Home > #4, Regulation > Regulation of the Media

Regulation of the Media

In terms of the government restraining certain publications from the public because it can hurt national security interest, I think that there are points to both sides of the argument.  If the government has less power to restrain the publications, then they are not preventing the people from knowing what is really happening in our country.  It’s important for everyone to know what is being said about America or what America does because it’s our right.  In some ways, knowing more about what the government contains can benefit society and motivate them to take a bigger role in it.  Although these blocked publications could contain negativity around the government, I still think that it is okay to release it because the people should have the opportunity to be aware of everything including the negative things.  By blocking certain publications because it poses a threat on national security, it can actually harm society more because they are not aware of what is going on.  Additionally the government is going against the first amendment by withholding information from the public.

If the government has more power to restrain publications, it can be beneficial for national security.  In times of tragedy people can behave somewhat irrationally.  Or when people know that something horrific is about to occur they can also act irrationally.  In the movie Deep Impact, a huge meteorite is going to strike Earth and kill everyone on the planet.  At the beginning, the government attempts to hide that fact and take care of the issue without the publics’ knowledge.  This is because if humanity found out about the meteorite, everyone would go into panic mode that could cause society to crumble.  When the government withholds media publications, it can help society because they are maintaining it.

Categories: #4, Regulation Tags:
  1. tessdoez
    January 26, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    This is a good start, and the example of the movie plot at the end fits in well. What you will have to do to get credit for this post is to support your argument with evidence based on current legislation, historical precedent, a relevant court case, or other factual information about what regulations exist now or have held up in the past etc. If you see both sides of the debate, you will need to provide compelling arguments and evidence for them both. Please also proofread with an eye for sentence structure and word choice. Repost (or email me your revised post) for credit.

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: