Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
The airwaves are public. The FCC isn't saying what, you specifically, should or should not find offensive. The FCC is charged with a public service. They aren't worried about what one person thinks... that would be impossible anyway. They simply adopt a standard and stick with it. Some people feel the standard is too restrictive (you) while others feel their standard of decency is far too liberal (the dictionary definition of liberal - not the Howard Dean/Michael Moore definition of liberal).
Your statement almost reads as if you believe the FCC should adopt your standards. What if Suzie SoccerMom thought your standards were too loose for her kids to see?
The argument spirals in flames from here...
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Bumping this back to the top, because apparently the senate hates the first amendment.
http://pressesc.com/01184929170_senate_indecency_bill
And before any of the resident morons start blaming neocons, check the bills sponsors. Three Ds and one R.
http://pressesc.com/01184929170_senate_indecency_bill
And before any of the resident morons start blaming neocons, check the bills sponsors. Three Ds and one R.
The Constitution has been a hated piece of paper for many years now.
It will soon only be in a museum and not in the Capitiol.
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act ??
Oh, the children! The po lil children! They aint got no defenses, ya see? Po' po' chile! Oh lordy hav mercy!
"Just remember what the MPAA says: horrific deplorable violence is O.K. as long as people don't say any naughty words!" - South Park
Oh, the children! The po lil children! They aint got no defenses, ya see? Po' po' chile! Oh lordy hav mercy!
"Just remember what the MPAA says: horrific deplorable violence is O.K. as long as people don't say any naughty words!" - South Park
Or have any sexual content.
Isn't there a v-chip in every TV? And the same people who crusaded for those chips are now too lazy to use them.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
sirjonk brings up a very good point: why is violence allowed on television while words are restricted?
Let's break this down. Words aren't allowed on television because they are deemed inappropriate for children, and it is a concern to parents, educators, and anyone who has to deal with children, that the children will start repeating these words that they are not supposed to use.
This argument stems from the idea that children will imitate what they see on television (or film, etc.). This is a widely studied, well observed phenomenon, and anyone who tells you that it doesn't happen is lying or selling you something. But if we can take it as fact that children will imitate what they see in the media, shouldn't violence and drug use be a much more worrisome occurence than naughty language? If children will imitate what they see on TV, would you rather they tell their classmate to "**** off," or imitate a wrestling move and kill a little girl? If we're actually concerned about the children, maybe we shouldn't push violence so heavily in children's programming (Power Rangers, GI Joe, Transformers, Pokemon... OK, I don't watch kid's shows, so I don't know what the current crop is, but they have always had violence, from Looney Tunes onwards).
There is no logic in this bill. Parents were horrified when ABC announced that an episode of NYPD Blue would use the word "sh**." Did all television become awash in the s-word follwing that event? Save for an episode of South Park, no. The owners of media know that harsh language can be off-putting for parents, and try to avoid it in prime time viewing (it's the same principle that drives filmmakers to shoot for an R rating rather than NC-17; a larger audience). The market would not see television becoming a bastion for filthy language because viewers would stop watching (and lower Nielsen ratings = less advertising revenue = shows get cancelled).
The bottom line is that this is a preposterous idea that takes us further down the path towards a nanny state. Parents can't be concerned to watch out for their kids, so it becomes the job of the media and the legislators to do it for them. Free speech should be infringed when it poses a clear and present danger. It should not be abridged so that parents can shirk their responsibility of adequately monitoring content their children are exposed to to verify that it meets their own criteria for decency. If my nephew wants to see swearing on the television, and his father says it's fine, who is Senator John Rockefeller to say that it's wrong?
Let's break this down. Words aren't allowed on television because they are deemed inappropriate for children, and it is a concern to parents, educators, and anyone who has to deal with children, that the children will start repeating these words that they are not supposed to use.
This argument stems from the idea that children will imitate what they see on television (or film, etc.). This is a widely studied, well observed phenomenon, and anyone who tells you that it doesn't happen is lying or selling you something. But if we can take it as fact that children will imitate what they see in the media, shouldn't violence and drug use be a much more worrisome occurence than naughty language? If children will imitate what they see on TV, would you rather they tell their classmate to "**** off," or imitate a wrestling move and kill a little girl? If we're actually concerned about the children, maybe we shouldn't push violence so heavily in children's programming (Power Rangers, GI Joe, Transformers, Pokemon... OK, I don't watch kid's shows, so I don't know what the current crop is, but they have always had violence, from Looney Tunes onwards).
There is no logic in this bill. Parents were horrified when ABC announced that an episode of NYPD Blue would use the word "sh**." Did all television become awash in the s-word follwing that event? Save for an episode of South Park, no. The owners of media know that harsh language can be off-putting for parents, and try to avoid it in prime time viewing (it's the same principle that drives filmmakers to shoot for an R rating rather than NC-17; a larger audience). The market would not see television becoming a bastion for filthy language because viewers would stop watching (and lower Nielsen ratings = less advertising revenue = shows get cancelled).
The bottom line is that this is a preposterous idea that takes us further down the path towards a nanny state. Parents can't be concerned to watch out for their kids, so it becomes the job of the media and the legislators to do it for them. Free speech should be infringed when it poses a clear and present danger. It should not be abridged so that parents can shirk their responsibility of adequately monitoring content their children are exposed to to verify that it meets their own criteria for decency. If my nephew wants to see swearing on the television, and his father says it's fine, who is Senator John Rockefeller to say that it's wrong?
No, I just know that if they DID have to live under the same set of laws they wouldn't pass the ones they pass.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
-
Facebook
Twitter