The society today seems to be confused about the First Amendment, freedom of speech, censorship and how they work and how the government wants to try and change what our fore fathers wrote in the Constitution of the United States. Today people close their eyes to the fact the
Government is controlling everything we watch on television, what we read in papers and books, what we listen to in our day to day lives. The government seems to think our children need to be protected by censorship laws instead of letting the parents teach our children right from wrong. Instead of letting the government tell us as parents how our children need to be censored, it would be better to let us as parents make the decisions whether or not music or television shows are appropriate.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underlying philosophical foundations, and hence proper interpretive framework, as has the guarantee of freedom of expression--the free speech and free press clauses. The argument has been fought out among the commentators. ''The outstanding fact about the First Amendment today is that the Supreme Court has never developed any comprehensive theory of what that constitutional guarantee means and how it should be applied in concrete cases.'' Some of the commentators argue in behalf of a complex of values, none of which by itself is sufficient to support a broad-based protection of freedom of expression. Others would limit the basis of the First Amendment to one only among a constellation of possible values and would therefore limit coverage or degree of protection of the speech and press clauses. For example, one school of thought believes that, because of the constitutional commitment to free elf gpvernment only political speech is within the core protected area, although some commentators tend to define more broadly the concept of ''political'' than one might suppose from the word alone. Others recur to the writings of Milton and Mill and argue that protecting speech, even speech in error, is necessary to the eventual ascertainment of the truth, through conflict of ideas in the marketplace, a view skeptical of our ability to ever know the truth. A broader-grounded view is variously expounded by scholars who argue that freedom of expression is necessary to promote individual self-fulfillment, such as the concept that when speech is freely chosen by the speaker to persuade others it defines and expresses the ''self,'' promotes his liberty, or the concept of ''self- realization,'' the belief that free speech enables the individual to develop his powers and abilities and to make and influence decisions regarding his destiny. The literature is enormous and no doubt the Justices as well as the larger society are influenced by it, and yet the decisions, probably in large part because they are the collective determination of nine individuals, seldom clearly reflect a principled and consistent acceptance of any philosophy.
In 1984, the American Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee adopted the following definitions for terms “frequently used to describe the various levels of incidents which may or may not lead to censorship,” which it defined as “the actual removal of materials from open access.” none of these conditions is desirable; all infringe upon First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press. Inquiry- An informational request, usually informal, which seeks to determine the rationale behind the presence of a particular item in a collection. Expression of Concern- An inquiry that has judgmental overtones. The inquirer has already made a value judgment on the materials in question. Complaint- A formal written complaint filed with the library, questioning the presence of and/or the appropriateness of specific material. Attack- A publicly worded statement questioning the value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside the library organization, in order to gain public support for further action. Censorship- the removal of material from open access by government authority. This was not the first of censoring in the United States. It’s been going on since the beginning of time, and will continue through the years. The parents of the youth today need to educate themselves and prepare their children for what lies ahead.
Dave Marsh, 50 ways to fight censorship and important facts to know about the censors, says; Set a good example for your kids. There are many alternatives for parents to help their children fight censorship. Listen, that means listen to the music your kids love, it has a lot to tell you about who they think they are, what shape they believe the world’s in, the height of their hopes and the depths of their fears. But it means to listen to you kids; just slow down, shut up, and listen to what they have to say. It might be different from what you expect, it might be different from what you want to hear. But it’s a message from someone you love. It’s an opportunity to have a conversation you’ll remember for the rest of your life. If you really want to help and protect your kids, use your ears before you use your mouth. Forbid access to materials only with great caution. Do it only after you’ve heard what your child has to say and only after you have experienced it yourself. Don’t just take the word of a teacher or a preacher. Do it only after the most rational discussion you can manage. Try to avoid an outright ban. Explain that some material needs to be scrutinized in relation to existing family values and that not all families have, or ought to be forced to have identical values. Contact musicians, authors, and artists whose work troubles you in regard to your children. Tell them that your interpretation of what they are saying is that it is irresponsible. Urge more responsible writing on repugnant issues. Share any response with your child. Start a parents group to protect your children from censorship. This group can advance a positive free speech agenda, support progressive teachers and administrators and educate kids about the first amendment and the value of active good citizenship. Invite sympathetic teachers to join your group. Sponsor an anti-censorship discussion group in your community, your library or school would be a good place for such a forum. This will give students, parents, teachers, and others a chance to talk about works of art that some find troublesome, and others find enlightening. Not wanting to censor something doesn’t mean endorsing it, and such a forum can be a chance to hear different points of view, some of which will surprise even the organizers. Choose selected censored materials for your children to experience. Help them to select and learn from materials that others want to ban. Explain why Huckleberry Finn is a great work of art and why some people find it offensive. Listen to censored music with them, and discuss it’s ideas and attitudes, why some people have such feelings and desires, and why others want to repress them. Watch challenged television shows, like “The Simpson’s” together, and discuss the ideas in them, and why people want to get rid of these thoughts and concepts. This is the best way to educate your children about values and about the issues that make some art controversial. (pg.13) Teach your children how to know when censorship appears in the classroom or elsewhere. Learn as much as you can about how censorship works and how your child’s school and library are affected. Write letters to local and national media explaining you opinions on the subject and it’s effect on kids. Show your kids the following list of things kids can do to fight censorship, adapted from Sandra Chorons “The Big Book of Kids’ list”(NY: Pharos Book, 1985). Talk to your friends about starting a group to fight censorship. Learn about censorship together and talk to other kids, parents, and teachers about how you feel about it. Write to the American Library Association for a list of books that have been banned. Urge your parents to become involved in fighting for free expression, in your community and elsewhere. Make sure they give you permission to use all library materials, see any film or video, and listen to all forms of music, no matter how much pressure is brought by teachers-turned cops.
Millions of Americans are convinced the Motion Picture Association of America code isn’t censorship because it is “voluntary.” They do not know that the code adopted in 1966 is the result of years of Hollywood’s buckling under pressure brought by censorship groups; that hundreds of American films are shown in Europe with lines of dialogue, individual shots, and whole scenes that Americans never see; or that the ratings are the result of secret Motion Picture Association of America board meetings, whose anonymous members issue ratings (on the G, PG, PG-13,R,NC-17,X scale) that they never have to justify or even explain. Yet we are supposed to believe that none of this is “censorship” because it is “voluntary” a system imposed by the industry itself.
The American civil liberties union calls the Motion Picture Association of America ratings system “a private combination of power to limit the market place of ideas,” which is a lawyer’s way of saying it is blatant censorship, although without the government’s direct involvement.
Internet web site, Censorship.html states; Many organizations and members of congress are trying to censor the material available to our youth. Things like the controversial Communications Decency act (1996) which would make it illegal for certain materials considered “indecent” to be viewed on the internet. The main group that is to be protected by this act is the children of America as their access to the internet, television, music, and books continues to increase. While this may seem to be a good way to safe guard American’s children from vulgar material; it restricts free speech and will not prevent these children from viewing indecent material if that is in fact what they are searching for and, it should be the job of the parents to decide what their children can view or listen to.
Author Kenneth A Dunn states; Parents have the right to question what their kids are watching and listening to but not to demand their removal. Free exchange of ideas in life are important because it teaches young people to think for themselves. To restrict access to information, whether it is contained in books, music, television, or the internet dilutes a critical thinking approach. Children are taught the lesson of hypocrisy and we all diminished. When the perceived ill is embodied in artistic expression, attack with intellectual argument rather than the poisonous “cure” of censorship.
The answer is more speech, more debate of issues that sheds greater light and more positive advocacy for public education. In the 1997 Supreme Court decision striking down the Communications Decency Act. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The interest in encouraging freedom in a democratic society out weighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.” The definition of freedom in America is a work in progress. The struggle experiences.
There has been censorship cases over the years that go against freedom of speech and expression. Back in the year 2000 there were a few that caught my eye; Police officers in Northwood, Ohio, order 14-year-old Daniel Shellhammer to remove his shirt, which features slogans for the rap group Insane Clown Posse. The officers inform Shellhammer that Insane Clown Posse clothing is “banned” in Ohio and that they tear the shirt off his back and arrest him if he does not comply. In my opinion this is promoting violence in the state of Ohio. Police in New Iberia, Louisiana, close down a roller skating rink in February, and seize more than 60 CDs, after a fight broke out in the rink's parking lot. Police accused the rink's management of instigating the incident by playing music over the rink's PA system. Amongst the confiscated CDs are Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and the popular tunes "The Chicken Dance," "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer," "The Hokey Pokey," and "Jingle Bells." A private school in San Antonio, Texas, suspends four students for attending a Backstreet Boys concert in March. The students are suspended for one day for violating a school policy forbidding "involvement in inappropriate music [or] dancing." The cases I love the most are the ones banning the books we all grew up with and loved as children. How dare these government organizations keep my children from experiencing the same joys and learning experiences that I had as a child reading these same books. These were just a few of the many complaints and cases in the past few years. All of which go against the First Amendment. These cases waste America’s time and money. There are many precautions organizations has put into affect over the years that do help the parents of the youth become educated about what the kids are watching and listening to, but they should be just that, precautions. Government agencies should let the parents be parents and stop trying to control what we read, listen to, and watch. Let me remind you the First Amendments states, let there be no law. That means the congress has no right to manipulate and twist what the freedom of speech should mean to the people of the United States.
Nat Hentoff wrote the book, Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee, and in it he states; There are as many different definitions of obscenity as there are human beings, and they are as unique to the individual as his dreams. In Oregon in the year 1986 the state court ruled unanimously that from then on, there can be no prohibition of any form of expression in Oregon on the ground that it is obscene. Obscenity is no longer recognized as a term in law in that free state. In Oregon, Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution states with admirable clarity and conviction: “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever.” Now, it could be said that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, while not as muscular in its language, is also clear and broad” there shall be “no law.....abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Unfortunately, however, the United States Supreme Court has muddied that once clear stream of free expression and has created exceptions that do abridge the freedom of speech and of the press: defamation and obscenity, among them. And with regard to obscenity, the Supreme Court’s definitions have become murkier and murkier until it is often very difficult for someone to know he is breaking the law until he has been fined and /or imprisoned.( Pg 315-316) Dave Marsh also says, make the real obscenities the real issues. Attack the real obscenities: Homeless, unemployment, war and militarism, racism, sexism, AIDS, homophobia. Make alliances with groups working on these issues. Censorship often serves the basic purpose of thought control. It’s designed to distract public attention from massive budget boondoggles, urban decay, poverty, the government’s failure to solve problems while entire communities starve amidst “prosperity”. It’s designed to sweep aside essential questions about power and its profits, particularly while raising phony ones. It serves to keep people who might otherwise be rising such issues, proposing inconvenient solutions, and taking action, constantly on the defensive, battling for the basic right to say anything at all.(115-16)
Current concerns for literacy and critical thinking in education may actually increase incidents of censorship. Literacy assumes the power of texts and encourages exposure to competing ideas and beliefs. Critical thinking implies questioning, the analysis and evaluation of those beliefs to come to a personal judgment that empowers young people to take ownership of ideas and control of their own intellectual and moral lives. Have faith in our children that they have with our help educated themselves to know what is right and what is wrong.
The fact I would like to convey is there many dangers in the world today when it comes to our children. There are many things we don’t want our children to see or hear because we don’t think they are ready to face them. Things like war, death, sexual content, all the unhappy things we would like to shelter them from for as long as possible. The fact of the matter is kids today are learning about these things more and more from there peers. But the difference is they aren’t learning the truth. They are hearing pieces of the truth from their friends and other sources. The internet, television, movies, books and magazines, and music. When children don’t get the whole truth that is when we have problems with them. They take these unhappy or explicit materials out of context. It is up to us as parents to educate ourselves and then our children to understand what these things mean and what they mean to us. To stand up and take responsibility for what we believe in and what we stand for. As I looked through all of my research about censorship and protecting our youth, I only found a handful of information about people and internet cites that supported censorship. But, they did not come right out with saying that censoring was the right thing to do. Most of the organizations and government agencies thought they were protecting the children of America and protecting the American way. As far as I can tell America is based on the Constitution of the United States. How can they be protecting the American way when they are trying to take something away from it. Some of these organizations or “Acts” are; Child Internet Protection Act; Internet Content Ratings Associations; National Coalition for the Protecting of Children and Families; American Family Association and these are just a few.
Dave Marsh also wrote: One of the most important lessons of trying to enlist others to fight censorship is that people in the United States no longer know what freedom of speech is, how it works, or what protecting it entails. No matter how vile you may find what that other guy has to say, there is always a better way to disarm the message than by silencing it. That’s not because words don’t hurt. They can be deadly. They can change your life. The point is that the only way to build the kinds of lives that free people ought to have is to allow those words and thoughts to be heard, in all their danger. Get them out in the open, where they can be challenged, endorsed, and to the extent that they pose social and political riddles, solved. Every other avenue involves deception and that leads to corruption, and that leads to worse lives for all of us, even for those whose job it is to keep the lid on.(xvi) Children of the United States deserves the full protection the constitution provides and that includes freedom of speech and expression. In order for our children to reach their full potential in life it means having freedom of speech in all the nuances of that wonderful phrase. We want our children to be the best and have the best life can bring them. In order for any of that to happen we much teach them to stand up for what they believe in and arm them with education. Let them be all that they can be, a good role model for the youth of their generation of tomorrow.

Works Cited
Hentoff, Nat. Free Speech For Me,But Not For Thee, Harper-collins, New York,1992
Marsh, Dave, 50 Ways To Fight Censorship and important facts to know about the censors, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991
Proquest, Author, Dunn, Kenneth A. The New Crisis, Baltimore, Apr/May 1998 vol.105 1ss.2;pg13,1pags.
Nuzum,Eric, Parental Advisory: music censorship. On the web.
Freemuse.com; on the web.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com