Writing Feedback / 'expressing negative opinions' - my essay about "TV and Radio Censorship" [3]

Censorship is "strictly the review by an authority of any material before publication or dissemination, with the legal right to prevent, alter, or delay its appearance." Censorship in TV and radio programs has always been a topic of debate between people. Since invention of the media, different countries or societies have been through censorship and almost everybody experiences some sort of censorship in their lives. Some people believe that TV or radio programs should be carefully examined by the censorship board members or government before airing to the general public; others formed the different opinion regarding this matter. These individuals believe that censoring or banning program content from being aired or heard by general public is against the constitution and the human right of expression. I believe censorship can be a great way to limit conflicts which hatred or expression of racial comments could bring, cancel or limit the influence of inadequate pornography programs, and restrict or supervise the impact of programs which use offensive language, violent or scary visuals or any immoral behaviors can have on children and young adults. My position is that as a result of the following supervision, individuals could gain more happiness in life because they feel more secure about their beliefs, racial or national origins, and the impact it can have on their children.

The extent of government or group's control over censorship of television and radio programs depends upon the audience that those programs attract. Therefore, programs which television or radios broadcast may contain offensive language or visuals which in turn could be harmful to or dishonor some viewers. I believe there is no harm allowing a government or a responsible group to censor the following programs as long as they do not abuse this power.

Censorship can be a great tool to stop people from expressing their negative opinions and respect other races and different national origins. The media is run by people who are mostly rich, established and not minorities. Therefore, it has a great ability to offend individuals from different races, other cultures, or minorities who live in this country. As a result if there was no censorship, people could freely show their hatred towards different groups especially minorities. In order to maintain peace in society, censorship is required so it could filter things that might be offensive or dishonor certain groups of viewers. For example after the 9/11 attacks, there have been numerous publications that showed hatred and depicted all Muslims as terrorists. This created a stir among the Muslim populace, because now all Muslims that are moving into foreign societies are being labeled as terrorists. That label became a negative stereotype against them and is not true in most cases. There are several other examples which led to negative and false stereotypes to the variety of individuals belong to certain groups, races or religion. In another example, there were a few songs by Marshall Mathers displaying misogyny that is not very healthy for the society. Other such programs, songs or speeches that could result in disharmony among the society should always be banned. Because the ultimate goal of everyone is to live happily and let others also live happily then I don't think such kind of entertainment mediums are of any help. Therefore, censorship not only prohibits racial attacks against different groups, but also enables people to live freely without being judged negatively.

Restrictions in society are crucial to make sure that people do not see anything that is obscene and will enable them to behave in rebellious manners. A main issue that the censorship proponents argue is that broadcasting programs that contain pornography is against morality of the society. Many people find this material distasteful and not allowing it to be viewed could be beneficial for all the youth in particular. In fact, according to Roger Kimball, a social commentator, "when graphic depictions of sex are forbidden, the audience's imagination makes the story richer," thus stimulating the mind and encouraging creativity. The Child Online Protection Act also combats child pornography by regulating indecency related to minors; condemning it from being shown or made which many other countries follow. Then, there is the matter of foul language and whether it can be used in media. The Federal Communications Commission has made it illegal to utter any "profane language by means of radio communication." In addition, the Motion Picture Association of America was created to rate movies and then figure out the certain audience that is suitable to watch the film. This practice could create a better and safer environment if people are willing to give up the right to watch pornography or obscene programs on TV.

Additionally, it is important to mention that the majority of public viewers are children and young adults. They are in the critical stages of mental development. If this age group gets subjected to the kind of television or radios shows which include pornography and obscene material then it surely will be detrimental for their mental health. For example there was a television program that was aired live on many channels known as Super Bowl by Justin Timberlake. That show had a scene of obscenity and was not censored. These kinds of shows should definitely be censored. Although it is true that it is the parents' duty to stop their children from watching such television shows but what if the children watch these programs out of their parents' presence. It is unfortunate in some situation but when it comes to children, they mostly try to emulate the acts they see on television and specially done by their favorite super hero, and this could be serious matter at some stages. Few people might argue that censorship takes away the touch of reality from the programs. However, the impact that those programs, if uncensored, have on children cannot be overlooked for the sake of entertainment. Yet, others might argue that those who want to commit criminal acts will do so, whether they watch it on television or not. However, censorship will prevent few people from committing crimes, mostly those who get provoked by watching crime on television. Another example of uncensored TV show that broadcasted was a program showing cannibalism stunts. There are many shows on television that are made especially for adults so I believe they should not be aired during the prime time when it is more likely that children can watch them.

Censorship can be a great tool to avoid the strong impact of programs which have scary, violent images or offensive and inappropriate languages on children and young adults. The stream media targets and influences the behavior of the majority of its audience. Studies have shown that the influence of the media is more pronoun in children and teenagers when they were exposed to programs including violence and inappropriate content. The studies shown that young teenagers could end up imitating the violent act or offensive language which they were exposed to by those programs in the society. For example, very often we come across children using abusive language to their parents or even teaching the same behavior to other children, and they learned those behaviors from uncontrolled viewing of television programs. Moreover, several children in India tried to imitate the hero of a fantasy program and jumped from heights, hoping that they would be rescued by the hero, but tragically died. If such programs are not censored with a view of the impact they have on children, such incidents will keep on occurring.

It should be reminded that the no censorship could lead to broadcasting or publication some offensive content in regard to different culture or race and could lead to some hostile environment. Additionally, programs which contain pornography are highly inappropriate to the general public and especially young adults should not be exposing to the following programs or the programs which contain violent or inappropriate content. The visualization and dissemination of any event among common people is primarily done by these two media. However, it ought to be remembered that while censorship of television and radio is not fool-proof, the lack of censorship is also not a viable alternative. In fact, every effort should be made to control the content of other forms of media also to ensure that a reasonable degree of censorship exists, rather than giving a Carte Blanche to media. No censorship could lead the disastrous events which some is occurring right now especially toward children and young adults without supervision. Also, the control or censorship in even the most liberal countries are "graded", i.e., the content in media is classified as per criteria such as age, because it's a no brainer that very rarely individuals are mature in their youth, and this automatically calls for guidance and discretion. Thus to ensure that the moral fabric of the society remains intact, it is essential that government should be responsible to do a proper censorship of television and radio programs to filter out the unsavory content, which serve no useful purpose and may only pervert and harm the impressionable minds and continues to be used to suppress democracy in country and of course it is necessary to protect our children.

Writing Feedback / Against Lowering Drinking Age to 18 [3]

This is the essay I wrote about "lowering drinking age to18". I am looking for some feedback before I submit it.

In modern society, pleasure drinking has been an increasing problem for quite some time. As a result various countries and governments have tried to tackle underage drinking by increasing the drinking age. In United States citizens know that the legal drinking age for alcohol is twenty-one. The controversy of whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen in the United States has been an ongoing issue. It should at least stay where it is now because lowering the drinking age cause It would risk more lives and wrecks, alcohol is a poison to the body and it damages the developing brains of adolescents and young adults, and by lower the drinking age the younger people who are under 18 think it's ok to start drinking.

At any age, getting wasted is harmful for the person doing it, and to others. People that are eighteen are still around the idea of adulthood and dependant, even though they don't think so.

Being responsible is a big step in life and many are not there yet. Most teenagers are not living in their own house, making their own money and paying their own way, let alone know how to drink responsibly. Eighteen year olds are still dependant on their parents. Their drinking causes much worry, stress, more liability and more issues in life. The drinking age is 21 because that's the age when most people have matured enough to realize the negative effects of alcohol and they are old enough to be able to handle the responsibility.

People who are younger than twenty one, they don't have the knowledge gained from experience to behave responsibly about drinking. There isn't enough responsibility when you are younger, and one of the characteristics of maturing is becoming an adult it's. insane to give the kids their cars and their freedom to drink right around the same time. the percentage of deaths affiliated with adolescents and alcohol and driving are significant.

Another effect that lowing drinking age cause is to subject teen body to an addictive substance. They younger they start, they higher the rate of addiction would get. Alcohol damages full grown brains, but it's effects of a developing brain can be even worse. The body chemistry in younger people is not able to adjust and process the alcohol. Alcohol has an effect on the brain that is not good developing mind. An eighteen year old is not full grown and of course their liver and brain won't take that damage so easily.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would bring the alcohol into the high school social scene even more than it already is and would make it easier for minors like 14 to 17 to get a hold of alcohol from an older friend At 18, teenagers believe they are responsible enough for alcohol, but at the same time there is also a 16 yrs old who believe the same thing. The truth about being young is they believe they can do anything. And going younger, they're definitely not mature enough. with a drinking age of 18 underage drinkers tend to be 12-13 year olds while with a drinking age of 21 the underage drinkers tend to be 16-17.

Most people develop their drinking habits when they are in college. nobody teaches them how to drink responsibility. People should start to educate their friends, families, and kids about alcohol abuse and teach them how to drink safely and gradually in moderation. Since teen drivers are new to driving, the hope is to keep them out of the sauce for a few years until they are older and their judgement is able to catch up with their level of freedom. Making accidents less frequent, and hopefully less deadly. If society will follow the logic these facts present, it becomes clear that the drinking age of 21 should remain in affect.