CA

1. Censorship Debate
None of the questions below have a ‘right’ answer. They have been picked to start a
discussion. Responses should include examples to help strengthen your arguments.
Should we have censorship? In my opinion censorship should be present in the modern day
world. There has to be rules and regulations otherwise the public would go crazy.
Censorship is a good thing in the fact that it keeps children from hearing and seeing
inappropriate things. For example the filmClockwork Orange has been censored all around
the world so that this can’t influence children. If they were able to watch this it could
potentially put nasty and dark things in their head that they could perceive to be right. I
believe that children are the main circumstance why censorship should be around.
Another reason is how much media influences society. As a community the media and other
sources of information heavily influence us. The media does a poor job seeing things as they
really are in order to follow a convention and to keep their show on air. The media has the
ability to manipulate its viewers in ways that are often unseen. Driven by money, greed and
popularity, most media outlets are fighting to report what they believe we want to hear
instead of what we want to hear which is the truth. In my opinion films, tv shows and games
are the three main topics that should be looked at for censorship. An obvious example is
Grand Theft Auto 5. This is the fastest selling game of all time and is something that
certainly should be censored in my opinion as it promotes a loss of life, loss of innocence
and the small amount of sanity that most of us have.
In which circumstances should we have censorship? I believe that censorship should come
into play for video games and films. This is because it has been proven in the past that
people have been heavily influenced by these things and have taken it too literally. An
example of this is the film Natural Born Killers which has inspired some of the most
gruesome killings in history such as the homicidal couple Sarah Edmonson and Benjamin
Darras. In 1995 the two watched this filmrepeatedly before going on a drug fueled crime
spree of robbing and shooting a convenience store clerk that left her paralysed. During the
spree, Dallas also killed a businessman. A second example is mass murderer James Holmes
who was a frequent player of violent video games such as World of Warcraft. The serial
killer went on a rampage in a movie theatre. Although this does not link directly link to
censorship, because they are both older than 18, it is heavily likely that they started these
tendencies under this age when they were not fully matured. Properly censoring video
games and films in the future, in my opinion will lower such crimes.
In which circumstances should we not have censorship?
In terms of the circumstances why we should not have censorship, one example is that it
ignores people’s rights of freedom. We have the right to think, express and have freedom
and with censorship being in play it makes it hard for us to do that. In other words
censorship violates free speech. Obviously there is an argument that this could become a
huge issue because it could make people dangerous, but people should have the right to be
able to view what they like, and if they are infants the parents should be able to decide
what they can and can’t watch.
Are there any types of media which should be censored? In my eyes television, movies and

2. video games should all be censored because of the fact it has been proven in the past that
people have been negatively influenced by these. For a start people have become serial
killers after seeing other serial killers in action in films. This is because humans become
engrossed into whats going on and then take things too literally and think that it is natural
and okay to perform such an act. In my opinion video games should be the most heavily
censored because of the fact they have reported the most violent acts. Games such as GTA
and Call Of Duty have heavily influenced people to act violent and commit crimes in the
past. People feel more accustomed to doing this when they are playing video games
because they are in control of the situation themselves. Movies and TV however should also
be monitored closely as serial killer shows such as Dexter have been proven to create
monsters in people in the past. I also believe that social media should also be looked at for
censorship. I think it would be wrong for it be censored fully but there should more
restrictions on racism for example on Facebook and Twitter. Like i have previously
mentioned people still have the freedom of rights and should be allowed to express their
opinion to a certain extent, but in my opinion this should be slightly drawn back to avoid
upsetting people.
Are there any types of media which should never be subject to censorship?
Print media for me does not need to be censored. This is because it is written down so no
one can therefore visualise anything. This includes newspapers, magazines and books. In
very rare circumstances it could be argued that certain stories should be censored. However
i believe that none of this comes close to rivalling movies and video games. In general i think
that it is pretty safe to not censor these things because after all we have freedom of speech
and should be aloud to see and speak about what we want to an extent. However there has
been examples in the past where people have been heavily influenced negatively by books.
Christopher Wilder, a serial killer of eight young women in the early mid eighties, was found
to have the book in possession when he shot himself. All in all though this is certainly the
least dangerous type of media to not censor in my opinion and if anything shouldn’t be
censored, Print Media shouldn’t.
Should libraries censor which books they put on the shelves?
Personally i believe that libraries should still be censoring their books for children's sake.
Even though i have already said that books are the least dangerous type of media, i still
think that libraries should be censoring what they put on their shelves. If anything they
should be putting these books into sections to allow people to be able to read what they
want to. If the parent allows the child to read a certain book they should be allowed too, but
the censorship should be placed there as a guide.
Is censorship harmful? In my eyes censorship can be a harmful part of society because it
conditions a population who is not culturally acclimated to the real world and generally that
is extremely dangerous. Censorship is considered a bad thing by many because people
believe that it tries to keep others from learning the truth. Another point why censorship
could potentially be harmful is the fact it could prevent children for learning about the harsh
reality of the real world. Obviously at the end of the day it is their choice as parents to
decide whether they want their kids to learn about certain things but at the end of the day
this is why these guidelines are there.

3. Why do we have age restrictions on video games and films but not on books?
In my opinion the main reason behind this is due to the visual content. I personally do not
agree with this because I think that books should have age restrictions even though i do
agree that they are the least dangerous. At the end of day people could still be as negatively
influenced by reading about a serial killer as they would be watching a serial killer. Another
reason is because with books a person has to be of a certain intelligence in order to
understand the language used, so therefore the theory is there that if you are intelligent
enough to understand the book in the first place then you are old enough to read it. It has
also been proven in the past that video and games and films have inspired a lot more serial
killers than books have. This could potentially be the reason why there are no age
restrictions on books. Although like i said i personally disagree with this.
Who should decide what is censored and what is not? In my opinion the government should
decide censorship but that parents should be allowed to tweak these rules either way for
their children. What I mean by this is that if the government for example bans a film for
under 16s but a 14 year old wants to watch the film they should be allowed to. I believe the
parent should have the final word and if they say it’s alright they should be allowed to watch
it because otherwise it is going against the freedom of rights. I do agree fully though that
the guidelines should be put in place by the government. If for example the general public
decided these rules, it would cause a huge problem as they are very unlikely to have put
much thought into it and will most likely be all over the place as a result.
Should certain ideas be banned from the classroom? As students go through education they
tend to find that more and more things are allowed to be talked about, however there are a
few topics that in my opinion should be banned for certain ages. One topic that i believe
should not be allowed to be discussed in primary school is the theory of creationism. This is
the religious belief that the universe and life originated ‘from specific acts of divine creation’
as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes. In
my opinion children from a young age should be taught the scientifically proven way rather
than a religious theory. This will confuse children in future years into what they actually
believe in and will mess with their young minds. A second example of an idea that should be
banned in primary classroom is the discussion of sex education. It is illegal to have sex under
the age of 16 which is roughly about 5 years too early if you were taught it in year 6. This
potentially can lead to people having sex illegally if they are fully listened into what it is all
about. In my eyes this should be introduced at around the age of 14,15 just before you are
legal.
Should people be granted gagging orders to stop the press reporting something about
them?
In my opinion people should be granted gagging orders to a certain extent because at the
end of the day everyone has human rights and people should be allowed to make their own
decision in terms of what is out there and what is not. An example however of me
disagreeing with this is when a high profile sportsman facing allegations of sexual infidelity
overturned a high rule court that he could be identified. I believe that this was only agreed
too because of who the person was and if this was a regular person their name would have
been thrown out there with no arguments or debate. I personally think that if people were

4. to be granted gagging orders it should apply to everyone rather than just certain special
cases for famous people.
What is the media effects theory? The media effects theory is how media can affect society
and how society affects the media. Some negative impacts of this theory are when people
murder others due to influences from a film or a video game. An example of this was when
Jacob Tyler Roberts enacted a rampage from Grand Theft Auto. A second example was
when Anders Behring Breivik shot 68 people dead at a youth camp of the Norwegian labour
party and played the video game Call of Duty to train for his shooting massacre.
Does it prove that the media affects people?
In my opinion these examples proves that media affects people. It has to be said though
that the media can also influence people in a positive way. For example someone could
watch a filmthat is about real life racismsuch as 12 years a slave and could put people into
perspective. This should hopefully make certain individuals better people.
Are we influenced by advertising?
I personally think that we are heavily influenced by advertising in many different ways. A
first way is people being positively influenced by the positive valuation. Some believe that
the praise heaped on products through advertising is genuine and as all facts rather than
theory. Some of the audience will claimthat this won’t affect them but they will only get to
know positive valuations because negative ones are pretty much unfounded. A second way
is life style identification. Plenty of advertising nowadays connects a brand with a certain
lifestyle. People who can relate to this will feel attracted to these products. In other words
you believe that you will like the product because ‘it is like you’. A final way in which we are
influenced by advertising is that sex sells. Advertisers will put sexy women next to cars, let
handsome actors tell how a great a product is, or have a women in a bikini show how great
a resort is. For men, attractive women will grab their attention. This is what advertisers
want, instantly having our attention as their message by itself to most of us is not really that
interesting.
Should we ban advertising aimed at children?
In my opinion companies selling products such as toys, sweets, clothes and video games
should be prevented from marketing them towards primary school pupils because it is
undermining their natural development. TV ads often misrepresent the benefits of the
products they promote. They routinely remind customers that they actually ‘must have’ a
certain product. Children are vulnerable to this because they lack proper judgement.
Commercials bombard them from a young age about the need for material goods. They
develop in children a mentality that happiness means owning expensive things. Another
reason why i think that there should be a ban for advertising aimed at children is that things
like video games, junk food and expensive toys can have negative effects on children's
development and behaviour. Children exposed to TV commercials may also develop
personality problems.