CENSORSHIP

Question: To what extent should the media be censored?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin  Greenberg, Steven. "Internet Censorship." Cartoon. //The Editorial Cartoons of Steven Greenberg//. Editor & Publisher, 13 July 1996. Web. 16 Mar. 2010. .
 * Title:** Internet censorship
 * Published:** Editor & Publisher
 * Date:** July 13, 1996
 * About this cartoon:** Federal attempts to regulate and censor the World Wide Web to combat pornography fell apart due to opposition from First Amendment and free-market advocates.



http://www.newscientist.com/

--- FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) ** 438 U.S. 726 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 77-528.
 * 
 * FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION ET AL.

Argued April 18, 19, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). [...] The FCC found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting, inter alia, in 18 U.S.C. 1464 (1976 ed.), which forbids the use of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications." The FCC characterized the language of the monologue as "patently offensive," though not necessarily obscene, and expressed the opinion that it should be regulated by principles analogous to the law of nuisance where the "law generally speaks to channeling behavior rather than actually prohibiting it." The FCC found that certain words in the monologue depicted sexual and excretory activities in a particularly offensive manner, noted that they were broadcast in the early afternoon "when children are undoubtedly in the audience," and concluded that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited by 1464. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, one judge concluding that the FCC's action was invalid on the ground that the order constituted censorship, which was expressly forbidden by 326 of the Communications Act of 1934*. Another judge, who felt that 326's censorship provision did not apply to broadcasts forbidden by 1464, concluded that 1464, construed narrowly as it has to be, covers only language that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment. The third judge, dissenting, concluded that the FCC had correctly condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent. Respondent contends that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute because of the absence of prurient appeal. Held: The judgment is reversed.

Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely accessible to children. Pp. 748-750.

The First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech. Schenck v. United States, [|249 U.S. 47, 52]. The content of respondent's broadcast, which was "vulgar," "offensive," and "shocking," is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all contexts; it is therefore necessary to evaluate the FCC's action in light of the context of that broadcast.

Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. ** *Section 324 states that the Telecommunications Act of 1934 does not give the Commission the power of censorship or to the power to interfere with freedom of speech

It's Curious, George: Even Cartoons Aren't Safe From Censors  It might seem surprising at a time when a Family Guy episode can include scenes like " [|Prom Night Dumpster Baby]." But children's cartoons are a different story. As Craig Miller and a panel of other animated-show writers revealed at Comic-Con International last weekend, censors go out of their way -- and some might say out of their minds -- to protect little kids.

"We get notes from studios, from networks, from educational consultants, from advertisers," Miller said. "One show I worked on, there was a list of 47 people who got shown every word a writer wrote -- the outlines, the first draft and second draft -- and had the opportunity to give their comments on what should be changed."

"What's entertaining is what points to human foibles and flaws, and (the censor's) job is to take that out of it," said animation writer [|Andrew Nichols], during a panel on censorship in animation. Nichols has written for titles including The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius and Casper's Scare School. He said he was told just last week to not use the words "heck" or "darn."

Dotinga, Randy. "It's Curious, George: Even Cartoons Aren't Safe From Censors." //Wired//. Wired, 31 July 2007. Web. 15 Mar. 2010. .


 * "When the white house says hush"- Bush ad ministration**

“The military and state secret privilege requires a court to dismiss a lawsuit just because the president says it involves important secrets.” Well, no, not exactly. The state secrets privilege doesn’t //require// courts to do anything, but it allows the executive branch to ask courts to exclude evidence—and, lately, to dismiss entire cases—on the grounds that not doing so would jeopardize national security.

The privilege was at first invoked sparingly—only six times in the 24 years from 1953 to 1976, according to analysis by political scientist William Weaver published in the //Secrecy Report Card 2008//. In the next 24-year period, from 1977-2000, it was used 59 times (2.5 times per year). In the first seven years of the Bush administration, the privilege was invoked 45 times—6.4 invocations per year.

Major news outlets too often identify with the government and its obsession with keeping secrets. As the late**Washington Post** publisher Katharine Graham once said in a speech to the CIA (**Regardie’s**, 1/90): “We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t.”

By any realistic appraisal, though, the greatest dangers to U.S. liberty have always come from the U.S. government itself, which is why the First Amendment forbids any restriction on what the press can report. If the media were doing their proper job, they would see a government’s assertion that a case is too secret to talk about as a mandate to dig deeper, not a reason to back away.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">Naureckas, Jim, and Cody Trojan. "When the White House Says Hush." //FAIR//. FAIR, May 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3772>.


 * "Obscenity, Censorship, and the first amendment"**

The debate over what constitutes inappropriate material and whether (and how) the public should be protected from it will not likely be settled any time soon. In August 1901, an anonymous author [|considered the controversy] then ongoing over whether nude statues should be exhibited in public. Some, he explained, were "concerned about the morals of the public," and feared that "grave harm is done by such exhibitions." But others, he noted, were accepting of the statues, convinced that "no evil was intended" by them and that "beauty is its own excuse for being." In recent years, he noted, it had been not only truly disturbing material that had been targeted for suppression by moral crusaders, but a number of classic novels as well. In the course of one recent obscenity trial, a lawyer had argued: "A book to be obscene, need not be obscene throughout the whole of its contents; but if the book is obscene in part, it is an obscene book." By such logic, Sherman warned, "any jury which honestly obeyed these instructions could bar from the mails the Bible, Shakespeare, or even an unabridged English Dictionary."

In [|"The Theory of Censorship,"] William Allan Neilson argued that first "we ought to know whether in applying censorship we are considering the welfare of the adolescent or the adult." It is true, Neilson wrote, that in general "the young must be guarded from risks that may inflict injury before experience has been acquired." He suggested that parents and teachers should therefore think carefully about which books and plays they exposed children to. But some of the hand-wringing over affronts to the delicate sensibilities of the young, he argued, was probably misplaced. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px;">Kessler, Ryder. "Obscenity, Censorship, and the First Amendment." //Atlantic//. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Web. 17 Mar. 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/obscenity-censorship-and-the-first-amendment/5073/>.

First Amendment: **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.


 * States Secrets Privilege:**

The state secrets privilege allows the executive branch to ask courts to exclude evidence—and, lately, to dismiss entire cases—on the grounds that not doing so would jeopardize national security. The Bush administration not only asserted the state secrets privilege more often, it significantly widened its scope, getting courts to throw out entire lawsuits on the grounds that the subject of the lawsuit was itself a state secret. This expanded sweep has halted lawsuits involving the warrantless wiretapping program, torture victims Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar, and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.

**Fairness Doctrine:** The **Fairness Doctrine** was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

(In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general //right// to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is //obliged// to do so. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.) **Tested in Court** The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
 * Current News**

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com. The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back. Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.

[]

Censorship is when the government, be it state, federal, or local, attempts to restrict what type of music can be purchased, played, or distributed in your community. Music censorship can take many forms such as parental advisory labels, banned concerts, banned cover art, rating systems, legislative bills/laws, and banned clothing. Organizations that are involved in music censorship are radio stations, MTV, companys such as Walmart, and organizations such as the Parents' Music Resource Center (PMRC) are responsible for censoring and labeling albums. There are currently no laws regarding the censorship of music. Songs with strong language, racist views, or harmful references will have this label on them. All the label means is that anyone can buy the song, but they should be aware of what the song contains.
 * Music Censorship:** (definite bias in here)

Contrary to popular belief, censorship of music is legal. The first Amendment states:

 []

Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of //ideas//. Thus whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners //intended// by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. ** //Board of Education v. Pico//, ** 457 U.S. 853, 871 (1982) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Georgia,serif;">**Supreme Court ruling**

[] National Coalition Against Censorship

There are currently no laws regarding the censorship of music. Songs with strong language, racist views, or harmful references will have this label on them. All the label means is that anyone can buy the song, but they should be aware of what the song contains. []