Censorship Laws: Exempting Children?

Censorship laws are a highly debated topic, especially when it comes to their application to children. While some argue that censorship is necessary to protect children from inappropriate or harmful content, others believe that it infringes on their right to access information and can have negative consequences. Censorship laws vary across different levels of government and types of media, and there is a fine line between protecting children and restricting their access to important knowledge. For instance, without education on sexual relationships, children may struggle to recognise abuse or understand consensual versus abusive relationships. Furthermore, censorship can deprive youth of the opportunity to learn about adult topics in a responsible and educational manner.

Self-regulation vs. government intervention

The debate surrounding self-regulation versus government intervention is a complex and multifaceted issue, with valid arguments on both sides. On the one hand, self-regulation can be seen as a more flexible and adaptable approach, allowing industries to implement voluntary efforts to comply with regulations. This approach promotes a sense of civic responsibility and can be more responsive to changing circumstances. Additionally, self-regulation may be more effective in certain contexts, such as in the case of the comic book industry, where self-regulation effectively shielded young people from mature content.

On the other hand, government intervention can provide a stronger deterrent against non-compliance and ensure a more consistent application of rules and objectives across industries. It can also address situations where self-regulation has failed or been inadequate, such as in the case of the music industry, where self-regulation has not effectively addressed parental concerns about inappropriate content. Government intervention can be particularly important when industries have a history of irresponsible behaviour, as in the case of the entertainment industry, where aggressive marketing of violent and sexual content to minors has been a persistent issue.

The effectiveness of self-regulation depends on several factors, including the level of government intervention, the nature of the industry, and the specific regulations in question. In some cases, self-regulation may be more successful when there is less government intervention, as it allows industry actors to promote more voluntary efforts to comply. However, in other cases, a higher degree of government intervention may be necessary to ensure compliance, especially when dealing with powerful industries that have a history of non-compliance.

The ideal approach may lie in a combination of both self-regulation and government intervention, with a focus on finding the right balance between the two. Self-regulation can be effective in industries with strong incentives to maintain a positive public image and avoid offending their customer base. However, government intervention may be necessary to address situations where self-regulation has failed or where industries have a history of irresponsible behaviour. Additionally, government intervention can play a crucial role in setting rules and objectives, monitoring compliance, and enforcing consequences for non-compliance.

Ultimately, the decision to favour self-regulation or government intervention should be based on a careful assessment of the specific industry, the nature of the regulations, and the potential risks and benefits of each approach. Both self-regulation and government intervention have their strengths and weaknesses, and the ideal solution may lie in finding a balance that leverages the advantages of both approaches while mitigating their respective drawbacks.

The impact of censorship on children's access to information

Censorship laws have a significant impact on children's access to information, and this is a highly debated topic. While censorship aims to protect children from inappropriate or harmful content, it can also restrict their access to vital information and hinder their ability to make informed choices.

In recent years, there has been a growing trend among states to limit children's access to information, particularly regarding sex education, sexuality, and drug use. This argument denies children the agency to make informed choices and, in some cases, legitimises discrimination against specific groups. While protection is essential, providing honest, objective, and age-appropriate information is crucial for children's rights, including their right to life, health, and protection. For example, without information about sexual relationships, children may struggle to recognise abuse, understand the difference between consensual and abusive relationships, or know how to seek support.

Censorship laws often establish arbitrary age restrictions, determining when a child is considered mature enough to consume certain content. However, these age restrictions may not align with a child's actual level of maturity, as each child develops differently. Instead of relying solely on age restrictions, it is essential to involve parents or guardians in guiding children through sensitive topics. This allows for a more personalised and educational approach while still allowing children to explore their boundaries.

Censorship is also enacted at the state level, primarily focusing on online interactions. Many states have passed bills to censor material deemed "harmful to minors", but the characterisation of what constitutes "harmful" content is often vague and inconsistent across states. This lack of consistency means that content banned for minors in one state may be accessible in another, creating a confusing landscape for both parents and children.

Additionally, censorship laws can have unintended consequences. "Explicit content" warnings may prevent youth from learning about adult concepts in a responsible and educational manner. They may also create a sense of mystery and desirability, leading youth to consume censored content in private without parental oversight.

The role of parents in guiding children's media consumption

Parents play a vital role in guiding their children's media consumption, especially at a young age. They are the ones who provide or restrict access to digital devices and limit their children's screen time by setting rules.

Parents' media use

Parents' screen time is positively associated with their children's media consumption. Children are likely to mimic their parents' media use, as they learn from observing their daily routines and interactions. This is supported by a national survey, which found that many parents noticed their children imitating their media use.

Parents' attitudes towards media

Parents' attitudes towards media also influence their children's screen time. Those with a positive attitude are more likely to have rules that allow media use to foster a positive home environment, while those with a negative attitude are more likely to impose rules that restrict it.

Parenting styles

Different parenting styles can also help explain how parents mediate their children's media use. Parents who exercise lower levels of control over their children are more likely to allow high levels of screen exposure, while those who exercise higher levels of control are more likely to employ active and restrictive mediation.

Children's media use

Children spend a considerable amount of time consuming media, and this pattern of behaviour starts at a young age. In the US, 70% of children under one year old and 91% of children between two and three years engage in media use several times a week. On average, 8-10-year-old children watch about three and a half hours of television and spend over an hour playing video games daily.

Parents' self-interest

Parents' self-interest in letting their children use digital media includes being able to do other tasks without being disturbed, having some "me-time", managing their children's behaviour, avoiding discussions, and spending quality time together. The way in which parents let children use digital media out of self-interest seems to depend on the child's age. With younger children, parents may initiate digital media use or set times when children are allowed to use it. With older children, parents may use a more passive approach by omitting restrictive responses to their children's media use.

The effectiveness of age-based ratings

Age-based ratings are an effective tool for parents who want to monitor their children's entertainment. Children are more impressionable than adults and less able to distinguish fantasy from reality. Age-based ratings, therefore, allow parents to judge the appropriateness of different types of media for their children.

However, the broad age ranges used in some rating systems, such as the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) G, PG, R, and N-17 ratings, can be problematic. A violent or sexual portrayal that is deemed appropriate for any child under 13 may have a very different impact on a five-year-old compared to a 12-year-old. The current MPAA rating system also assumes that films are more problematic for younger children, when in fact, certain depictions may be more harmful to older children. For example, research indicates that realistic aggression by teenage characters is likely to be more problematic for preteens who are searching for role models.

To address these issues, a more nuanced rating system could be implemented, with more specific age ranges and a greater focus on the context of violent or sexual content. This could include considering factors such as the nature of the perpetrator, whether the violence is justified, and the impact of the portrayal on children at different developmental stages.

In addition, the effectiveness of age-based ratings can be enhanced by combining them with other measures, such as parental controls and education. For example, in the United Kingdom, the British Board of Film Classification makes judgments about the age-appropriateness of films and sometimes requires cuts to problematic scenes. While these judgments are not legally binding, local authorities generally follow the decisions of the national board, and it is a legal offense for theater owners to admit underage individuals to films rated for older audiences. This combination of age-based ratings and legal enforcement helps to ensure that children are protected from inappropriate content.

Furthermore, the video and computer game industry has implemented an Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) since 1994, which classifies products as EC (everyone including young children), E (everyone), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only). This system provides clear guidance to parents and retailers, allowing them to make informed decisions about the suitability of different games for children.

Overall, age-based ratings can be an effective tool for protecting children from inappropriate content, but they should be combined with other measures and continuously evaluated and improved to address the changing nature of media and the diverse needs of children at different developmental stages.

The potential for censorship to be discriminatory

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. It can be carried out by governments, private institutions, or individuals. While censorship is often used to protect children from harmful or inappropriate content, it also has the potential to be discriminatory and infringe on free speech.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship. However, this protection is not absolute, and there have been Supreme Court cases that have debated the boundaries of free speech. For example, the Court has ruled that school officials have broad powers of censorship over student newspapers. Additionally, the Court has accepted some censorship of the press when it interferes with the right to a fair trial.

Furthermore, censorship can disproportionately impact marginalized communities. For example, the head of TransOhio, an organization serving the trans community, expressed concerns about the Kids Online Safety Act, stating that it could lead to their website and other similar websites being restricted. This highlights how censorship laws can be used to silence marginalized voices and limit access to important information for certain communities.

Another example of the discriminatory potential of censorship is the historical practice of book banning or challenging. Works by authors of colour, such as J.K. Rowling and Judy Blume, have been frequently targeted for censorship. This not only denies young readers access to diverse perspectives but also reinforces systemic racism and discrimination.

In conclusion, while censorship is often justified as a means to protect children, it can also be discriminatory and infringe on free speech. Discriminatory censorship laws create hostile learning environments, promote miseducation, and disproportionately impact marginalized communities. It is essential to carefully consider the potential negative consequences of censorship and to prioritize inclusivity, critical thinking, and free speech in our society.

Frequently asked questions