I’m working on a Business exercise and need support.
Respond with 200 words each.
Rebecca – I do agree that in some instances the Government should have the ability to regulate information that is given to the public. However in my opinion I do not agree that news should be regulated. I believe that if a adult or child is watching the news then it should not be regulated. That leads to Americans not fully understanding what is happening in the world around them. I believe we should know what is going on in the world without a filter. However on other things like radio broadcast or just a regular show, I do think needs some regulation. You never know when a child may be just scrolling through channels and you want to trust that you do not have to stand over there in case you need to turn off the TV. Having kids myself I know they repeat a lot of what they hear. While some people do not see certain words as hateful or bad, other people will. You can raise your child however you want (within reason obviously) however people have to right to sensor their children. If they do not want them knowing certain things.
After listening to the broadcast of the Federal Appeals Court, I noticed a few things. Certain things should not be said on TV however we have things in place to help if some things slip out. This includes the little “bleep” noise that happens if someone curses or says something vulgar. The only problem is that is not always fast enough since some TV shows/segments are live. That is where the issue came in with Fox. They did win the appeal which shocked a lot of people. I agree that sometimes you forget when you can and can not say certain things. I know it is hard not to curse around the kids and sometimes I slip. I agree that it would be smart to change some of the rules and regulations however like the broadcast said it will be hard with currently laws in place.
Nancy – Freedom of speech but…Right to be free but…Right to express but… Reading the constitution and see so many cases, so many issues as to the interpretation of it either by lawyers that are expert in interpreting it or Justice Judges that live for the constitution. It remains a code that need to crack and us the people are at the mercy of another human trying to interpret it and depend on how they feel that day, decide your fate.
Since the constitution was created, it always have different interpretation, thus, the meaning they attached to it. Article I and II keep overlapping with each other and although the system was created for check and balance in the surface, but deep down that is not what is being portrayed.
In this case regarding regulated information that is given to the public, in one side I would say that regulating what is being showed or said in broadcast radio and television could be a good thing as it says is to protect the younger viewers or listeners. However we can not say if it is true or not. If the government wanted to protect young audience as they said, they would not protect hateful speech in the first amendment.
As we read the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law … or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….” while many countries ban hateful languages, the US government welcome it and protect it. So does that mean it is okay to teach young audience hate but they can not hear coarse languages? This part of the fence should not be left to US government but rather the state. The first amendment clearly stated that congress should NOT MAKE NO LAW. Why is it that they interfering in this matter?
Obscene language was never part of the first amendment and the government should not have the ability to regulate any “information”, information is the key word. The public deserve to know information. The government overreaching their authorities and it is unlawful or should we say unconstitutional to regulate the information giving to the public. I understand they saying that they doing it to protect the young audience, however it seems to me as a cover up to control the information that is going to the public.
In the case Miller v. California (1973) the judges was trying to put a meaning to what is obscene, under the Miller test, obscenity is something that appeals to deviants, breaks local or state laws, and lacks value. While freedom of the press and speech is an important aspect for the Bill of Rights, as all of the other amendment, that freedom is not absolute and open for the US Government to regulate. Thus, while I am against the government interfering with media information, however I could see how it is important for the government to regulate but I refuse to believe it is because of young audience.