Congress Increases Indecency Fines Tenfold

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

Ridiculous. Your example about remembering the first time you saw porn just doesn't hold water. It may be true, but that's simply because this country [USA] has put such a big taboo on sex and nudity while scenes of violence litter the media that seeing porn the first time becomes the more memorable event. It has nothing to do with being a more "scarring" event.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

This bill isn't about pornography, it's about "indecency" (a term Congress has studiously refused ever to define). I don't recall anyone ever trying to broadcast pornography over the air. What I find interesting is that there are plenty of countries in which nudity IS broadcast over public airwaves, without any accompanying psychological damage to anyone. The US, on the other hand, is saddled by having been founded by Puritans, and having a correspondingly weird, uncomfortable relationship with the human body. I wouldn't want my small child viewing pornography, but if what we're talking about is a flash of Janet Jackson's breast, masked by a metal shield, big friggin' deal.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ricochet
I'm so disappointed in Congress. They pretty much thumbed their noses at our First Amendment rights.

If the 1st Amendment is all that sacred to you (not that it shouldn't be), then you should stop worrying about whether Howard Stern can say 'penis' over the airwaves, and take a look at how the 1st Amendment is being gutted by things like the BCRA of 2002. This FCC stuff is nothing but smoke and mirrors to distract you from the real censorship being conducted by the FEC and like agencies.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
The government has *no* fvcking responsibility to help strengthen families. I don't know what Bush is smoking, but I'd like some.

Damn straight.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

This bill isn't about pornography, it's about "indecency" (a term Congress has studiously refused ever to define). I don't recall anyone ever trying to broadcast pornography over the air. What I find interesting is that there are plenty of countries in which nudity IS broadcast over public airwaves, without any accompanying psychological damage to anyone. The US, on the other hand, is saddled by having been founded by Puritans, and having a correspondingly weird, uncomfortable relationship with the human body. I wouldn't want my small child viewing pornography, but if what we're talking about is a flash of Janet Jackson's breast, masked by a metal shield, big friggin' deal.

The furor over Janet Jackson wasn't specifically about that incident which was very overblown in and of itself, it was about how that could EASILY have been the first step in a trend. Far easier to nip it in the bud than to wait until every sporting event resorted to those measures to keep pace. The neo-hippies controlling the media will take an inch and go, what's the big deal, then take another inch and go, what's the big deal. The next thing you know, they've taken yards and we've become one of those pathetic European countries you just praised where the legal age of consent for girls is like 12 or 14.

 

[Minjin]

How many of you people who are complaining in this thread voted in the election of your state senator or congressperson?

Mark

 

[BDawg]

Dead bodies of Al Queada leaders == good
boobs or cursing == bad

And yes, I vote. I vote every year.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

This bill isn't about pornography, it's about "indecency" (a term Congress has studiously refused ever to define). I don't recall anyone ever trying to broadcast pornography over the air. What I find interesting is that there are plenty of countries in which nudity IS broadcast over public airwaves, without any accompanying psychological damage to anyone. The US, on the other hand, is saddled by having been founded by Puritans, and having a correspondingly weird, uncomfortable relationship with the human body. I wouldn't want my small child viewing pornography, but if what we're talking about is a flash of Janet Jackson's breast, masked by a metal shield, big friggin' deal.

The furor over Janet Jackson wasn't specifically about that incident which was very overblown in and of itself, it was about how that could EASILY have been the first step in a trend. Far easier to nip it in the bud than to wait until every sporting event resorted to those measures to keep pace. The neo-hippies controlling the media will take an inch and go, what's the big deal, then take another inch and go, what's the big deal. The next thing you know, they've taken yards and we've become one of those pathetic European countries you just praised where the legal age of consent for girls is like 12 or 14.

The exact same argument can be made in reverse.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

They should hand out chastity belts door to door.

So you're saying porn should be shown in junior high school classrooms? Got it.

Repeat after me: this has nothing to do with porn.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
The government has *no* fvcking responsibility to help strengthen families. I don't know what Bush is smoking, but I'd like some.

Damn straight.

Um, the disintegration of the family unit is one of the if not the main cause for the fall of the Roman empire according to historians.

I think you guy without kids need to STFU. You can't know anything about families until you've started and maintained your own.

 

[Thraxen]

And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

This bill isn't about pornography, it's about "indecency" (a term Congress has studiously refused ever to define). I don't recall anyone ever trying to broadcast pornography over the air. What I find interesting is that there are plenty of countries in which nudity IS broadcast over public airwaves, without any accompanying psychological damage to anyone. The US, on the other hand, is saddled by having been founded by Puritans, and having a correspondingly weird, uncomfortable relationship with the human body. I wouldn't want my small child viewing pornography, but if what we're talking about is a flash of Janet Jackson's breast, masked by a metal shield, big friggin' deal.

The furor over Janet Jackson wasn't specifically about that incident which was very overblown in and of itself, it was about how that could EASILY have been the first step in a trend. Far easier to nip it in the bud than to wait until every sporting event resorted to those measures to keep pace. The neo-hippies controlling the media will take an inch and go, what's the big deal, then take another inch and go, what's the big deal. The next thing you know, they've taken yards and we've become one of those pathetic European countries you just praised where the legal age of consent for girls is like 12 or 14.

The exact same argument can be made in reverse.

Damn straight. When the media starts having alter calls during Super Bowl halftimes I'll be there right beside you bitching.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
The government has *no* fvcking responsibility to help strengthen families. I don't know what Bush is smoking, but I'd like some.

Damn straight.

Um, the disintegration of the family unit is one of the if not the main cause for the fall of the Roman empire according to historians.

I think you guy without kids need to STFU. You can't know anything about families until you've started and maintained your own.

Really? I always heard it was from bad leadership and Germanic tribes beating the crap out of them.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

This is about the government preventing the media from dictating how I should raise my kids and I'm damn glad they're putting them on a tight leash. The government is not preventing you from showing your toddler porn if you so choose, so carry on doing whatever you want.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Thraxen
And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

This is about the government preventing the media from dictating how I should raise my kids and I'm damn glad they're putting them on a tight leash. The government is not preventing you from showing your toddler porn if you so choose, so carry on doing whatever you want.

I suspect that in the end you will not be all that happy for the reasons I stated previously. Fines of this size will defintely force the issue finally so we will know one way or another within a couple of years.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Thraxen
And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

This is about the government preventing the media from dictating how I should raise my kids and I'm damn glad they're putting them on a tight leash. The government is not preventing you from showing your toddler porn if you so choose, so carry on doing whatever you want.

How is the media dictating how your kids should be raised? You can set the rules for what your kids watch on TV yourself regardless of the content.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

They should hand out chastity belts door to door.

So you're saying porn should be shown in junior high school classrooms? Got it.

Not necessarily, but I think most porn wouldn't harm junior high school students if they were exposed to it. Is it better to show them people enjoying sex, or people enjoying violence?

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.

They should hand out chastity belts door to door.

So you're saying porn should be shown in junior high school classrooms? Got it.

hell. show it in preschool. :roll:

the way i see it, this is just taking away from the parental responsibility. if you dont want your kids to watch cleavage on tv, turn on the parental controls in YOUR tv. Do not force your beliefs on other parents who think its quite alright for their kids see a busty lady on tv every now and then. and dont give me the BS about porn. no network channels show anything remotely in the same vicinity as porn

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Thraxen
And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

This is about the government preventing the media from dictating how I should raise my kids and I'm damn glad they're putting them on a tight leash. The government is not preventing you from showing your toddler porn if you so choose, so carry on doing whatever you want.

why do you keep bringing up porn? this has nothing to do with porn

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Thraxen
And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

This is about the government preventing the media from dictating how I should raise my kids and I'm damn glad they're putting them on a tight leash. The government is not preventing you from showing your toddler porn if you so choose, so carry on doing whatever you want.

why do you keep bringing up porn? this has nothing to do with porn

Because arguing with non sequiturs is easier than staying on topic.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Aharami

the way i see it, this is just taking away from the parental responsibility. if you dont want your kids to watch cleavage on tv, turn on the parental controls in YOUR tv. Do not force your beliefs on other parents who think its quite alright for their kids see a busty lady on tv every now and then. and dont give me the BS about porn. no network channels show anything remotely in the same vicinity as porn

That's exactly the point. I find it amazing that the people who support this kind of legislation are nominally conservatives - I can't imagine more of a big-government program. Every TV sold in the United States is equipped not only with a V-chip but with an Off button. If you're too lazy or incompetent as a parent to use these tools, you might as well write your Congressman asking for a ban on kitchen knives, hot stovetops, household chemicals, and any number of other things that, unlike Janet Jackson's breast, really CAN hurt your kids. Morons . . .

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Thraxen
And do you feel you need the government dictating to you how you should raise your kids?

This is about the government preventing the media from dictating how I should raise my kids and I'm damn glad they're putting them on a tight leash. The government is not preventing you from showing your toddler porn if you so choose, so carry on doing whatever you want.

How is the media dictating how your kids should be raised? You can set the rules for what your kids watch on TV yourself regardless of the content.

Riiight, like the kids will listen.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Aharami

the way i see it, this is just taking away from the parental responsibility. if you dont want your kids to watch cleavage on tv, turn on the parental controls in YOUR tv. Do not force your beliefs on other parents who think its quite alright for their kids see a busty lady on tv every now and then. and dont give me the BS about porn. no network channels show anything remotely in the same vicinity as porn

That's exactly the point. I find it amazing that the people who support this kind of legislation are nominally conservatives - I can't imagine more of a big-government program. Every TV sold in the United States is equipped not only with a V-chip but with an Off button. If you're too lazy or incompetent as a parent to use these tools, you might as well write your Congressman asking for a ban on kitchen knives, hot stovetops, household chemicals, and any number of other things that, unlike Janet Jackson's breast, really CAN hurt your kids. Morons . . .

Nevermind that changing V-chip settings is a hassle and therefore easy to forget......or that no TV before '99 has one....or that they might not be correctly categorized. I'm still trying to figure out why the hell you care. Was seeing Janet Jackson's boop like one of the highlights of your life or something?

 

[OrganizedChaos]

first time i ever saw anybody die was live on CNN. i still remember the guys final mesage "HMOs are in it for the money" on a big blue tarp.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Congress Increases Indecency Fines Tenfold
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 8, 1:23 AM

WASHINGTON - Vowing to clear the public airwaves of prurient and vulgar material, Congress has overwhelmingly approved legislation to increase by tenfold the fines that broadcasters could face for indecent programming.

President Bush welcomed passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act and promised to sign it into law. "I believe that government has a responsibility to help strengthen families," he said in a statement.

here's an idea, let the families strengthen themselves. we don't need the government telling us how to run our family.

"This legislation will make television and radio more family friendly by allowing the FCC to impose stiffer fines on broadcasters who air obscene or indecent programming."

get up off your ass and turn it off or change the fvcking channel!


The bill was important to conservative groups and its passage came on the same day that another conservative priority _ a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage _ failed in the Senate.

and these are the kind of people who want to tell us what to do. fvcking religious freaks. isn't the bible full of violence and sex? lets ban it or fine the church.

"This is a victory for children and families," said Senate sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. The higher fines were needed, he said, "in a world saturated with violent and explicit media."

no, this is a victory to people who want to control what everyone does in their personal life. this is a victory for the religious freaks mentioned earlier. this is a victory towards total government involvement in everything we do.

again, isn't the bible full of that stuff? what about news programs?

The bill does not apply to cable or satellite broadcasts, and does not try to define what is indecent.
yet...


The legislation, while facing little resistance in Congress, had detractors warning of problems in defining what is indecent and of the erosion of First Amendment rights.

what you find indecent may not be indecent to someone else. again i'll say get up off your ass and change the channel or turn it off.

fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Preach on brother. This is utter crap.