Our first rebuttal point is that Censorship would take away our first amendment rights The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, "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." Censorship according to the Encyclopedia Britannica is "The Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good." Censorship, therefore, undermines and is contrary to the First Amendment, which is intended to allow freedom of speech. The second rebuttal is that it is impossible to define what is subversive or inappropriate writing or speech. People define offensive or inappropriate material from different viewpoints. For example, someone might find some of the material on TV's reality show "Fear Factor" outrageous, whereas another person may find it very entertaining. Therefore, instead of censoring material it should be the person's responsibility whether or not they watch something. Nowadays, it is very easy to read up on a TV program before it airs, such as reading a TV guide or going on the internet for more information. The other option would be just to pick up the remote control and change the channel. If a majority are allowed to determine what is inappropriate or offensive material then the minority is discriminated against. If it is defined by the powerful such as large corporations, then the weak are discriminated against. This could lead to minority or individual opinions being crushed. In 1996, a group of powerful cattle ranches tried to sue Oprah Winfrey because she expressed an opinion that she might become a vegetarian, implying that eating beef would cause her physical harm. After the show cattle prices dropped for two weeks so the ranchers sued Oprah for...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document