(AI1)刚刚写的issue，欢迎指正

issue: In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully cencored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.

In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor TV or radio programs?

Around the globe, while some countries chose not to have cencorship, many others consider it necessary to filter out offensive language and behavior in TV and radio programs they show. And even in countries with cencorship the degree of cencorship vary drastically from one country to another. So the question arises: to what extent should government or other groups be able to cencor television and radio programs? I my opinion, government cencorship is by large unnecessary and sometimes might even lead to negative consequences.
Firstly, the definition of offensive language and behavior varies a lot depending on the audience's background. Age, gender, political and religous believes are all major factors in determining such definition.你没有进一步说定义和你观点的关系啊．加一句（due to the difficulty in defining the offensive, the government should not spend time and money on cencoring programs) Therefore if a government wants to cencor the country's TV and radio program, it can either filter out everything that can be offensive to anyone of the possible audience, or it can filter out material that the decision makers consider offensive.这句话和前面的因果关系不明显啊.我觉得可以这么写(Because,without clear definition, the government would filter out either everything that can be offensive to anyone of the possible audience or material that the decision makers consider offensive.) While 没有转折the former option is excessive and is very likely to hurt the entertainment value of the shows, 这里加（ＡＮＤ）the latter option simply is authoritarian. For example, while bull fighting can seem extremely inhume to animal rights activists, it is certainly essential part of the culture for people from that heritage. Banning bull fighting on TV will be disrespectful to the culture, but not banning it will be offensive to animal rights activists. Thus such conflict can not be simply solved in a cencorship-oriented regime. The government should encourage its citizens to accept  differences among themselfs rather then singal handedly favor one or another.这个例子不能很强地支持你前面的一句话．（for example, government's banning on bull fighting, an activity seems extremely inhume to animal rights activists, would be disrespectful to this sport, also an essential part of the culthure for people from that heritage,  damaging the entertainment value of this performance. adversely, if the government does not regard bull fighting as an offensive progam and does not ban it, then such action may be considered too authoritarian by animal rights activists)

Second of all, bans and cencorship sometimes encourage audience to embrace the tabboo. Cencorship of various materials in TV and radio is likely to make the audience curious about the "forbidden" part of the material and look for relevant information elsewhere. If that happens, not only it defeats the purpose of the cencorship, but also it might encourage people to embrace the "forbidden". For example, one of the main reason for underage drinking and smoking is the rebelious image they project.这例子也有问题，表达不清楚．

In conclusion, although government might be censoring its TV and radio programs with a good intention to protect its citizens from offensive materials, the censorship is likely to create unfairness among various parties of the population and its consequences are unpredictable. Therefore, I believe that the censorship of TV and radio programs is unnecessary.