When it comes to viewpoints on major political issues in the United States and around the world, any number of factors – location, gender, income, Party Affiliation, class, education, interest, family, friends, and many others – can influence both how someone thinks and what they believe. That said, most people who visit politically orientated sites are going to be adults who are interested in politics and know what they believe. With a perspective like this, one can easily forget the interesting take that teens can put on issues – especially when they may not be fully aware of the background behind many of these major issues.
That said, I recently came across a selection of responses by a 10th grade American Studies class (not my class, but the same teacher I had) to questions regarding the first amendment and censorship.
I’ve decided to divide this up into three posts, each with a series of responses and my comments. This is a bit of an unusual series, but I was looking for something a little more whimsical than current events commentary.
The question for part one was simple:
Should the government be allowed to censor books, movies, or magazines? If so, what kind and why?
- “Government should have a clue about what is going on in the society, and try to stop it if it is inappropriate. It should not be as bad as it was in the Soviet Union, where the government censored whatever they pleased…”
- “I don’t really think so. They haven’t been doing it [to the] shows or movies I’ve seen, but id they did, I would wonder why.”
- “Yes… because a little innocent child should [not] read or watch explicit content without parental agreement.”
- “Yes… because this [explicit material] could cause societal and other types of problems.”
- “Yes… [but] only the sexual references… violence is OK.”
- “I think that the government should be allowed to prohibit a minor from buying a sexual book, movie, or magazine because it’s inappropriate for them. But I can’t find a really good reason to not let adults buy them and censor them completely.”
- “I think parents have the right and responsibility to censor what their kids see but I also believe that there should be a pre-limit on what is in the book or movie.”
- “The job is too big and too personal for [the] Federal Government, but the state government, as well as local community government, have the responsibility to protect people from obscenity.”
- “I think that they shouldn’t. I think this because kids are eventually going to see or hear explicit things. It’s that parent’s job to protect their kids from this type of material until their child is at a mature age? And with pornography, kids are required to go through a health class where you see all of that stuff anyway, just in a different form.”
- “No, because we’ve done fine up to this point and if someone doesn’t want to see pornography, then they don’t have to. People have their own ethics and views on what is too far, so the government doesn’t need to take action.”
- “The government should not be able to censor any type of media because it would be denying the first amendment. Our first amendment should be protected no matter what.”
- “No, the government shouldn’t. If someone is putting their time into making something and for an individual audience then the people who find something inappropriate shouldn’t have anything to do with it.”
All in all, I’m happy with the responses and I think it shows that – for the most part – even tenth graders in my area are fairly well informed and ready to make sound political decisions in the future. There are a few responses, however, that I find just a bit amusing.
“Yes… because this [explicit material] could cause societal and other types of problems.”
This is perhaps the most dangerous of all the comments, simply because of the doors such a policy would open up. If we were to censor something simply because it might cause societal ‘problems,’ we’d hardly have any media left to enjoy – just about everything is going to cause some sort of problem, even if it’s so small as upsetting a person for something that is said.
“The government should not be able to censor any type of media because it would be denying the first amendment. Our first amendment should be protected no matter what.”
Perhaps a bit extreme, but definitely on the right track. In my opinion, only material which poses a real danger should be subject to any type of mandatory censorship. It is irresponsible to create a book with detailed steps and explanations on how to build an atomic bomb, but it is also irresponsible to censor a documentary about the history of such a weapon.
“I think that they shouldn’t. I think this because kids are eventually going to see or hear explicit things. It’s that parent’s job to protect their kids from this type of material until their child is at a mature age?”
This one hits my position almost spot on, placing the responsibility for protecting children from explicit content in the hands of parents, where it belongs. Although some (illegal) material must be censored, using the guise of ‘protecting our children,’ to censor disgusting and morally unacceptable materials is a violation of the First Amendment plain and clear.
Check back in the coming days for part two, dealing with what should be considered obscene and who should decide.
