Get help from the best in academic writing.

Television and Censorship – Violence Rating System Needed for TV

Violence Rating System Needed for TV Programs

While society recognizes the detrimental effects of general television on children, parents and other child advocacy groups don’t feel as though there is an adequate rating system. Consequences of ineffective rating systems are that children’s personalities are being negatively affected. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made legislation to address this issue, but the children’s advocacy community is still dissatisfied. This community includes The National PTA, the American Psychological Association, The Center for Educational Priorities and other child advocacy groups. Current discussions include the government and FCC’s disregard for parent’s feedback on current ratings systems, the violence chip’s effectiveness as a simple solution and the current movie-based ratings system. Educational shows like Sesame Street significantly increase general school readiness skills, but the average American child is exposed to 25 hours of television each week and parents demand a system they feel accurately evaluates all television shows.

As part of this legislative process for Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104, statistical research on television’s effects was done. For example in 1972, the Surgeon General reported that evidence shows a link between television violence and aggressive behavior (APA 1998). The American Psychological Association goes on to say that these lawmakers aren’t responsive enough to feedback done by parent groups. They contend that the government isn’t active in enforcing or defining the phrase “educational and informational”(CEP 1997). This results in the entertainment industry gaining profit by continuing to increase detrimental conten…

… middle of paper …

…~burniske/utopia98/student/causal/smith/ accessed October 11, 1998.

Center for Educational Priorities “Telecommunication Act of 1996” available online. accessed October 15, 1998.

Center for Media Education “Children’s Television Act Toolkit” available online. accessed October 28, 1998.

Children Now Organization “Summary of Key Differences Between V-Chip Rating Systems” available online accessed October 26, 1998.

Jeremy Craig. “Understanding the Ratings System” Children Now Organization. Available online. (c)1997,1998.> accessed October 11,1998.

Abortion – Pro-choice Philosophy and Abstinence

Pro-choice Philosophy and Abstinence

We recognize no single, universal, objective moral truth that determines our moral decisions. On the contrary, we must consider a broad range of values whenever we seek to make wise, ethical, and compassionate choices. We respect a woman’s moral capacity to make decisions regarding her health and welfare, including reproductive decisions.

A woman’s choices reflect how she weighs her various life circumstances: her important relationships, her economic, social, and emotional resources and obligations, her health, her religious or philosophical beliefs, and the well-being of others for whom she has responsibility.

We live out our destinies in a world of vast and profound complexity, where claims upon our compassion and our judgment compete and often conflict. A woman respects the preciousness of human life by acknowledging and honoring the intricate tapestry of her relationships and commitments; indeed, we believe that the complexity of human life can be a source of moral wisdom and courage. The woman’s ability to choose is rooted in her individual conscience, not in her adherence to ancient religious superstitious beliefs.

In preparation for hearings on the renewal of the federal abstinence-only education provision, the National Coalition Against Censorship and 35 endorsing organizations, including the National Education Association, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, launched the “Campaign Against Abstinence-Only Education.”

In a joint statement released yesterday, the groups said that they are deeply concerned about publicly funded sexuality education programs that restrict students’ access to information and limit learning to one approved message about human sexuality. Students should be allowed to make up their own minds about whether to remain virgin, whether to engage in sexual promiscuity, whether to follow parental advice or not, and countless other issues related to human sexuality.

The statement also said that a provision in federal law mandating abstinence-only education in schools is censorship of sexual information because it does not give students access to condoms, to contraceptive pills and devices,and it “silences speech about sexual orientation,” as well as limiting the students’ free expression of their sexual rights in other ways.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.