For my Comm 235 class.

In 1961, comedian Lenny Bruce was arrested in San Francisco on obscenity charges. His act included sexual references and challenged religion (Linder, 2003). In 2009, you cannot watch primetime television without the content of the show being heavily centered on sex, drugs or crime. The issue of media censorship in America is one that has been battled for years, but is making obvious advances. The first time a married couple was ever shown sharing a bed on television was on “Mary Kay and Jonny” in 1947 (Brooks, 1999), and now it is common to see unmarried couples engaging in “married activities” without leaving much to the imagination on basic cable. Despite major changes in material, the battle over censorship in the U.S. rages on: the government vs. the citizens. The idea that government intervention in the media, in public, and in literature needs to be censored and protected from the people is not a new one. In 1821, the book Fanny Hill by John Cleland, which included fictional testimonies from a prostitute, was banned and not legally published until 1966 when the ban was finally overturned (Head, n.d.).  The most recent and publicized brush with censorship is the 2003 Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction” in which performer Janet Jackson’s bare breast was exposed on CBS. The television network was fined, though the act was not planned or premeditated.
            The government gives you the gift of freedom, wrapped in the shiny paper of the constitution. However, when you unwrap the present, the box is empty.  In this essay, I hope to show that censorship in the U.S. needs to come to an end. I will explain that censorship directly contradicts the basic rights of United States citizens and that the banning of books is a futile effort. Further, I hope to counter the idea that censorship for protection is the government’s responsibility.
            The first argument for the ending of censorship is that government restriction opposes the right to free speech. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: “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.” (U.S. Constitution, 1791) This amendment is used as evidence constantly to prove innocence in many arrests and court cases. Even though freedom of speech is one of America’s first and most cherished rights, it is also one of the most often disregarded. In the case of the 2003 Super Bowl, for example, a fine was issued to the tune of $550, 000.00, which leaves citizens wondering: what free speech? The fact of the matter is that speech is nowhere near free in the United States. Whether it’s a radio DJ paying a fine to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an activist paying back the friend who bailed her out of jail when she was arrested for protesting, or a rap artist paying to have his album cover pulled and redesigned, the numbers will show that speech is actually very expensive. The FCC gives fines to radio stations, television programs, and other broadcast media for any obscene, explicit, or otherwise “inappropriate” material upwards of $20,000.00. (Quirk, 2004) The constitution gives us the belief that we are protected by free speech, and the media believes that they have freedom of the press, but the truth is, the first amendment is constantly challenged by the governments own agency: the FCC. If we are to be given free speech, it must apply to every person and every situation to truly be considered “free.”
            The second argument against government censorship is in regards to the banning of books.  Banning books is like telling a child to keep their hand out of the cookie jar: when you’re told not to do something you will only feel more inclined and interested to do the forbidden act. If your parents, your school, or your country bans a book you will be intrigued by the content. Another factor is that banning books won’t make them disappear. If one library bans a book, it can be found across town, if not at the local Barnes and Noble or Amazon.com. The American Library Association (ALA) has received over 9,600 book removal requests since 1990 (Plot, 2008). Among these requests are the Harry Potter series and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Obviously, these titles have been read, are being read, and will continue to be read. Advocates for banning will say that witchcraft, sexual content, and foul language need to kept out of the hands of children. However, if a child reads a book with such content in secrecy, they will not have an English teacher or parent to discuss the subject matter with. The child is not only being denied the right to read the book, but the guidance of an adult to help put it into perspective. Overall, the banning of books is a futile effort. The material will continue to be read and the ideas in a book will not disappear with it.
            Obviously, censorship is necessary to a certain degree. There is no need to tarnish a child’s innocence by introducing them to the f-word at age three, and pornographic material should not show up on a school computer. However, technology has made it possible for parents to control what channels their child can access and for schools to block certain websites. In January of 2008, Australian government made the decision to provide only a “clean-feed” of websites to all Australian internet users (Censorship, 2008). This means that this technology is not only available, but that an example has already been made for the United States to follow. The government has as much of a responsibility to the children of this country as it does to the adults, but they cannot raise children. It is ultimately a parent’s responsibility to decide what their children can and cannot see. Government censorship should by no means infiltrate a parent’s ability to raise their children with their unique morals and values.
            Government censorship can take many forms, but censorship of the media is a prevalent issue. Though what is deemed “acceptable” is rapidly and liberally evolving, censorship remains.
Government censorship denies our First Amendment right to free speech, and in the case of the media, freedom of press. The banning of books and other such practices have proven to be futile in the United States and should be abolished. Some say that censorship is “a necessary evil” to protect children; however, technology has made it possible for parents to censor to their preferences and the government should be left out of it. We need to stand up to our government in order to eradicate media censorship. Citizens of the U.S. need to shout it out, loud and proud: $&.# censorship!