Public Opinions

Certain words are not allowed on public television, but is this a cause worth federal regulation? According to Steven Pinker’s “Freedom’s curse� there are a few different stands that a person can take in this particular argument. Some may say that if a word elicits negative emotional response and can be negatively influential on an easily impressionable child then it should be illegal to display on television. However, is this a situation in which the law should become involved? So far, the law has not remained consistent in its judgment of such cases. And is it really necessary to ban words when they are not used within an offensive context?
A word is simply a label, given to an object or an action so that it becomes identifiable through human speech. However, over time and through the development of slang terminology, many such labels have lost their original meaning, or gained alternate definitions. Due to this fact it has become nearly impossible to confidently identify the meaning of any given word without reference to the context surrounding it. This is true for any word, including swear words. When a person uses a swear word in a non-offensive manner, should he or she be penalized in the same way as a person who uses the same word in a suggestive, and therefore offensive manner?
It’s true that there is something to be said for respecting the innocence of children viewers, and this is the reason that it is important to place rating warnings on television programs that may contain inappropriate subjects or language for those under a certain age. Once this is done, the parents become responsible for using their own discretion to regulate what the children view and do not view. Parents should be conscious of the content of the television programs that their children view. If a child is watching a program with a rating on it that is inappropriate for him or her to watch, the parents should be accountable. Words should not be made illegal to say on television simply due to the fact that it may be offensive to viewers- it should just become mandatory that any programs that display such content be rated in a way reflective of these things. Parents are ultimately responsible for what is deemed acceptable for their children to view at any given stage of development. Regardless of whether a word is said on television under the protection of a rating or without a rating, it is likely that nearly the same amount of children will be viewing at the necessary time to witness it. With or without ratings, conscientious parents tend to be aware of what his or her children are viewing, and will not allow them to view questionable material without first viewing it themselves to screen the content. If a parent is not conscientious or available enough to be aware of what his or her child is viewing, the presence of a rating has no effect whatsoever- because they are not there to see it. And, of course, there are times when even the most conscientious of parents are unaware of their children’s actions altogether- it’s impossible to be aware of everything all the time. Whether the parents be conscientious enough to have previous knowledge of the content of a program their child is watching, or they are unavailable to monitor their child’s viewings at all, one could argue that the concept of rating becomes, in a sense, utterly superfluous. Nonetheless, ratings are undoubtedly a good way for the television station to guarantee ample warning to its viewers about upcoming content so as to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
Many things, much like a photograph, when taken out of context shed their original meanings. A photograph can mean a million things to a million people, its true meaning lost when the context in which it was taken is known only to its photographer. A photograph of a boat is just a photograph of a boat until it is known by the viewer what boat it was, where it was going, who or what it carried, and what happened on its journey. The emotional responses that a photograph might elicit from its photographer, knowing of its context, will not be induced from a viewer without the same contextual knowledge. The same holds true for words. Words are simply words- a label given to an action, or an object. Over time, many words become slang for other words, and other words still, gain alternate meanings, in addition to their originals. A word in itself cannot be harmful, it is the idea, or principle of which it is representative that can be deemed offensive. But if these same words are placed in a completely different context, with a completely different meaning, are they still offensive? Should they be? This is the question that needs to be answered before any decisions can be made regarding a word inappropriate, simply on the basis of one meaning alone.