I'm doing work on TV/media censorship, and the more I look at it, the
more I am convinced this impulse to censor is written on our very DNA
- that is, we as a species are hardwired for censorship.  It appears
to be a component of the "fight-flight"response.  Example: A person
(or political/religious group) perceives an image or idea as perilous
to children, the family, or the culture and the "natural reaction" is
to "protect" against the offending material with book burning,
shunning, FCC/network TV censorship, government/legal remedies, etc. 
Now, admittedly "fight flight" is an instant physiological reaction to
any cognitive threat or danger -- say, an approaching tiger, etc. --
and censoring a TV show is a clearly more deliberate response.  But
both sense some impending peril to the the body... or body politic. 
Metaphorically, if nothing else, I guess can claim such a thesis using
literary license...but I'm wondering if there are empiricist studies
on media TV censorship that would be
useful to me.  Would you know of any academic work that deals with
cognitive responses to perceived media threats?  Thanks!

Considerable research has been done into what psychologists have
termed the "third person effect," which is believed by many to explain
why there is so much interest in censoring the mass media.  As the
Young reference shows, a tendency toward censorship may very well be
innate in human beings, appearing even in primitive tribes in the form
of taboos.  The availability of new technologies is simply allowing it
to manifest itself in new ways that influence many more people.

Sincerely,

Wonko

Kimball Young. "Censorship: The Negative Control of Opinion." Chapter
26 in Social Psychology: An Analysis of Social Behavior. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf (1930): 632-652
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Young/1930/1930_26.html

"Simply stated, critics sometimes only seem to see and hear in media
what they want to see and hear. If they encounter viewpoints at odds
with their own, they grow concerned about the impact of those programs
on other citizens and come to believe that government must "do
something " to counter it. Consequently, many people invite media
regulation because they think it will be good for others, not
necessarily themselves. Psychologists label this phenomenon "third
person effect" and it provides a powerful explanation for what drives
much of the fanaticism behind the recent media backlash, whether it's
the ownership issue or censorship. First formulated by W. Phillips
Davison in a seminal 1983 article, the hypothesis predicts "that
people will tend to overestimate the influence that mass
communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others" relative
to themselves."

"Media Ownership Madness and the Third Person Effect Hypothesis" by
Adam Thierer, Cato Institute (April 20, 2004)
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040420-tk.html

"The third person effect hypothesis, which states that individuals
exposed to a mass media message will expect the communication to have
a greater effect on others than on themselves, may help to explain the
growing trend in support of media censorship. It is suggested here
that overestimating the effect of media on others may play an
important role in the forces underlying a willingness to restrict
various types of communication."

"For the good of others: censorship and the third-person effect" by 
H Rojas0, DV Shah1 and RJ Faber1  International Journal of Public
Opinion Research 8:163-186 (1996)
http://ijpor.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/163

"The third-person effect, developed by Davison in 1983, attempts to
deduce why people have a tendency to overestimate how much effect a
mass communication will have on others. Much of the current research
into this effect seems to imply that the third-person effect is a
theory. In order to disprove this hypothesis, this paper includes
attempts to operationalize what a theory actually is (a paradigm that
can describe an effect, explain it, and predict its reoccurrence),
reviews of third-person effect literature, and criticism of the
effect. Based upon the information in this paper, it can be deduced
that the third-person effect is not yet a theory, but the merging of
communication into the broader field of social science may eventually
lead to the third-person effect gaining a theoretical foothold when
either communication researchers or social scientists learn how to
explain what happens when the third-person effect takes hold."

"Examining Davison?s Third-Person Effect in Communication: Is it a
Theory, or Just a Convenient Explanation?" By Josh Cohen (19 April
2001) http://www.d-42.com/thirdperson.html

Search Terms: psychology censorship "third person effect" media

You may be better off looking into the cyclical nature of societal
conservatism, which is heavily, though not solely influenced by
certain Christian sects in the U.S. Additionally, you may want to look
into the differences in perceived threats of violence in the media and
sexuality generally, and so-called "deviant sexuality" in the media
(as well as in society as a whole).

It seems that violence in this society - no matter to what extent,
whether it be on television, movies or video games, is much more
acceptable than the perceived threat, of even thoughts, that human
sexuality is not as straight forward or single-purposed as many people
would want to force it to be. On the other hand, if a pacifistic
(non-violent) attitude is fostered, it would put a damper on support
for militaritic actions and drastically reduce the annual number of
volunteers for military service.

In my opinion, a short answer to your question is 

"Who maintains or gains power/control by promoting or opposing certain ideas."