The Family Entertainment And Copyright Act

The values of entertainment have been a popular discussion for a long time. Some claim that it is wholesome and fun, while others believe entertainment will “involve our country in ruin”. I believe that, although it can be detrimental as a form of escapism, entertainment is mostly a benefit to society, thanks to its educational and economic facets.

The Children Act 2004 has information about the different services that children and young people are entitled to. Local authorities and other bodies and requires that they work together in improving the well-being of children in the local area (Childrensrightswales.org.uk, 2015). This legislation came into place after the incident with involved Victoria Climbie who was abused by an older man. Her non-accidental injuries were reported to child protection authorizes, however an investigation was not fully carried out. There were many occasions that show the failings of the system, different people let her down. As a result of this case, The Children Act 2004 came about. The GPs had a responsibility to keep in contact with the social services

One of the arguments for the censorship of virtual arts according to Galsworthy is to protect children from thoughts that may harm their ethical growth (12). Parents have a sole responsibility of educating their children even before the onset of the formal education.

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

To ensure the success of IVRT, the product has to comply with U.S. regulations for media content. As the media content we provide are replications of the real world environments, we need to make sure that our media content are used in a proper way that would not cause potential harm to our content providers. We feel actively manage public opinions to ensure the safety and reputation of our company and our content providers.

Rules revolving around Canadian Content (CanCon) have been set in place since the 1920’s. In 2005, revisions to the 1991 Broadcasting Act were made. Since this revision was made there have been further changes to the Act trying to create the best set of rules for CanCon to be broadcasted (Dewing, 2011). CanCon is an outdated concept that is causing consumers to switch to other forms of media. The CanCon rules cannot determine what is considered Canadian and they cannot keep up with the ever-changing forms of media. Canadian producers are only getting a slim portion of the industry even with the rules in place. Therefore CanCon rules should be totally eliminated.

The particular author of this article chose to use the argument that a form of entertainment can change someone's viewpoints and their morals. The author also suggests that any content doing so should be done away with if negative. This author should look at other forms of entertainment that have negative connotations even if they are popular and would be fought for. Critics cannot choose what to fight for and against just because it has something included in it that they don't like. Their morals should be kept the same throughout all their judgements and not changed just because things are included that they don't particularly

Censorship is altering or blocking certain material from media, internet, and books. With the emergence of different communication technologies, this has been all-pervasive. This is most seen in television programs. There are different disputes as to whether it more harmful than beneficial .Many proponents think that the use of it will establish a balance in what is shown in T.V shows, while opponents are criticizing on the foundation of threats and violations that it poses to people’s right to speech.

This paper will discuss the history of media shield laws in the U.S. and Hawaii. It will argue the pros and cons of the need and importance of such shield laws in Hawaii to help enhance the First Amendment. According to the West 's Encyclopedia of American Law (n.d.) shield laws are statues that “make communications between news reporters and informants confidential and privileged, freeing journalists of the obligation to testify about them in court.” The encyclopedia compares this to a doctor-patient, lawyer-client or priest-parishioner privilege. Where these laws are in action, journalists are free to protect their sources. If subpoenaed by a state court, journalists are free to refuse to give up their confidential sources or unpublished material. This makes it easier for journalists to report on a broad variety of topics, but these laws are also controversial because they challenge the government interests when it comes to bringing criminals to justice (Shield Laws, n.d.). Research shows that Hawaii used to have a shield law – the best in the country according to several people – but it was overturned in 2013. Today, 49 states and the District of Colombia have implemented shield laws of different variation of protection (Riker, 2015). At the same time, there does not exist any media shield laws at the federal level (Shield Laws 101, n.d.).

It is necessary to regulate the digital communication nationally. Copyright behaviour is one such possible disadvantage to not doing so. FreeTV and the Advertising Standards Bureau both have guidelines for the advertising of food and drink catered for children. These guidelines were put in place in order to promote a healthy active lifestyle and not one of unhealthy consumption. Similarly, suicide portrayal guidelines implement throughout commercial radio. This has expanded further to regulate issues including the portrayal of women, indigenous people and cultural diversity. This forms under the basis of which the media should not promote prejudice and intolerance of these issues. Ultimately, the regulation aims to terminate potentially harmful images from the media, protect adults from spontaneous material that is likely offensive against social values.

When the rise of cable television began there were many local broadcasters who were worried about what sort of financial state they would be left in once audiences decided to switch over to much larger networks. Time went on and many attempts at regulating cable companies became bigger and bigger issues. The larger networks could reach across the nation, and by doing so would have effectively rendered the local network useless. The people were growing weary of the services provided by the cable companies, as well as the price at which they had been charging for those services. Realizing that this could become a greater issue Congress endeavored to settle this debacle by making the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This law would require cable providers to set aside channels so that local or public broadcasters could take place in the vacant airwaves, which would effectively keep them all from going out of business under the pressure of larger cable networks. The Federal Communications Commission would be responsible for any sort of actions to be taken to ensure that the Act was properly set into place. For those who worked under local and public broadcasting this was the greatest kind of victory, but not everyone was happy about the decision to enact this law. The Act caused many dissenting opinions within the cable industry as they appealed to the courts with the intention of proving that a must-carry policy is unconstitutional. (Ugland,

“This legislation grew out of the fact that by 1998 roughly ten million American children had access to the Internet, and at the same time, studies indicated that children were unable to understand the potential effect of revealing their personal information online and parent failed to monitor their children’s use of the Internet.” (Koby)

Examine the recommendations made by the ALRC for the introduction of ‘fair use’ in Australia?

Television is a big part of today’s society. Everybody watches television, including the children. There is a potential problem with letting children watch television. Ask this question, would someone let their own child watch some of the programming that they watch, too? Some of these programs are intended for the adult generation, not young children. Violence has a major role in television these days. Letting children watch this violence could corrupt their minds and eventually lead to bad behavior. There needs to be a limitation on the types of television programming that parents let their children watch, because violence in television can negatively affect children.