Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
I need help creating a thesis and an outline on Censorship in the Media. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required.
I need help creating a thesis and an outline on Censorship in the Media. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. 230). Times have changed since then, particularly in the range of different media available beyond the written and pictorial sources that the first amendment had in mind. Nevertheless, this legislation is an important national aspiration which is used to argue for media freedom. There have been many subsequent challenges to this absolute statement, in the form of court cases, new laws and systems of control and surveillance which seek to prevent the circulation of material which is deemed to be harmful to the public, libellous or in some other way objectionable. When an authority intervenes to limit media freedoms this is called censorship, and this censorship can become so ingrained into society that media either voluntarily or through various means of persuasion and regulation undertake their own self-censorship in order to avoid litigation and the negative effects of consumer disapproval. There are three main arguments which are advanced to challenge the absolute right to freedom of speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment, and in similar legislation in other countries. The first is that censorship is necessary to protect the young. The second is that censorship is necessary as a means to uphold standards of public decency, and the third is related to political ideologies, and the idea that censorship should be enforced in certain circumstances to deny criminals, terrorists and enemies of state any chance of promiting their views to the public at large. This paper examines these three arguments and maintains that censorship in all of these contexts is neither appropriate nor effective. It is self evident that both individuals and the state have a duty to protect the young from harm. Human infants are born defenceless, unable to feed and care for themselves, and unable to perceive or avoid all kinds of approaching dangers. It is equally obvious that these dangers can be physical or emotional, and some would argue also spiritual. Adults have a responsibility to ensure that children are protected from all kinds of harm, regardless what type, or from what source. It is a very big leap, however, to argue that censorship of the media is necessary to prevent children from running into material that is likely to cause them emotional distress or psychological damage. A useful analogy might be the case of electricity. Most adults know that electricity can be incredibly useful for a multitude of good and bad purposes, from keeping a hospital going, to providing warmth and power for domestic appliances, even to providing the means to carry out the death penalty in some states. It is a valuable commodity that can be dangerous as well as useful. It can be put to good, bad and questionable uses. No one argues that because electricity can kill people, it should not be freely accessible in a domestic setting. People recognise the dangers electricity can present and they train their toddlers from a very young age not to touch live sources of power. Sockets are covered up, and appliances are kept out of reach but by the time a child reaches school, there has been sufficient parental training and media reinforcement to equip children with the knowledge and skills they require to avoid the worst dangers of electricity and take increasing advantage of its many benefits. Just as it is with electricity, so it is with the media.