The End

The end of the semester is coming up soon. I have learned a great deal this semester. My writing skills have improved so much in this short amount of time. My first progression was not bad, but it does not compare to my third. I have learned how to research and cite sources effectively and back up my arguments strongly. I have made a blog and an ethnography, which I had never done before. Overall, I had a fun and educational experience in English 115.

Done With Presentation

On Monday our group gave the presentation. None of us were fully prepared, but overall we did alright. There were some technical difficulties where the blogs would take a while to load, and there was a lack of cohesiveness between the presenter and the person on the computer. I think we could have done better, but it was still a good presentation. Now, I just need to finish up my final portfolio and that will be the end of English 115. I am going to use my first and last progression because they were my two best. I am very confident of my final portfolio and I think that I will end up with a solid grade in the class.

The presentation is tomorrow morning. I feel confident because I know my topic pretty well, and also it is a group presentation which makes it less stressful. The final portfolio is also coming up soon. I already have completed the draft of the reflective essay and I know which progressions I am going to use. The first progression I will use because I got the best grade and it will be easy to revise. I will also include the third progression because it is probably my best work so far and the only thing I really need to work on is the first assignment. I think that I will end this semester with a good grade.

Essay

Zack Ingram

Prof. Misaghi

English 115

November 14, 2010

Censorship

            The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives everyone the right to free speech and press. However, words and images are still suppressed in this country through censorship. Words and pictures should not be banned, only actions. Censorship only creates ignorance and unjustly restricts the flow of everyone’s ideas. In the United States, people should be able to speak and write freely, so there should be no censorship in this country.

            Just because some things might spread immoral behavior does not make it right to restrict them from being exposed. The internet, television, movies, and music are to blame for spreading immoral behaviors. Pornography, violence, and other immoral acts depicted in these media are trying to be covered up through censorship. Just because someone watches or hears a certain act being done does not mean the person will go and do that act. There is nothing harmful about words and images alone. If you talk about robbing a bank it does not physically take the money out of the vault and nothing wrong actually happened. The federal government will soon implement a, “mandatory internet web fitter” that will, “prevent consumers receiving Refused Classification (RC) content” (Page 1). The federal government is also the one that classifies RC content, so they control what we are and are not allowed to see. This gives the government way too much power and completely goes against the constitution. Censorship is wrong because, people have the right to share and view anything they want to. 

            “Speech, no matter how painful, deserves to remain free” (Asim 9). Another argument against free speech is that obscene and offensive material should be prevented. People should be allowed to express their thoughts and opinions even if others may dislike it. Swear words are often censored on television, movies, and radio for being too obscene. However, there is nothing actually bad about swear words. It is simply a word like any other yet our society has tried to prevent people from saying it. There is no difference in meaning between “feces” and “shit” yet the latter is considered vulgar, obscene, and intolerable. Also, people often get offended by what others say because it goes against their own beliefs or it insults them. Even if someone makes a remark that criticizes another race, religion, gender, etc. it does not mean that it should not be heard. If someone is offended by what another says, they can always speak their minds back. It is far worse to take away someone’s freedom than to insult them. Anyone should be able to say anything no matter what.

            Controlling what children learn is another unjust form of censorship. Some people believe that schools should not teach certain things to children because it takes away their innocence. Darwin’s theory of evolution and sexual education are a couple of the topics that many parents do not think should be taught at school. Parents have the right to pull their children from school when certain subjects are being taught, so it should not be an issue. Also, there are certain books that are banned from being read in public schools (Payne 2). Censorship only creates ignorance because it is limiting what a person can learn. Everyone including children should have the right to learn about anything and everything. The idea that children can be corrupted by being exposed to certain information is absurd because everyone should be able to make up their own ideas and opinions by knowing as much as possible. Furthermore, public school textbooks have to comply with “state laws and regulations that set out guidelines for content” and then go through “ a sequence of committees and boards, each of which inserts and deletes according to its taste in political correctness” (Payne 22). This is teaching children in a government-biased manner in which the children learn only one side of the information. The government is controlling what students learn and shaping their minds in the way they see fit. School should be a purely educational place where all kinds of learning occurs, instead of brainwashing and political indoctrination of the students. Students should be able to learn about anything even if it goes against the government. Controlling what is taught in school is far too much power for the government to have. Censorship in schools is especially terrible because it controls the young population to abide to the government’s way of thinking.

            The government should not have the power to regulate what people can and cannot say even if it may result in danger. In the Schenck v. United States case of 1919, it was ruled that, “that the government may suppress speech that presents a clear and present danger” (First Amendment Center 9). Although in certain cases speech can be used to cause harm, the government should not be the one to restrict it. It should not be illegal to say fire in a public place even though it is an extremely bad thing to do. The government should not have the power to watch over speech even though it may end up as a negative thing. There are still non-government related consequences for these actions. It is not illegal to be rude or mean even though it is bad to be rude or mean. If you are a bad person you will probably

not have many friends and your life may be unfulfilling, but you should not be fined or thrown in jail for it. The government should not have jurisdiction over certain things including speech.

            There should not be any restrictions to free speech or press for any reason. America is a free country. People cannot just go around killing others, but speech, press, religion, petition, and assembly are things that should be absolutely free. If the government controls these things it would have too much power and the nation would suffer. All of the countries where the people are oppressed, such as China and North Korea, are the ones that control what people are allowed to say.  We all need to fight against censorship to protect our Constitutional rights so we can all be free.

Works Cited

Asim, Jabari. "Is banning hurtful language: should offensive expressions be prohibited? No."             Ebony July 2007: 94. General OneFile. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.

"First Amendment Center." Firstamendmentcenter.org. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.             <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=glossary>.

Page, Rosalyn. "'Clean-feed' filter to go ahead: a proposed web protection scheme may             create more problems than it solves." Choice [Chippendale, Australia] Feb. 2010: 7.                         General OneFile. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.

Payne, James L. "Education versus the American Way." National Review 25 Sept. 1995:             58+. General OneFile. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.

Censorship Debate Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9856_xv8gc

Presentation

Our group's presentation is coming up on November 29. We will have to show our blogs and explain our positions. On the 22nd our group shot an introduction movie for the presentation. It is a parody of George Orwell's 1984, where we are fighting against an all-controlling government in the year 2084. We each explain a brief summary of our topic and make a couple jokes. Our presentation should be pretty good and I am looking forward to it.

Censorship Article

A mandatory internet web fitter is to be introduced soon, the federal government announced late last year. This filter, which is intended to prevent consumers receiving Refused Classification (RC) content, will be deployed by internet service providers (ISPs) to block material that includes child sex abuse content, bestiality and sexual violence, as well as crime and drug use information.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, which conducted a trial of internet filtering with several ISPs during 2009, released a report on its results that found blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100% accuracy and little impact on internet speed, according to Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

However, the fitter has been controversial and attracted many critics since it was first proposed, including ISPs and computer system administrators along with civil liberties and activist groups. They've argued it won't be effective due to the difficulty of tittering the internet without affecting speed and usability. Furthermore, critics have questioned the effectiveness of a fitter that does not include peer-to-peer internet transfer, which can stilt be used to transmit offensive material. They're also worried about the criteria by which websites will be classified as RC.

In response, the government will extend the Cyber Safety Online Helpline to improve education and awareness about safety online, and offer grants to ISPs to encourage additional internet filtering services for households wanting to increase the material that is blocked.

Page, Rosalyn. "'Clean-feed' filter to go ahead: a proposed web protection scheme may create more problems than it solves." Choice [Chippendale, Australia] Feb. 2010: 7. General OneFile. Web. 28 Nov. 2010.