Supreme Court strikes down part of FCC profanity policy

[Retro Rob]

Yes... it is. The people you talk about have mental problems or issues. Any number of things can cause that.

Your point is wrong. Yes, what is shown on TV has changed a lot since the beginning of TV... but that's not because of TV.. it's because society has changed and TV is reflecting those changes.

Desensitization is desensitization. Mentally ill people aren't then only ones that fall victim to it.

Of course society has changed, but my point is has it changed for the better? Are people less violent than 30 years ago? Are kids more respectful than say 30 years ago? Is programming safer to watch for any age? If so, why the rating system?

How is letting loose rules/morality roam free on TV improving us?

My point: Society has changed for the worse, and it's reflected in the things we do and entertain ourselves with on TV/Movies.

 

[zsdersw]

Desensitization is desensitization. Mentally ill people aren't then only ones that fall victim to it.

It's not desensitization. It's everything from a fucked-up childhood to repressed sexuality to various mental disorders and sociopathies.

Of course society has changed, but my point is has it changed for the better? Are people less violent than 30 years ago? Are kids more respectful than say 30 years ago? Is programming safer to watch for any age? If so, why the rating system?

Some things have changed for the better, some haven't. So what? It happens, society evolves, things get bad.. then people learn.. and then things get better. It's just another swing in the pendulum.

How is letting loose rules/morality roam free on TV improving us?

How is keeping the rules in place stemming the tide? It's not... and while there are only a select few things that government is a good tool for, the worst kind of government action is ineffective action. The cost will always outweigh, by a lot, the benefits because there is no benefit.

My point: Society has changed for the worse, and it's reflected in the things we do and entertain ourselves with on TV/Movies.

This is not the only time in history that people have said exactly that. And yet, here we are... alive and well. Our quality of life has never been higher.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's not desensitization. It's everything from a fucked-up childhood to repressed sexuality to various mental disorders and sociopathies.

we will just agree to disagree here.

Some things have changed for the better, some haven't. So what? It happens, society evolves, things get bad.. then people learn.. and then things get better. It's just another swing in the pendulum.

OK, I hear you. But.. we have been spiraling downward for the longest time. It swings a little in the opposite direction, but vastly more in the downward. Anyone can see that.

How is keeping the rules in place stemming the tide? It's not... and while there are only a select few things that government is a good tool for, the worst kind of government action is ineffective action. The cost will always outweigh, by a lot, the benefits because there is no benefit.

I don't think Gov't is the answer. I'm just saying that we as people don't know squat when it comes to our long-term interests, and it's progressively showing. I'm not saying that there are no good things about us, but generally, we're a bad, dangerous world now for many reasons. TV is just a small sampling of how far in the moral toilet we're in.

 

[zsdersw]

But.. we have been spiraling downward for the longest time. It swings a little in the opposite direction, but vastly more in the downward. Anyone can see that.

Yes, it is common for the outgoing generation(s) to say that. It's been said time and time again throughout history. They've always been wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, it is common for the outgoing generation(s) to say that. It's been said time and time again throughout history. They've always been wrong.

How?

What evidence suggest the world is getting better? We've made huge leaps technology-wise and scientifically, but that isn't the point.

How are the morals better than when the last generation were here?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Because it is not up to the government to decide what children can view. That is a decision that each parent must make for their child(ren).

That only works if you raise your kid in a bubble.


How many kids do you have Z?

 

[cybrsage]

Correct.

Rules that make sure consumers are informed of what they're getting before they get it are good. Rules that say what they can and cannot get are not.

Out of curiosity, if a show starts at noon but you turn on the TV at 12:15, how will you know the rating of the show?

 

[Jaskalas]

Can anyone in here remember the first time they saw breasts in a movie or on the internet? Were you under 18? Did it scar you for life? Our rules regarding nudity and obscenity are so ridiculously repressive, it's honestly fucking embarrassing. Oh dear, I'm afraid I've used a naughty word. I apologize for that. What if a child were to read that? Mayhem, death, the end of days. Freedom be damned, we must protect the youth!

I agree with your asessment, it is ridiculously repressive and honestly fucking embarrassing.

Take comfort in knowing that it is mere leftovers from the highly religious age of prohibition. The modern age is curing it, slowly but surely.

 

[zsdersw]

That only works if you raise your kid in a bubble.

Wrong. Some parents are very good at it. The difference between them and others? They're good parents.

 

[zsdersw]

Out of curiosity, if a show starts at noon but you turn on the TV at 12:15, how will you know the rating of the show?

The channel guide.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Wrong.

Wrong yourself.

Some parents are very good at it. The difference between them and others? They're good parents.

Ah, so walking your kid through 1970's time square with the hookers and drugs will not give the kid any tough questions. Repeated exposure will do nothing to their innocence?

No, the reason why some of these things are regulated is because it is awfully hard to teach your kid to not say "Go F' your mother" if it is something that others are saying.

The incident of the bus monitor being harassed by the kids is indication that one will follow what another does even if the parents do not approve (one father spoke out against the treatment the woman received from his son).

Just because you do not give your kid cigarettes does not mean that he won't be effected in a room full of smokers.

 

[Bowfinger]

How?

What evidence suggest the world is getting better? We've made huge leaps technology-wise and scientifically, but that isn't the point.

How are the morals better than when the last generation were here?

I think a fundamental problem with that question is who defines "better" and what is their definition? While I can see many ways our world is going to hell, I can also see ways we've improved, by my standards. (My loose, very general standard is helping is good, hurting is bad. YMMV)

Consider violence, for example. Let's assume that increased violence, i.e., increased hurting, is bad. Yes, it's true we see more violence on television than we once did. I personally don't care for this. From a historical perspective, however, our acceptance of violence is much lower than the past. We don't publicly feed slaves to lions, for example, or have public battles to the death. We don't even have public executions or dueling, to use examples from our more recent past. So although there is more simulated violence in our lives, there is less actual violence.

Consider also tolerance. As a whole, our tolerance for others is much better than it was a few decades ago. Overt racism was once accepted as normal, and often applauded. Now it is mostly condemned. Similarly, tolerance for alternative sexual preferences is greater than it used to be. Neither is perfect, but both are better. Assuming you believe tolerance is a good thing, television has actually helped improve tolerance.

But I can certainly see other examples where we've become worse rather than better. Overall, I believe we are much greedier and self-absorbed than we once were. Gone is the sense of obligation to one's community, replaced with amorality: if it's good for me, do it, with no consideration of impact on others. Television has definitely encouraged this, with it's focus on consumerism.

Television has also hurt America's intellect, helping to make us more ignorant, and even literally dumber as a whole. Politics is a great example of this, though not the only one. Television has helped replace the involved, well-read, well-informed American with a nation of ignorant couch potatoes, educated by sound bites and dishonest advertising. Of course television is being quickly supplanted in this by YouTube. It's brought a whole new level of ignorance to the next generation.

My $0.02.

 

[sunzt]

i'm gonna ask the question that's going to matter most to everyone here...

Will I be able to see teetees at 7 am on a non-cable channel before my commute to work now?

 

[Bowfinger]

Has anyone yet answered the meta question as to why government should have any say in this at all?

 

[zsdersw]

Wrong yourself.

Nope.

Ah, so walking your kid through 1970's time square with the hookers and drugs will not give the kid any tough questions. Repeated exposure will do nothing to their innocence?

No, the reason why some of these things are regulated is because it is awfully hard to teach your kid to not say "Go F' your mother" if it is something that others are saying.

The incident of the bus monitor being harassed by the kids is indication that one will follow what another does even if the parents do not approve (one father spoke out against the treatment the woman received from his son).

Just because you do not give your kid cigarettes does not mean that he won't be effected in a room full of smokers.

I'm talking about determining what they watch on TV and what other kinds of media they have access to.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Desensitization is a myth. The evolution of what we consider "profane" and "indecent" in the context of what can be spoken/viewed in broadcast media has taken place (and will continue to take place) in spite of "decency rules", so I'd say there is no particular value in keeping them when it's not media that's driving what we consider "normal" and "acceptable".. we're making those changes ourselves. Media isn't driving our culture, the culture is driving the media.

Homosexuality used to be profane and indecent. Maybe not by broadcast rule, but definitely by majority societal opinion. Have people in general not become desensitized to that? Perhaps even homosexual relationships portrayed on TV has contributed to that somewhat. The fact is the more exposure people have to something, the less sensitive they become to it. It's just human nature.

 

[zsdersw]

Homosexuality used to be profane and indecent. Maybe not by broadcast rule, but definitely by majority societal opinion. Have people in general not become desensitized to that? Perhaps even homosexual relationships portrayed on TV has contributed to that somewhat. The fact is the more exposure people have to something, the less sensitive they become to it. It's just human nature.

I would argue they haven't been "desensitized" to it as much as they've become less ignorant and less sheltered.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Nope.

Yep. We can do this all day bubbie! 😉

I'm talking about determining what they watch on TV and what other kinds of media they have access to.

What I am saying is that without total isolation, when things easily available, they become MUCH harder to filter, regulate, and even explain.

The example would be online porn. It was easier to filter some of the depravity (and I mean just cheap objectification of the body, not nudity in and of itself) when you had to sneak a peak at your Uncles playboy stash in the attic closet than it is to put an online filter on your home network, cell phones and other devices that would prevent that from being downloaded.

You make something easily accessible, simply "determining what they watch on TV" gets harder. Especially when you are not with them 24/7 and they know how to use the remote!





As an aside, the one thing that propriety does have that is kind of bizarre is the sheer sense of naughtiness you had when sneaking that peek. I do not think I have since felt anything more primal than the small bits of exposure I got when I was younger and it was "forbidden".

Things become a lot less "exciting" when there is nothing special about them...

Like some cultures where an ankle is sexual, but others where you just have to wear a carrot in public.


*shrug*

 

[Retro Rob]

I would argue they haven't been "desensitized" to it as much as they've become less ignorant and less sheltered.

How?

You're basically saying people who don't or didn't like it are/were ignorant. 🙄

Just because you like something, doesn't make those who dislike it "ignorant and sheltered".

Thanks for throwing that blanket over the majority of mankind...

 

[zsdersw]

Yep. We can do this all day bubbie! 😉

Doesn't matter.. you're still wrong.

What I am saying is that without total isolation, when things easily available, they become MUCH harder to filter, regulate, and even explain.

And yet, thousands of parents do it successfully all across the country without keeping their kids in a bubble. Clearly it's not as impossible as you claim.

 

[zsdersw]

How?

You're basically saying people who don't or didn't like it are/were ignorant. 🙄

I'm saying they've become more aware that there is a wider range of human sexuality than they had otherwise considered possible in any significant degree.

Just because you like something, doesn't make those who dislike it "ignorant and sheltered".

It's not about liking or disliking it. It's about knowing and acknowledging that it exists.

Jesus fucking Christ... stop overreacting!

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm saying they've become more aware that there is a wider range of human sexuality than they had otherwise considered possible in any significant degree.



It's not about liking or disliking it. It's about knowing and acknowledging that it exists.

Jesus fucking Christ... stop overreacting!

I've acknowledge that homosexuality existed and does exist today, and am well aware of how widespread it is. You must mean accepting it, I deduce. Sorry if I am wrong.

Still, it's very unpleasant to me personally and I will never accept it.

I'm just trying to get to the heart of your criticism. It seems to me that you deem people ignorant who aren't accepting of it or think that it's wrong, or something, or that you can't be naturally born that way.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Doesn't matter.. you're still wrong.

You aren't my wife. That isn't going to work.

And yet, thousands of parents do it successfully all across the country without keeping their kids in a bubble. Clearly it's not as impossible as you claim.

Wow, really? How many fail at it.

I never said it was IMPOSSIBLE, but "thousands" is a VERY small %

 

[Ninjahedge]

I've acknowledge that homosexuality existed and does exist today, and am well aware of how widespread it is. You must mean accepting it, I deduce. Sorry if I am wrong.

Still, it's very unpleasant to me personally and I will never accept it.

I'm just trying to get to the heart of your criticism. It seems to me that you deem people ignorant who aren't accepting of it or think that it's wrong, or something, or that you can't be naturally born that way.

Rob, that is getting OT.

While you might not feel comfortable about it, or find it "morally wrong", that is not what this discussion is about. There are other threads on that where this can be taken.

 

[werepossum]

Yes. A dark stain spread o'er my soul, the beginnings of my moral and ethical code became forever pockmarked by the hardened nipples of those breasts.

Scarred for life I was, forever destined to seek out the wondrous beauty of those first-viewed breasts.

"...and the agony of my soul found vent in one loud, long final scream of despair."

LOL +1 It is indeed a life-changing moment. I have seen the mountains, and they are good.

This is drifting slightly OT, but just because it's the parents' job to regulate their children's consumption doesn't mean the government shouldn't do things to aid their ability to do so. A lot of things are specifically targeted at children to purposely undermine parental authority. Not to say nudity/profanity on broadcast television is necessarily one of those things, but all this talk about the government backing off of any regulation when corporations do things like maximizing the nag factor is really disturbing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/nag-factor-junk-food_n_928253.html
Parenting is a tough enough job without interests specifically working against you. And judging by the state of our youth and the adults they are growing in to they are winning the battle.

Well said.

I think this ruling rocks and SHOULD have been unanimous. When something is shared, such as the public airwaves (or roads and public libraries), we have to agree upon a common standard as to how they are to be used. We've established a standard of commonly accepted minimum decency for the public broadcast airwaves, but at the same time we've allocated a portion of the available frequencies for other, private broadcasts where other standards apply. If one disagrees with the decency standards set by the majority, one is free to purchase satellite or cable television service with more strict or more permissive standards, but the majority is assured of a level of decency it finds neither overly offensive nor overly restrictive. It's a beautiful accommodation in my judgment. However, this particular ruling deals with government changing its standards of enforcement without proper notification and clear guidelines. That's why I am delighted with a unanimous decision. I would not expect a unanimous decision on setting the appropriate standards for decency, I suspect the majority opinion would not be that of the public majority, and a ruling by SCOTUS is very hard to change. Since social mores change with time, I'm also glad SCOTUS was wise enough to resist exercising its authority to establish the "proper" level of decency.