Expressing Disagreement

F Stronger	I disagree entirely. I wouldn’t go along with you	on that there..
Inf	You can't be serious. You must be joking. How on earth can you say such a thing?
F Weaker Inf	I’m not really sure if I would go along with you I'm inclined to disagree with that I'm not sure you're right there. That's a little far-fetched, isn't it?	on that. there.

1. Make the following into statements of agreement and disagreement using the language in the boxes above.

E x a m p l e:

(Agree) I/not/more

(Disagree) You/joking

It’s high time men ceased to regard women as second-rate citizens.

– I couldn’t agree more!

– You must be joking.

1. In my opinion, women won equality long ago.

There/something/suppose, along/you there.

I/not/go along/you there.

2. A loose woman is a disagreeable acquaintance.

I/your point.

I/inclined to/with that.

3. Divorce should be banned as it destroys the family.

I/go along/you/ on that.

How/earth/say/thing?

4. Women are likely to exaggerate their problems.

That/absolutely true!

That/little far-fetched, isn't it?

5. Women’s Liberation Movement has raised the esteem for women.

Well/you/point there.

I/not sure/right there.

UNIT III. Mass Media within the Context of National Culture

Section 1. Censorship: a Curse or a Blessing

Starter activity

When at school, were you allowed to watch TV, read books or browse the Internet indiscriminately or were you restricted to particular programs/books/sites? If so, who placed restrictions on you and did you benefit from such selective viewing/reading/browsing?

READING ONE

Censorship Debate

UCLA – University of California at Los Angeles

ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union

While US media censorship has gained recent attention as a result of Janet Jackson’s exposure on live television, and the careful attention to what information is aired in terms of the Iraq war, censorship is no new issue. Censorship laws within the media have existed for decades, gaining specificity and stringency as an apparent need shows itself. However laws on censorship do not end the battle over their necessity. Opposing sides continually pose the costs versus the benefits of censorship within the media, specifically the news media. The debate seems to center around the same general theme: censorship practices are beneficial to the public interest.

However, this debate branches into several different subtopics, dependent upon which side of the debate is tackling the issue.

First, those who are opposed to US censorship practices typically claim the First Amendment or the right to free speech as a basis for their argument against censorship in general. As stated by the National Coalition against Censorship, “Freedom of communication is the indispensable condition of a healthy democracy. In a pluralistic society it would be impossible for all people at all times to agree on the value of all ideas.” In effect, they are stating that the First Amendment rights are a necessary element of the democracy because of the inability to create one map of correct values for a society.

Furthermore, a concern is stated for any infringement on these First Amendment rights because of the “chilling effect” they seem to cause. According to Julie Hilden, a “Find Law” columnist and experienced attorney, Congress is extending the blame to and imposing censorship mandates on parties who have no fault in the incident. In effect, Congress is not only violating First Amendment rights, but punishing those who violate the rules they imposed despite the amendment, and punishing those surrounding the issue, despite their lack of involvement or fault.

However, the opposing camp cites the argument that the Constitution is up for interpretation, and that the First Amendment’s statement of free speech may not be as black and white as it seems. This party claims that conflict is found when the Constitution is read too literally, and that it is being taken advantage of today by those who push for more civil freedoms. In fact, according to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA professor specializing in the First Amendment, its original form, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to push their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable,” was not accepted; it shows that complete freedom within the media from censorship was not the intent of Congress.

Another need for censorship cited by those in support of government controls is that censorship is needed for the protection of troops abroad. The damage possible by not censoring the media can be seen through the example of Geraldo Rivera and his leak of military locations. By drawing a map of military locations, he potentially put them at risk for attack by insurgent forces.

However, critics of such censorship claim that the government may use such policies to assuage the public’s view of the severity of the war, and in effect deprives them from the truth. According to David Swanson, a Philadelphia inquirer reporter and photographer for Echo Company during the war, “The poverty of images has removed death from the war; it’s war, whether you agree to it or not … death needs to be shown. A country needs to be reminded that an 18-year-old has just died, and that Memorial and Veterans’ days are not just days for picnics at the beach.”

Also, those opposed to such censorship claim that government controls information into and out of Iraq, by means of controlling which journalists are cleared to report from there, and what information they release. They say that journalists not cleared by the government risk their own lives, as proven by the fact that more journalists have been killed in 14 months in Iraq than in the whole of the Vietnam War. In effect, they (the government and the media) are presenting an untrue view of the war to those they approve for reporting, and putting the lives of those who report independently in danger.

Finally, the issue of censorship becomes a battleground when considering media censorship and its effect on youth. Proponents of censorship cite that the news media and their possible use of harsh language or images may be detrimental to the values instilled in children by their parents. This is specifically true in terms of Internet news and Internet search engines that display questionable material for youths. Not only do they stress that search engines often re-route visitors to sites of questionable morals, despite how specifically academic the request for information, but that news items censored on television are available online. For example, photos of flag-draped coffins that cannot be published are widely circulated on the Internet.

However, the opposing side cites that such information is critical to youths in search of news and information. While the Internet may have some unreliable sources and questionable sites, the greater danger is in censoring all information as a result. For, as stated by the ACLU, “Without free and unfettered access to the Internet, this exciting new medium could become, for many Americans, little more than a G-rated television network.” In effect, children would be handed what to think by the base of sites available instead of allowed free thinking and access to information.

As you may see, there is no consensus on the issue of censorship and the news media. While some laws do exist, it is moreover a question of personal and company ethics when it comes to making a decision whether to air certain material as it is, or with editing. Regardless, journalistic ethics are questionable in either decision. Are you protecting by censoring, or harming? Is there any right answer?

by Katie O’Connor

Censorship Debate, 2006

Language focus

1. Highlight the following word combinations used in the text and explain their meaning:

– to air information;

– the First Amendment;

– to tackle the issue;

– indispensable condition;

– pluralistic society;

– “chilling effect”;

– bulwarks of liberty;

– insurgent forces;