Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Television The Courts Your Rights Online

FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy 602

Posted by Soulskill
from the sweet-zombie-carlin dept.
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for profanity or nudity shown on live television. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy

Comments Filter:
  • Fucking backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:47AM (#33391130) Homepage Journal

    Nobody wants to see a cock on their TV. But let me fucking blow up a baby. Americans fucking love that.

    • Re:Fucking backwards (Score:5, Informative)

      by cappp (1822388) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:04AM (#33391344)
      One of my biggest culture-shocks was waking up to UK morning TV and being confronted by a guy with his trousers around his ankles, his balls the subject of the morning discussion. It's covered in this BBC story [bbc.co.uk] but the long and short of it is that it was a testicular awareness drive in the model of previously successful breast cancer awareness programs.It was the kind of early morning suprise that lets you skip your morning coffee and, more importantly, was one of the first times I've felt like television actually treated me like a thinking adult. Actually learned a few things that morning too. There's something to be said for the value of broadcasters approaching nudity, the body, and all that with a degree of maturity - its certainly one of the first steps towards a cultural shift.
      • Re:Fucking backwards (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Creepy (93888) on Friday August 27, 2010 @09:17AM (#33392244) Journal

        Yeah - I actually find America is backwater in some ways. Nobody gives a rats ass about nudity in Europe, and while people do binge drink, it is nowhere near the problem it is in America (or Russia, but Russia has cultural issues as well - it is considered rude to leave before the vodka bottle is finished, for instance).

        • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday August 27, 2010 @09:36AM (#33392478) Homepage Journal

          In my experience, it's a vocal minority that oppose nudity. When you look at events like the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction and it's the most replayed event ever on TiVo.

          You can go on and on with examples. The amount of porn watched and read. No, most people don't care.

          regarding this issue. I don't want to turn on Sponge Bob at 2pm and see Sandy with a strap on fucking Patrick up the Ass while Squidward cums on his face.

          • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc AT carpanet DOT net> on Friday August 27, 2010 @02:05PM (#33396144) Homepage

            I actually wonder if nudity being such a big deal isn't the primary cause of it being such a re-watched event.

            This sort of stuff always reminds me the few weeks I spent lounging around French Beaches. Everyone would ask "did you go to the nude beaches". What "nude" beaches? You go to the city beach and women walk around topless, and men wear nearly transparent speedos.

            After a few days though, I realized something. I looked over down the beach and I saw a family, 3 generations of women, toddler, mother, and grandmother, all topless on the beach.... and I realzied, they grew up with this, they have done this all their lives... it was ME who was the strange one for even taking notice!

            Then of course I came home, and everyone asked about the "nude beaches" and all I could think was, they just need to go there for themselves and see.

            -Steve

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by interval1066 (668936)
          Its stupid, and purely a cultural thing. The American legal system is based on English Common Law, but our law diverged some 300-odd years ago to include Puritanical moires of virtue and vice; a sort of Prudish Penal Code, and it stuck around to be deeply ingrained in our culture. Having Charles I kick the Puritans asses out of England was probably a really good idea, as that prudish sort of cultural bent was somehow dissipated in old world common law and values because of their expulsion.
          It might be explai
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      Nobody wants to see a cock on their TV.

      I beg to differ, Fox News has high ratings and that channel has a Lot of Complete Cocks on it.

      Then we also have every public Show that has Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson...

      It seems that Americans like seeing Cocks on TV.

    • by MikeRT (947531) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:58AM (#33392000) Homepage

      and I know a lot of social conservatives who aren't happy with nudity and profanity on TV and radio when kids are awake. In fact, based on the ones I know, I'd say they'd far rather their child see some boobies than another child or a family get blown up.

      Of course, war is different for children, especially boys. There is a big difference between seeing soldiers fight one another and seeing senseless crime and atrocities. You can claim there isn't, but that doesn't make it so, and for millennia, civilizations have understood the difference between glorifying the warrior ethos and senseless violence. The former, is not inherently harmful to children, and is actually good for a society that wants its boys to grow up to be **men** and not overgrown boys who act like pansies in the face of a violent world. The US has lost sight of the value of that since unlike the rest of the modern world, no country has tried to invade us in almost 200 years come ~2013 (when the British invaded the US in the War of 1812).

      • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Friday August 27, 2010 @10:01AM (#33392786)
        While I agree, to an extent, with what your are saying, your historical background leaves something to be desired. 1812 was not the last invasion of the territory of the US. While an argument could be made that America invaded Mexico first (if you believe the Mexican territorial claim was valid over the American territorial claim), President Polk's message to Congress on May 11, 1846 stated that “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil.”

        Further, during the Second World War the Japanese invaded several US holdings and territories, including but not limited to Alaska, Guam, the Philippines, etc. And they clearly would have invaded Hawaii if they could. So, in reality the US has not been invaded since 1941-44.
      • Of course, war is different for children, especially boys. There is a big difference between seeing soldiers fight one another and seeing senseless crime and atrocities. You can claim there isn't, but that doesn't make it so, and for millennia, civilizations have understood the difference between glorifying the warrior ethos and senseless violence. The former, is not inherently harmful to children, and is actually good for a society that wants its boys to grow up to be **men** and not overgrown boys who act like pansies in the face of a violent world.

        **checks pants**

        Last I checked, I am a man, and I find mindless nationalism and international chest-bumping to be completely, and totally, irrational and idiotic. Especially nationalism, nationalism is one of the dumbest social constructs we can train our children to uphold (outside of, maybe, various flavors of extreme religious dogma). Training our young men to go kill other young men because their flag is different, and they might speak a different language, is stupid, not "manly". As history shows, having a glut of young men glorifying war leads to war. If all you have is a war hammer, everything starts looking like a war nail, etc... I, personally, would rather we have a glut of young men (and women) glorifying something interesting, like reason.

        I read your comment in the voice of R. Lee Ermey, by the way, it didn't help make your point.

        War should be seen as a terrible necessity of last resort, not as some glorious brojuajua. We like war too much, in my opinion, hence our two largely unjustified and wasteful (both in money and human life) wars of the moment. How much glory is there in Iraq or Afghanistan? Everyone I know who has been involved in either didn't find it very glorious. Same with all the Vietnam and WWII veterans I know. My grandfather was one of the first US troops to hit Auschwitz, and he never talked about it, ever. I very much doubt he found any glory in that experience. Or at least he found as much glory in war as all of the hordes of suicidal and PTSD suffering current "glorious warriors".

        Most war is nothing but senseless violence. America hasn't been in a justifiable war since WWII, the rest has been nothing but moronic slaughter for political ends. How glorious! How manly! How idiotic. Being there is no glory in being a disposable tool for your government.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      I agree, it's insane. They show The Terminator on TV and they show Arnold ripping someone's heart out by its bare hands but excise the "fuck you, asshole" and the entire sex scene.

      Stupidly insane.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DJRumpy (1345787)

        I found this quote by the FCC particularly humorous:

        "The three-judge panel's decision in July raised serious concerns about the Commission's ability to protect children and families from indecent broadcast programming," FCC general counsel Austin Schlick said. "The Commission remains committed to empowering parents and protecting children, and looks forward to the court of appeals' further consideration of our arguments."

        The piece about empowering parents. Surely they do realize that they empower parents by

  • Le sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:48AM (#33391142) Homepage

    I still can't believe that you can show autopsies, murder, drug deals, and all the horrible things shown on the news...but if you show a titty, you face a big fine. ::head shake::

    It's freakin' stupid.

    • Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pharmboy (216950) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:00AM (#33391288) Journal

      Keep in mind that many people thought it dirty to breast feed in public, and that a woman should do it in private, shamefully. And some still think that way and STILL lobby to make it illegal. We Americans are entirely too focused on nudity being "bad", which I chalk up to too many people who can't separate their religion and their politics.

      This is the same reason pot is illegal, prostitution is illegal, gambling is illegal (unless the states is sponsoring it, then it is ok) in most parts of the US. Self righteous politicians and those who support them that want to tell others how to live and think.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rjstanford (69735)

        But boxing, on the other hand, is eagerly shown on 172" big screen HD TVs in sports bars around the country. Not to mention on ESPN.

      • Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bhtooefr (649901) <bhtooefr&bhtooefr,org> on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:41AM (#33391788) Homepage Journal

        Pot is illegal because blacks and Mexicans smoked it, and hemp was threatening the cotton and (wood) paper industries.

        • Re:Le sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday August 27, 2010 @09:23AM (#33392300) Homepage Journal

          Pot is illegal because blacks and Mexicans smoked it, and hemp was threatening the cotton and (wood) paper industries.

          You're close; that's why it was made illegal. It continues to be illegal because drug users are an easy group to demonize (in spite of the fact that nearly all of us are one) and therefore they can be milked for profit. If you want to profit from privatized prizons, you need to have someone to put into them. The mechanism of its continued illegality is partly marketing, and partly the disenfranchisement of felons; once you've received a felony drug conviction, you can no longer vote to legalize drugs.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Nadaka (224565)

        Religion is politics, a means of controlling the distribution of wealth and authority within a population. Religion carries a bigger stick because it can promise you a joyous afterlife or damn you to eternal hell in addition to the more mundane rewards/punishments that normal governance can offer.

    • Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:01AM (#33391302) Journal
      Anybody who files an indecency complaint with the FCC should be required to swear, under penalty of perjury, that all of their children(if any) were delivered by C-section, exclusively bottle fed, and bathed and changed only in the dark.

      If two seconds of Janet Jackson nipple leads to depravity, our vile custom of allowing mere innocent babies to freely gratify their sickening bodily desires on bare breasts must be the reason that we can't build prisons fast enough to contain the criminal element.
      • Anybody who files an indecency complaint with the FCC should be required to swear

        But then won't they get fined themselves?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm generally for freedom of speech. I think you should be able to make and market any variety of porn you like, for example, as long as it's made exclusively with 0 or more consenting adults. But I do think the Janet Jackson thing was really bad, and not something that should have happened.

        In short, I want the religious right to leave me alone, and be respectful of my desire to watch what I want to watch. But I think there's a flipside to that coin. I think it's also reasonable for us to accomodate
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Omestes (471991)

          In short, I want the religious right to leave me alone, and be respectful of my desire to watch what I want to watch. But I think there's a flipside to that coin. I think it's also reasonable for us to accomodate people who don't want their kids (or themselves) exposed to such things. They have a resonable (if prudish) expectation that Janet's nipple not be shown during what is considered a gathering event for all of America. You respect my rights to what I want, and I'll respect your rights to what you wan

      • by Stele (9443)

        If two seconds of Janet Jackson nipple

        Her nipple wasn't even exposed. I believe she was wearing a pasty.

        My wife and I were watching the event live, in HD, and when the "malfunction" occurred we just looked at each other, said "huh!" and went back to what we were doing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jason Levine (196982)

        My wife and I need to report ourselves for indecency. Not only did my wife breastfeed our two sons, but the older son has seen the younger son breastfeed. Who knows what damage his (then) five year old mind sustained by seeing his mother feeding his (then) infant brother!

    • Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:07AM (#33391370)
      Yeah, but without the FCC, I might have to actually pay attention to what my kids are watching myself. Can't the FCC just screen the babysitter for me, while I take a nap?
  • FTS: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by absurdist (758409) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:48AM (#33391144)

    "The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

    And this is bad how?

    • Re:FTS: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by paeanblack (191171) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:04AM (#33391346)

      "The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

      It returns them to arbitrating the technical aspects of spectrum licensing instead of being an unregulated police agency. They are accustomed to being the gatekeepers of content distribution in American society. Losing that kind of power really undercuts a fiefdom...can't blame them for sulking about it.

    • by sosume (680416)

      Judge: "You have no authority to issue fines if you think a certain broadcast is indecent."
      FTC: "But how will we then be able to issue a fine if we think a certain broadcast is indecent??!"

  • Forget the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkKnightRadick (268025) <the_spoon.geo@yahoo.com> on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:49AM (#33391156) Homepage Journal

    Whatever happened to parents being ultimately responsible for what their children are watching?

    • Re:Forget the FCC (Score:5, Informative)

      by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:52AM (#33391200) Homepage Journal

      We're living in the era of no responsibility in this country. At work everything is the fault of the corporation you're working for (convenient since a paper entity can't go to jail). At home it's the media's fault, the teacher's fault, the government's fault depending on the day of the week. No one is at fault for anything right now in the U.S.

    • Re:Forget the FCC (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orthancstone (665890) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:58AM (#33391262)
      Most people like to proclaim they are responsible right up until the point that you try to hold them accountable for their actions. Then it suddenly becomes someone else's fault.
    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      They want tools to help. Namely, I would like to know more about the violence level of a program and to care less about sex. My kids will be punished more by going into the first than in the second.
      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > They want tools to help. Namely, I would like to know
        > more about the violence level of a program and to care
        > less about sex. My kids will be punished more by going
        > into the first than in the second.

        The only tool they need is their own eyeballs.

        They whine about the nanny state and then think they can use the FCC as one.

        You gotta watch this stuff for yourself. You can't trust the
        busybodies to not lie to you. They've been pretty blatant
        about it in the past. The same goes for the likes of the

    • by hodet (620484)
      Exactly, we monitor our own kids tv watching. This is never something I would trust in the hands of a bureaucrat. Violence is much more of a concern to us then the odd booby flashing on tv. We got it covered.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Funny thing being that the republican portion of the politicians who are in favor of these FCC indecency rules are the very same ones who complain that Obama is turning the US into a nanny state.

      Can you get any more "nanny" than this?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by localman57 (1340533)
      We were watching the Super Bowl with our kids. And out popped Janet's nipple. Live, and unexpected. Parents who wanted to be "responsible" in preventing their children from seeing such things were caught totally by surprise. I think my kids will be OK, but it kinda puts a dent in that argument. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to keep kids from watching certain channels, or all channels at certain times. Put whatever you want on then...
      • Re:Forget the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:49AM (#33391880)

        And the correct response, if you happened to think that was so awful, was to have a talk with your children about how Janet's exposed nipple was wrong and what she should have done instead. If you want to pass your values to your kids (as is your right), talk with them when "wrong" situations come up. Most kids would have listened to their parents and learned not to flash their body parts in public. (Yes, we've had to have this talk with our son about other body parts and, yes, he listened to us.)

      • Re:Forget the FCC (Score:5, Informative)

        by DrgnDancer (137700) on Friday August 27, 2010 @09:17AM (#33392240) Homepage

        Did you really *see* Janet's nipple? Really? I was watching, I saw a sudden movement from Justin Timberlake, some clothing pull away, and what may or make not have been a flash of jewelry. The actual nipple was on screen for less than 3 seconds, on a pulled away shot, and covered in a very large piece of jewelry. So far as I remember it took an hour or more for there to be verification that there actually *was* a nipple in the shot, after someone isolated the 30-40 frames where it was visible and zoomed in on it.

        So essentially you're saying that kids can be mentally damaged but a second or two of viewing something that may or may not from the actual visual evidence on screen have been partial nudity. Regardless, the network (who got fined for indecency) had nothing to do with the plan that Justin and Janet came up with to get themselves some publicity. So even the most stringent fining system in the world would not have prevented the occurrence, because the people who were fined were not the people who planned and executed the stunt (and Justin and Janet couldn't have ever been fined because they're under no obligation to the TV station or the public to act a certain way just because cameras happen to be on them. Their contract is with the NFL).

    • by oodaloop (1229816)
      I like to think of myself as a responsible parent. But if I put on a kid's TV show, and there's nudity or violence on the commercials between the show, how I am supposed to block that? How am I supposed to know that's going to be there? I can prevent them from changing the channel to adult shows, and I'm present most the time when they're watching, but I can't do everything.
  • by Enry (630) <enry&wayga,net> on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:49AM (#33391168) Journal

    I think there do need to be standards for what's shown at least on broadcast TV but I think the pants-wetting hysteria from the Family Research Council and their ilk isn't the answer.

    These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      When people say America is a "christian nation", I believe this is what they're referring to...

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by thijsh (910751)
        "One nation under god, with all people born of immaculate conception and sex is a concept unheard of."
        Well, if you remove the 'god' part it would also apply to Slashdot. :)
    • Frankly, given all the cool things that you can do with a chunk of spectrum, the "airwaves are for public use" argument is much better ammunition for the extirpation of broadcast TV and the creation of vast chunks of spectrum that are either unrestricted or "free for use by all devices conforming to $OPEN_INDUSTRY_STANDARD_WIRELESS_PROTOCOL" rather than the bowdlerization of daytime TV.
  • I can understand people not liking hard core porn in between sesame street & pokemon while the toddlers are watching (and i'm sure the toddlers don't want to see that neighter), but come on, the image of a boob ain't gonna kill them or turn them into rapist zombie bastards from hell, as for profanity, saying shit is a lot less harmful then showing torture, murder & explosions, hell, even McGyver is more harmful (who hasn't recreated anything shown in that show?) then letting kids hear profanity.
  • their minds are scarred and they are ruined for life, they enter a death spiral of drug use and prostitution. all it takes is one glance of a boob, and the fate of your child's life will change on the spot to one of apathy, laziness, fatalism, and moribund lack of emotional affect

    • by thijsh (910751)
      Reading your post Poe's law [rationalwiki.org] comes to mind... Are you just kidding?
  • by NiteShaed (315799) on Friday August 27, 2010 @07:57AM (#33391258)

    The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

    Good. The FCC has no business regulating the content of what gets broadcast, only the means of broadcasting it, ie: making sure everyone stays in their licensed frequencies and doesn't stomp on each others transmissions.
    We're now living in a time where it's trivially easy to block potentially offensive channels, or restrict their use with a code to keep them out of children's reach if their parents don't want them watching. If you don't like that channel X broadcasts unedited showings of "Porkey's", don't watch channel X. You, as a viewer, have no right to expect a government agency to protect you from being offended, and the government has no right to prevent a broadcaster from showing what they choose, or me from watching it if I like.

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by symes (835608) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:06AM (#33391358) Journal
    As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities. Here in the UK we have the BBC and thus their two fantastic advert, nudity, profanity free childrens channels. And on the home computers I've stuck K9 [k9webprotection.com], which seems to do a pretty good job without spoiling their use of the computer. Recently they went to a relatives house and log onto their PC. The eldest searched for "horses", as this is something she is interested in, and got links to, amongst what you would expect, "horses mating with humans". There must be a balance, of course, but I do not feel that I can let broadcasters, in the loosest definition, decide what is and what is not suitable for my children. I do not want them to grow up thinking profanity, nudity, violence or whatever is normal behaviour. Similarly, I do not want them subject to some of the adverts that appear on some childrens channels (e.g. give money to help save some poor kid's life... I feel there're more appropriate ways of teaching kids about these issues). So we need something in place, whether that is common sense or an impartial body. Unfortunately I don't think common sense is an abundant commodity and so the US would probably benefit from keeping the FCC's indecency policy in place. There's no K9 for live TV, alas.
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:19AM (#33391530) Homepage Journal

      There are plenty of ways in the U.S. for a parent to decide what they want their kid to see without taking choices away from me as an adult. Again... it takes effort. Every device out there has parental controls... the finest grain parental controls we ever have had... so use them. And if you don't want your kid to see certain things then it's YOUR responsibility to keep him/her off of my computer that has parental controls turned off, not the other way around.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So you like the TV and computer to babysit your children. Instead of letting technology or the government raise and watch over your kids why don't you try it for a change?

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by BarryJacobsen (526926) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:35AM (#33391712) Homepage
      What search engine are you using where anywhere in the top 10 pages of results for "Horses" are there horses mating with humans? Google with Safe Search disabled doesn't even have anything like that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Culture20 (968837)

        Google with Safe Search disabled doesn't even have anything like that.

        For _you_. The owner of that computer must have different Google habits than you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities.

      As an adult, I don't really give a shit about your children. They are your responsibility. What you feel is appropriate for your children should never affect what is on my TV. If you feel something on TV is inappropriate for your children, you can censor it yourself by turning off the TV. If I feel that something on TV has been ruined by censorship, I can't undo the censo

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It always surprises me how stupid American law has gotten.
    Restaurants put "hot coffee" on cups for fear of being sued.
    People get worse sentences for stealing a song then if they would steal a whole business' inventory + more..

    God forbid a vagina or penis shows up on tv and it becomes a crazy national topic for a month.
    The fcc would love that kind of attention and be there to feed the parents with "we're doing it for the children" and also burp them afterwards...

    These kids will probably know more about sex t

  • No harm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by airfoobar (1853132) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:28AM (#33391624)
    What's wrong with kids seeing the odd tit on TV? It's just a part of the human body, and let's not forget we all came out of a vagina. All this bitching probably comes from a bunch of super-religious nuts who are trying to make people feel bad about their bodies, so they can keep telling them god will save them.
  • America... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Friday August 27, 2010 @08:55AM (#33391964)

    There is no country that is more simultaneously obsessed with and embarrassed by sex than the United States.

    America seriously needs to grow the fuck up.

  • Good. (Score:3, Informative)

    by npsimons (32752) on Friday August 27, 2010 @10:03AM (#33392828) Homepage Journal

    The government has no business restricting speech, even if it weren't written into our consitution. To all those who cry "think of the children", let's just list a few glaring problems with that argument, any one of which would invalidate it:

    • There are more than children living in this country.
    • Since when are images of the human body and messages of love harmful? "Sin" is a harmful, destructive idea that should be abolished.
    • Children will find out about these things sooner or later. Parents: if you have a problem with this, take responsibility and teach them so they will be prepared. Don't have time? Don't have kids.
    • Children grow up. How are they going to handle things as adults if they've never encountered them before? You think there's some magic switch that happens when they turn 18? Sure, you shouldn't just bombard them from the get go, but cutting them off completely will be worse in the long run.

    I recently watched the "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" episode on sex/virginity and it's really obvious but needs to be restated: ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION DOESN'T FUCKING WORK. Get a clue and get a grip: sex is not bad, and people (including children) should not be punished for being curious or having sexual impulses. Factual, scientific, rational education is the answer.

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Friday August 27, 2010 @10:52AM (#33393480)

    I don't have a problem with nudity or profanity. I'd argue nudity and profanity is much less harmful than glorified violence. On the other hand, American culture suffers from this odd dichotomy of prudishness taking things way too far. A lot of people seem incapable of anything other than shocking and offensive entertainment. Americans seem to be the source of some of the most depraved content in the world when it comes to mainstream entertainment. It's like Americans have this desperate, immature need to prove they're "adults" by enjoying excessively violent, shocking and offensive and overly sexualized entertainment. It's like writers, directors and producers are comprised of wannabee iconoclasts. I'm not saying I can't enjoy this sort of thing, but simply that I don't need to be bombarded with it constantly. It's nice to experience entertainment with a bit more maturity.

    For parents with children, like myself, the solution is simple: don't let them watch television or don't let them watch broadcast television. That way you're in total control of what they're watching. And better yet, they're not being bombarded with constant advertising, which I think is a far larger problem for society compared to any tv show which can easily be dismissed as fantasy. It's not like there's much of substance on television anyway. Kids should be occupying their time with other activities anyway. The last thing we need is to perpetuate this dependency on television for entertainment.

: is not an identifier

Working...