Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Media influences on public opinion
Censorship vs freedom of expression
Effect of media bias
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Media influences on public opinion
Freedom of Speech or Censorship
America has seen a growing popularity in radio talk shows and hate speech. Some of these radio shows are little more than outlets for violence and racism. These types of shows breed paranoia and are fueled by the bottom line. Critics seek to silence these outlets of prejudice and all others, but at what cost to our freedom of speech?
Talk radio has been described as hate radio. It stirs up controversial issues dealing with guns, homosexuals, and racial minorities. Talk show hosts have been accused of advocating violence. When a man shot at the White House in 1994, it was blamed on a radio talk show host's call to arms to protest gun control legislation. Some shows routinely make fun of how black people speak but talk show hosts quickly point out that black shows do the same of white people. These shows have also been accused of promoting the racism and hatred that exists in our society today (Egan 22).
President Clinton blames paranoia preached by hate radio as a possible contributing factor in the Oklahoma City bombing. The rhetoric put out by these talk show hosts leave the listener to believe that violence is an acceptable form of expression and some act on this belief. Talk show hosts counter back that individuals are responsible for their own actions and should be able to differentiate between what is right and wrong. Some argue as to why some are free to speak as they choose while others are persecuted for their words. Radio stations are quick to defend their hosts as long as they are up in the ratings. These stations seldom curb the actions of these hosts unless there is a threat of a lawsuit. The bottom line is as long as inflammatory talk continues to sell it will still be on the air (Alter 44, 46).
There are some who feel no one has a right to express their prejudices publicly. In the pursuit of trying to make things better for the oppressed, the oppressed have been adversely affected by their own regulations. For example, the first cases under the Michigan speech code were charges against blacks and the first case in the Supreme Court was a white man offended by a black man. Purists have defined hateful words as violence.
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons that racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and what he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue.
Comedians, George Carlin, Howard Stern, and McCow Muller had an enormous effect on the ideals of censorship in this era, trying to prove that the FCC had no right to censor radio airwaves. They questioned why words we all hear at home cannot be spoken on the radio if listeners are given a proper warning. However, there is no need for young children to be exposed to such lude material and the American people must be more reasonable about morals and stop worrying about our “First Amendment” rights. In 1978, a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of language. This broadcast took place on a mid-afternoon weekday.
The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., amend I). This clause, albeit consists of a mere ten words, holds much power and affluence in the American unique way of life. It guarantees Americans the right to speak freely without censorship by preventing the government from restricting the rights of the people to express their opinions. Consequently, this freedom can encourage citizens’ participation in politics; promote an adaptable and tolerant community; facilitate the discovery of truth; and ultimately create a stable nation. However, how much freedom should be granted to an individual? Where should the line be drawn for the coverage free speech protection? (1) What happens when the exercise of free speech puts other constitutional values in jeopardy? What values should prevail? (2) In an attempt to address these questions, many opposing interpretations have been presented. While some construe this clause in an absolute, categorical approach, others take on a more lenient, balancing stance. (1)
The First (1st) Amendment of the United States (U.S.) Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, “guarantees to all Americans regardless of age, ethnicity, disability, faith, or gender, the freedom of speech, freedom of press, the right to assemble, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition Congress (Government) for a redress of grievances” (Kanovitz, 2010). However, as these types of speech are protected by the 1st Amendment, there are other kinds of speech that are not. The framers of the 1st Amendment intended for this amendment to be broad as to allow the amendment room to adapt to future changes in societal diversities as we live today (Kanovitz, 2010). In these protected rights are solid foundations that secures the opportunity to openly share ideas, thoughts, and various differences in points of view, encouraging interaction...
Since the September 11th attacks, the media has become more bias in its portrayal of ethnic minorities. A news story may not say “Black people may rob your house” but their bias portrayal in the media would make you believe it (Schemer & Wirth). The article features a section on several experiments...
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
the radio. Should we, even take a stance on this issue when we have no idea
For Americans the right to speak out is a treasured one. Americans are not hesitant to criticize public officials as important as the president and as commonplace as the garbage collector. A free press, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, plays a watchdog function in a democratic society: bringing people the information they need to exercise independent judgment in electing public officials. A free press is than an important part of a democratic society; it enables the people to make informed choices. However, when interests clash as they often do, when the message is hateful or insulting or embarrassing, when one person's freedom of expression begins to affect the rights of others, it becomes a most difficult right to deliver judgment. The FCC has a very precarious position between violating the First Amendment and protecting the citizens of the United States.
...terror plot to kill soldiers did not become the horrific reality it could have been (Trumpet). The difficulty of distinguishing between what’s politically correct and what is not can lead to us being afraid to use our own human judgment. Specifically, the fear of accusing someone of a crime that is of a minority group and being considered a racist if wrong “serves as a shield for a host of bad behaviors”(Trumpet).
In the article “Hate Radio” by Patricia J. Williams, the writer says that radio is a powerful source of media. It has influenced a lot of people. The power of media can change the course of history. The hosts on the radio such as Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern were also influencing a lot of people. The theme was not merely the specific intolerance on hot topics such as race and gender, but a much more general contempt for the world, a verbal stoning of anything different.
Censorship is the control of communication between people. This includes restrictions on what can be seen and heard. Mostly, censorship is practiced by Governments. But religious and political leaders and special interest groups also try to control the flow of information. Censorship violates individual rights, hides useful information, and limits freedom of speech.
Scott, Gini, Graham. (1996) Can we Talk? The Power and Influence of Talk Shows. New
Censorship affects our society in many different ways, it affects the music we listen to, the movies we watch, the books we read, and many other aspects of our everyday lives. Even though many might argue that censorship doesn't really have a place in a society that emphases freedom of speech and the freedom to express oneself, but censorship is an essential and needed part of our growing society, it's needed in the television industry, the Internet, and the music industry. Censorship helps to make our world a better place because it creates a better environment for us to live in.