Frutos 1
Stephanie Frutos
Lee
Writing 10
22 September 2014
Rhetorical Essay
We do not often think about the sexual implications that are generated by the
media just because we already expect our government to generate a filter for what is
shown to the general public; agencies such as the FCC are expected to only show what
they think is appropriate. Susan Jacoby explores the negative consequences that could
possibly result in letting our government have too much control over what we can and
cannot see in her article, “A First Amendment Junkie.” She wants to stress the
importance of absolute interpretation of the first amendment, hence the article’s name,
and how it could ultimately lead to bigger issues on government control. “The SelfCensorship of the Media is still being Self-Censored” by Link Byfield talks more about
media censorship having do to with political parties, and how they also have control over
what is and what is not broadcasted. Jacoby wants to persuade the audience about being
more aware of a small problem that could ultimately lead to bigger problems.
The United States of America is a democratic country and is widely known as the
“land of the free,” however, Jacoby makes you realize that we are not as free as we think
with something as small as media censorship. There are growing concerns about the
psychological affects of pornography, and there is no denying that some forms of
pornography are disturbing and gross. Even though most of us wish to never come across
those subgenres of that matter, the opportunity is always there and that freedom is what is
Frutos 2
really stressed in the first amendment. For those who do not know what is specifically
listed in the first amendment, it lists basic freedoms such as: religion, assembly, petition,
press, and speech. And although many people disagree with these forms, it is important
not to let these interest groups take down such things because it can lead to more control
in the hands of the government. The arguments Jacoby makes are reasonable and help
persuade the audience not only because the way it is written direct and easy to read, but
also because she mentions how other liberties could be at stake in allowing the
government to slowly inch in and slowly take as much as it can until it has a firmer grip
on its citizens. Small censorships can lead to more censorships of things we now accept,
such as abortion.
Byfield’s article shows that even if things are already censored through the
government, individuals and/or interest groups still censor beyond the federal censors.
This supports the argument of Jacoby because she stated that people should censor what
they want to see and what they do not want to see because they already do it even with
the filters of the federal government. If we think about it, we have access to the internet,
where there is a lot of controversial information hidden throughout the trillions of
gigabytes and search engines, however we only search what we want and avoid what we
do not want to see. So therefore, what difference would it make if there was less, or lack
there of, a filter? Byfield mentions that beyond the government, there is also interest
groups that are controlling parts of the media, where he discusses that some of his own
articles were not broadcasted because they were not in favor of the interest groups. We
are allowing politics to really influence what we think and see, which will affect our
government and could later shape our media into something similar to a communistic one
Frutos 3
because of the controls we have allowed. Not only that, but these could lead to bigger
issues, such as allowing “the government to achieve what they haven’t achieved in the
free market.” (Jacoby 59)
Jacoby’s intended audience is to anyone who favors media censorship, such as
parents, or even other feminists trying to shut down pornographic sites. She is mostly
appealing to these when she brings up the counterarguments to oppose the favoring in
censorship. By saying how there are more important issues to address other than the
shutting down of these explicit sites; it is selfish for the feminist to want to target a small
problem over other more important social problems.
Moreover, the claims made within Jacoby’s text are very opinionated, although
she gives evidence about her claims, it is very direct. She seems to be very wholeheartedly for the non-censorship of any media, even with extreme cases like child
pornography. She claims that without the government filters, there will be more truth
with other things in politics or just other aspects in life. However, the government is not
the only one responsible for what is shown on television. In Byfield’s article, we see that
other people participate in further filtration of what is shown on local or national
channels. Political parties of certain areas will only broadcast what is favorable to the
intended audience. For example, in democratic states, the majority of the political
opinions will be democratic, and vice versa for republican states. So the problem with her
argument is that she believes we will have freedom from the reins of government control,
yet the parties are still dictating what we are watching, so we really are not free per se.
Although most of the arguments made in Jacoby’s article seemed logical, there
are some patchy issues, and seem very far-fetched. These claims seemed to be extreme
Frutos 4
cases of smaller problems. One of the bigger issues within this text was some statistics
behind the claims made, such as the percentage of children watching television that could
potentially watch something that is not PG, that would have made a bigger impact on the
reader because they could see whether or not censorship should be limited, but not
including this information can lead the reader to believe there is a majority of children
that could accidentally run into the explicit material, and invalidate her arguments.
Byfield’s article makes the reader awake that whether there are restrictions as to what can
be viewed by government standards, there will still be other filters on top of that, either
coming from what the politics of an area want to broadcast or just through personal
filters. Regardless of the government censorship, we will add more of our own filters on
top of it, it is inevitable with our own ideals.
Frutos 5
Work Cited
Byfield, Link. “The self-censorship in the media is still being self-censored.” Alberta
Report/ Newsmagazine 23 June 1997: 2. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17
Sep. 2014.