Freedom of Speech and Media Violence

          Mass explosions, resounding gunshots, espionage car bombs, and gruesome street fights; these are all images that can be watched freely on television, or in any movie today. Currently, our media is filled with violence, vulgarity, and sex, with every flip of the channel. It is what most of our favorite television shows, and movies are based on. However, are we hurting our brains with the daytime and nighttime television smut? Many scholars believe this is to be the case, questioning whether or not America’s media has violated their first amendment right to freedom of speech. However, contrary to my feelings about the quality and value of most violence in today’s media, because of the legal definition of freedom of speech given in our constitution, media giants have not yet violated their rights to free speech.

          Freedom of Speech is included in our constitution’s first amendment stating that all humans are entitled to the freedom of speech, religion, and press. Legally, freedom of speech is defined as “stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content” (freedom). However, who is to judge what content is acceptable and unacceptable. Most legal definitions state that all speech is allowed unless it harms another, or threatens their safety.

          My personal opinion resides closely to that of the legal definition. The freedom of speech should be defined as having the ability to speak freely, without consequence as long as that speech does not directly threat physical harm onto another. While a healthy dose of media censorship is needed, too much censorship can be just as dangerous as not enough censorship. By creating too much censorship American television and movie watchers may find themselves caught in an inescapable brainwashed world contained by various parameters.

           Former dean of The Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, George Gerbner claims to believe that American media has in fact violated their freedom of speech. He believes that these violent images witnessed on TV are a prosecutable offense to the American people, because it can cause harm to us as individuals. He believes that these harmful images should be judged harsher based on content. Gerbner states that violent televisions images are used to keep Americans in fear, and out of social control, (Is Media).

          However, even though these violent images may be seen as “dumbing down” the mind of the average movie, and television viewer, it is not plausible to accuse these media companies of violating their freedom of speech rights. The violence that is shown by the media causes harm to the imaginary characters in the program, not to its viewers. There is no threat that these characters are going to come to life and blow the viewer’s house to smithereens, or kill their families.

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression argues to protect media violence with four basic bullet points. Firstly, “censorship won't solve the root causes of violence in society,” secondly, “deciding what is "acceptable" content is necessarily a subjective exercise,” thirdly, “many of the plays, books and films banned in the past are considered classics today,” and lastly,” it’s up to individuals and not governments to decide what is appropriate for themselves and their children, (Media).

     The American Booksellers Foundation brings up four valid points. Censorship will in fact not solve the violence issues we face, because most crime and violence is caused by other factors, than just exposure to media violence. Also, being able to choose what is and is not acceptable for your own self is a healthy and necessary activity that humans need to be able to do for themselves. Also, in many cases violence enriches literary and art work. In fact many novels that we view as classics today were once actually banned in their past because they were viewed as corrupting. And lastly, American people must be capable of choosing for themselves whether to keep the program or movie on, or to switch it off. People know what violence is, they know when they are viewing it, now they must be able to decide for themselves whether or not they can handle being exposed to it.  

     While some media critics argue that media violence is accountable for everyday crime, research shows, especially in adolescents, overwhelming evidence that marriage status, poverty, home life issues are usually more so responsible for making young criminals than violent images (Fagan). Many children born into single parent homes experience a vast amount of parental underachievement either by one or both parents. This lack of parenthood leaves the child with a lack of authority making the child have to make decisions for oneself at a premature age. Many of these choices may become violent and harmful to the child and to others as well.  In fact, Robert Fagan states that “State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.” Therefore there is much stronger evidence that crime is formed from elements such as poverty and authority lacking home lives rather than violent movies or television programs. 

     Another strong argument against media censorship is that many see it as a form of artistic expression. Researchers such as R. Hodge and D. Tripp state that "Media violence is qualitatively different from real violence: it is a natural signifier of conflict and difference and without representations of conflict, art of the past and present would be seriously impoverished." I agree with the fact that violence in media gives us a basic idea of conflict and good verses evil. Without these two elements many great works of film would never have been produced. For instance the Oscar winning film Saving Private Ryan, was studied by Center for Media and Public Affairs and deemed the most violent film of 1999. However, this film is noted as a great artistic achievement in film because it has been critically acclaimed as one of the most real portrayals of the horrors of war.

     Violence portrayed as such is capable of teaching life lessons and morals to human beings, where strict censorship would prohibit this. Basic violence dates back to children’s stories told by adults to help children choose between right and wrong. Violence, such as Saving Private Ryan, is sometimes just magnified from the children’s story version, in order to reach the minds of adults, and perhaps teach them a lesson about morals, (Violence).

      Media Violence can also be viewed for many, as a coping mechanism. For instance comic book creator Gerard Jones states that by creating comic books for young readers he enables “people to pull themselves out of emotional traps, "integrating the scariest, most fervently denied fragments of their psyches into fuller sense of selfhood through fantasies of superhuman combat and destruction." Also many other people view video game violence as a way for young adolescents to safely channel feelings of anger and to overcome powerlessness. Rage, the need for power, fear, and greed, these are all feelings that each and every individual experiences in one way or another. However, we are taught, as we very well should be, that these feelings are bad, and that we should dispose of them completely. However, whether we act on these feelings or not, they still remain there. Violent movies, TV serious, and comic books are sometimes often the only ways we can experience the feelings vicariously and safely that we are always taught to deny to ourselves. 

     American adults also need to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they are capable of handling violent images that are seen on the television or in new movies. Adults must be able to decide whether or not they feel that media violence has a negative effect of them, and if so, turn it off. If adults cannot decide for themselves, how will they decide for their own children what is suitable and what is not? They cannot. Even though I do believe that most of the violence seen on television programs is mindless and does not offer artistic value such as Saving Private Ryan, if adults cannot decide to keep it on or switch it off, they are going to be incapable of making other important choice in their lives, making them more or less quite helpless.

     Overall, even if most media doesn’t hold artistic relevance such as Saving Private Ryan, it is not legally wrong; it is more or less just stupid. However, even if violent images are seen as just “stupid” they do not necessarily violate the First Amendment. Therefore, because research cannot prove that media violence has violated the First Amendment, seeing as there is no proof as to whether or not violent images directly harm others, media giants have in fact abided rightfully by the first amendment.

     Because of arguments such as media violence used as artistic expression, and coping mechanisms violence can sometimes even be seen as a necessary element to art or literature, and life. Also, there is weak research that shows a positive correlation between media violence and crime, but a rather strong one between poor social environments and crime. Americans need to be responsible enough to make decisions for themselves. Many adults can and are capable of watching their favorite TV shows or movies that include a good explosion or too without becoming a brainwashed criminal. Therefore because freedom of speech has not been violated with the media, I do not believe that the media should become completely censored in order to control the few who cannot decide for themselves what is bad and what is good.    

Works Cited

"Is Media Violence Free Speech?." Media Awareness Network. Wired Magazine, 1997.

Web. 8 Mar. 2010. <http://www.media-

awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/violence/violence_speech.cfm>. 

Fagan, Robert. "The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime:The Breakdown of Marriage,

Family, and Community." The Heritage Foundation . Family & Religion Initiative of the Leadership , 17 Mar. 1995. Web. 8 Mar. 2010. <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1995/03/BG1026nbsp-The-Real-Root-Causes-of-Violent-Crime>.

"Freedom of Speech." Answer.com Reference Answers. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.

<http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech>.

"Media Violence Debates." Media Awareness Network. N.p., 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2010.

<http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_debates.cfm>.