Censorship of Media Violent Essay

The development of the modern society is characterized by the emergence of new technologies, especially information technologies and new telecommunication systems. In such a situation, the role of mass media becomes particularly significant because they affect consistently the formation of views of individuals and the public opinion. At the same time, the violence in mass media can have a considerable impact on the formation of individuals and on the formation of their behavior. At this point, specialists point out that the growing prominence of computers in contemporary life, often seemingly with minds of their own, invites rethinking the question of moral responsibility (Hanson, 91). In such a context, the possibly future development of automated systems and new ways of thinking about responsibility will spawn plausible arguments for the moral responsibility of nonhuman agents. For the present, however, questions about the mental qualities of robots and computers make it unwise to go this far (Hanson, 94). At the same time, the development of new technologies confronts the problem of the ignorance of possible problems that arise as mass media and their impact on individuals and society grow stronger. Awareness of consequences and freedom of choice, which indeed are limited to the human conspirators, are necessary but not sufficient conditions for moral responsibility (Hanson, 96). Obviously, the progress of mass media being enhanced by new technologies, raises the problem of conducting responsible policies, including policies related to violence in media. In such a context, specialists suggest the joint responsibility perspective encourages constructive, moral behavior in all contexts. Under moral individualism people are isolated in their skin bags, independent of other things (Hanson, 98).
At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the computer-mediated interaction poses new challenges for theories and models of social interaction concerned with relationships between humans and tools. New forms of participation available to us through the ability to transmit digitized representations of ourselves are reshaping ideas of space and time relationships as well as everyday practices. People are building new interactional spaces with computers and with the Internet (Keating, 527). Specialists (Keating, 527) argue that the mass media and modern technologies lead to the rise of the complex process of changes that affect interaction between people. This process emerges in interactions as focuses on the following: (1) enhancements and constraints in perceptive abilities and systems, including visual perception; (2) new abilities to move the human body or change the size of the human body in space and new relationships to physical space; (3) changes in participation opportunities; (4) changes in forms of agency and power; (5) changes in communication forms, and how to produce collaborative, recipientdesigned actions; and (6) realization of new potentials that go beyond current or imagined abilities (Keating, 531). In such a context, the lack of regulation, including the government censorship over mass media becomes dangerous because it wreaks havoc not only in mass media but also in the society.
At this point, it is possible to refer to some studies, which reveal current threats from the part of mass media and their impact on the public consciousness as well as violence in mass media that may lead to the violence in the real life as well as the use of mass media for violence in the real life. For instance, Anderson argues that mass media can be used by terrorists and the violence the audience see through mass media attracts the audience. For instance, the author refers to a case of hijacking. During the hijacking, the captors set up televised interviews with the hostages and held the first televised hostage news conference (Anderson, 129). In such a context, the author argues that mass media can be a dangerous tool in hands of terrorists, especially if media are out of public or government control. The persistent analyses of how the media should and should not respond to terrorism will continue as long as such activities take place, and we may never come up with satisfactory answers (Anderson, 131). In this regard, the author argues that government censorship is one of the tools that can be used to regulate mass media and prevent the transformation of mass media into a tool of terrorism, while mass media cover violence in abundance. On the other hand, the author argues that censorship by government officials would be a grievous mistake, and so-called general guidelines are too often vague or unsuited to particular events to be useful in these kinds of situations (Anderson, 132). In fact, this means that the author insists on the limited government censorship over mass media because the control of the government over mass media should not be excessive. Otherwise, the freedom of speech will be under a question.
At the same time, Calvert explores legal implications of mass media violence and government censorship. The researcher places emphasis on the fact that the social reality that underlies such judicial logic is that sexual and violent imagery is pervasive today in our popular culture, and laws that single out for censorship particular forms of media – television, video games or the Internet, for instance – that convey such content are simply futile efforts that fail to resolve anything when other media (and culture more generally) are left unregulated (Calvert, 159). The development of mass media and the regulation from the part of the government is essential because the development of mass media may go out of control, whereas its impact on individuals and the public grows stronger. In actuality, the legislation should adapt changes which can meet new challenges and prevent such problems as excessive violence in mass media, including internet, video games, and other mass media. The government cannot ignore this problem anymore.
In this regard, the impact of internet is particularly significant. With increasing frequency over the last few years, the Internet has become a flash point for the debate between free speech and censorship (Tremblay, 167). The overwhelming impact of mass media may be offensive for individuals: The novel, photography/film, and now the Internet are good sites with which to ground an exploration of the social psychology of censorship, as these are not only our most popular media, but those which perhaps best illustrate the action of all new media in the self-satisfying (“autoerotic”) and unregulated (“offensive”) stage of infancy (Tremblay, 170). However, the society is not prepared to the overwhelming impact of mass media and people are exposed to violence in mass media they grow accustomed to. In such a situation, the government censorship can be a solution to the problem of the negative impact of mass media violence on the audience. Tremblay (172) argues that the introduction of the government censorship can improve the situation in the mass media and their impact on the audience but the government censorship raises the problem of the excessive control from the part of the government over mass media. Nevertheless, the government censorship can stop the negative impact of mass media violence on the audience and, therefore, the government censorship is worth introducing.
The introduction of the government censorship over mass media in relation to the violence seems to be essential but the government censorship raises a number of issues. First of all, it is important to remember about the freedom of speech and mass media are the manifestation of the right of people to have such a right and exercise it. In addition, the mass media control the government and authorities because through coverage of different issues the mass media can influence the public opinion and influence policies being conducted by the government. At the same time, the government censorship can put different mass media into disadvantageous position compared to mass media that are difficult to control. For instance, the emergence of internet has risen the problem of the control over the information spread via internet because the government has limited options to establish its control and censorship over internet, whereas other mass media, such as print media as well as television are more exposed to the control and censorship from the part of the government. In such a situation, the problem of the technical control over all mass media arises and the government can fail to introduce the efficient system of censorship. Moreover, the government censorship may be a threat to basic human rights and liberties. On the other hand, the government cannot ignore numerous risks and threats associated with the mass media violence because mass media can condition individuals’ views and beliefs, whereas, as some of the studies mentioned above show, mass media can be used by terrorists, who can benefit from the mass media violence and its impact on the audience. The audience is attracted by violence and perceives the mass media violence eagerly, especially if it is the real life violence. Therefore, the government censorship should restrict the impact of the media violence on the audience because people grow accustomed to the violence and eventually they take it for granted. As a result, the mass media violence can lead to the emergence of violence in the real life that may lead to the growth of crime rates and other problems undermining the existing social order.