Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
speech on censorship in the media
speech on censorship in the media
Media and censorship
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: speech on censorship in the media
There has been much debate about what exactly is covered by the first amendment. True, it blankets free speech, but should it always apply? Obviously not when public safety is at stake. For example, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded area is punishable by law because it causes public endangerment. But, some people insist these restrictions to free speech should be more generally applied. Some even believe newspapers should be censored. They even go so far as to state certain pictures should not be published at all because they believe pictures could negatively affect the general public. Publication of controversial pictures is essential and greatly compensates for any discomfort caused by them.
In 1963, South Vietnam was commanded by Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem led the South Vietnamese government in the persecution of Buddhists. This caused great unrest in South Vietnam. One particular man was so distressed by this, he decided to rebel. That man was Thich Quang Duc. In the middle of a busy intersection in Saigon, Quang Duc set himself on fire. Press had been notified of a protest in the area previously, but none took it seriously. Malcolm Browne, an American journalist, was present, however. He captured the death of Quang Duc on camera.
Since Browne did not zoom in on Quang Duc, the viewer is able to see many things in the background of the photo. The most obvious thing in the background is a small building that looks as if it is a store of some type. This seems like an ordinary store, in a seemingly ordinary place, if it were not for what is happening in front of it. A crowd of people is gathered around. The crowd appears to be standing very still; all eyes are focused on Quang Duc. Some spectators are seen kneeling in front of the others,...
... middle of paper ...
... thought-provoking pictures. Newspapers are essential to informing readers about what is going on in the world around them. Newspapers striving to persuade readers may publish biased articles, but a picture is always trustworthy. By appealing purely to a viewer’s emotions, pictures are much more influential than words could ever be. Ultimately, it is imperative newspapers publish controversial pictures for the sake of the common good.
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Bedau. “Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical
Thinking and Argument, with Readings”. 10th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. Print.
Browne, Malcolm. NBC News. Jun. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
Ephron, Nora. “The Boston Photographs”. Barnet and Bedau 170-175. Print.
Lat, David, and Zachary Shemtob. “Executions Should Be Televised”. Barnet and Bedau 53-55.
Print.
The documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, shows us just that: stories from a range of people who have danced on the line of what is considered “free speech,” a first amendment right. The first amendment, according to the US Constitution, 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.” The two stories that jumped out at me were the stories told by Debbie Almontaser and Chase Harper. Though each of their stories are very different, each story has a similar lining to it in regard to the
The First Amendment states that "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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
Being expression one of the most important rights of the people to maintain a connected society right to speech should be accepted to do so. The first amendment is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals have. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. This amendment describes the principal rights of the citizens of the United States. If the citizens were unable to criticize the government, it would be impossible to regulate order. By looking freedom of speech there is also freedom of assembly and freedom of press that are crucial for the United States democracy.
In today's world, photographs are the most form of media to deliver news and messages. They depict the mere fact, but are censored to hide violence. Such an act conceals the reality of life and is unfair. Graphic images must always be exposed to the public as they present the blatant reality and educate people about world crisis.
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
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. The first amendment to the United State's constitution is one of the most important writings in our short history. The first amendment has defined and shaped our country into what it is today. The amendment has constantly been challenged and ratified through literature, court cases, and our media. In fact, media is driven by the first amendment. Without it, we as citizens wouldn't be able to view or listen to what we want, when we wanted. As you can see, the first amendment is not only a free pass to say and do what you want, but in contrast, a great limiter to certain types of speech and behavior. This duality of the amendment is what makes it so special. The duality is especially evident in the field of media. The media is constantly being challenged by the first amendment on the following topics:Defamation suits, obscenity and sex on the net, and free speech rights. It is those issues that are constantly changing and redefining our media today.
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
Many people believe the most precious constitutional right is the first amendment. People may censor due to content that is considered to be too violent, or obscene, or even the language may be too vulgar. There are many reasons given for censorship in a classroom or library, a book or other learning resource may be restricted or banned because it includes social, political, or religious views believed to be “inappropriate or “threatening.” In the classroom or in the schools, the teachers or the administrators are the determining factor on what’s appropriate. In a community there are other certain people that look over textbooks, movies, and other published sources. On a federal or higher level sometimes it’s the legislators. The basic right to freedom of expression in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the constitution. In 1791, the bill of rights was the base of basic rights for citizens 4 years after signing of the constitution. There was controversy over to include the Bill of Rights when the United States was founded. One of the rights the Bill of Rights protects is freedom of spee...
No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.
According to the Webster-dictionary The First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Since the first Amendment was written by our founding fathers and is part of our constitution it should never be violated. Being able to say and express what one thinks without been afraid of going to jail. In the essays “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby and “Let’s Put Pornography back in the closet” by Susan Brownmiller both writes about the First Amendment is when one can express them. Jacoby and Brownmiller both write about pornography and the first amendment using pathos and ethos in their writing. However, Jacoby’s essay is more reliable because she uses ethos to provide credible resources, as well as use pathos to appeal to her credibility.
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Instead of telling readers what to think through words, readers can form their own point of view from a photo. A photograph that showed different interpretations was taken during WWII after the destruction of Iwo Jima in Japan of Americans soldiers raising an American flag in the ruins. Some viewers may perceive this act as patriotic, and others may have thought it was an act of terrorism and revenge. Either opinion could be argued and the photograph is the evidence. Since photographs can be unbiased, they can also hold truthful detail. For example, one photograph from the Vietnam war depicted a Vietnamese police officer shooting a Viet Cong in the streets. There are a lot of emotion in that photograph that words cannot describe all; which included the fear and hostility that was upheld during the time. Newspapers need to print more of these kinds of photographs to educate people the ugliness of war and death. Ephron pointed out, “throughout the Vietnam War, editors were reluctant to print atrocity pictures. . . That 's what that war was about.” War and its deaths are a part of history too, and history needs to be kept true and unbiased. As long as the photos are not altered nor used for propaganda, they can be
News is often described as the ‘window of the world’, but sometimes what we see on the news isn’t necessarily the true facts of what is happening around the world. News is often very subjective, especially in television, and sometimes the best pictures are picked over the best story. As journalists, we are responsible for society and frequently news leads viewers to a narrow-minded view of the world, often showing them what we want them to see rather than what they need to see. As Harcup explains (2009, P3) ‘Journalism informs society about itself and makes public that which would otherwise be private.’
The first amendment grants the freedom of the press, speech, and religion. The first amendment also grants that the media is immune from