The document discusses censorship and whether it should be banned. It considers different views on censorship of books, TV shows, films and video games. While censorship aims to protect people, it can be harmful by altering creative works or implying that certain groups or topics should be hidden. The document concludes that censorship should be banned, as consumers can make their own choices about what media to engage with, and there are already systems like ratings and watersheds to help guide viewing. Overall, censorship claims to protect but ultimately limits free expression and the individual's right to choose.

1. Censor ship case study.
Should it be banned?
In regards to censorship, there are many opinions whether it should be banned
or not. I am going to discussing the subject ,and giving my opinion on the
matter.At the end, I will be deciding whether censorship really should be banned.
I think that books should not be censored because you would be editing someone
work that they had spent ages writing. I’m not sure if books have age ratings but
it seems that if you didn’t want to read everything in that book , you wouldn’t of
bought it in the first place. Also if you are buying a book you expect it to be
sensored you would want to read the original.
For example a childrens book involving a lesbian couple and their kids was
banned from a library in America. They altered it so the children needed to get
parental permission to view the book before take it out of the library. Personally,
I feel that at is wrong it to ban a book , just because it has a lesbian couple in it;
people should be taught that other type of relationships do exist other than
hetero sexual.
Alternatives to censorships
In TV we have the ‘watershed’ ,which is where anything that is contains
anything offensive like swearing is shown after 9 oclock. This normally prevents
young children viewing inapproiate things because thye will already be in bed.
we have age certificates to decide who views a certain media product . this is
used in video games and films .For example, if a movie is an 18 certificate, it
should only be viewed by someone who is 18 or over. This is strict rule in
cinemas as if a film is a 15 or an 18 you may need to show your ID to be let in to
view the film. However, once films hit the shops you could ask your parents to
buy you a film rating that’s older than your age as the identification to buy films
still applys in shops. Therefore, I feel that it is more of a decision of the parents to
whether their child can view a film and whether it is a propitiate or not for their
kids.
Also, we have ‘warnings’ present before a TV program starts, which warns the
viewer about what they will see in the program. The purpose of this is to warn
the audience of ‘harmful’ content, which will present in the product they have a
choice whether they want to still view the product or not. For examples the
warnings could say ‘the program contains very strong language and nudity’, then
you would expect to hear swearing and see people naked/half naked. I know a
few programs who use warnings: one being Geordie Shore and another being Big
Brother/celebrity big brother. Geordie Shore has a warning at the start of the
program and warnings after each commercial break. Big Brother usually has a
warning at the start of their program to let them know what to expect when

2. viewing. I think this a good alternative to censorship because it isn’t altering the
program in any way. Also, it gives the audience the choice the decide whether
this program is suitable for them.
There is a media effects theory explains that when we consume media, it
influences you. The effect influences the way we are and the way we act, due to
the things that are shown in the media. This could be in a numbers of ways.
For example you could pick up how people talk and how people act, but that is
not necessarily bad or harmful. For example when I started to watch ‘the only
way is Essex’ , I started to say the word ‘reem’ because Joey Essex was saying it.
Also I have noticed that people use what is said on Geordie shore.
I think real issue and conspiracy comes from violence shown in media.
Personally I think that this will not have an effect on the people viewing because
people have been taught right from wrong and what moral and immoral. If I was
watching a film for instance like Friday the 13th, which is a horror movie, I would
know not to do anything that is in the film because I know it is wrong. Also I feel
like most movies put all this violence, abuse and swearing in to make in impact
on the audience, to show that it is wrong.
I think the majority of people who engage with products which contain mature
content, have a moral compass and know the difference between right and
wrong. In my opinion, films are not the thing which has the greatest effect on
people because they are different things happen on each movie and different
actors and actresses are present.
I think video games may be the main media products to have an impact on
people, especially younger people. Video games do have age ratings, like films,
but that still doesn’t stop kids under the age rating getting their hands on the
products as ive explained previously. People can regularly engage with video
,like COD (call of duty) and GTA (grand theft auto). COD contains violence
because you have shoot people who are shooting you, which is like self-defense.
GTA involves stealing cars, violence and women being sexualized, which
portrays the negativity. I think GTA could have negative effect on young people
as the more they play it, the more they could think it’s okay to do that.
I think that constant viewing and long term of video games or other similar
media that contains bad practices, may be harmful as People may get too
wrapped up in the digital world and it may start to become their reality. The
cumination theory suggests that single viewing of a violent media product will
not affect someone but repeated exposure to violence in the media , is likely to
desensitize the person from violence ,in reality and in media. Censorship could
help the game from being as violent and protect its viewers but then again I feel
this would change how much they enjoy the media product.
In conclusion to whether media does have an effect/impact on its viewer, I will
say this: media a products do contain bad things but it doesn’t mean the viewing
audience will reenact these things or use them in their life. It’s doesn’t depend on
what a person watches no matter how bad it is; it depends on the person
watching it. A small number of people may think it’s acceptable to carry out the
acts seen in the media because they don’t have a moral compass. If you showed,
people the same media product to different peopled they would all have a

3. different opinion on it. I do feel that younger people are more impressionable so
I do feel parents should over see what their child is consuming.
I think this the media theory has it’s down sides, I think it relates to hypodermic
needle model. The hypodermic needle model suggests that the audience just
accepts what is told or shown to them in the media. The hypodermic needle
theory assumes the audience is passive. The media effects theory is assuming
that the audience is passive, its thinks that the audience is going to use what they
see in the media in their real life, but they have their own minds and can make
their own choices. I can understand that media may affects people in some sort
way as I have explained previously but are these people going to become mass
murderers from playing too many video g
Is censor ship harmful?
Initially I would have said ‘no censorship isn’t not harmful’ because people may
only take out harmful material. I have changed my opinion into thinking that
censor ship can be harmful because people have the power to change a media
product drastically. Censorship can take many forms and effect different media
products, I feel some forms of censorships are more harmful, and some
censorship are more useful than others. You can say censorship protects from
truth as censorship alters a product so it suitable for all audiences to view. On
the flip side, you could say censorship isn’t harmful in some ways, especially if it
protecting younger kids from harmful like swearing, violence and nudity. But if
you think about it, most shows are seen as harmful would be shown after 9pm,
when kids are likely to be asleep, so they won’t be effected.
Who should decide what is censored and what is not?
I think it should censorship should be provided by broasters/publishers/labels
of a type of media. For example, there are shows like Geordie Shore and Ex on
the beach, which are produced and broadcasted by MTV, so I feel they should
censor their own shows. I feel like this is a good idea for them to do this because
it is their show and it shouldn’t it changed. However, I think it would be good for
an external person to check whether the content is suitable to be broadcasted at
that time or not. I feel like it is important that a product isn’t changed severely by
censorship but I also feel some censorship may be nesscessary.
I feel like in some circumstances we should have censorship to protect people in
in different ways. I feel like it is important to censorship some nudity in media
because protect people from viewing and it protects people from being
indecently exposed on TV. On TV shows like big brother and Geordie shore, they
have people who are indecent on them, so I feel like for sake of the people who’s
body is on show they should be censored. I feel like this will protect the person
from their body being exposed to the audience to view, and if they did it could
result in abuse towards the person as people can be judgmental. Also, I feel like
the audience may not want to see people half naked and it may be unsuitable for
some people to view. People may think that censorship shouldn’t be used to

4. protect public figures on TV shows because they have chosen to participate in
that show. I think that this should be censored because the person may be
unaware of that part of them is indicent. I think that when it comes to protecting
children I feel like things should be censored depending on the time broadcast,
for example if they are broadcast at 9/10 and later, then parts shouldn’t be
censored for children but if there is anything that could harm children viewed on
the screen should be removed or altered. Kids are easily impressionable and can
pick up things quickly so you need to be careful what you show to them as it
could affect them. For example, if children get exposed to swearing they think it
is acceptable for them to say it but it is seen wrong to swear.
I feel we are influenced to some degree by advertising. Advertising tries to raise
awareness, give information or sell a product or service usually. I feel like
advertising tries to make you feel a certain way towards something. For example,
if there is a water said advert trying to make you donate money and raise
awareness to water shortages by making you feel sympathetic towards them
because we have an easy supply to water and we take it for granted; this also
doesn’t mean people will pay the money to water aid. Also, if an advert is trying
to sell something it will only show the positives of the product so when you buy
you may come to realized its not as perfect as you first thought. Say if you see the
beats ear phones advert with all these different celebrities dancing with ear
phones on , which makes you think they must be good ,I would like to buy them.
Once you get to the website and they turn out to be $150, the advert doesn’t
mention any prices points; not everyone would pay that for a pair of ear phones,
no matter how unique they are, to other ear phones.
After discussing the different aspects of censorship, I have come to a conclusion.
I feel that ultimately censorship should be banned. I feel this way because
censorship claims to be put in place to protect people, but these people would be
consuming media if they didn’t want to see certain things; they can a choice not
to engage in certain that may be seen as offensive. I think why should something
be changed, especially books just because some people do not agree with its
content or what has been published; people do have a right to free speech and
express their opinions. Initially I thought it shouldn’t be banned because for the
sake of children or venerable people, but I feel like their parent or guardian
should be the ones to say this isn’t suitable for you rather than altering
something so its milder. Also, I feel like we don’t need censorship as much as
people think we do because there is alternatives like I said previously; we have
things like warnings and the 9pm watershed to stop people from viewing
something unsuitable. Different people find different things offensive so the
majority of the time things which are censored we have heard it before.People
can watch they like and things should be changed just because a smaller group of
people find it offensive; simply if you don’t like it, don’t read, watch or listen.