In society today, there is an argument circulating on whether or not the government censures the press or if they are just trying to protect the citizens of the United States. In today’s society, media is a huge factor in our everyday lives. Whether it be on social media or a major news station, all media is used to influence its viewer a certain way. We may not see the amount of censorship that is a factor in all of these outlets, but it is a much bigger issue than most people think. I believe that the press should have the right to provide the news we want and rightfully deserve; however, these rights of the press should not infringe on the privacy rights of the citizens of the United States. The constitution is the most important document in our countries history, but there comes a point when the news media invades people’s privacy. The press today has begun to fall victim to censorship in many different ways. Whether it be to protect confidential information, or to create a certain bias, the news stifles material on a daily basis. All of today’s news stations carry certain bias, either leaning to a more liberal or conservative standpoint, and all stations portray news stories in different ways. How do these stations convey different reactions and different viewpoints from the same stories? Most of the stations censor certain facts from the stories, and consequently create the bias they desire. This is a pressing danger to our society and the main factor of my research. While some censorship is mostly considered helpful (limiting graphic material online to protect children, protecting the identities of families being interviewed after a tragedy), that is only a small portion of what is actually censored in the press. While I, and most Americans, agree with the government keeping our safety in mind, there is a divide between safety and keeping your citizens unaware about certain topics. Ignorance is a serious issue and it is not all to blame on the citizens of America. The country right now is already extremely divided in multiple issues, and censoring these issues just puts off the problems that are already present. Freedom of the press was stated in the first amendment for a reason; to put it as a priority, and today’s government is failing to do so. I believe the solution to this problem would be to provide distinct laws that discuss situations where the government is allowed to censor the press and restrict the amount of privacy they intrude. 

The government cannot censure the press because it would be unconstitutional. The first amendment is freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. When first founded, the constitution was the basis on which the whole country was founded. The colonists created this document to discuss what was going to be changed in this “new world” compared to that one in which they lived in Brittan. “The freedom of the press protects the right to publish information and to express ideas in these various media. It is an important right in a free society. To make sure government is running properly, citizens need to be informed. People do not have the time or ability to watch everything the government does” (History, 1). If these founding father were intelligent enough to decide this principle so many years ago, why can our government not do the same? In one source discussing the obvious interference that censorship has with the first amendment, the author states, “Enacting laws restricting Internet speech is not the proper way to solve their problem because it violates fundamental Constitutional rights and cannot be enforced” (Landier, 5).  In this instance, Landier is explaining that whether the news article be in the newspaper or the online news article, anti-censorship regulations remain the same. As Americans, we have the right to freedom of speech, but the idea of censorship completely encroaches upon this right. “…when it comes to free expression, “regulations” are just a clever way to champion censorship while dodging the word” (Wrong, 1).  No one should ever be shamed for their desire to know the truth nor should the individuals we elect try to devise ways to hide the information we deserve to know. “…leaders have an obligation to promote information access, intellectual freedom, and the right to learn” (Mclaulin, 11). 

This issue has been present for many years, involving many court cases and debates on how the press must balance reporting the truth and protecting national security; however, it has become more common with the immense access people have to the internet. This argument was especially present in the court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States. In 1971, a document was acquired by the New York Times concerning the war in Vietnam. After Nixon heard the article was preparing to be published, he requested that the Times not proceed with the article any further as it is government information that could jeopardize the nation’s security. The New York Times refused and took the case to the Supreme Court, claiming it violated the first amendment of freedom of speech. After much debate, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times with a vote of 6-3. Warren Burger, Chief Justice at the time of the case, said, "Only those who view the First Amendment as an absolute in all circumstances -- a view I respect, but reject -- can find such cases as these to be simple or easy." This case continues to be one of the most defining cases of journalism in American history (Willsey, 1).

Censoring true and present issues in this country ultimately damages the country because it makes the citizens unaware of what is going on around the world. “There is a clear distinction between the truth the reporters gather, and the stories they produce… it all comes down to the stations agenda on what they believe will get the most views” (Oscar).  I believe there should not be any regulations on a news story just because of the gruesome or inappropriate content. Landier states, “parents, not the government, need to take control of the situation and protect the innocence of their children through parentally controlled software devices. Though parentally controlled software is not perfect in that it relies on human intervention, it is a much better solution than governmental censorship in that it is perfectly legal” (Landier, 7).  This ignorance in the US is already a very pressing issue and would only get worse if the government was able to censor the issues most important to its citizens. There is no question that the news media should exercise care. But Americans must recognize that being unaware of danger is not the same as being safe from danger” (McMasters, 3).  McMasters goes on to state how much citizens trust the reporters that bring us our news and to restrict their duty and give up fundamental rights is unacceptable. The fundamental principle of this country is to govern by the people; however, how are citizens expected to be able to do so when the government is censoring their news, blocking their research capabilities, and limiting their outlooks? News is too important to be censured especially in this day and age especially due to the fact of how much it protects us and informs us to help our safety (McMasters). This fight against censorship can start with the press and begin to develop into censorship of all media. “…the administration’s attempts to shut down the free press could succeed, just as it shows how those attempts can be stopped” (Rutenburg). The author goes onto explain how censorship is a “slippery slope”. It may just start with the decision to remove some inaccurate news and proceed to news that they do not want to be shown. Rutenburg also makes the point of the world, specifically regarding the press and internet, is constantly changing and evolving; thus making it very difficult to create a definite law on what to censor versus what not to. At the end of the day, leading to the conclusion that it would be better not to create a censorship law at all and to keep the rights of the citizens protected no matter what. 

The government cannot censure the press for the reason that they are already suppressing and censoring enough information from its citizens. “Censorship is generally discussed as a coherent, consistent activity, but in reality, censorship is a constellation of practices” (Knox 269). While many may not realize it, censorship is present in ways citizens do not even realize. In a documentary, Project Censored, interviewers go to multiple colleges to ask students about current events and issues going on around them. It is very alarming of the amount of young adults that are not aware of the world around them. “There are many different forms of censorship, some are so subtle you may not even realize it is happening...” (Oscar).  Oscar continues with news stations statistics that have factual evidence that people want to hear news stories with celebrities over international issues; in return, causing news stations to show more celebrity stories and less worldly and accurate information. The media is already cautious when showing what images they already show and they must go through several proofing stages before being published. Halbrooks says, “While news stories are often edited for length, there are many choices that are made that are designed to keep some information from becoming public. Sometimes these decisions are made to safeguard a person's privacy, others to protect media outlets from corporate or political fallout” (Halbrooks, 1). It is becoming more and more important to show full and accurate news to the people of this country to help better the future. The law states expression can only be banned if it presents a clear danger or threat to a person or group. Any other expression cannot be legally banned on the fact that people are offended by it; however, this is happening. (ACLU). The press is not only in danger in its physical form, but also in the many versions posted online. “Creating new laws to censor the Internet, like the CDA, are a vain attempt to enforce laws that would not be acceptable on a global level” (Landier, 2). Landier discusses the possible attempt to censor information found on the internet, which consequently includes the online press that has recently been made accessible for the world at the touch of a button. “There needs to be a clear divide between media and the government and media and corporations because mixing the two has become a real issue for this country” (Oscar).  To further restrict the public from this access would be totally unreasonable and not only affect the citizens who read it, but also the publishers and the news companies that rely on these numbers of readers to keep the employed. By censoring the press, it creates an entirely new economic issue on the loss of jobs and businesses. 

Some sources state that it is justified to censor the press when there is a dangerous situation that requires no information being leaked about the topic. Graber describes that it is justifiable to censor the press, but only in times of danger. She states, “Press freedom is crucial in times of national crisis such as rampant terrorism or war. But press freedom is likely to become a casualty at such times because of legitimate concerns about security for civilians and military personnel and because of fears of compromising the confidentiality of important public policies” (Graber, 1). There should be a better way to protect the citizens of America while still reporting present and accurate news. No press should ever have to keep the truth hidden from their own citizens. The government should especially inform their people on information that could endanger them so they can protect themselves. Another example of this justification of censorship is discussed in Leech’s and Reeve’s article on politics and propaganda. The authors further discuss how it is necessary to censor the press because of the risk of endangering their own reporters. In 2003, 3 journalists were killed while reporting a story on terrorism. Leech states, “It is surprising that so many prominent progressive intellectuals in the United States have signed petitions condemning Cuba without criticizing the Bush administration’s strategy of using the crackdown on dissidents to politicize human rights” (Leech, 5).  This source admits that the idea of censorship is unconstitutional stating that speech is a human right and should not be over “politicized”.  Some sources explain how censorship protects the children in today’s age from violence and vulgarity in the press. However, this idea is completely unreasonable because of today’s access that children have to the internet. “Censorship in an age of ubiquitous access seems to be an entirely futile act. What is the point of trying to remove materials from collections when they are readily available online or in the next town?” (Knox, 270). If parents are worried about the amount of violence in today’s news then they can protect their children themselves. These parents and guardians should not put the responsibility on the press to report family friendly news. Censorship should not over turn the first amendment. Censoring cursing, nudity and violence won't make the problems surrounding these issues go away. The large majority of the population can do without the bleeps and blurs. The first amendment gives the special gift of speech and for citizens to surrender that gift is a failure on the basis of freedom.

While some situations require some government assistance to regulate what is available for the American public to see, most often there is no need for censorship. There is a thin line between protecting citizens and infringing on rights of citizens. This line, on the other hand, is constantly changing; in result, making it almost impossible to create such laws that “protect” from such issues and articles that need censoring. “To fix this pressing problem, it is going to take more than just turning off mainstream media. It is going to take action. It is going to take people willing to uncover the truth and expose what corporations are trying so hard to hide” (Oscar). As people with thoughts and ideas, we should be able to speak them as freely as we please; without any regulations implemented on our words. This issue does not pertain to one demographic; it concerns all citizens of the United States that value their rights. What was written in the constitution that formed out country should still be the basis today. Since this issue has lasted throughout many decades of our history, Americans need to be more aware of the dangers of censorship taking away the rights we were given when this country was founded. Instead of laws being passed to repress our speech, there should be specific laws that protect it in these circumstances that could be considered controversial. 
