In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content...

//Refutations //"All you are doing here is saying how you feel. You feel that the government is deeming us too young to decided what to watch yet your own opinion doesn't hold much water. I could say that "It is the government showing they care". Now it is just your word against mine."// Let me elaborate. The basic principle of a democratic form of government is this: *Everyone has some basic rights that the state cannot take away. * "…In a democracy, every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away from them. These rights are internationally recognized and guaranteed…Everyone has the right to seek different sources of information and ideas. .. (http://www.stanford.edu...) Now, the government elected by the country population has a Duty, to ensure smooth running of the country. It has NOT been put into place to care. A person will accept it if his/her mother tells him/her not to watch big brother (suppose), because it is her duty as a mother. But the government cannot *ban* big brother, because it is OUTSIDE its jurisdiction. //" Nothing more, nothing less and there is no reason to vote on this."// I would really appreciate it if you let voters decide that. //"How does it say "I'm better than you ignorant people..."?"// By monitoring the content displayed on the television, it is taking away the remote from our hands. What else is it saying? //That is a form of censorship yet you, being so for freedom of speech, have no outrage over that. That sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.// Why would you automatically assume I'm up for censorship? "Censorship is nothing but a tool for people with no life of their own to try and exercise control over others, just because they don't have control over their own." This is my view on censorship, and from no angle does it even seem that I am not against censorship. I honestly don't know where this came from; just try to refrain from all this, it can cost you points. Just saying. //"No of this even stands up to the lowest form of scrutiny and thus we must leave it behind."// Pass. "There are numerous reasons why the censor ship of TV is good. First off, let's say you have a 5 year old kid who is watching Saturday morning cartoons and then a commercial for a Fleshlight comes on. The commercial entails two people engaging in pornographic activities. You would not be opposed to the TV stations or even the government saying that is unacceptable and getting it removed. Nextly, what of child porn? Child porn is entirely banned yet you are (most likely) not opposed to that. So here you have a choice. You can concede that censorship is good which would mean that censoring child porn is good OR you could say censorship is bad (which is your argument) and thus censoring child porn is bad. It's your choice here." I ask this in all seriousness- What the hell? Child porn is banned because it is wrong. The same way rape, murder, and all the other things are illegal. It is IMMORAL. And ILLEGAL. Showing it on television is a proof that it happened, and the perpetrators are liable to be arrested. This has nothing to do with censorship, the very fact that it happened is wrong. So my answer to your *choice* is that, *censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad. And for the first commercial point, the 5 year old child is not "old enough to decide who should run the country" which forms the chunk of my argument. The government can ensure the timings of the advertisement should not coincide with the cartoon time. The child is not mature enough and is a sponge and everything. But I am against it if government decides to *stop* the commercial entirely. Because people should have the right to change the channel if the commercial comes, or to watch it lustily, as they please. //"Thirdly, what if we just allowed the full blue prints for nuclear bombs to float around? Terrorists might get their hands on them and thus be able to build a nuclear bomb. And what is the impact of a nuclear terrorist attack? Extinction. [1]"// Do you really think terrorists would not be able to lay their hands on blue prints of nuclear bombs if they wish to? (http://tabacco.blog-city.com...) Blue prints for a atomic bomb on this site. I know it says that it is for *academic purpose only*, but somehow I don't think terrorists will pay heed to this. Also:2) http://www.guardian.co.uk... Nuclear bomb blueprints for sale on world black market. 3) http://www.guardian.co.uk... … Blueprints for a sophisticated and compact nuclear warhead have been found in the computers of the world's most notorious nuclear-smuggling racket, according to a leading US researcher…. 4) http://www.nuclearmuseum.org... … Set of 5 individual blueprints of atomic weapons. These were copied from the original government drawings on to bright white paper, and are bound for you in a "contractor's pack." Each page measures 16" X 22". Included are dimensional drawings of Fat Man (2), Little Boy (1), and the Mark IV Missile (2). $15.00 … And finally, 5) http://www.independent.co.uk... …Libya received the blueprint for a nuclear bomb electronically…. This points out that terrorists will get the full blueprint of nuclear weapons quite easily without any extra help from the televisions, if I could get an idea about where to find them within 5 minutes of search. Secondly, on this point, I do not think that television would, in fact, hold any programs on the blueprint for nuclear weapons, because channels are guided by the forces of TRPs, and long mathematical , chemical, and discussions related to physics, on the measurement and building of a nuclear weapon, would find interested people. Or enough interested people to push up the TRPs. //Fourthly, with out any form of censorship troop positions are liable to be revealed and with revealed troop positions comes loss of life. It is unacceptable to all our soldiers to die because the government could not keep their position safe. Here is where we see that censorship does fall within the duties of the government. The government's job is to protect the citizens of it's country but if it cannot censor troop positions or other information of that nature, it will not be protecting it's citizens.// First of all, troop positions would be revealed IF the media people are allowed to walk into the ‘war zone',which should anyway not be done by the government if it is so intent on saving the lives of the people. OR other case might be when the media people question the collegues of troops employed, who can of course be arrested on charges of endangering the lives of people, and revealing confidential information, so they wouldn't be willing to disclose it, would they? The government wouldn't need to censor the material if it closes the loopholes. //Fifthly, making some things illegal to say is beneficial to our society. For example, it is illegal to say FIRE in a crowded area because it causes a panic and loss of life ensues. This is a form of restriction yet it benefits our society and this, even if you disagree with everything else, is enough to vote Con.// Oh God. I had to read this point 5 times to understand its relevance to the debate, and I still don't get it. Nowhere have I said that making things illegal is wrong. It IS the job of government to ensure smooth running of the country, and public safety. What has this to do with censorship? I'm sure people would vote Con for this one. (note: sarcasm) //Nextly,...// *Also, nextly isn't a word. Arguments: In addition to my previous two points, I'd like to add this one. 3) If the government is allowed to censor television content, it would undoubtedly try to censor the reports that show it in a bad light, like failed schemes, corruption charges, and reports that reveal its shortcomings. This will directly contradict the main advantage of a democracy which states that people have the power to oppose the present government and force it to work efficienly. Because if you restrict the freedom of media, you stop the free information flow to the people, which will of course undermine democracy.