AREA 1: Attack Significance (Harms)
The government does see profanity as a problem but not a significant problem. The United States has an obscenity law that prohibits any regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity. Profanity has been a problem in today’s society as children pick up profanity from movies, music, and TV shows. Censoring profanity is a way for parents to protect their children from picking up obscene words or viewing obscene images. Many Americans are against the use of profanity in media and in public, because it’s very uncivil to displace such foul words that would cause a nuisance to others. As stated on Geghard presentation slide 7, “Children will learn words and used them”. I agree that many of the children will learn profanity one way or another, whether it be in school or on the television. Yes, children will be exposed to profanity and obscene pictures sooner or later, but we can protect them and keep the obscenity away. By censoring media we can limit children from picking up profanity. The obscenity law does seem to arise problems with the 1st amendment for freedom of speech. Swearing is really not a big deal, considering where is used and how it’s used. According to CNN, in Middleborough Massachusetts, people voted to ban swearing in public and violators have to pay a $20 fine.
AREA 2: Attack Inherency
The government has proven that the status quo is flawed, that’s why many American are trying to ban obscenity like profanity from the media. Even with the obscenity law, there are still a lot of profanity and graphic images in the media. Obscenity is very fluently present in almost every media, such as music and movies. The government has effectively identify the inherency in the obscenity in the media. It’s against the law to have obscene, indecent and profane broadcast, stated by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). There is already a law that prevents obscenity to be broadcast which is in effect. In order to further prevent obscenity, the government is censoring profanity in the music industry and having age limits to the access of obscene media. For example, obscene videos on YouTube, must have your age confirmed before view an obscene video.
AREA 3: Attack Plan
The plan to nullify the FCC’s regulations against profanity will fail, because majority of the Americans are against profanity presented in the media. Many parents blame the media for their children picking up profanity and violence. The FCC’s regulation are there for protection of Americans from obscene media. There is no requirement for enforcement because profanity doesn’t have any benefiting factors at all. There is no benefit for nullifying the regulation of profanity on broadcast, there is only harm that would expose younger children to profanity and swearing. Funding might not be required for this plan of action on slide 8, “Save some not paying people to waste time editing and censoring work”. This will not benefit the economy that is already losing many job opportunities, this will only increase job loss.
AREA 4: Attack Solvency
The plan of action does not solve the harms. By removing censorship does not declare the power to govern ourselves. Removing censorship doesn’t benefit our society but only cause the younger generations to act out, by swearing more. How does allowing profanity in the media industry, prove our independence? In actuality, allowing profanity in the media only harm the younger generations, our children and the image of society.
AREA 5: Attack Advantages (address each advantage independently) The advantages are non-unique, there is no benefit in this plan of action. It also does not require a plan to occur. It seems like the government has not shown any signs of the advantage occurring. This advantage is a disadvantage towards our future generations and towards society. Swearing in public is unpleasant and shows that society is uneducated....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document