Although traditional defenders of a right to pornography have beenliberals, it is important to note that not all contemporary liberalsdefend such a right. Indeed, the question of whether there might begood liberal grounds for prohibiting or otherwise regulating thevoluntary private consumption of (some) pornography has become thesubject of increasing and lively debate. Inspired by more recentfeminist arguments against pornography, some scholars argue that theliberal commitment to protecting individual autonomy, equality,freedom of expression and other important liberal values may in factsupport a policy that prohibits certain kinds of pornography, ratherthan the permissive stance that liberals have traditionallyfavoured. (See e.g., Dyzenhaus 1992, Easton 1994: 42–51, Langton 1990,Okin 1987, West 2003.) These theorists do not normally reject the harmprinciple, broadly understood: They generally agree that the crucialquestion in determining whether censorship of pornography is justifiedis whether there is reliable evidence to show that the publication orviewing of pornography by consenting adults causes sufficiently greatharm to significant interests of others. Rather, they are open to thelegitimacy of censorship because they think that the production andconsumption of certain sorts of sexually explicit material—inparticular, violent pornography and non-violent but degradingpornography—may in fact cause sufficiently significant harm toothers, particularly women.
The corporate media often ignores the intersection of race and gender when stories of race captivate the nation. For example, in August 2014 the nation was captivated by the corporate news coverage of Michael Brown, an unarmed African American teen shot dead by white Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson. White males in the corporate press discussed the place of race, police, young boys, violence, and fathers surrounding the case and others like it. Women of color were near invisible in the discussion. However, women of color have similar and often worse experiences of violence. A 2007 UN report from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded that police abuse of both men and women of color had worsened. They also found that in cases of abuse against black women and girls, not involving police, law enforcement does not give them the same attention as their white counterparts. Chagmion Antoine writing for Women Under Siege argued that despite the atrocities against women of color being “more insidious and more hidden” than those against men of color, the corporate press ignores them.
Free Teen Violence papers, essays, and research papers.
No, because it is too scary to see or hear on the news almost every day, especially about ISIS, to what they will or do to american people, or people in Europe, or in Syria and or in Iraq (especially who are Christians). News media should cut down on reporting it, or should stop reporting it, to help protect people, especially in the U.S.A., in Canada, or in Europe. When the news media reports about terrorism, it would tarnish, hurt, or even devastate peace for people in the United States, in Europe, or other western nations. When you hear about terrorism on the news everyday, it can be a major concern, or it can raise concerns for people, and even it can scare people, especially U.S. citizens, or people who live in Europe, e.g., in France, Belgium or in the U.K.
This to me is like news media gone wrong. News media should censor it, depending how bad it is to see on the news on TV.