Home > #4, Regulation > Ownership and Regulation of the Media (blog #4)

Ownership and Regulation of the Media (blog #4)

Prior restraint is “when the government prevents or blocks the publication, broadcasting, showing, or distribution of media content, whether in print, over the air, in movie theaters, or online.  The role of the government is to protect the American people and I believe that the interest in national security should be considered before releasing information to the public. Therefore, I do believe that the government should have the opportunity to block publication of materials that might hurt our national security. In Mass Media Law by Don Pember, he describes the need for a balance between speech and other rights. Some difficulties you would face with this decision is who would decide what is eligible to show. There would be a lot of controversy over this because of the First Amendment however; there have been others situations where full First Amendment rights were not granted. The most widely known case of this is in school publications by students. A positive effect if the government were to adopt my position, is we (the US people) would be more protected. As soon as any publication is released into the media, anyone around the world is able to view it. It opens doors for threats and vulnerability that doesn’t need to be there. I am not one for more government, however, if this were to help better our national security, I believe the government should take action. As we have experienced the past months, Wikileaks had exposed important US government information that has required government to scramble in order to prevent further information from being exposed.

 


Advertisements
  1. tessdoez
    January 25, 2011 at 4:47 am

    This is a really great start. I would like to see you develop your thoughts a little and repost this for credit. You are headed in the right direction by mentioning published works on the topic, but please give an example of one of Don Pemberhis’ arguments in the book that supports yours, otherwise mention of the book doesn’t help very much. Additionally it is excellent that you cite the information given in the textbook about free speech in schools being limited, but how does this tie into your argument? Please just develop your argument a bit more around your supporting evidence and this will be a great post (you might proofread a little as well, but the post is pretty good with regard to spelling and grammar–close your quotation marks in the first paragraph).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: