The document discusses various topics around censorship and censorship debates. It presents arguments for and against censorship of different media such as films, video games, books, and news/government information. It also discusses who should decide what content is censored, the influence of advertising including on children, and whether people should be granted gagging orders to prevent certain information about them being reported by the press.

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?
https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/18.html
Censorship is the act of censoring books, films, music, government officials also as they are
considered immoral or secret. Censorship will occur when something isn’t suitable for the
audience for example, if a film is rated 18 that means people underage the age of 18
shouldn’t be viewer or consuming the product as it could be emotionally distressful or
harmful for that individual to be viewing. Another example would be the ASA. The ASA is the
advertising standards agency. This is a company that makes sure that the ads that a released
are suitable for the public.
I think censorship is relevant for lots of reasons. I believe the act of censoring films, books
and films is needed. Children should not be witnessing any forms of graphic violence, sexual
scenes or drug use. The reasons for this being, children at such a young age could be
damaged by seeing these explicit things. For example, Anders Breivik shot 68 people dead at
a youth camp. Allegedly he used the game call of duty to practice for the shooting. This is
one of the reasons children should not be playing these types of games. If they play these
games at a young age they could interoperate the character and they could think that killing
people isn’t as bad as it seems. This I why I think things should be censored to stop children
being damaged at a young age. Another thing I think should be censored is government
secretes. As terrorist could use information like that to cause lots of issues.
In which circumstances, should we not have censorship?
I think we shouldn’t be censoring the news. This is because I think everyone should know
what’s going on in the world weather your young or old. Also think when someone commits
a crime and it’s been on the news, they should release the names of the people committing
these major crimes. I think if you censor the news you are taking away our writes to know
what’s going on in the world. Children who watch the news may be damaged as the news
can be shocking. But I think that’s down to the parents putting it on in front of them or not
monitoring their child properly on what they are doing.
Are there any types of media which should be censored?
I think all social media platforms should be censored for example YouTube, Facebook,
Instagram etc. Any child could go on YouTube and look at a violent video or a video with
swearing in it. I believe this is wrong as that defeats the acts of censoring games and films as
you can just type it in on YouTube and see it that way. I think YouTube should be censored.
It is to a degree but it doesn’t censor every video. I think it should as children can still be
damaged. Other things like Twitter and Facebook aren’t censored at all. You have to be a
certain age to sign up but most youth tend to lie about their ages to access these pages. I
think all of these sites need to censor more and keep on top of it.

2. Why do we have age restrictions on video games and films but not on books?
We have censorship on films and games so youth don’t receive content that is inappropriate
and damaging. We don’t have censorship on books but we don’t have inappropriate books
in schools and colleges where youth can be exposed. This doesn’t stop an underage person
going into a library and buying an inappropriate book. I think one of the reasons books
haven’t been censored or age restricted is because most youth won’t be going to a book
store and buying mature books. But on the other hand there is a select few that will do that
and they will be exposed as there is no restriction. For example, if an underage child read
Fifty Shades of Grey that will change their outlook on life at such a young age and it could be
very damaging. Books have also influenced people to commit murder for example, The
Catcher in the Rye. This book has been associated with several shootings, including Robert
John Bardo’s murder of Rebecca Schaeffer and john Hinckley’s assassination attempt on
Ronald Reagan. This proves that books can be influential.
If you look at video games they have an age rating to stop young people interacting with
sex, drugs, violence and gambling. If we didn’t have age ratings on games more children will
be exposed to all these inappropriate things. For example, a child killed his father and his
brother with and gun, knife and machete. The child stated that he enjoyed playing as Trevor
in GTA 5, which inspired him to emulate the violent character’s actions in real life. Trevor
plays a very violent part in the video game who plays a role in shooting people for no
reason. Age restricting this product will allow less children to be exposed to such violent
games. Children are more likely to play video games then read a book, plus it is more
interactive and visual then a book. This is why there have been lots of cases on children
taking influence on games then books.
In my opinion I think books should have an age rating as youth could be damaged. Adding
an age restriction will decrease the chances of minors becoming exposed to inappropriate
content and will keep them out of trouble the less they know about violence, drugs, sex and
gambling at such a young age.
Who should decide what is censored and what is not?
I believe organisations like BBFC, OFFCOM and ASA are the people that should be deciding
what should be censored and what’s not because they have managed to do a good job of
censoring

3. Should people be granted gagging orders to stop the press reporting something about
them?
I think they should and shouldn’t for example, Cliff Richards the singer sued the BBC for
ruining his reputation. The reasons behind this being that Cliff was falsely excused of
sexually assault. The BBC betrayed cliff as a bad person before he had even been proven of
these charges. Cliff said “Everywhere I have ever been, I felt my name was smeared” he said
“the police didn’t do that the BBC did” I think the BBC shouldn’t have released this news at
all and I think he should have been granted a gagging order in this case. On the other hand if
a criminal has been proven of a crime then I believe the name should be released and that
criminal needs to be put to shame.
Are we influenced by advertising?
I feel as if we are because adverts are everywhere you can’t escape from them. Adverts will keep
showing you a product until is indented in your brain. So when someone mentions to you they need
new power cleaner, you’ll go ‘why not try that new cillit bang’ Adverts inform you about things you
don’t necessarily need but you have note of them. So the next time you’re in a stop and you need
power cleaner you’ll remember the advert and you’ll buy it. Another thing is cookies. Cookies know
what you’ve been looking at so adverts know what to advertise you. You’ll be looking at a pair of
shoes you can’t afford, then on pay day you get advertisement pop up on the side of the page of the
shoes you forgot about and you go buy them. Overall advertisements are unavoidable and they
influence is whether we like it or not we don’t have a choice.
Should we ban advertising aimed at children?
Yes, I think we should as they are too young to be manipulated by advisement. Children are
at such a young age don’t have any concept of money, saving and the fact they these
adverts are out to persuade you to make you buy all their products. Children just see loads
of colour and they just think they want that cool new toy. I think advertisement should be
aimed at people who know the concept of money and spending. Another thing is I think
children shouldn’t be shown adverts with products that can be bad for them, for example
sweets. There are bans on children’s TV on junk food adverts but when children are
watching TV with their parents and a Junk food advert comes on they can be exposed that
way. A boy said in an interview for a health charity said he could “lick the screen” when a
junk food advert came on. I think this goes to show that children shouldn’t be shown
adverts like these as it can make them crave something. Now if you change the sweets to a
toy, you can still imagine that child will still crave the toy. Overall I think children are too
easy to manipulate at such a young age and I believe that they shouldn’t be shown
advertisements.

4. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gta-5-14-year-old-boy-kills-father-brother-inspired-by-violent-
character-trevor-1442418