Most sites describe their censorship to some degree within the terms of service (TOS) that all users must agree to. For example, YouTube’s TOS lists several things a user will agree to avoid when uploading videos or making comments. These things regard content with copyrights and trademarks, but for other content, it asks you follow "common-sense rules that will help you steer clear of trouble." However, in some cases there are existing laws that govern the content some social media users may be sharing. Mark B. Baer, founder of the law corporation Mark B. Baer, Inc. and a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post says to an extent the sites dictate their own rules separate from the government. "Social media sites are not owned and operated by the government, and therefore, the owners of those sites may limit otherwise constitutionally protected speech,” said Baer. “Sites have been known to allow otherwise constitutionally prohibited material to remain online until ordered otherwise by a court of law. The nude photos of celebrities were removed only after the sites received copyright takedown notices."

Eric R. Chad, of the intellectual property law firm Merchant & Gould, says from a legal perspective, social media sites aren't required to take anything down .They have no responsibility to protect users from potentially troubling or offensive material

With the ability to share videos and images at the tips of our fingers, the frequency of questionable videos (or images) like the beheading of James Foley and the nude photo leak, going viral has increased.

While many people might think “To be or not to be” as being “the question”, the real question that should be ask is: Free Speech or Censorship?

We may not hear a lot about it here in the West, but India is currently undergoing their social renaissance

Services like Facebook, Google Plus and Orkut are huge over there, and continue to grow at staggering rates.

The FCC defines and regulates censorship through the “Children’s Television Act Of 1990” which was enacted by Congress on October 18, 1990 and the Television Violence Act, which became law on December 1, 1990.

In the U.S., censorship is currently being regulated by the FCC

hese are the written policies for censorship that exist. Other forms of censorship exist as well, for example, when live broadcasts are altered due to unexpected events.

This tradition may, however, be about to change. In April 2001, Sen. Joseph Lieberman introduced the Media Marketing Accountability Act (mmaa) — a bill to prohibit the marketing of “adult-rated media,” i.e., movies, music, and computer games containing violent or sexual material, to young people under the age of 17. The mmaa would empower the Federal Trade Commission to regulate the advertising of entertainment products to young people.

Specifically, self-regulation on the part of makers of entertainment products (for example, movies and comic books) has allowed Americans to shield children and adolescents from “mature” content with minimal recourse to government censorship.

Most american parents want to restrict children’s access to entertainment glamorizing violence, sex, drug use, or vulgar language.

Every day, someone commits a heinous act of violence or sexual depravity. In newsrooms across the country, editors have to decide whether saying a victim "was assaulted" suffices in describing what happened.

When a minor commits a crime, his identity is concealed to protect him from future harm -- so he isn't turned down from getting a college education or a job. That changes if a minor is charged as an adult, like in the case of violent crime.

While news stories are often edited for length, there are many choices that are made that are designed to keep some information from becoming public. Sometimes these decisions are made to safeguard a person's privacy, others to protect media outlets from corporate or political fallout.

Prior censorship poses special dangers to freedom of expression. If the authorities are able to suppress publications which nobody has seen, it becomes impossible for others to verify whether the suppression was indeed justified

When the exercise of the right to free expression clashes with the rights of others or threatens the safety of the nation, legislators face a difficult exercise of drawing lines; is a restriction necessary and how far should it go?

Censorship in all its forms is often unjustifiable and is used simply to stop truths or ideas emerge which draw attention to powerful people or governments, or undermine ideology.

Media is a major source of information. Everything that we know about anything in the world today is all thanks to news channels, news papers, internet and other forms of media. In a country like ours, political parties will first suppress rightful information in the name of censorship.

In India, specially, censorship exists in mass abundance. Remember the case when Penguin India, on Feb 12, withdrew copies of Indologist Wendy Doniger's book The Hindus: An Alternative History , after an out-of-court settlement was reached between it and plaintiffs Shiksha Bachao Andolan which objected to sections of Doniger's book. 

Censorship is a global phenomenon. Time and again, there have emerged news of something getting banned somewhere in the world for reasons that seem unreasonable to many while a necessity to the rest.

If the government could censor, then they could hide things from the public. In doing this they would have too much power over us, and could do whatever they want. We cannot let them do this. We live in a free society and that should not be taken away from us.

Everyone should be able to express themselves even if it's violent. For those parents who are concerned about their children watching inappropriate channels while they're not home, v-chip was made. You can block the channels you wouldn't want them to watch. Also, there are rating systems and parental advisory stickers made to prevent negative influence.

Censorship prevents people from gaining access to knowledge that shouldn’t really be restricted or kept out of bounds.

Why should we censor the media? Everybody has there own right to express themselves in different ways even if it is violently. If we censor the media then nobody will know the truth of what's going on in the world. Not only that it will put us into a communist styled government.

At this time last year there were only three states — Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota — that had put in orders for beef that may contain lean finely textured beef.

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”

Kids are going back to school and so is the ground beef filler dubbed “pink slime.”