media (most notable the entertainment portion) has been the subject of constant scrutiny from both parents and the political figures who want their support. It has been said that the media portrays too much violence, sex, and overall bad ideas directed and children and teenagers and that these images and lack-of-morals views have an adverse affect on the children who witness them. I for one am not buying it without some more proof. Before these statements about violence in the media can be made, a certain concrete definition needs to be given regarding what exactly is inappropriate media and what else is run-of-the-mill six o' clock news.

There is a very fine line that exists between inappropriate, censorship-worthy media and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, no one really knows when this line has been crossed because there is no concrete definition of where it even lies. In the wake of recent media scandals such as Janet Jackson's infamous Super Bowl performance, the line has shifted much more in favor of censorship over freedom of speech. This does not follow what I believe to be the definition of inappropriate media. I think that in order for censorship to work the way it is designed to work, a single classification of unsuitable media needs to be given and followed, no matter what format the media is in.

In my opinion this definition should read as follows: all media should be considered appropriate and protected under freedom of speech unless it contains subjects that are known to be offensive to the majority of the American people. For instance, you do not have to be of any certain race, religion, or sex to be offended by the repeated use of foul language. Not everyone, however, is offended by a line in a music video talking about guns. Yet in both cases in recent memory censorship affects both equally. The foul language, under this concrete definition, can be found inappropriate while the "violent" song lyrics can not. The latter is simply a musical artist exercising his right to free speech and is not directly offending the majority.

I realize that this definition, while providing a set way of determining what is inappropriate, is still not as clear as it needs to be. Unfortunately there are just too many different forms of media these days, all portraying their ideas differently. Some things are censored on the basis of what you hear, such as music, while other forms of media are censored based on what you see, such as sex in television shows, which brings about another "clause," if you will, to the definition. Nudity and sex that is shown just for the sake of showing it would still not be tolerated, as it serves no purpose and has no good intentions. Nudity shown in the context of educational material, such as on National Geographic in a special of an African tribe, would be allowed because it is part of the educational material and is not intended solely show nudity and sex. In a way, this follows the same basic guidelines that are followed these days, which only serves to further validate the importance of using a single definition for determining whether or not media is inappropriate.

There is no doubt that the criteria for finding what parts of media are inappropriate for children are very vague and in serious need of tweaking. If we wish to continue censoring what children see and hear on television, the radio, and so on then there needs to be a uniform rule dealing with censorship. The only way this will be achieved is if a rule is first created to determine what is appropriate and what is not, and then to censor it as is seen fit. I believe that the definition given earlier will be the best way to go about this, and although it can still be misinterpreted under certain circumstances, it seems to be the most logical way to handle a situation that so far has only grown worse and more confusing.