Read The Chapter On Violence, Terrorism, And War In The E-Te

Read The Chapter On Violence Terrorism And War In the E Text Then C

Read the chapter on violence, terrorism, and war in the e-text, then consider the aftermath of the school shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. The tragedy renewed the debate over what could cause two seniors to shoot 12 other students and a teacher before killing themselves. Some point fingers at the easy access to weapons in the U.S., while others blame increasingly violent images and language in movies, video games, and song lyrics. On May 10 of that year, then President Bill Clinton said much of the responsibility lies with parents, challenging them to turn off violent T.V. programs or not buy graphic computer games. "If no one consumes these products, people will stop producing them. They will not build it if you don't come" (White House Summit Looks for Answers to Youth Violence, 1999, para. 10). But Clinton also appealed to the entertainment and media industries as well, "We cannot pretend that there is no impact on our culture and our children that is adverse if there is too much violence coming out of what they see and experience" (White House Summit, 1999, para. 11). "And so, we have to ask the people who produce things to consider the consequences of them, whether it's a violent movie, a CD, a video game. If they are made, they at least should not be marketed to children" (White House Summit, 1999, para. 12). Clinton also urged Congress to "join in this campaign by passing the legislation necessary to keep guns out of the hands of children" (White House Summit, 1999, para. 13).

Paper For Above instruction

The tragic shooting at Columbine High School in 1999 ignited a widespread debate over the influence of violence in media and the societal factors contributing to youth violence. This incident highlights the complex interplay between access to weapons, media violence, and parental and societal responsibility, prompting ongoing discussions in ethics, public policy, and moral reasoning.

Balancing freedom of expression with protection of vulnerable populations, especially children, raises important moral questions. On one side, advocates for free expression emphasize the importance of artistic and media freedom, arguing that censorship infringes on individual rights and stifles creative expression (Nussbaum, 2010). Conversely, there is a moral obligation to safeguard children from exposure to harmful content that could influence their behavior negatively (Huston & Wright, 1998). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has considered regulating violent content during "safe harbor" hours—times designated when children are unlikely to be watching television (FCC, 2020).

From a moral standpoint, restricting violent content during certain hours appears justified to mitigate harm without entirely infringing upon freedom of expression. According to utilitarian principles, society should aim to maximize overall well-being and minimize harm, especially to vulnerable populations like children (Mill, 1863). Implementing time-specific restrictions balances rights and protections, aligning with a consequentialist view that prioritizes social safety while respecting freedom of speech during appropriate times.

Furthermore, ethical theories such as Kantian deontology would argue that media producers have a moral duty to consider the societal impact of their content—acting ethically involves recognizing the potential harm that violent imagery can cause and avoiding the marketing of such content to impressionable audiences (Kant, 1785). This position supports policies that restrict violent media during hours when children are most exposed, fostering moral responsibility among content creators and broadcasters.

Ultimately, moral reasoning supports limited regulation of violent media content during certain hours as a means to protect youth while respecting free speech rights. Such measures are not merely protective but serve as societal commitments to uphold ethical standards that prioritize the well-being of future generations without entirely curtailing individual freedoms (Livingston, 2011). This balanced approach honors the complex moral landscape inherent in fostering a free yet safe society.

In conclusion, regulating violent content during designated hours is ethically justifiable, serving the dual purpose of protecting children and respecting free expression. Policymakers and media producers share a moral responsibility to consider the social consequences of their content, aligning with our ethical obligation to steward societal well-being (Murray & Sader, 2012).

References

FCC. (2020). Safe harbor for television programming. Federal Communications Commission. https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-guide/violent-content-and-children

Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1998). Media violence and children’s distress: An overview. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(2), 81–91.

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor (First published 1785).

Livingston, M. (2011). Ethical considerations in media regulation. Journal of Media Ethics, 26(3), 211–227.

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.

Murray, P., & Sader, N. (2012). Ethical responsibilities of content creators: An analysis. Journal of Media Ethics, 27(3), 145–160.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press.

White House Summit Looks for Answers to Youth Violence. (1999). CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS