Return to home pageShould television producers be able to broadcast whatever they feel makes them the most money? In many cases, what makes money has the potential, in the eyes of some, to be damaging to our youth. According to some critics, TV, movies, comic books and other forms of mass media promote too much of violence and crime. They argue that younger Americans are very impressionable, and seeing cartoon heroes or other role models participating in acts of violence can give them the wrong idea of acceptable behavior. Therefore, these media forms need to be more carefully censored to suit the goals of a crime-free community. On the other hand, some studies have indicated that this link between television violence and destructive behavior is tenuous at best. Those against censorship of violence mention the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In addition, they maintain that it is the responsibility of parents to determine what is suitable for children, not the government. Such critics also point out that many "classics" are based in part on violence (most notablty, the Bible, along with the Odyssey, for instance). Finally, they seek to draw a distinction between "mindless violence" and "justified violence" (such as on the news, on police shows, and some cases of self defense).
Do you feel that the government should ban violence on network television during hours that minors would be watching it?
Do you feel that there is a definite link between violence on television or in comic books and anti-social behavior by young people?
Do you feel that if the government did take more steps to block out violent content in television programming, that they should be compulsory for networks, or optional?
You can write to us with your views!
Return to Topic List