The Act of Censorship for the Benefit of Children - Essay Example

?Censorship The battle for and against the censorship of media has been ongoing since the early 1800s, when a novel written by John Cleland began circulating that ventured into the would-be thoughts of a prostitute. Deemed inappropriate for all audiences, the book, Fanny Hill, was given the longest ban than any other novel in the history of the United States (Head). It was not until 1966 that the book was finally released to the public as its content was determined to be irrelevant and unsurprising. Since the banning of Cleland’s novel, censorship has been used to protect people from improper media according to the standards of the government and smaller organizations that focus on censorship, though this has sparked the issue of how much censorship is too much censorship. The act of censorship is now done more for the benefit of children, yet many people believe it should be the responsibility of the parent to monitor what their children read or watch, and not the responsibility of the government or a stranger from an organization. After all, Cleland’s novel was proven to be harmless. However, this might be different if the book were in the hands of a child. It has been brought up of whether or not media should be censored since times and opinions have changed, and if media is censored, if adults should also face censorship to strengthen the protection towards children. The practice of censorship has evolved to protect children more than anybody else, though adults are also effected by this as it becomes difficult for them to access their own mature media. Books and movies that are considered inappropriate are kept out of reach from younger children. These pieces of media contain subject matter that are too advanced for children, such as excessive violence, sexual activity, drug and alcohol use, or other topics that are thought to be taboo or else unsuitable for young eyes. This is perhaps the main reason, if not the only reason, why books and movies, as well as many video games, are censored from children. Censorship is not done out of a need to deny children of their entertainment, but to ensure that younger children are obtaining entertainment that is right for them. This may also prove to be overly paternalistic to parents since it may mean difficulties in obtaining their own entertainment, but they still need to play their part in making sure that children cannot access their adult material. On the other side of the argument against censoring media is that it causes many people to cross the line between protecting and overprotecting a child. By censoring certain material, children are being denied glimpses into many of the ideas and concepts of the real world. Censorship tends to go too far, sheltering children from the real world around them. They become unaware of all that the world has to offer in way of unique, independent, and creative thoughts and experiences. Censorship also teaches children that, in regard to media, there is an undue concept of good and evil, which can cause a child to continue to censor themselves as they become adults. They begin to be judgmental at a very young age when growing up in a censored environment, never allowing themselves to open up to everything that the world has to offer to their growing minds. Censorship should be used, but implemented in a way so that children cannot gain access to media that is deemed inappropriate by parents, teachers, and other adults that have authority and influence over children. While many schools, families, and even libraries acknowledge media that is inappropriate based on a common standard of decency, such as media involving graphic sex, drugs, and violence, they still make it readily available for young children to have access. This is because a lot of it remains accessible to adults, but still within grasp of children. The material that should be censored should be done so because the material is too advanced, and oftentimes harsh and graphic, for children. Not only can they be negatively impacted by some of what they read or see, but they can also be given the wrong impressions or ideas in regard to life or how to properly act. On a similar note, the material should indeed be inappropriate for young children to be subjected to, like censoring books, movies, or games that deal with advanced concepts of sex or drug usage, as opposed to banning the Harry Potter series due to its clash against the beliefs of the Christian and Catholic churches, which is simply using censorship for personal benefit (Ross). This example shows a group of people wrongfully attempting to push their beliefs on children, which is common among religions that practice strict moral behaviors. This is something that should be avoided when censoring material. Books that exercise the imagination of a child should not be included in censoring as they enhance the childhood experience. Books such as these inspire creativity in children, and denying them would only suppress their abilities to use their imagination. One of the greater counterarguments against censoring media is that it should be up to the individual parents what their children may or may not have access to, which would include parents monitoring their own entertainment. Some children may be more advanced than others and can supposedly handle the content, though this discretion should be left up to the parents of that child. In this way, parents that disapprove of their children watching or reading anything of a certain nature can prevent their children from doing so; parents that are more open about what their children are subjected to can allow their children that freedom. Nobody else should be making this decision for parents, because they are more or less telling them how to raise children that are not theirs. While parents should have a say in what their children prefer as entertainment, there are still certain types of subject matter that children should not be subjected to at such a young age. The younger a child is, the more impressionable they are. They are more likely to try or experiment with something because they read it in a book or saw it on television. A correlation has been found between children engaging in drugs and alcohol, violence, and sex acts and the kind of books, movies, and video games they are exposed to (Heins 27). However, if parents spent more time teaching their children the differences between right and wrong and reality and fantasy, then they can be more lenient about the topics that their children are subjected to. If children are continually told not to engage in certain media, they stand the chance of still doing so; this is only increased if their parents continue to peruse the media, which condones it if their children were to do the same. If children are exposed to these things early on, while still being informed of what is or is not appropriate, there is a lesser chance of them engaging in negative activities. Not enough children are educated to not attempt what they see or hear in the media. Yet another counterargument is that censorship should not be implemented as much as it is. It shelters children from various elements of the real world, and all censoring is going to do is make them more curious about what they are being shielded from. They will simply attempt to figure out what is so wrong about the material and they will do what they must to obtain it, which would completely defeat the purpose of censorship. This would be made even easier if their parents have readily available the material that they are trying to be protected from. Furthermore, due to the need to censor children, authors and film and television show creators have had to censor their own creations because they had to keep in mind the possibility that children might see some of their inappropriate work even if the work was intended for mature audiences. As such, censoring children has spread to include everyone censoring themselves, and that is unjust in a world that preaches of freedom of speech. Though it is true that children may do what they have to in order to view the material they are being denied, it would still be in their best interests if they are informed of why they should not being viewing it. They should then be prompted with alternatives. It all comes down to how parents or other authoritative figures communicate their intentions with children; it also depends on how much of the material the parents use themselves. Telling a child ‘no’ numerous times will only increase the curiosity of the child, which can lead to consequences, many that can be very serious, but this curiosity will be less intense if the child has already been presented with a reason behind the denial of certain media. More often than not, they will take the denial and the reasoning and find something else to occupy their time. Also, novelists and film and television show creators should be aware that their products can be seen by young eyes. Authors of young adult books should ensure that their material can be viewed by their younger audiences. Makers of movies and television shows should be somewhat censored, especially if their creations end up on television stations that are easily accessible to children. It is not necessarily the job of these people to protect children from what they see, which is more of a task for the parents or other authoritative figures, but they still need to play a role in making this material less accessible or less graphic. Some of the material can even be too intense for adults and should be cut from media altogether, which also decreases the chances of children seeing it. A final counterargument, which was previously mentioned, is that censorship has become a matter of personal agenda for many people. More often than not, when parents or teachers attempt to censors books, movies, or video games, it is because there truly is material that is inappropriate for a younger audience. Unfortunately, there are others that try to abuse this and attempt to censor books and movies simply because they do not approve of them, which has the ability to form a prudish younger generation. These children will grow up censoring themselves based on the beliefs that others held. Children’s books and movies have been censored and banned due to someone else’s distaste, including The Chronicles of Narnia, which has been banned in many places throughout the United States because there are people that disagree with the concept of animals be able to talk (Doyle 86). This can hardly be considered harmful to a child, but someone disagreed and did what they could to censor the beloved children’s novel. This is where a parent’s discretion can come in play, in which they implement their own decision as to whether or not their children should be reading stories that please the imagination. A book about sex or violence is considered to be too advanced for a child, and should therefore be impossible for a child to obtain; this could mean that parents need to make sure that these materials cannot be found in their household. As long as these books exist for adults to access, some children will still be able to also access them. The concepts or the images could be very jarring to a young child. If parents really are against some of the messages in children’s books, they can prevent their children from reading it, but they still need to supply the child with the reason behind their decision as well as an alternative. The answer ‘because I said so’ will never suffice for a child regardless of who they are hearing it from. Censorship is around the make sure that children are viewing material that is age-appropriate. Some parents may decide to take control of their children’s interests, which includes censoring themselves, but there are others that believe some information or concepts are too much for children. As such, this material should not be easily accessible by these children. People go about different ways to prevent their children or students from obtaining certain inappropriate material, but they also need to start providing reasoning behind the censoring. Not only will children have less animosity for being denied something that they want, but they will also be wiser for it. Works Cited Doyle, Robert P. Banned Books: Challenging Our Freedom to Read. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2010. Print. Head, Tom. "History of Censorship in the United States." Civil Liberties at About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2011. . Heins, Marjorie. Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2007. Print. Ross, Shmuel. "Harry Potter Banned?." InfoPlease. N.p., 26 May 2007. Web. 3 Apr. 2011. . Read More