Get rid of government censorship of TV and Radio

My opponent states, "I believe that government censorship should be done away with in the United States." For this debate, we will be focusing on TV and radio, however, my opponent has made it clear that their position is for the absolute ending of government censorship, rather than just the reduction of it. In this debate, I will argue that a degree of government censorship is needed. I will also argue that my opponent has already admitted that they support government censorship by their approval of the V-chip. 1) V-Chip is government. Let us start with a little history of the V-Chip, to show that it is a government censorship tool, rather than a private sector censorship tool. The V-Chip was created by Tim Colling, and he took his creation to the Keith Spicer, head of the Canadian Telecommunication Commission. Keith presented the technology to various american networks, but none of them were interested (they claimed to be, yet they took no actions upon it) [1]. The Telecommunications act of 1996, then forced cable providers to adapt the rating system, and forced manufacturers to include v-chips [2]. Since this censorship was originally ignored by the market, and had to be forced by government legislation, it would be fair to call this government sponcered censorship (as many called it government censorship at the time). 2) Government Censorship is needed for some things. The government will often censor news reports for publishing anything classified, or certain pieces of information that may prove harmful to americans, such as plans for a battle, troop movement, or intelligence gathering tactics. Such information can easily get to military opponents and so undermine the entire effort. Another reason for government censorship is in legal cases to prevent defamation of individuals. People can easily be accused of various crimes, and at their trials, mis-information, and fallacious information can be presented. Open courts that allow the press to report on any and every aspect can cause serious comlpications, especially with jurors that need to remain as impartial as possible. We saw such issues with the Amanda Knox trials, where news would report that she was involved in Rogue-like satanic sex rituals [3]. Yet another reason for censors is the protection of privacy and private information. It would be highly unethical (by most ethic standards) and potentionally harmful, for a news story to release a person's bank account info or social security number. While there is little reason for this to ever be done, people are known for doing things for no reason, other than spite. This becomes more likely when you come across shows the are for political entertainment. We've seen individuals place cross hairs on their opponent's homes, telling people to "stay armed" and to "reload" [4] and to "kick the bastards out" and various other stirring words. As such, a line needs to be drawn that says "do not cross." It would be ideal that telecommunication networks would be able to draw this line themselves, however, as learned from the v-chip, they will not do so unless required by the government. This shows that there are numerous cases where government censorship is needed, and that government mandated and sponcered censorship was needed to get to where parents even have the option of control. Thank you, [1] http://www.docstoc.com... [2] http://transition.fcc.gov... [3] http://news.nationalpost.com... [4] http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...