censorship

[VIAN]

Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their actions? Shouldn't parents be the ones responsible for kids, not big companies? I think the only kind of censorship there should be is Parental control options and content warning signals. I don't agree with changing material from it's original intention. As long as people have the ability to completely block out something, such as changing a channel, this type of censorship would be fine. People have free will, yet they don't want it completely free. I don't agree with the FCC controlling this. God didn't hold Adam and Eve from the apple. He didn't use his almighty powers to stop them. Why is the FCC greater than god. God gave us free will and censorship is violating it. Plus, we pay for it. We have to buy a TV to watch it, and we have to watch the commercials that are paying for us to watch TV. Paying for censored material is just terrible. Even worse is that cable is censored. I guess that anything that becomes popular has to be censored. I can't believe that I pay for cable and it is censored. They should at least give you a choice between censored programming and none censored programming, something a little better than Parental control.

What do you think?

Also, if you're gonna censor what kids hear and what they see, then, why not censor also what they eat - that is also very harmful. Censor fast food, beer - remove the temptation.

I think in this censorship topic. Some vital things are not censored while others are that aren't as vital. Such as Rap videos showing women at the beach in bikinis and in a sexual way. Isn't that delivering a greater message than say and accidental breast release that could barely be seen. Or comedians saying sexual things that are understandable to teens. They don't say bad words, but the context is there and it is clear. There are so many faults to it, that it might as well not be there. And, can't we all say the cursing is a part of life and something that humans need to do to let out their steam. It shouldn't be as censored as I think. Curse is just more clear and cut than just saying, "...aahhh." It's like you wanna say something, but you don't know what to say.

What do you think?

 

[DashRiprock]

It seems that as long as a buck can be made, anything goes!

 

[mugs]

The government doesn't "censor" rap videos becuase they are not broadcast through the air. The federal government can't touch cable - it's mostly self-censored. Same with movies. I honestly don't care if the government sets standards for decency on broadcast television, as long as they do not make it impossible for the networks to compete with cable. I hardly think Janet Jackson's naked breast is the kind of "speech" the founding fathers intended to protect with the first amendment. The fact is, the FCC CAN set decency standards whether you like it or not, no matter how much you cry censorship.

 

[VIAN]

The government doesn't "censor" rap videos becuase they are not broadcast through the air. The federal government can't touch cable - it's mostly self-censored. Same with movies. I honestly don't care if the government sets standards for decency on broadcast television, as long as they do not make it impossible for the networks to compete with cable. I hardly think Janet Jackson's naked breast is the kind of "speech" the founding fathers intended to protect with the first amendment. The fact is, the FCC CAN set decency standards whether you like it or not, no matter how much you cry censorship.

Isn't that a sort of monopoly. They always crack on microsoft, for a good reason, but the FCC can't just do whatever they want.

Good point about FCC not controlling cable.

FCC:

"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:

- An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

- The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

- The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Rap videos definitely do not follow that criteria.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: VIAN

The government doesn't "censor" rap videos becuase they are not broadcast through the air. The federal government can't touch cable - it's mostly self-censored. Same with movies. I honestly don't care if the government sets standards for decency on broadcast television, as long as they do not make it impossible for the networks to compete with cable. I hardly think Janet Jackson's naked breast is the kind of "speech" the founding fathers intended to protect with the first amendment. The fact is, the FCC CAN set decency standards whether you like it or not, no matter how much you cry censorship.

Isn't that a sort of monopoly. They always crack on microsoft, for a good reason, but the FCC can't just do whatever they want.

Heh... The FCC is a monopoly as much as the U.S. Treasury or congress or the supreme court.

Good point about FCC not controlling cable.

FCC:

"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:

- An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

- The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

- The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Rap videos definitely do not follow that criteria.

It's good to see that they ARE protecting speech that could have value.

 

[VIAN]

Heh... The FCC is a monopoly as much as the U.S. Treasury or congress or the supreme court.

That isn't supposed to exist in our government. There are supposed to be checks and balances, even though a little money can persuade anyone - which is a terrible thing. Politicians should be the lowest paid people. Then they wouldn't have too much money to throw around. They would take it seriously then. People like Bush make me think they people run for president for money.

It's good to see that they ARE protecting speech that could have value.

Value is all in the eye of the beholder.