Censorship Of Children's Programming

Children today spend an average of four hours per day watching television. In fact, they spend so much time in front of the television that it is often referred to as "the new babysitter". With television becoming such a large part of childhood over the past two decades there has been much controversy as to what should be allowed across our airwaves, particularly in children's programming. Questions arise as to whether children's programming needs to be censored, and if it does what should be censored. From a moral and ethical viewpoint what needs to be censored in order to best fulfill our obligations as a morally and ethically sound society? Assuming there needs to be censorship of children's programming, there is a whole other predicament as to determining what qualifies as children's programming and then who is in fact responsible for censoring harmful material.

The very first dilemma concerning the issue of censorship in children's programming is defining who qualifies as children and subsequently what is to be considered children's programming. There are multiple views regarding who and who is not to be considered a child. The two extremes are that of the libertarians and of the conservatives.

Libertarians claim that no difference exists when considering the rights, morals, and philosophies of adults and children. They see children as simply "being" rather than "becoming", meaning that children have equally as important views as adults do. Libertarians compare children to adults almost as one would compare two separate cultures or belief systems, both equally as valued as the other. The problem with this theory is that children and infants do not posses the required reasoning ability or consciousness to fully understand their own decisions and the following implications. As proof to that point, no five year old would be capable of living independently making their own decisions.

On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives would claim that children are defined as anyone with an "underdeveloped" conscience and belief system. By this they mean that anyone who is not fully capable of independent thought and lacks a mature ability to understand the consequences of their decisions cannot be considered an adult. By this standard many people would never reach adulthood during their lifetime.

Children can be defined as a combination of the two views. The defining characteristic of a child is development. G.B. Mathews put it fairly well when he states "In Biology, the child is viewed as unfinished in his or her growth as a human animal; in ethics, unfinished in the training in virtue; in politics, unfinished in the education for adult life as a responsible citizen." (Mathews) The task now is deciding exactly what "finished" is. Finished can be considered the general ability to make conscious decisions regarding one's own beliefs and life at a moderate level of sophistication, meaning they posses a developed reasoning ability and self awareness.

Defining children's programming becomes slightly harder since there isn't any single defining criterion. A good start at deciding whether a program is child oriented would be looking at the target audience. Obviously, shows such as "Sesame Street" and "Teletubbies" would fall under children's television, but some newer cartoons and movies such as "The Simpsons" and the majority of Disney movies are targeted at a much more general audience that includes children. These types of shows seem to be the most troublesome when it comes to the issue of censorship because the producers are attempting to appeal to both children and mature audiences. Beyond the censorship of general programming and movies, there is the issue of censorship in televised advertisement. A number of companies target children with ethically questionable commercials. A few examples are junk food companies, toy producers, and some would claim alcohol and tobacco industries do it as well. So as an extremely general definition, children's programming is any televised show, movie, or advertisement that appeals to or targets children.

The question now becomes exactly why does there need to be any censorship, and what needs to be censored? When asking why there should be censorship of children's programming one needs to examine exactly what moral or ethical obligations are owed to children.

On the far liberal side of the spectrum, there is the viewpoint of the "child liberationists". They claim that children are being wronged since parents and society do not respect their choices. They are "being maintained in an artificial state of dependence upon adults and, crucially, by being denied the same moral status as adult agents."(Archard) Richard Farson (1974), John Holt (1975), and Howard Cohen (1980) most famously made this argument. According to them, as a society and individuals we are obligated to respect children's decisions and rights. This goes back to the liberal definition of a child as being a "state of being". It is simply absurd to think that children have the capacity to fully exercise the same rights as adults.

Conservatives believe that everyone, especially parents, are obligated to protect children from any harmful decision they might make as well as shield them from any foreign beliefs or views they may encounter. This is based on the idea that children are to be raised to carry on the traditions, culture and identity of the group to which they were born to. These conservatives often make the argument that they rightfully have complete control over their children, including their rights. Charles Fried (1979) illustrates this idea in an attempt to justify it. He states "the right to form one's child's values, one's child's life plan and the right to lavish attention on the child are extensions of the basic right not to be interfered with in doing these thing for oneself," (Fried) since one's child is essentially an extension of themselves. This argument as well as any argument in support of these obligations is wrong from an ethical standpoint. It is one thing to protect a child from making decisions that will potentially harm them, but another to deny them the fundamental choice to develop their own identity. From a conservative point of view children would be considered property of their parents and for all intents and purposes the group that they are born to.

A compromise between the two views solves the ethical dilemmas in both. As a society, we are obligated to do everything in our power to be sure that children are not taken advantage of, hurt, or exposed to anything that may rob them of their "childlike understanding

...