FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated 346
tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?
Limit or Ban? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.
I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.
For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.
Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Sex or violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
mmm... your choice
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
Not today (Score:4, Insightful)
Ten, fifteen years ago I might have agreed with this. But we have TV ratings now, and we have V-Chips that can cut off content based on that rating. So long as the ratings accurately describe potentially objectionable content in a program, of what possible use is rescheduling it as well?
I can also foresee some sort of chilling effect: I seem to be under the impression that, after hours, broadcast television can show practically anything up to hardcore pornography, but even after midnight you'd be hard pressed to find a bare female breast, and then only on basic cable or some European import on PBS. Of course, I can agree that perhaps we do want a chilling effect on violence, but there's still the First Amendment and all.
Re:Choices choices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also it would be a good idea to correct MPAA's rating which considers that one boob seen shortly makes it "not suitable for children" but where gunslinging is considered okay.
Why give a damn? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's little of value on television that one couldn't learn more profoundly by going to the library, reading an encyclopedia article, talking to someone knowledgeable, taking a walk, or just reflecting. And anything that television does teach is likely not as worthwhile as any of these alternatives.
Television being what it is (consumer hypnosis, not education), it's hard not to conclude that television is really meant to be a significant challenge on the obstacle course preventing serious thinking (and political action) in this brave new world.
Bad government and multinational corporations thank you for watching.
Re:Alternatively... (Score:3, Insightful)
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They did it before (Score:5, Insightful)
I also think that it's funny that if you do anything under the guise of "news", you've got a free pass. Dateline, 20/20, etc, show the most graphic shit on TV but it's OK because they're "news" programs. Ick.
We NEED this! Since it's obvious that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this would mean losing the electronic baby-sitter so many have come to rely on.
Geez! What's a parent to do?
Re:Limit or Ban? (Score:5, Insightful)
This business of being America's censor is something a little newer, and a lot more questionable. Their role as pimp for the big advertising companies like ClearChannel and the rapacious monopolies like AT&T is newer still. They're still trying to figure out this Internet thing. When they do, we are well and truly screwed.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Onn the contrary ! People would watch ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes but no but (Score:3, Insightful)
let the user set the level they want to recieve and blank the channel when it exceeds thier set rating.
Parents would appreciate the ability to keep thier tv kidsafe when they want and allow the rest of us access to what we want to watch when we want to watch it.
some of us adults have to be up early in the morning, a 9 oclock watershed means limiting our viewing to family safe content.
Do you really want your tv limited to broadcasting quiz shows sitcoms and soaps before 9 so called family entertainment?
of course kidsafe tv is open to the parents disabling it entirely it would also entail parents buying into the scheme (quite literally as it would require some new hardware). Of course this would mean an end to our tv regulators deciding what is suitable for us to see.
It also makes it possible to block tv licience funded broadcasts and make the tv licience opt in for viewers.
Of course self-regulation wouldnt be acceptable to the current regulators, would it .
extending this idea might allow users to block particular broadcasts. For example anything featuring michael barrymore or noel edmonds or chris moyles or janet street porter. They don't necessarily break any standards of decency but i'd rather not have them in my living room.
actually now this does present the real dilema. If a broadcaster flags a show as in a particular catagory you then are trusting that broadcaster to always be right. Thats the problem with giving them the control of censorship of your viewing.
maybe the real solution is the off button and parents taking responsibility for thier choice of what is suitable for thier kids to see.
I do like the idea of perhaps dynamic self censorship.
pick what offends you and have a database of the schedules flagging what you want or don't want to see.
maybe i just need to press the channel change on the remote.
Why violence is tolerated more (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, it's a well known fact that before the invention of handguns you people were complete fucking wussies.
Hammers existed before nails; your ancestors used them to hit each other over the head. The tool is not the cause.
KFG
Americans and Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex is something very common, a part of a _normal_ life. Violence is not! A 12 year old can see someone's head being blown off but 'Oh my god! Shield them from seeing someone's genitalia on TV."
I don't advocate showing pornography to children, but I think they should be able the see the statue of David. I just don't understand why for so long, violence was accepted, but sex was not.
If I had to choose one or the other, I would accept the display of sexuality to children than the display of violence.
I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I have to say that when coming to U.S. I was shocked of how sexually repressed this country it. There was a story in the news how a theatre changed the title of the 'Vagina Monologues' to the 'Hooha Monologues' -- WTF!?
A vagina is a 'hoohaa' now, because a grandmother didn't want to tell her granddaughter who is old enough to read what a vigina is? Well, what the hell is a hoohaa then?
There is a reason why there are so many substitute words for female genitalia in English (hoohaa, pussy, box, coochie, hole, snatch, slot, nooch, fanny -- just a couple I could thin of right now.) This is direct result of sexual repression.
Also, a couple of years ago, when 'March of the Penguins' was in the movie theatres, I was watching it with my wife and there was couple with their young (6-7 year old ) daughter. There is a scene in the movie when the penguins are mating. They were not showing close up of genitals or anything like that. The mother got up, yanked the daughter by her hand and dragged her out. The girl didn't quite understand what to make of her mother's reaction, she got scared and started crying. Then they came back later, just in time to watch the penguin baby chicks die because their parents couldn't take care of them. I thought, 'how sad', that poor girl...
At the same time. This is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is not because of the guns, it's irrelevant, people own guns in other countries but the don't necessarily shoot each ther with them.
And then there is the problem with violent video games. Children in Europe play violent video games. I love Doom, Quake and all of the other ones. But those children do not go and shoot each other as much as the American children. It is as if we cannot simply blaim ourselves, and our culture for disasters like Columbine, we have to blaim video games, or some other things that we can all point a finger to.
Sorry for the rant. Hey if Linus can have a nice 'healhty' rant at the GNOME desktop, so can I at the American society
Re:Good lord think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Long gone are the days of "mathnet", reading rainbow, bill nye the science guy, mr. wizard, and the like. Nowadays kid watch shit like anime, power rangers, teletubbies [wtf?] and the like. They're not "children shows" they're just mindless noise with less violence and more religious [but not moral] parading.
If you were actually in it "for the children" you'd be for shows that teach kids science, literature, history, etc. Not bombard them with mindless commercialism.
In short, this has nothing to do with "think of the children" and more about a minority exerting their will on the rest of humanity. It's about power and control (whoa, common theme!).
Tom
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, yes, eurocentric. He should apologise for comparing us to the more technologically advanced and socially aware civilisations. Clearly, in America, we don't belong with them. I mean, we have the death penalty (unlike every EU member country and then some) like China, et al., we repress certain rights of homosexuals (unlike many European countries) just like the Islamic theocracies, I mean, who would EVER confuse us for trying to be ANYTHING like the Europeans. Clearly we're trying to suppress ideas in disagreement with the government and the Bible...
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:4, Insightful)
Sex is taboo. Children should not know about it. Parents are afraid to talk about it with their kids, and they protest loudly when the schools attempt to educate their children about it.
It goes so far, that I have seen christian churches teach kids in sunday school that original sin was Adam and Eve's nudity, not that they ate the fruit they were forbidden to have.
Re:Alternatively... (Score:3, Insightful)
But then again, I also want the press to have free access to areas recently bombed by our military. We should get to see the bodies of people killed by our tax dollars. If the bodies happen to be of enemy combatants surrounded by weapons and bombs, great, then we can make an informed decision to support the bombing. But if 90% are noncombatants with nary a weapon in sight, then, well, we still get to make an informed decision. What we have now is propaganda funded by us, voted by for us, designed to bolster our own support for war by lying to us. Lewis Carroll couldn't have written a more nonsensical plot.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This is part of the problem, no offense to you (I've been guilty of it too), but parents using the television as a babysitter instead of doing things with their children. I'm not saying we've lost our way, but children need interaction and conversation. They need touch, and laughter, with their parents (or someone in a similar role), not just in general, in order to understand that life is full. Life has ups and downs, death happens life goes on. Violence isn't the way to deal with things, etc etc etc.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Re:A great movie that explores this idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kinda common sense.
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:4, Insightful)
As for Islamic theocracies, there is a difference between not allowing homosexuals to marry and collapsing a wall on them.
Re:dumb move (Score:3, Insightful)
The Wisdom of Bart Simpson (Score:5, Insightful)
"Lisa, if you don't watch the violence, you'll never get desensitized to it."
As an American, my biggest beef with the way sex is handled on TV is the BLATANT hypocricy. A legal-aged (and IMO beautiful) woman like Janet Jackson has a nipple slip out, and we scream bloody murder. Then, we dress our best-looking 15 year olds like whores, and parade them around endlessly during prime time. Finally, we arrest and scorne any of those among us who dare to reach for the forbidden fruit.
Don't get me wrong- sex with kids is bad. But sex isn't. In fact, sex is how we got all these 15 year old in the first place. I'm not about to suggest that TV or video game violence is "rsponsible" for anything- unlike you, and your kids, it lacks free will. However, simply looking at the variety of violent acts among children, it is clear that something very bad is going on here.
If I had a daughter, I would prefer she stay at home, dressed in sweat pants and 40 pounds overweight. However, given the choice between buying her a box of condoms, and driving her to the emergency room, I'd rather bite the bullet and suffer a few minutes of embarrasment explaining how a "winky" works.
Well, if you're going to regulate violence, then.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A great movie that explores this idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
Re:And where are you free speech ideologues now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Another corpse rolls up onto the beach and the CSI morge digs into it to determine cause of death. We never see the shot, simply the results. Violent? Suitible for kids?
A couple argue about an affair and she slaps him. Violent?
ER again, where a patient off his meds starts struggling and flailing about, knocking equipment and doctors everywhere. Violent?
Ultimately, tags are not a "simple solution", because on one hand some overly-rightous type can come up with reasons to consider practically anything "violent", effectively eliminating anything he doesn't like. Whereas another person could consider "violent" being ripped open with a chainsaw.
To quote, "The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics." And I agree. The problem with your suggestion is an old one: who draws the line? Label anything you don't like violent or "mature" or "adult content" and millions of set-top boxes block it automatically.
One could, I suppose, rate "violence" from a range of "mild" to "extreme", but again, who decides? Whose "value system" is in charge? Who draws the line?
Besides, most STB's already let you lock channels, shows, and ratings. If you think CSI may be too violent for your 16-year old, watch a few, then decide for yourself. And above all, don' let someone else make them for you.
Is it so different? (Score:2, Insightful)
The original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, actually learning -- particularly learning about ethics -- is what damned us all. Curiosity is a bad thing.
I realize they were specifically ordered by God not to do that. But is that really different than, say, being ordered by the Chinese Government not to search Google.com for Tiananmen Square? What makes God so special compared to an oppressive government or human dictator?
I actually don't mean this as a direct attack on the idea of God, and I can save that for another debate. I'm just pointing out that the result of both of these is about the same -- either puritanical fear of sex or Luddite-like fear of knowledge. Think about it -- if God said "Don't kill anything" and Adam kills Eve, I could understand that as Original Sin. If he said "You belong together forever", and Adam had a fight with Eve and went off to screw sheep, I could understand. I mean, if they raped, killed, tortured, maimed, stole, or any number of things, I could understand... But I cannot accept curiosity and independent thought as Original Sin.
But that IS what the Bible tends to teach, so it's not surprising to me that we see people ignorant of Original Sin, when wanting to not be ignorant was the Original Sin anyway.
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever try to 'hang out' at the local military base?
T
Re:Conservatives love 24 (Score:2, Insightful)
Call me when Jack tortures and/or kills someone who turns out to be innocent. Until then I wont be very impressed.
Re:Choices choices... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, it's pretty sad that I can't watch a TV show with my kids that has nothing bad in it because the commercials in between are totally unsuitable for kids.
I know there's a lot of crap on TV shows but I try and avoid those. However, the advertising is another big area that needs more thought put into matching the rating of a show with the rating of the commercial.
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:2, Insightful)
We put a man on the moon and you're happy that we aren't as bad as a theocracy on human rights?