Rodolfo C. Iowa


I think that censorship in the US is far too strict

Dear Future President,

I am writing this to tell you that censorship in the United States is far too strict. This is affecting people like the creators of entertainment and the audience receiving the “product”. The creators are being affected by the fact that their creativity is being limited to not include certain things even though that may be what they want to portray. The audience is being affected because they aren’t getting what one of the main things could be, such as watching an action film but having it be mostly conversations because the action was too violent and so most of it had to be removed. Then there are the parents, who would like more serious things, but are labeled as “causing flaws in children” and so then the parents can’t watch it because the children could possibly take a peek at it. I know that this doesn’t seem that important, but have you ever had a time where you’re disappointed by something, only to find out later that what would’ve made it amazing was cut because it was “too violent” or “had too much strong language”?

You could say that things like violence are censored because it causes aggression in people. Think about Japan, though, because they have much more violence and gore in their entertainment, yet they have a crime rate close to five times less than the US's. Not only that, but people also think that it’s kids who get these aggressive thoughts, but the average age in the US when someone starts doing crimes is six years. In Japan, though, the average age is twelve years old, meaning that it takes twice as long for kids to even do any crimes even with so much violence around them. (Nation Master)

There was a case in 1957 called the “Butler v. State of Michigan” case where a man was sued after he was caught with material that was considered capable of causing flaws in children. The case ended with a law in Michigan being taken away where all material of that type was illegal because it would render adults to read “children things”. This would really then just mean that if a kid is able to watch or see something inappropriate for them, then it really is just the parents’ fault for letting them have a way of viewing it. (Law Digest)

Another thing is, though, that technically this whole censorship thing goes against the very first amendment. The first amendment is the amendment that gives you the freedom of speech, and so if you deny people the ability to express themselves that is the exact opposite. Another problem is that when things go through the censorship “process” they’re looked over by a small group of people and then they decide what to take out and send to the creators. Then, it’s the creator’s job to remove it from the product without any decision on it. (

I think that something we could do is to make censor laws less strict and more easy going first. This would make it so that the creators of something have a bit more freedom of what they can do and they wouldn’t get many things censored. Another thing that could happen is to have many more people look over it instead of just a small group and then have the things most mentioned be more of a strong opinion and a kind of suggestion rather than saying that it is necessary for it to be removed.

Sincerely, Rodolfo