The Problem with Hip-Hop
I think the issue of hip-hop censorship would have eventually been brought up even if Don Imus didn’t make a racist comment. His comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team isn’t a result of hip-hop. It is a result of the society we live in. Imus and other people alike think they can make racist comments because they hear music artist and comedians speaking that way so they think it is ok to talk that way. In a way our society has been desensitized because we hear people making racist and indecent comments for entertainment purposes.
I do think Don Imus should have been fired because what he said was inappropriate and offensive to the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It was not like he was making a general comment either he was specifically attacking the women. I understand he probably wasn’t thinking when he said it and I’m sure he said it for entertainment value but that doesn’t give him the right to offend anybody. I feel like if a black man said it the comment wouldn’t have been taken as seriously because it wouldn’t look as if the host was being racist. Firing Imus sends a message to all radio hosts that they need to watch what they said while on air because they never know who is listening to them and shouldn’t put themselves in a position to where they will upset someone.
Russel Simmons’ and Ben Chavis are asking record companies to voluntarily bleep/delete/remove misogynistic words is asking a little much because record labels make music to make money. If the music is making them money with misogynistic words then they are not going to find anything wrong with that. Artist may also argue that changing the words or removing them doesn’t convey how the artist truly feels and the words are used to express a feeling. I do not agree with soft censoring all hip-hop music. I think artist should consider their target audience and whom they are appealing to and censor themselves accordingly. I do not think the hip-hop industry will follow because the identity of hip-hop music is rebellious.
I don’t listen to hip-hop music but I don’t think hip-hop music is a violent as it use to be in the 80s and 90s. Now hip-hop music is more main stream and appeals to a wider audience. I think hip-hop music now is about alcohol, partying, and sex, which have its flaws but those topics are less serious compared to violence.
Media in Morality
http://moralityinmedia.org/ http://waronillegalpornography.com/ http://pornharms.com/ http://pornharmsresearch.com/2014/01/is-male-porn-use-ruining-sex/
Moralitiy in Media is a non-profit organization opposing pornography and indecency through public education and the application of the law. MIM maintains a website about the harms of pornography and directs national awareness campaigns to help the public understand the consequences of pornography. Currently they are directing the War on Illegal Pornography.
The War on Illegal Pornography is the battle being fought to protect individuals and families from the devistation effects of porography- addiction, exploitation, family disintegration, violance against womean and children and increased crime. The MIM says social science research has emerged linking porn to many social skills such as sex trafficking, child abuse, domestic violence and divorce. They also say medical research has been proven that porn harms brain function. They are also working with congress to pressure the U.S. Department of Justice to enforce exsisting federal obscenity laws.The U.S. attorneys enforce the Federal obscenity laws such as, mailing obscene matter. importation or use of a common carrier to transport obscene matter, broadcasting obscene language, interstate transportation of obscene matter, wholesale and retail sale of obscene matter whch has been transported in interstate commerce, distribution of obscene matter by cable or satellite TV, and making an obscene communication by means of telephone.
I'm not sure I agree with everything the MIM believes becasue I feel like a lot of what they are saying such as porn being linked to social skills needs to be researched in depth and have facts and examples to back up their research. I was interested in the MIM's research and looked on their research website to find some more information and for the article Is Male Porn Use Ruining Sex? The article had very little facts and research about the topic and made me feel as if this all an opinion and not enough research has been done. I do agree if porn is harming children and women and causing and increased crime rate laws do need to be inforced.
Book Banning in the United States
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom only documents written challenges to library books and materials such as the 420 cases in 2007. The School Library Journal asked 655 media specialists about their collections and found that 70 percent of librarians say they wont buy certain controversial titles simply because they’re afraid of how parents will respond. 29 percent are afraid of backlash from administration, another 29 percent is backlash from community and 25 percent are scared of the students. 23 percent say they wont buy a book due to personal objection. Almost half of those surveyed say they have dealt with book challenges and 80 percent say those challenges haven’t affected their book buying decisions. A 2007 study by the University of Central Arkansas shows that less than one percent of school libraries in that conservative state have books containing gay subjects or storylines.
The target of Pastor Doug Taylor’s wrath was J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. John Sumner got especially worked up over books dealing with sex and religion. When author Sinclair Lewis published Elmer Gantry in 1926, Sumner ordered Boston District Attorney William J. Foley to ban it. The biggest threat to books these days doesn’t come from religious right censors but apathetic Americans. There has been a drop in reading for pleasure. In 2007 a survey found that 25 percent of Americans had read no books during the previous twelve months.
I don’t know if I agree with either of these viewpoints because both sides have truth to them. I don’t think books are being banned in the United States like they use to be but libraries and stores are choosing to not carry the book. Stores and libraries are choosing not to carry the book not because the government is banning them but because they don’t want to upset customers and those who use the libraries because if they upset their clientele then nobody will go to them anymore.
I also agree that book banning is declining because books are not being banned in the traditional sense anymore. They are no longer being banned by the government due to religion or sexual content, stores and libraries are choosing not to carry certain books because they don’t want to, so yes it is making it more difficult for people to obtain the book right then and there but they can go on the internet and find it rather quickly.
Open Internet Will Prevent Censorship
Before the Internet musicians relied on the radio and large record labels to get their music exposed, but thanks to the Internet relying on others to gain exposure is a thing of the past. I think net neutrality is important because everyone should have the access to whatever they what on the Internet as long as it is legal. Major Internet corporations shouldn’t have the control of the public to make a profit. There are so few Internet providers that no matter what they will continue to make a profit.
The Internet has given musicians the opportunity to gain more exposure and increase their fan base. Without the Internet many bands and musicians wouldn’t get the exposure they need in order to become successful. The Internet is another tool to make life easier and gain knowledge. I think an open Internet will prevent censorship because people will have the access to whatever they like and will be able to post whatever they like. I few weeks ago I read an article about Verizon censorship and article on their blog site about net neutrality because Verizon doesn’t want an open internet because they are one of the companies who make a profit.
http://mashable.com/2014/10/29/verizons-tech-site/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/verizon-sugarstring-us-surveillance-net-neutrality/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/verizon-sugarstring-response/
Should the Press Self-Censor Anti-Islamic Views or Not
In September 2005 the daily Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. An author of a children’s book about Muhammad’s life was having a hard time finding someone to illustrate their book. On September 30th Jyllands-Posten published twelve of the cartoons for the public to see.
It is arguable the newspaper shouldn’t have published the cartoons, but Jyllands-Posten had every right to publish the cartoons because Islam is not the only religion targeted, freedom of expression needs to be respected, and people need to be more tolerant of other peoples opinions.
The Muslim religion is not the only religion people choose to poke fun at. The cartoonist who depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban also drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross and dollar signs in his eyes. Religion and politics will always be used as a form of entertainment for people.
Artist should be able to express how they feel and the way they imagine things. None of the cartoonist knows what Muhammad looks like but they depicted the Islamic prophet the way they imagined him. They weren’t stating Muhammad was exactly the way they imagined, all they were stating though their cartoon this is the way they imagined Muhammad to be. Cartoons have been used to make fun of religion and politics for years and its not going to stop not because one religion decides to be a victim.
In many countries there are a mixture of religions. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and plenty of other religions can co exist in an area. In Saudi Arabia where Islam is the dominant religion they are intolerant of other religions. I believe Muslims who live in countries where other religions exist they need to be tolerate of other people’s beliefs and opinions.
I think it is important to respect and protect freedom of speech and expression because we live in a democratic society where people are allowed to have different opinions. The reason people made a pilgrimage to this land in the first place was for religious freedom. People come from different backgrounds have had different life experiences, resulting in everyone being an individual. It is important to me to keep individuality alive.
The Press should not self-censor any more than they already do. The editor of Jyllands-Posten and editors everywhere understand they cannot publish anything and everything. Newspapers need to be informative and entertaining in order to keep readers. Censoring Islamic views would be catering to the Muslim religion, making them seem more important than any other religion. If the press decides to censor their anti-Islamic views they will also have to censor anti-Christian views, anti-Jewish and any anti-religious views.
Film Censorship
The MPAA is a form of censorship to let parents be the judge of what they want their child to see. This means that the content in the movie is censored depending on what type of audience the movie is appealing to. If the movie is attracting a young crowd then the content needs to be censored for that specific audience. If the content in the movie is for a much older crowd then the content doesn’t need to be censored but parents need to be aware of the rating so they know there is inappropriate content that their child should not be seeing. I think movie ratings are for protection and to let parents know the movie their child is begging them to see is age appropriate or not.
I think film censorship should be banned because I have the right to choose what I want to watch and suffer the consequences later. Adults should be allowed to choose what they want to watch and what is appropriate for them. Everyone is different, just because one person took offense to a joke doesn’t mean the next person will. I see film as a form of art and artists/directors have the right to freedom of speech. Many indie films contain violence, sexual content, abusive language, drug use, revolutionary content and human rights violations and at first they are not released to the public to view but at the Sundance Film Festival film critics decide if the movie can become mainstream. I think if a movie wants to be truly successful throughout the world then directors are going to have to censor some of their content because people of different countries, cultures and religions take offence to different things. They find different things humorous and entertaining.
http://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/
http://www.mapsofworld.com/poll/should-films-be-censored-facts-infographic-text.html
http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_genhist_censorship.cfm
Censorship During Wartime
During WWII a federal Office of Censorship was created to review and if necessary censor and criticism of the morale of U.S. forces, or any communication that might bring aid or comfort to the enemy. This was created so the enemy could not use information about of country against us. The censorship was not only applied to news and commentary, it also applied to entertainment. The government would not allow antiwar films.
The National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program was the key tool in the war against Islamic terrorism; it monitored the communication between U.S. based terrorism suspects and their foreign contacts. The New York Times’s 2005 report revealed the secret program and all the efforts were compromised once terrorist know they are being monitored and how the surveillance is cheapened. Although the program was ruled as illegal I understand why surveillance was set up. The government wants to know who is communication with outside contacts so they can be prepared if another attack happens. I do think the NSA should have sought out the proper warrants before continuing with the program but I also thing that the New York Times should not have revealed the secret program because the country could be at risk.
In December 2007, the L.A. Times revealed the existence of a secret CIA program to entice officials working on Iran’s nuclear program to defect. I do not think the L.A. Times should have written an article about the CIA program because by publishing the article it seems as if we are trying the threaten Iran. By having the secret program we are not threatening Iran we simply want to be prepared incase something happens.
According to Hugo Black “The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people.” I agree with Black about how the press needs to bare the secrets of the government and inform the people but I think in the time of war the government keeps secrets to protect or country. Secret programs are used to find out if an attack to going to happen and who is trying to attack us. In any other situation I feel the press should not be censored when is comes to hidden agendas of the government.
Reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan take great care not to divulge operational intelligence in their news report knowing it could be seen and used by insurgents. It is important that nothing is published that can be used against us during wartime.
The New York Times has held articles that, if published, might have jeopardized efforts to protect vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material, and articles about highly sensitive counterterrorism initiatives that are still in operation. I think it was very smart of the New York Times to withhold these articles because they could jeopardize the safety of our country.
I’m not one to believe in censorship because I think people have the right to know what is going on with our government but I do believe in censorship when the safety of our nation is at risk. I think censorship by the media should only be exercised when the information can be used against us.
Internet Education More Effective than Filters
The Child Online Protection Act is too narrow because it does not apply to Web sites based in foreign countries; which count for almost half of online pornography. At the same tines it is too broad because it covers not just pornography but any discussion or depiction of sexuality deemed harmful to anyone under 17. This could apply to material such a sex education. COPA is threatening violators with a six-month prison sentence and fines up to $50,000 a day. Dynamic filtering use improved algorithms has reduced the frequency of over blocking to a low of 5 percent and parents can always censor what their child can access. Filters can be adjusted based on their child’s age and maturity.
CIPA requires schools or libraries receiving funding from the government to automatically be filtered. In many schools, the ability to rapidly override the filter has not been established, which is impairing instructional activities and are interfering with the educational mission by obstructing use of important Web 2.0 tools. Schools have cranked up their filters so high that student searching for misunderstood terms do not get anywhere. Villano uses the example of some students who were searching for information about breast cancer, but were impeded because their search contained the word breast. In Finland educators have taught students about the responsible Internet use for years. Due to solid teaching the filters are in the students heads. Students use the Internet at and educational tool.
I think the government is very concerned for children’s Internet use and they use all these acts to protect the children who do not have active parents. I believe it is the parent’s responsibility to censor what their children can and cannot view on the Internet. As for those children who do not have active parents it would be best to mimic Finland and educate students at a young age about safe Internet use. Education is the best prevention; by educating the youth school computers will not longer be filtered. Unfiltered Internet at schools will be helpful to teachers who require the Internet for certain lesson plans.
South Park Censorship
I do not agree with Comedy Central’s decision to censor episode 201 because I believe in freedom of expression. South Park is known for mocking celebrities and religious figures, I understand it is against the Muslim religion to depict the prophet Muhammad but it is very clear that the writers of the show are not believers of the Muslim faith. Since the writers are not believers and many fans of the show also don’t believe there shouldn’t be anything wrong with depicting Muhammad for entertainment purposes.
Although I don’t agree with the censoring of Muhammad I understand why Comedy Central chose to censor the episode. Comedy Central chose to censor the episode than deal with the issues that go along with depicting Muhammad. The episode makes fun of Muhammad for having special powers that exempts him from being mocked. In their effort not to depict Muhammad they chose to use a black-censored box to symbolize Muhammad, which in my opinion adds to the comedic affect. I think Comedy Central was trying to protect Comedy Central’s New York office and the California production studio, along with the writers of the show from the threat of the radical group Revolution Muslim. The group said it wasn’t a threat when they posted a picture of Theo Van Gogh, a man who was brutally killed for insulting the Muslim faith in his films. The group was definitely threatening Comedy Central they wanted the station to fear what Revolution Muslim could do.
The speech at the end of the episode was censored because it states if you want something you have to use threats and violence to get it. Again the writers of South Park were mocking radical Muslims because a threat was made against the show.
http://pirromount.com/2012/05/south-park-episode-201-restored/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-park-episode-201-censored-speech-was-no-joke/
Beheading Videos
The public has the right to know if an American was beheaded in a foreign land. It is a journalist’s job to inform the public and to be truthful and objective about the story. From a journalists perspective I don’t think any story should be censored as long as it’s the truth. These types of stories need to be told but the videos do not need to be shown on TV. If a person feels the need to watch the video then they can go to the Internet and Google it themselves because most people won’t want to be shown a beheading video even if it is relevant and the truth.
Still images are ok to publish because pictures draw in a reader and it is important to get people to read about and important story such as this one. I don’t think an image that is disturbing should be published but a still that lets the reader know that this is happening and its not a joke. Another reason why I don’t think beheading videos should be shown on TV because in a family household children could come across the video and I know there are plenty of terrible and graphic things on the news but I think a beheading video, even a censored video is too much.
I also don’t think beheading videos should be available on social media because terrorist what the news to be spread and for people to be scared of them. Since social media is used as a way to inform people of all age groups and demographics the information is less likely to be addressed to a certain audience. The story could make way to a younger audience whose parents rather not have them be exposed to the ugliness of the world. I also think it shouldn’t be allowed to be shown on social media because social media is about commenting and sharing your opinion. With such a sensitive story like this people should be allowed to comment and I imagine there will be a lot of nasty and racists comments that are unnecessary.
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/censorship-foley-beheading-video-matters/
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-beheading-video-stirs-debate-on-social-media-censorship/
U.S. Technology Companies in China
Chinese citizen who have Internet access are forbidden to search for information about democracy, Tiananmen, Taiwan, human rights, and Tibet in fear that they will reveal state secrets or spread propaganda that can harm the state. Western Internet companies are helping the Chinese government censor what they find to be politically sensitive. Yahoo! signed a document called a “Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry. Yahoo! used investigative techniques, which led to finding the sender of an email and where the source came from. Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years behind bars. According to Rebecca MacKinnon we should care about what Western technology companies are doing in China because they could eventually do the same thing to us. She is saying that censoring the internet could be useful to the American government and it would be simple for them to do so because they already have the resources to the same censorship techniques that the Chinese use to control their people.
I think Western companies are going over to China because China has a huge population and they think it would be better to be over in China following Chinese rules than to no be in China at all. These companies feel obligated to follow their rules because they want to have a successful partnership and by following their rules they are gaining the trust of the Chinese government.
In China 110 million people out of 1.4 billion have access to the Internet. There are many benefits to Google being present in China because there is a lot of access available that the Chinese would have access to before. Google has free Google talk, free Gmail accounts and free data storage that comes along with every Gmail account. All these new capabilities increases network access for the people of China. The presence of U.S. technology titans in China make it more likely that people will be free to exercise their rights because the fostering of peer networking and individual broadcasting facilitates political freedom.
The way technology is moving it will be harder and harder for the Chinese to keep up. They are already seeking help from the U.S. to come up with new ways to find out if people are trying to revolt against the government. Increasing Internet access is a huge leap in the right direction and I don’t think China is going to all of a sudden stop censoring but I think eventually with time they might, like when younger generations come into power. China is very traditional so it is possible that they may always be like this and stay the same and when younger generations come into power they will feel obligated to keep China the way it is because that’s the way its been for such a long time and they might be scared they will disappoint their elders, which is a huge factor in Asian culture and they might also be afraid that they wont have control over its people anymore is they are allowed to search and discuss whatever they like. I really hope it doesn’t stay this way because I find it really sad to be in constant fear that you might say something suspicious on the Internet and end up in jail for 10 years.