Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Indecent Speech Cable Operators - 1,569 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Without a doubt, one of the greatest inventions of all time is, television. Television enabled us to witness countless historical events, such as presidential inaugurations, man's first steps on the moon, President, John F. Kennedy's death, and more recently, the tragic events of September 11 th 2001. Although the benefits of television are immeasurable, many people believe that American society, especially children, have been adversely affected by it. As the popularity of cable television continues to grow, controversy and concern continue to develop surrounding its implementation and worth.

In February 1996, President Clinton agreed to put forth provisions within the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in order to help regulate TV viewing. This act made numerous changes to laws governing the telecommunications industry. The provision relevant to this analysis is one that requires television manufacturers to include circuitry that would allow parents to screen out programming they did not wish their children to view, such as programs featuring violence. In 1968, Action for Children's Television (ACT) was established in order to convince the Federal Communications Commission to limit violence and force the networks to show more educational programs for children.

Despite the fervent efforts of ACT, Congress and the FCC did nothing to promote children's television. However, twenty-two years after the creation of ACT, Congress passed the Children's Television Act of 1990, which directed the FCC, in reviewing TV broadcast license renewals, to "consider the extent to which the licensee has served the educational and informational needs of children. " Congress also prohibited indecent broadcasts outside of "safe harbor" hours (10 p. m. to 6 a. m. ), the hours when it is least likely that unsupervised children will be in the audience. The passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 encourages the broadcast and cable industry to "establish voluntary rules for rating programming that contains sexual, violent or other indecent material about which parents should be informed before it is displayed to children, " and to voluntarily broadcast signals containing these ratings.

Congress now requires television manufacturers to install "V-chips" into new sets. The Supreme Court's decision to enforce these "V-chips" is based on the notion that labels enhance free speech interests, whereas the suppression of labels injures free speech interests. The court noted that "this kind of disclosure serves rather than dissolves the first amendment, " therefore a mandatory V-chip labeling requirement became permissible under the Meese v. Keene case.

However the V-chip provisions stem from the decisions set forth in the Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. FCC case of 1996. The case took place in June of 1996, involving a combination of different people who both produce and watch local access programming. They challenged the FCC regulations implementing it on First Amendment grounds. They felt that the Fcc's regulations were inexcusable because they unconstitutionally censored indecent speech.

A panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with this argument and struck down the Act. On rehearing, however, the full court reversed and held the Act constitutional as it did not require censorship of indecent speech and the blocking provisions were the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest in shielding children from indecent programming. The main issues involved in this case pertained to freedom of speech: Whether the government can constitutionally (1) permit cable operators to refuse to carry indecent material on leased local access channels, (2) require cable operators that choose to carry indecent local access programming to place such programming on a separate channel and to block the channel until the subscriber requests unblocking, and (3) permit cable operators to refuse to carry indecent programming on local public, educational, and governmental channels. Although the members of the court in this case agreed that the need to protect children from exposure to indecent speech is very important, the majority upheld that the "all or nothing" provisions were too broad and were not the most effective means available. Essentially, they ruled that cable operators do not need to carry indecent local access programming on a separate channel, blocked until the subscriber requests unblocking. Those in favor of the V-chips think that this is a fairer way of allowing parents the right to control their children's access to violent programming, without infringing upon first amendment rights.

Surveys show that, on average, children watch twenty-eight hours of television per week. Many people think that this could have serious, long-term detrimental affects. According to studies performed in February 1996 and funded by the cable television industry, fifty-seven percent of television programs contained "psychologically harmful" violence. Since 1948 when television came into prominence in the United States, crime in America has gone up dramatically.

Although there is no concrete evidence proving that television has anything to do the rise of crime, we know that societies that dont allow freedom of speech within the media, often have much lower crime rates. Studies have shown that children exposed to violent television programs at a young age have a higher tendency towards violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children not so exposed. Children in the United States are, on average, exposed to an estimated 8, 000 murders and 100, 000 acts of violence on television by the time they complete elementary school. Because of these devastating statistics, parents have expressed grave concerns over violent and sexually explicit television programs and strongly support technology that would give them greater control to block video programming that they consider to be harmful to their children. The main issue raised here is "whether government should have the authority to dictate to its citizens what they may or may not listen to, read, or watch. " Those who oppose censorship, especially members of the entertainment industry, feel that the commitment to freedom of imagination and expression is embedded in our national psyche, which is supported by the First Amendment. They argue that a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what entertainment he or she wants or does not want to watch.

Since there is no factual evidence that fictional violence as portrayed on television causes otherwise stable children to become violent, the government should have no right to censor television programs. Any involvement by government in deciding what one can or can't watch robs people of their constitutional right to make decisions for themselves. I agree with those who abhor censorship by the government, and I see no logical explanation for the government's need to instruct individuals about what they watch on television. All attempts to curb the amount of sex and violence on TV that have been implemented by the government go against our constitutional freedom of speech, and prevent us from making decisions for ourselves. However, those who oppose this assertion believe that more legislation does not constitute censorship. They would have one believe that further measures do not inflict upon our rights, but are beneficial to the American public.

However, it is unconstitutional to block us from watching what we want. I do, however, agree with the government premise that the more a child is introduced to a certain type of material, the more ingrained in the child's mind it becomes. Since every parent is different, each one has different standards as to what is inappropriate for their child. I believe that, if a program is released to the public, and its content is immoral or violent, it is the right and the obligation of the parent to utilize their authority as a parent and edit what parts of the program the child can or can't watch. It can be said that violence is indeed prevalent on television in today's society.

Some may argue that this violence is harmful to our children and must be eliminated, while others view the media as a form of free speech. Either way, it is up to the individual, or the individual's parent, to make the decision as to whether a program should or should not be watched. Bibliography: Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. FCC. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School < web > (viewed 9 Nov. 2001) American Civil Liberties Union Briefing Paper Number 14, Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment Industry. < web > (viewed 9 Nov. 2001) Cantor, Joanne.

Ratings for Program Content: The Role of Research Findings. Children and Television Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science May 1998 Comstock, G. The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, (1994). Dahlgren, Peter. Television and the Public Sphere: Citizenship, Democracy, and the Media.

London; Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications, 1995. Flynn, Laurie, V- Chips and Ratings are close to Giving Parents New Power, Technology Information: New York Times 2 Apr. 1998 Hops, Jeffery. Content and Control of Public Access Channels on Cable Television alter Denver Area Educational Telecommunication Consortium v. FCC: The Non Forum Forum Media Law and Policy Bulletin. Vol.

V, No 3, Spring 1997 Irvine, Rachel. Studies Show TV Affects Children. Briefing. 14 Aug. 2001 < web > (viewed 8 Nov. 2001) Knell, Michael E. "Telecommunications 'Convergence' Returns. " The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 28 Jun. 1998 Kevin, Childs. Action for Freedom in the Courts. US Supreme Courts First Amendment rulings, Editor and Publisher 3 Jan 1998 Palmer, E. L.

Television and America's children: A crisis of neglect. New York: Oxford University Press. (1988).


Free research essays on topics related to: indecent material, cable television, indecent speech, television programs, cable operators

Research essay sample on Indecent Speech Cable Operators

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com