Do you think restricting violence in media would help? Why or why not?
Do you believe that restricting violence in the media would be against our constitutional rights? Why or why not?
Write 4-8 sentences
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Jeremy Larson
- I am a seventh and eighth grade history and ethics instructor at Grace- St. Luke's Episcopal School in Memphis, TN. I am originally from Sioux Falls, SD and got my undergraduate degree in Elementary Education (K-8) at St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, MN. I have received my Master's Degree in Instructional Design and Technology at the University of Memphis.
Subscribe Now
Ethics?
Take a look at this cartoon. How does this show the lack of ethics in the classroom?
17 comments:
Yes I think restricting violence media a little would help because the media can influence people a lot and by not having as much violence, people will be less angry inside. No I do not think it would be because people already know about the violence in the world.
Restricting violence in media would help. This is because a lot of people are exposed to media and some of those people are young children who would be easily influenced by violence in media. Restricting violence in the media would be against our constitutional rights. More specifically, it is against the first amendment. This is because it tells people what they can and can't say or do in media and that limits their free speech. Limited free speech contradicts itself because it can't be free if it's limited.
It would help some. It would stop kids who shoot each other not knowing the consequences. I just thinks its a shame we can't depend on parents to teach there kids safety and or keep their guns out the hands of their children. Yes it would break our constitutional right. People have a right to say what they want otherwise the government or anyone else could do whatever they want.
I think restricting the violence that is over the top would help because there is a limit that kids should play violent games. And when there are some that are over the top, they shouldn't watch them. I don't think its against it because when someone is restricting the violence, it's kind of like they are doing the some thing the government would have been doing.
No because it will just make the people more angry. I dont think this is against our constitutional rights to restrict violence. I think its appropriate though because it shields children from things they dont need to see.
No, I think the best we can do is what is being done now. There are already a few restrictions, and ratings help people be aware. Violence sells, and if more restrictions are made, it won't help the economy and many will lose jobs.
In some ways, yes, I do think this. Doing this takes away the freedom of speech of the writers, producers, ect. Their material would be taken away and/or changed, most likely without their consent.
Yes and no, yes because it'll make kids less violence and no because it'll take away one of the ways kids take their anger out. Yes because it takes away our freedom of speech.
I do think it would help. I think this because before we had video games,explicit lyrics, and tv violence there wasn't as many shooting as there is today. I do thin it would be against the constitutional rights because you have the right to express your opinion.
No, I think that if people wer not allowed to buy violence then there were be protests to get it back. I think that it would be unconstitutional because it states "freedom of speech and religion."
I believe that some violence in media is a bad thing. While in others violence can show historical accuracy in movies. I think that if you take out the violence in the movie you are ruining that piece of art and not showing it the way it was supposed to be shown. That brings me to the conclusion that while some violence is bad you can't censor a war movie about Vietnam or WWII, that is all I have to say.
I do think it would help a little because people won't learn how to do bad things. Yes I do think that if they change the games then that will be breaking freedom to play. I'm not saying that they should change video games but it would help a little.
Yes, I do think restricting violence in media could help. People might not be as violent in real life if they don't see how "cool" it is portrayed in some media.
I do also believe that restricting violence in media would be against constitutional rights. Maybe that is part of the reason I find debates on censoring so frustrating. By restricting the violence, you are taking away that media's freedom of speech, in a way.
I think people have already gotten so into the violence already that it wouldn't help much. They have already experienced the media filled with violence. Although, if they stopped it now, future generations might because less violent. I think it would be against the constitution because the first amendment is freedom of speech. If a writer wants to write a book, movie, or song about violence, they have a right to do so.
No because the citizens of the us have the right to be informed. Yes because it breaks the first amendment.
I don't think restricting media violence in media would help. I think that because a lot of people want to know what is going on around the world and their communities. I do think restricting media violence would go against the freedom to speak. If they did restrict media violence writers might not be able to express their feeling on certain issues.
I think that if it isn't for historical facts or something along those lines, then it shouldn't have excessive violence. I do however think that it wouldnt follow the first amendment. Because they can put whatever they want in a movie and of people pay to see it then I don't see a problem.
I think that if it isn't for historical facts or something along those lines, then it shouldn't have excessive violence. I do however think that it wouldnt follow the first amendment. Because they can put whatever they want in a movie and of people pay to see it then I don't see a problem.
Post a Comment