Press Freedoms

In my journalism class we debated issues related to press freedoms. The most complicated and difficult issue was obscenity, because while there's a fine line between what is obscure and what isn't, children should really be kept away from things that are vulgar or violent or inappropriate until they are of age. But it's also a matter of how the government can possibly censor every inappropriate thing from the kids.

This difficult issue on obscenity caused me to change my mind the most--at first I agreed that the media should be allowed to decide what is obscene and what is acceptable, but now I think that government interference is necessary to regulate what sort of information is being exposed to children on a daily basis. Children aren't watched all the time--it's impossible to control every little thing they see on television. There are certain issues that they shouldn't be exposed to until they are older. But at the same time, is it the government's responsibility, or is it the parents'?

Obscenity is the most open issue related to press freedoms, and prior restraint is the most settled, closed debate for me. I believe that the government should not be allowed censorship except for in national security issues, because once they are given control of that, the nature of the government would cause it to abuse their right to censor and start censoring every little thing not only for the safety of the public but for their own reputation. They will find loopholes, excuses, reasons to censor things people say that make them look bad.