facebook twitter

Communication a good alternative to censoship

Posted on Jun 09, 2009 in Opinion

Share|

I understand that children probably shouldn’t watch television shows and movies, visit websites, read books, or listen to songs that contain excessive references to sex, violence and profanity. But is the censorship of those things really the best solution?

Green Day has just released a new album, but Wal-Mart is refusing to sell it because the band is refusing to have it censored. In my opinion, censorship of music is wrong and unnecessary. It is wrong because the artists who produce the music make it a certain way for a reason. The artists do not intend for there to be blank spots in the lyrics, or garbled nonsense where their lyrics should be.

Censorship of music is unnecessary because it is quite easy for those offended by the uncensored content to avoid that content: just don’t buy it. And if it’s parents who are concerned about their children being exposed to the uncensored content, that’s even easier. How often is a child younger than sixteen going to get into a CD store by him or herself in order to sneak behind the parents’ backs and buy a racy CD? By the age of sixteen, I think they can handle questionable lyrics.

As a musician, I have strong feelings about the subject of censoring music. Music is an art, and censoring it is like putting black bars over nude women in classic paintings, or scratching out crude references in classic plays and poetry.

Censorship of television and internet content goes beyond eliminating the questionable content. There are such things as parental controls on television and the Internet. Parents can actually block entire channels or websites they don’t want their children to see. I’ve tried to see both sides of this situation, but I’m siding with the kids.

If I had a young child, I probably wouldn’t want him or her to watch several of the shows I watch. Young children probably shouldn’t watch “Grey’s Anatomy” because of the sex and graphic surgery scenes, or “The Office” because of the often crude humor, or “Lost” because – let’s face it – they just wouldn’t understand it. But let’s stop and think: would young children really want to watch any of this stuff? So what’s the point of blocking it?

Maybe the parental controls aren’t necessarily for primetime shows like the ones listed above. Maybe they’re more for shows that come on racier channels, such as FX, HBO, and Showtime. When it comes to those sorts of channels, I suppose I can see where parental blocking could come in handy, but I think it’s too extreme. If a child is sneaking behind their parents’ backs to watch “True Blood” and “Dexter,” I think rather than blocking HBO and Showtime, the parents should spend more time with the child.

When I was younger, my parents used to work jigsaw puzzles with me. It was a great opportunity for conversation and I think it contributed to the close relationships – and friendships – I have with both of my parents today. So perhaps a solution for protection from the evils of television is not to block the bad channels. Maybe a better tactic is just turning the machine off altogether, especially right before bedtime when all the scary and vulgar shows come on.

What about the greater evil, the Internet? With television, the explicit content usually doesn’t show up until later in the day. However, the Internet never sleeps. There are horrible things all over the web twenty-four hours a day. How do we keep kids from finding this stuff?

I see more benefits of parental controls for the internet over the television. Parents would probably want to block porn sites. That’s pretty basic. But if a child knows how to find those sites, a bigger problem arises.

However, some sites, like YouTube and Wikipedia might seem innocent but can contain some vulgar material. Often, people will upload vulgar videos on YouTube and give them seemingly harmless tags to attract more viewers. On Wikipedia, disturbing topics can be found that may not be appropriate for children like: detailed cannibalism, Jeffery Dahmer, various reproductive organs, Satan, and the Kama Sutra.

Taking away freedom is not the way to protect children. Parents should develop a good line of communication with their children, teaching them what is right and what is wrong. But really, is it the worst thing if a child sees or hears something bad on television or the Internet? If a child happens to see a violent fight, or hear a dirty word on television, parents should be able to talk to the child and explain that violence and profanity shouldn’t be emulated.
A simple alternative to censorship: communication.

Email: hwebber@uab.edu