Minow Response- Lindsay. C

In the book Abandoned in the Wasteland, Minow uses Supreme Court cases to uphold his beliefs of why children’s television should be government controlled. Minow feels that because a child’s ability to form rational judgements and distinguish between fantasy and reality, differs from adults, certain types of television shows should be taken off the air because they are not acceptable for kids to see. Minow argues that just as the Supreme Court banned the sale of the adult magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse to minors, because it was too mature for children’s eyes, children’s television as well needs to be regulated, because it too can be just as harmful for children as pornography. Minow also believes that the First Amendment is being used as a scapegoat by television broadcasters as a way to protect their ability to brainwash children into becoming consumers by concealing useless advertisements in their favorite shows.

Minow- Thomas A.

After having read about Minows beliefs on the 1st Amendment I find myself even more confused. Minow seems to go off on several different topics and I found it hard to follow. He begins by discussing how accommodations to the 1st Amendment need to be made in regards to children and then he goes off discussing pornography. I feel as though he could have made a more compelling argument if he stuck with court decisions that affected children and television.  I think that what Minow is trying to say that the 1st Amendment needs to be altered to children and the new world that they are growing up in.  Children should not have to be subject to obscenity as long as it does not affect the rights of adults.  Another alteration in the 1st Amendment is children should not be allowed the fullest extent of the 1st Amendment in schools because that is a place for learning.

Minow – Kate Posey

Minow and Lamay’s account of the Supreme Court cases is meant to strengthen the claim that television has dangerous effects on children. He discusses that children need to be handled in a special manner. However, the court cases in which they discuss are of more serious issues. The “stranger in the house” scenario is being re-discussed and they make an attempt to apply it to real life court cases. Certainly, child pornography is more serious than Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.  They make an interesting case in saying that “the Court upheld the statute because it thought the statute expressed the community’s judgment about what was appropriate for minors with regard to an expression that does not enjoy full First Amendment protection” (124). How a statute can be upheld based on a thought alone is unclear to me. Decisions should be made on scientific research and facts, not mere ideas of the mind that have yet to be proven. This section in Minow attempts to argue that facts are not necessary in the case of Television because some people may think that television has the potential to harm their children.  

I think this argument is made weak by the court cases that Minow discusses. Television that has the potential for danger is not as serious as child pornography. He tries to prove that children should be handled in a different way in concerns to the First Ammendment.  This is to say that the law was made too broad for this exact purpose. By makign the law broad, court decisions would have more ways in which they could be ruled. This may be true in some cases (such as child pornography); however, Television is not that serious of an issue and it is something which the parents have ultimate control over. Potential dangers should not build an entire case… coffee has the potential to burn me, should we stop brewing it?

*Minow’s Larger Point*

Newton Minow firmly believes that many shows publicly broadcasted on television contribute to an increased level of violence in American society, and no matter how small the effects are, it is a problem that the public and the government are not solving well enough or fast enough. He uses children as his main argument: by freely distributing programs on television meant for adults, immoral or inappropriate behaviors and ideas can be easily accessible to any child who happens to be watching at that time. And he gives the American court system some credit, in the way of the creations of new protections in the first amendment specifically for children, such as: 1) Guarding against improper intrusions by church and state when it comes to the child’s education, and 2) Protection from adult material and institutions in the outside world. Minow also mentions many research projects that have been done by associations, institutions, and prestigious individuals; and by using these statements he adds to his argument and backs up his own opinions and concerns. But I think his larger point here is just that the best interest of children is different than the best interests of adults, and it is almost impossible to separate these two interests so that they don’t intersect, as they often do when it comes to television. Basically, statutes written specifically for children may curtail the First Amendment rights of adults, and this is the main reason of why it is so difficult to attain only quality shows on television. But, by saying this, Minow is showing the reader why he is adamently defending an endless and hopeless war against what is shown to the public. Obviously, most people want what is best for their nation’s children, but they also want to be compensated in their often times serious life by the principle of entertainment. If the adults are the ones going out to make money and supporting their economy, which in turn helps support their children, they don’t want to be left stranded in a simple, boring world of constant censorship. Yet Minow talks mainly of the children, and seems to know the other side of his own argument, but does not add to it too much. It just seems like he’s endlessly making the same argument and going around in circles — because half the problem (the public interest of most adults) — is not going to go away. But we can make laws attempting to protect the children as much as we can, which I think is the only solution to the problem of inappropriate material violating a child’s innocent world. 

Minow-Michelle P

In these pages, Minow and Lamay discuss the idea of broadcasters being protected by the First Amendment.   The authors argue against major broadcasting networks such as the Big 3-CBS, ABC, and NBC which make “25 billion dollars a year, of which 9 billion go toward advertising.”  Minow and Lamay claim that the Supreme Court should apply the First Amendment to children before broadcasters, as a way to protect children from inappropriate shows on television and the advertising that surrounds the show’s popularity. I disagree with this idea.  I think broadcasting networks should be protected by the First Amendment just as much as children should.  While these networks are certainly a media source, they are also corporations-businesses.  It’s really expensive and risky to produce and air television shows (often times it can be a bigger debt than films) so networks always have to promote their product and try to generate revenue from their programming.   If they’re going to spend that much money their rights should be protected. 

Minow and Lamay are arguing that children are different from adults and that laws should be applied in a different manner when dealing with them.  They break out from the television arena to emphasize their case, citing court cases involving telephone services, newspapers, books, and public protest rights.  Basically they feel that children are uneducated and should be protected from the adult world until they have matured enough to be able to handle things like violence, drugs, sex, and even obscenity.

While I understand where they are coming from, I don’t believe it is the place of the US Supreme Court OR the Constitution to dictate the way parents raise their children, or to control just what can and can’t be shown on TV.

Minow on Supreme Court- Teresa S.

I think that the obvious and main similarities between the Supreme Court cases is that they are against the violence shown in the television shows.  Another main connection is that the court is trying to protect the children in whatever way possible.  The word “children” is brought up many times in this section of the book and throughout the book.  I think this is one of the main ways the author uses to grab our attention and have us relate to him because almost everybody can relate to or gets emotional when they hear the word, “children.”  I do not agree that the “violent” shows should be cut off of the air, but I still think the author grabs our attention and he has us relate to him and I think that this is an effective way of portraying his argument.

Minow (Jon M)

I think the point Minow is trying to make by showing examples of supreme court cases which attempted to protect children at the expense of 1st amendment is that children are a special case and that broadcasters should be controlled in what they show to children. At the same time he makes the point any restrictions should not be too broad.

Minow on Supreme Court – Vinny O.

Minow uses this section of the book to give his opinions on Supreme Court cases over the years that have involved censorship of the First Amendment in order to protect children.  The underlying theme throughout these cases is that because obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment that changes needed to be made to not expose those children who had not passed an “emotional threshold.”  Minow summarizes these court decisions, giving his opinion on each.  The main idea is that obscenities are not protected under the First Amendment.  Many of these instances involved stopping schools from allowing students to print articles on abortions.  Personally, I feel that the First Amendment should not be upheld in schools.  Your number one priority as a young child, in school, is to learn and part of that learning is to learn about respect and social etiquette (which can include manners and how one presents themselves in public).  Having the students exposed to sex and every other topic in a non-educational sense (reading Playboy vs. learning about your body in a Health class) is inappropriate and should not be conducted in a state-funded setting.

Minow Response-Ashley D.

I read that he thought the First Amendment should concern children without limiting the rights of adults. It says the childs first amendment has 2 main justifications being education and need for protection. Another justification has to do with protecting them from ideas that, because of children’s immaturity, may do them psychological harm. Some court cases were sited such as Ginsberg v. New York. this had to do with childrens exposure to dirty magazines. Another case had to do with indecent language and themes on the radio when children could hear it.