The Censorship of Television - Yale Law School

This study examined predictors of support for censorship of television violence, including third-person effects (the belief that others are more affected by televised violence than oneself) and exposure to specific news stories about the issue. A random sample of 253 residents in a small, Midwestern metropolitan area participated via telephone interviews. The third-person effect for aggression predicted greater support for censorship, but the third-person effect for mean-world perceptions did not. However, when perceived effects on self and others were examined separately, greater support for censorship was associated with respondents' beliefs that violent content increased others' aggressive tendencies but their own mean-world perceptions. More frequent exposure to news stories about imitation was associated with more willingness to censor violent content, but four other types of news stories were unrelated to censorship support. Interpretations and implications of these and other findings are discussed.

The Censorship of Television - Harvard University

Fiss, Owen M., "The Censorship of Television" (1999)

The Humpty Dumpty Censorship of Television in India | The Wire

Data for the study came from face-to-face interviews with 506 randomly selected Singaporeans who evaluated ten categories of ‘sensitive’ television content. Results revealed (1) a substantial perceptual bias in all content categories; (2) generally strong opinion favoring censorship of television content; and (3) a significant relationship between these two factors, suggesting that people may support censorship of media in part because of a tendency to overestimate its negative influence.

Support for Censorship of Television Violence

Many people feel that censorship is a violation of Freedom of Speech...Bull feathers...Censorship is NOT unconstitutional. Censors have the right to censor what you hear. The Bill of Rights says nothing about Freedom of Hearing. This, of course, takes alot of the fun out of the Freedom of Speech. Ha, ha, ha...Without censorship of television, how else can you, the American public, have the protection you want from vulgar scenes, over-exposed bodies and all the other sights you like to see...There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about Freedom of Seeing. You can look for it, but if you see it, you'd better not show it to anybody.

Censorship of Television Programs - latimes
Direct censorship of television programs is not permitted in Chilean law

political censorship of television

Being the most widely accessible form of broadcasting, television is the medium with which the problem of censorship is experienced most. Traditionally, censorship of television takes the form of either preventing possibly offensive material from being broadcast in the first place, or voluntary self-censorship, that is, switching off the receiver when material which the viewer does not wish to experience is being broadcast. Another form of self-censorship, which has gained popularity since the introduction of remote controls for television sets is the phenomenon known as "zapping". Zapping involves eliminating unwanted material by muting the receiver or changing channels for the duration of the unwanted segment. While such self-censorship offers the benefit that all classes of material remain available to those who do not find them objectionable, it suffers from the inconvenience of having to anticipate the nature of broadcasts and operate the receiver appropriately. This process is tedious and error-prone, especially where the viewer wishes to suppress program material which changes rapidly in nature, for example when the viewer desires to suppress commercial messages within an otherwise unobjectionable program. Manual censorship is therefore not an entirely satisfactory solution.

Debates over censorship of television content have been on for years now

Has actively lobbied for censorship of television and music

This opaque institution playsthe principal role in the regulation or censorship of televisionprograms, working along broadly defined criteria. Thedetailed regulations it issues illustrates the overall importance toauthorities of television, especially television drama. A flurry of newguidelines inrecent years has highlighted the growing tensions between ideologicaland market imperatives.

In which case, censorship of television would more likely harm our children rather than help them

has been expressed over censorship of television programmes

Scenes portrayed on television have become the standard for lessons learned by children, whether it s how to behave at the dinner table, or what to do in a potentially violent situation. Television violence has not diminished greatly; nor have Saturday morning programs for children, marked by excessively violent cartoons, changed much for the better (Palmer 125). Does this mean that the media has promoted children to become more violent, therefore, creating a more violent society? A more logical reason would be the exact opposite: the increase in societal violence has caused the increase in television violence. In which case, censorship of television would more likely harm our children rather than help them. Most parents like the idea of teaching their child to talk their way out of a violent situation, however, in today s society this being the best solution is, in fact, very rare. Television that portrays violence will only prepare a child and most likely teach them how to defend themselves in dangerous situations that occur in the real world. However, a recent report from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) argues that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior (Methvin 49). This statistic may be very true, but on the contrary, good parents will combine their own lessons with scenes on television to raise a good, moral, and most importantly, prepared child.