In today's age of the Internet and all its implications, the media has an undeniable reach into all levels of free societies. The Internet has no apparent gatekeepers and its cheap accessibility and technical impossibility to be censored and regulated substantially provokes the argument for media regulation. The role of media regulation is to define what information the media can and cannot broadcast, print, publish electronically and distribute to the general public. This, of course, recognizes the social impact of the media, and its effects on the general public. I would say that media regulations are designed to protect the interests of the public and individuals from irresponsible reporting or reckless dissemination of harmful information. Regulations are imposed to maintain public security and national defense, racial and religious harmony, public morals, as well as the privacy and confidentiality of private lives. Implicitly, it is assumed that media regulators recognize that people adopt behaviors, values, knowledge and beliefs as a result of exposure to media, and that we create stereotypes in this way. This is part of the media's impact on socialization of the public. It also plays a part in the homogenizing of opinions, due to the creation of a repetitive symbolic environment, a frame of reference for the public. Children are especially susceptible to influence by the media, as their critical faculties and general maturity have yet to be matured. The media also is involved in agenda setting as it decides what should be emphasized and what should gain priority in the public eye.
"We define first and then we see," says Lippman (1921), and the media defines the world through their eyes. For example, we are told about the news and happenings in foreign countries by the media, and this governs our process of perception. The media can also emphasize and promote pseudo-events that they feel should be brought to the public knowledge. This power of the media is undeniable, and today's regulators recognize the need for regulation of such a powerful institution.
The social responsibility theory (also know as the Western concept) states that the press has a right to criticize the government and other institutions but also has a duty to preserve democracy by properly informing the public and responding to its needs and interests. The issue of social responsibility and press freedom stems from the libertarian view echoed by John Stuart Mills in his essay On Liberty, versus the notion of regulation of the press as a form of instilling responsibility on the press. Social responsibility stresses that freedom comes with responsibility towards the inclinations of the public, and its aim is to further social good by agenda setting and maintaining public security and national defense, racial and religious harmony and public morality. As such, it is the point of contention for advocates of press restriction that the media should have an understanding of its effect on society, and that this understanding should translate into good. However, the idea of good, responsibility and public morals change from society to society and over time. It is also counter-argued by the fact that the public has a right to know. However I feel that this does not legitimate invasion of privacy and possible intrusion, as I will explain later.
In the political context, modern government leaders see media as instruments of propaganda and national development, and see it as a double-edged sword and thus their concern over media legislation. I feel the need for a free and independent press is essential to provide a check on the government, and is integral in maintaining an avenue of dissent and dialogue between government and governed. As I mentioned earlier, Mills stressed the need for a free press as one of the "securities against corrupt or tyrannical government". He stressed that any attempt to silence expression, even of a one-person minority, deprives mankind of something important. He said that "if the opinion is right, they (mankind) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error". I feel that idealistically, this makes much sense, but the "collision" between error and truth may be manifested in harmful ways like racial riots, etc. that may not be ideal for countries with clear ethnic and racial fault-lines. A complete freedom of press is therefore potentially harmful but also provides the common everyday man with the transparency of government that constitutes a part of civil rights.
An alternative to media regulation is a self-censorship on the part of the press itself, literally a Panoptican effect described by Jeremy Bentham, where an "internalization of the gaze" is instituted by constant surveillance by authority. In self-censorship, the media itself monitors and decides what should or should not be put out. The decision maybe based on a variety of factors like morality, newsworthiness, threat of legal action, etc. However this assumes a moral media, one that conforms to public decency in broadcast, print and conduct. There are some variables that the press should conform to, such as credibility and accuracy. Credibility and truthfulness dictates that the press should be objective and not report based on bias and prejudice. Accuracy demands the paying of attention to detail and context, so as to allow readers to understand and comprehend the truth, rather then be misled by reporter's bias. Of course, checkbook journalism and tabloid journalism should be restricted, as they usually distort the facts and present an inaccurate view of people and society.
Libel is the written defamation of somebody's good name, which is of value to the person. Its purpose, I feel, is to prevent negligent news-reporting as well as actual malice. The fear of a libel suit in courts may cause self-censorship that may in the interest of the public. Its is probably the most serious threat to journalistic freedom as it may cause news editors to pull certain news features out of fear of a lawsuit. This would put pressure on them to scrutinize their stories more closely. Legally speaking, there are 2 defenses against libel that are of relevance to journalists; the defense of truth and the defense of fair comment. Truth refers to the fact that if whatever is reported is true, it does not constitute a libelous article. This pushes journalists for accurate reporting based on facts rather then speculation and hearsay. The defense of fair comment applies when what is published constitutes a fair expression of opinion, and that it is open to discussion and counter-argument by the parties involved. This may establish the press as a dialogue of differing viewpoints, and it greatly represses the role of the press as an absolute agenda setter. It is often more difficult for public personalities such as celebrities and politicians to sue for libel as they, as public figures, have a greater access to the media and thus greater chance of responding to allegations. They have also placed themselves in the limelight and publicity, both good and bad, come with the price of fame, as compared with the private person. I feel that the issue of libel encourages self-censorship, and may provide for a more responsible press.
The notion of invasion of privacy is a recent emergence, and it appeared when the media were deemed to be encroaching on the personal and private rights of an individual. It requires the media to seek consent before encroaching upon the rights of the individual before publishing it, such as using the photographs of a person without his/her consent, or the public disclosure of embarrassing or private facts of an individual that have no value to the public. Journalists should be wary of the newsworthiness of their articles and stories, and their accuracy. Technically, there are 4 types of invasion of privacy:
1. Intruding upon a person's solitude or seclusion
2. Unauthorized release of private information
3. Publicizing people in a false light or creating a false impression of them
4. Appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes.

The difference between libel and invasion of privacy is that libel protects a person's reputation, and invasion of privacy protects a persons peace of mind and feelings.
US House speaker Newt Gingrich had this to say about the issue of media decency: "We have a very strong freedom of speech provision. On the other hand, I've been advocating quite openly that major advertisers ought to announce that they will not advertise on radio stations that broadcast songs encouraging the raping and the torture and the physical violence against women. I mean, freedom of speech doesn't mean subsidized speech. And we have every right as a culture, not as a government but as a culture; we have every right for wise leadership to say we won't support that. We won't tolerate that". He echoes what I feel personally about media decency, that there has to be a certain limit to what is termed obscene. I personally think degrading portrayals of women that are uncalled for and merely meant to titillate are obscene, whilst movies or magazines dealing with adult themes are appropriate and should not be censored, like in Singapore. For example highly acclaimed movies or works of art that deal with sensitive issues and sex should not be censored or restricted if they merit attention and acclaim. Censoring it on basis of protecting our children from unhealthy influence or instigating and encouraging deviant behavior is highly subjective to a public's tolerance level. It also restricts free expression in art. I also feel its time to take responsibility for our children's perception of the world into our own hands, and not rely on censorship to prevent them from harmful effects.
National security is a very touchy issue. Understandably many governments are skeptical of having a truly free press free to publish issues that may pose a threat to their power or incite civil violence. I think no one can argue that freedom of expression is an absolute; articles or broadcast designed to incite or encourage possible harm or violence is definitely detrimental to a society. And absolute freedom of the press during times of a national crisis, whether it be economical or military, should be curtailed as inflammatory articles may cause undue concern amongst the population or compromise the success and safety or people. In this case, the right of protecting the people who might be harmed takes priority over the right of the public to know, as well as the right of freedom of expression of the media. However, we must be wary of how a government determines national security. Some governments perceive any form of criticism as a threat to security, not of the nation-state itself, but rather to the power of the ruling political party. They proceed to quash these publications, though the articles themselves may not warrant grave concern on the part of the political system or the interests of the public. Therefore, the public must be able to discern for themselves what actually constitutes a threat to security, and what is blatant abuse of legislation to quash opposition views from being heard.

Bibliography
1. Dominick, Joseph R., The Dynamics of Mass Communication, 1999, McGraw-Hill
2. Collins, R. & Murroni, C. (1996). New Media. New Policies. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
3. Thompsor, K. (1997). Media and Cultural Regulation. SAGE Publications