Media Censorship Today there is much controversy over whether there should or shouldn’t be censorship of the media. Censorship should not be imposed on citizens by the government or other agencies ;adults have a right to view or listen to what they choose. Additionally, if children’s media is censored, parents are the ones to monitor and regulate it. Parents should monitor children’s viewing of television and also what they hear on the radio, CD’s, and tapes. Censorship includes the examination and blocking of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media that is shown to, or available, to the public. Media censorship is sometimes put into place because content is immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security. It is supposedly is used for the protection of the family, the church, and the state. Additionally some religious groups, opposed to the violence shown in different types of media, say censorship works. However, still more that believe in civil rights believe that it is an unnecessary violation of the right to freedom of speech for all humans. Censorship of the media for children is necessary, but should not be handled by government or other groups. Instead it should be directed and controlled by parents with or without children. Censorship for children is necessary because the average American view’s 100,000 acts of violence on TV before reaching the age of thirteen. Many of the violent acts are presented news stations which are stations parents or adults watch to find out information about weather, and road conditions, or anything that can help with daily life. If the government were to bring censorship to these stations adults would not see the news reports in their area or around the world. For this to be avoided, the government must leave censorship to parents. To facilitate parent’s exercise of viewing censorship for their children. In 1996 Congress passed a law that manufactures of television sets were to install a special computer chip called the V-chip into every television, which allows parents to block shows with excessive violence. For the V-chip to be effective, a rating system was developed. When the law was passed, opponents saw the requirements as a threat to free speech rights of the First Amendment. This argument is true ;however, it is a closer step to having parents control television viewing of their children instead of the government censoring w out parental input. Opponents of censorship and parents should be in favor of the V-chip because it allows control, blocking, or censoring of television rather than having no control over it. The V-chip allows individuals to monitor their own TV and their children’s consumption of media, and is a big step for censorship of the media to be not controlled by government, but by adults, and parent’s of children who can control there consumerism for them selves. The file industry is supportive of the V-chip as it stops short of government control of the media. Hollywood, usually blamed for producing violent, prejudice, and racist content in films, is maintaining a rating system that informs parents which movies contain content unsuitable for children. This work is a great step for getting censorship away from the government and back to the parents. Having this rating system informs individuals of the content in the movies and people have the choice to view them, you are not forced to see them. Individuals in the market place will make decisions about what they buy, read, rent or see. In some cases the vulgar, the profane and the excessive will support choices. Consumers may be outraged by pop culture, but they have sense of principle causes of violence and other national problems else wear of the entertainment industry. According to studies, some people against violent images on TV say, the violence acts and that of other acts shown on TV, inspires people to do the same things they see, but real life is violent, so why not be honest and show it. This is true maybe however but only a few vulnerable aggressive prone persons will be negatively affected so why keep everyone else from the innocent entertainment of having a few thrills whether of an aggressive or sexual nature.