Regulating The Digital Communication Nationally

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and evaluate the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (Public law S.167). Throughout the paper a thorough description of the policy’s design will be given along with the implementation process. By providing a detailed analysis and examples it is a goal to fully understand this policy. From the history of the act to the current situation this paper will delve into all aspects of the policy. The discussion of whether this act was a result from market or government failure proves to be a prominent motive for implementation. This evaluation will judge the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy, while providing information on the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (S.167) for the reader. An overall analysis of the act will then be given. This will explain the main strengths and weaknesses that the policy possesses. After a full evaluation and understanding of the policy recommendations on how it could be bettered for future references will be given. It is a goal that the reader will then be able to form their own opinion of The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (S.167), and whether or not it is indeed effective.

Electronic media content can be viewed differently according to personal opinions, but the First Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution lay the foundation for the legal system that is to be followed. These rights form a guide that help citizens have a stronger grasp on what is and isn’t acceptable within the eye of the law. Narrowing down to electronic media content, there has been a rise of tension involving first amendment rights of content regulations. The spectrum scarcity rationale has made it possible to control licensing schemes, along with direct content control to make sure rules are being followed according to the First Amendment. The differences between cable TV

Censorship on television in the United States has been an issue ever since the television was invented. The public holds a variety of stances on the topic, and no matter what law is ever passed regarding censorship, it will never suit the needs of everyone. Some believe that censorship violates individual rights in the law, and others believe that censorship should be available through members in the family, not the government. On the other hand, some people strive to maintain government regulation of censorship. Television censorship is significant because it holds the future of our country. If channels continue to be censored, our rights will be violated. If not, then the future generations may change

When television was first introduced, it was strictly enforced on what could be broadcasted on television. Now, things are enforced but not as much, they sensor things that aren’t “appropriate”. I think that graphic images should be more federally regulated because the government shouldn’t suggest those things, and it creates more problems in the nation than there already are, but at the same time I think not because of the fact that people should be able to watch whatever they want to without government regulation. People are allowed to believe what they want to believe, so why shouldn’t they be able to watch what they choose to watch? But I also think that people don’t always make the right decisions and they could be seeing or watching things that they shouldn’t be watching, especially young people. Overall, I think that you should be allowed to watch whatever you choose, but with some regulations by the government. Additionally, regulation of television has changed from being strict to being

If Canada wants to protect their national identity, they must all embrace each other’s cultures, instead of creating multiple broadcasts that preach one view or culture. Without state governed media, the dominance of US products in Canada would diminish its identity as a nation, fail to serve the public interest and create less profits causing more advertising and less content in the media. Government regulated media proves to be more favourable and beneficial than policies based off of self-regulated solutions when addressing Canada’s media industries and cultural

Media holds such high standards in today 's society, and media as a whole has gotten so much power throughout the years. There are so many different forms of media in today 's world: newspapers, magazines, televisions, the hundreds of websites on the Internet, social media applications, computers, and novels. Media advertises thousands of different things, but something that has stayed consistent over the years is advertisement on body image. Media advertises a specific body type, pushes different dietary needs to achieve this body type and thus creating the standard of in order to be beautiful, this particular body type must be achieved. However, what advertisers seem to be neglecting is the effect their advertisements are having on its viewers. The constant push to achieve a certain body type has affected the health of thousands of people around the world, and directly affecting the eating disorder epidemic.

The issue of distorting body image in the media and its effects on people is not a new concept to modern time. There is a long history of body image’s powerful place in society because of people’s impressions of each other based on body image. Research has been done on the effects and outcomes of this issue. Recently, consumers have fought with the media to try and achieve a safer way to spread information and let these media outlets be successful without having severe impacts on adolescents especially, among other age groups. The general ethical principle that the stakeholders use in this fight is similar to utilitarianism, because each stakeholder believes they are bringing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The stakeholders

Radio, television, film, and the other products of media culture provide materials out of which we forge our very identities; our sense of selfhood; our notion of what it means to be male or female; our sense of class, of ethnicity and race, of nationality, of sexuality; and of "us" and "them." These products of media help shape our view of the world and our deepest values: what we consider good or bad, positive or negative, moral or evil. They contribute to educating us how to behave and what to think, feel, believe, fear, and desire -- and what not too. The media teach us how to be men and women, how to dress,

Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and

"The United States Government, to an extent, can regulate what happens on the Internet. In today's modern and technological society, we rely heavily on smartphones and the Internet for much of our daily lives. We are constantly posting on social media forums, such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. We, the people, tend to believe that everything we post on the Internet cannot be used against us. Some people also believe that everything they say or post on social media won't and doesn’t matter. However, that's far from the truth. When it comes to social media and what we, as a society, say in our posts, the United States Government actually monitors what we, the people, say and how we, the people, act. The United States Government really doesn't care about that family vacation you took back in 2014 to Chicago or that new haircut you got that you thought would be the ultimate game changer. The United States Government mainly searches for ""red flags"" in posts, such as threats to the Government or the President. Last year, one of the thousands of students at my high school posted on one of his social media accounts that he was going to kill Donald Trump. Within the next twenty four hours, the secret service, dressed in their black suit and ties, were at my school, placing handcuffs on that particular student. That student was

Censorship may be protection from inappropriate materials, but it also limits free speech. For the limitation of free speech, it is reasonable why people are emphatically against censorship. It is understood that there is a need to filter some of the materials released in today’s society, but too much is being done by people who have no right meddling with everyone’s rights. Civilization has always been plagued by a never ending battle being fought over what is deemed right and wrong. In today’s culture, censorship oppresses everything in the media. From movies and music to television and even news stories, most of the content viewed today has been filtered one way or another. Restrictions have been in place since early societies have been

In the Age of Information or the Era of the Internet, everyone is connected. Everyone carries around a computer in their pocket with more than enough computing power to send a man to the moon. Invisibly, data is constantly flowing. Virtually everything we interact with in today’s world has one thing in common: the internet. It plays a huge role in everything from sharing pictures with friends to the election. It is widely accessible and houses a wealth of information. Anyone should be able to access the network of data that is the internet. However, just as this Swiss Army Knife of innovation can be applied towards the common good, it can also be limited and used nefariously—an action that manifests itself in the form of censorship. Internet

Media influence is the force by which ideas are injected into people’s lives shaping the very culture of society. This influence is masqueraded through hidden media message, resulting in a change in its audience which can be positive or negative, abrupt or gradual, short term or long term. Although mass media’s influential effect can reach a wide ranged audience as an agent of socialization the responsibility to contain what it releases has not been of importance. “The media’s socially significant obligations are formally ignored.” (A.S. Zapesotskii, 2011, p 9). Media messages can be exerted through many different outlets such as TV shows, music, movies, commercials, news, magazines, games which are all gravitated to entertain audiences ultimately offering personal gratification that can sometimes blur the lines between reality and

Parents try to teach their kids that smoking is wrong, for example, yet commercials showing the rich and glamorous smoking are seen everyday on television. Subliminal messages are sent to the viewer that those who smoke drive fancy cars and are beautiful people, thus enticing the viewer to smoke their product. One cannot be fully human without values, yet the media tries to interfere with those values acquired from infancy, causing a major conflict in human lives.

The parameters of the term censorship have been changed and manipulated very much over the years. Television and movie ratings have become more lenient against violence and indiscretion because these things are now seen as entertainment. Is this appropriate for our youth? Should children be exposed to these images so early on? How does censorship in the media affect adolescents? Children are the future of our society and need to have some understanding of real world occurrences. Ultimately, censorship can only be determined by the parents. The media cannot filter every bit of controversial images. What rights does the media have in this situation? How are their First Amendment rights applied here? As an aspiring political science