FCC Looks Into Regulating Violence on TV 506
The Importance of writes "The FCC's regulation of indecent and profane speech has gotten a lot of attention recently. Now, the FCC is considering getting into the business of regulating violence on television (broadcast and cable/satellite). This isn't unexpected, because the House Commerce Committee ordered the FCC to conduct the study. Notice of Inquiry [PDF] [TXT]. Somehow, I don't think the FCC is going to tell Congress there is nothing they can do about violence on TV."
Max? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Max? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Max? (Score:5, Insightful)
My fortune when I logged on today was:
A warning from Scots Historian Professor Alexander Tyler circa 1787 re the fall of the Athenian Republic:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence.
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency,
from dependence back into bondage."
If the 90s were all about apathy it's dead clear where we're headed. My take, if they're going to do somewhat about violence, at least give us our sex back.
* not so much funny as interesting, really.
Reader beware (Score:5, Informative)
At the risk of a Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At the risk of a Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
All the examples you've given show the US, as a single entity, being active. However, that was not the point. It's the apathy/activity of the people that decide the fate of democracy (and what the parent was referring to).
Democracy is based on the rulers being accountable to the ones being ruled. This accountability can only happen if the subjects are active - passive subjects let their government stay in power even after it screws up, basically allowing it unlimited power. Because of this, the ones in power want their subjects to remain passive. TV is a tool for this passification. That was the argument.
"Conspiracy" refers to some kind of secret plot, but the contributions from corporations to US politicians are public knowledge, available from, for example Opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org], so unless you think that the donating corporations are stupid enough to continuously spend money for no gain (which they propably aren't - they wouldn't have gotten big if they were), I'd say those theories are statements of facts.
Re:Max? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just like every other argument, it isn't to protect the "average" person. It's to protect the morons who are too stupid to learn how to change the channel. And especially those people who are too stupid to use "The V Chip" that congress mandated be included in all new TV sets. Remember when they told us that they were mandating that so "parents" would be empowered to control the television viewing habits of their children? All of a sudden, that's not enough. MORE HAS TO BE DONE! I call bullshit. It's a smokescreen and a sham. This is about legal extortion, nothing more and nothing less.
LK
Re:Max? (Score:2)
Re:Max? (Score:3, Funny)
Amen, Brother! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Max? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I puke now? It's always about money or power. In addition, when are we going to learn that we are incapable of making decisions on our own about our own lives, they must be made for us through legislation. If they were not made for us, how would they justify their existance. There are enough laws right now for us to be on auto-pilot for the next 50 years, I suspect we would avoid anarchy during that time,
Re:Max? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hear, hear!
The V chip makes me mad. This is a minor example of what's happened to cars over the last fifteen years or so. My dad bought a brand new 1989 Dodge Omni for $5900 off the showroom floor. The exact same car, in the year they stopped making that particular model, went for about $10,500.
What happened? Did inflation nearly halve the value of money in the 90s? Nope...it was nuts like Nader running around proclaiming that every single car has to have child seat anchors and inside-the-truck latch
Nothing to see here folks... (Score:2)
Re:Max? (Score:5, Insightful)
TV is the perfect medium. It passively places the rabble in a harmless state without the negative effects of other methods such as alcohol. Such pacification is a critical part of social control.
TV allows the elite to clearly define the norms and customs of said rabble and set the appropriate expectations. This means that every person in America knows that he or she must consume. It means that every person in America has a common cultural basis.
TV clearly presents people in similar economic and social situations as the rabble, but with better stuff. This implies that the lack of stuff is caused by some personal defect, and not the fact that your job pays nothing. Friends was brilliant in this regard, convincing gullible young adults that life is good and good things could be had even if the means to pay for them was non existent
Remember that the one mistake Bradbury made in Fahrenheit 451 was the notion that we would need walls of TVs for social control. We now know that a single set will do the job. We now have confirmation that people will go into debt to acquire this means of social control.
Re:Max? (Score:2)
Sounds like you've been exposed to quite a bit of violence on television. The surgeon general recommends you begin reading books.
Cable/Satilite (Score:5, Insightful)
Its an election year (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, how many people are going to be upset at a politician who claims "I fought to clean up violent media."
Its a shame most people don't see that as meaning, "I'm big on censorship."
Re:Its an election year (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, censorship is never the right solution. The parents should have the right to control what their children can and can't watch, while still being able to watch things *they're* interested in. Hell, technology can all but do this for them, anyway! It's called locking out channels. It's existed for years (or don't you watch the Simpsons?).
Thirdly, even if kids are watching a ton of violence, please, prove to me that it actually matters. I've seen plenty of studies which disprove any link between watching violent materials and commiting violent acts.
Fourthly, even if you want to try and censor violence, how do you define it? What about animated violence? What about live action "violence" where there is no blood? Or where there's only the "suggestion" of violence?
Fifthly, censorship is a dangerous, slippery slope, with questionable benefit. If we start censoring TV and video games, what next? When will they start censoring "inappropriate" books? Or music? After all, we need to "protect the children", lest we somehow damage society.
Personally, I'm a little tired of people trotting out the ol' "think of the children!" line every time they want to curb *my* rights.
Re:Cable/Satilite (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there's still violence and in the world, and we all know the world was a vast utopia of love and understanding before TV.
The world is so evil today because the morals of the elite few has not been crammed down everyone's throats enough! Down with free speech, it only breeds violence!
Yeah, that was sarcasm for those who haven't realised it.
Re:Cable/Satilite (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cable/Satilite (Score:3, Interesting)
Since satellite still uses over the air transmission, they are theoretically less "immune" to regulation of content than cable. A cable-co can block objectionable material from even getting into your house by filtering out the appropriate channels.
Methinks the broadcasters are now reaping what they've sown - they've been asking for increased regulation in the form of "broadcast flags" and the like - the FCC is
I agree with the FCC... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I agree with the FCC... (Score:3, Interesting)
They've also looked into censoring web broadcasts (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They've also looked into censoring web broadcas (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They've also looked into censoring web broadcas (Score:3, Insightful)
And if some pesky wording of the law gets in the way, I'm sure Congress can easily pass an amendment.
You're relying on reality which is always a sure path to defeat when dealing with politicians.
Regulation? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll shoot the next guy who tries to tell me that violence on TV is a bad thing!
Re:Regulation? (Score:4, Funny)
Just wondering, are you also planning on fucking the next guy who tries to tell you that sex on TV is a bad thing?
-
Does this mean (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean (Score:2, Offtopic)
Depends on what "got" means (at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton).
What I see we "got" is one old man who may or may not be Saddam (his wife says no, and his attorneys say they fear the US may kill him before trial to prevent anyone from knowing for sure).
What I see we "got" is no oil and 900 (at least) dead troops and thousands of civilian casualties and a $200 billion dollar bill that AIN'T gonna be paid off by Iraq oil revenues despite what Wolfie to
Equalising... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it that in the US you can see as many shootings as you want on TV bvut as soon as someone says fuck or bares a breast, the loonies go nuts... I thought seeing people getting killed would harm a kid more than seeing a breast or two.
Re:Equalising... (Score:4, Interesting)
A little racy (for their time), but you see what 'land rights' are, how to deal with squatters, and other problems.. You shoot em. Go watch an episode of Bonanza, there's almost guaranteed someone to die. By gunshot, poisons, natural causes, starvation...
You're also taught respect, courage, and humility. You were also taught how to be a man (in some aspects). And I dont mean this pig-like "go get me a beer, wench" type.. but someone who stands up for what they believe in.
Anything on TV now has lost what shred of worthiness it once had. Dont go saying im romanticising about the past.. Tell me that "YOURE FIRED", Big Brother, or some other tipe show on now has anything worth listening?
Re:Equalising... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's remarkable to me how this worwhip of violence and defining your manhood by how many people you hurt and kill permeated our society to such level that we can't seem to go five years without dropping bombs on somebody or another.
Re:Equalising... (Score:3, Interesting)
As to your second point ("that right will win in the end if you let the law handle it."), if you believe that, please stop whining about the Microsoft settlement, the last election, and
Re:Equalising... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Equalising... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Equalising... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a theory about why violence is deemed "OK" but sex is not. It goes a little like this:
Most of us are reasonable enough that when we see a bad guy shooting random people on TV, we recognise his behvaiour as completely unacceptable and not something to be copied. I
Re:Equalising... (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, lots of kids will replicate sexual behaviour they see in movies and on TV, but not many will replicate the violent behaviour they observe.
Have you seen the nudity that is broadcast in a lot of European countries? They show breasts in commercials, do they have a massive teenage pregnancy problem? No they don't.
Do you think that it could be possible that restricting nudity could have the opposite effect in controlling teenage pregnancies?
Re:Equalising... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a theory too: the Americans are just nuts.
Re:Equalising... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, lots of kids will replicate sexual behaviour they see in movies and on TV, but not many will replicate the violent behaviour they observe.
Which is interesting really. Teens will "replicate the sexual behaviour they see". Now just where do you think they'll see this sexual behaviour? In a more open society that didn't cringe at every minor sighting of breast and keep everything repressed (like, say, Europe) they might see sexual behaviour treated openly and honestly. In a prudish society that tries to hide everything away from the poor children they'll probably have to resort to porn to see much sexual behaviour.
Hmm, open honest representations, or porn... I wonder which is better to have them trying to replicate?
It's worth noting that despite their much more open attitudes toward sex Europe has a lower rate of teen pregnancy than the US.
Jedidiah.
I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I think that any program whose audience is intended to be children, should not be allowed to have commercials. This would protect kids from commercial interests and would have the side benefit of reducing the amount of insipid commercial programming that wastes kids' time and rots their brains and bodies (because producing such programming would no longer be profitable, and all that kids would be left with would be educational programming on PBS).
Of course, there's nothing more important than responsible parenting, and that should be the first line of defense for children. But just because we want parents to be responsible doesn't mean that we shouldn't give them all the tools possible to be such, and provide as much of a safety net as possible for those kids whose parents are not responsible.
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:5, Insightful)
i think people are very hard-up about anything regarding sex in this country. remember that nipple slip during the supperbowl? wow, mothers of America were yelling bloody murder! i read some email that was sent to CNN from a concerned mother who stated that her child's life will now forever be changed because of that scene.
I'm not surprised that we see so many sex-related crimes in this country, it seems that people have been so shunned from sex while they were growing up, that when they're old enough to do whatever they want, they go all psycho....
I honestly think that teaching your kids about sex and showing them that it's a very natural part of human life is not a bad thing (TM).
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that you haven't been in this country very long but please try to remember that we are under a conservative, religious, republican regime that believes in creationism, teaching abstinence instead of condom usage, covering a CLASSICAL ART statue because it is nude, and ignoring the seperation of State and Church.
Of course we have to be up in arms about a boob
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:3, Insightful)
This administration may be conservative prudes, but so was everyone else ever at the wheel of the FCC, and blaming existing decency standards on them is unjustified.
Obligatory "Mothers against Canada" quote (Score:3, Informative)
Horrific, deplorable violence is OK as long as people don't say any naughty words
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2, Informative)
Guess what, mothers of America? Your child has already seen and probably performed many of the things you feel so abhorent. I mean how many kids are bussed to the local museum to see statues, paintings, and [gasp] dare I say nudity? And those Bible stories? Hey, didn't Abraham schtoop his maid and was blessed for it?
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Such a sensible post from someone who considers me a foe. Makes me wonde
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:5, Funny)
I assume she either never breastfed (in itself lacking wisdom) or is simply a fucking hypocrite.
Come to think of it, families are evidence of sex. Perhaps we should ban those on TV, too.
Expectations (Score:2)
Cable is far, far different. You KNOW there will be some sex & violence, so hopefully you regulate your kids appropriately.
Nudity,
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2)
Better yet, don't censor the airwaves at all, just require a very thorough, detailed, and precise rating system, and enforce it. Then parents can decide what is suitable for themselves to view as well as their children, and nobody needs to step on anyone else's right to broadcast what they want or watch what they want
[/quote]
I think that's the way to go. However, most parents in this country don't want to have any responsibility with their kids. They would rather have the govt. play babysitter and t
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2)
The FCC was not meant to become a censorship committee deciding what is decent and indecent for the public. They control the fucking airwaves. We shouldn't be allowing them to continue their bullshit.
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2)
The airwaves are a public resource. The public has every right to place restrictions on how it is used for the greater good of the owners of that resource (which is, of course, the public). I see no problem with the FCC enforcing very thorough and comple
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2)
Sorry but you are not making sense. The FCC is not the public. They SHOULD NOT be allowed to do what you propose.
Parents should be able to decide for themselves (without intervention from a governm
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2)
The FCC is a branch of the government.
Therefore, the FCC *IS* the public, and SHOULD be allowed to do what I propose.
Parents ARE able to decide for themselves what is acceptable, but they need to KNOW what it is they are deciding about before they can make the decision. A thorough and complete ratings (and description!) system for
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:5, Insightful)
NO! This is the wrong approach. The gov't should not do any of this. The FCC should be there to make sure Company A's radio freqs don't mess with Company B's radio freqs, and end there.
The gov't saying what's wrong and what's right, what's too sexually explicit and what's not, is completely wrong.
If soccer mom's are afraid that their kid might see something bad on TV, they can: A) don't let the kid watch TV or B) let the kid watch and explain it was wrong. having the gov't rate what is right and wrong is just flat-out wrong. what's next? the FCC says a Christian radio show isn't indecent, but a Jewish one is?
Keeping children safe is the responsibility of the parent, not the gov't.
Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... (Score:2)
If soccer mom's are afraid that their kid might see something bad on TV, they can: A) don't let the kid watch TV or B) let the kid watch and explain it was wrong. having the gov't rate what is right and wrong is just flat-out wrong. what's next? the FCC says a Christian radio show isn't indecent, but a Jewish one is?
[/quote]
Apparently, you agree with me, even though you think you don't.
I said that the government should enforce very detailed, thorough, and complete ratings for programming. Then par
Rating system (Score:2)
Once you've applied your new rating system to every TeeVee in the house, provide every one of your brood with a Library Card.
last bastion of american television (Score:2)
FCC, let parents do their job (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FCC, let parents do their job (Score:2)
Um, we do. Or do you mean we should stop prosecuting kids who are 16+ years of age? In which case, I agree (and yeah, I know, there are younger kids who are prosecuted. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing).
Re:FCC, let parents do their job (Score:2)
I didn't read that in what he wrote. How I read it is that the government will never be better parents than parents. That is, if any part of the resulting adult is influenced by nurture, then a parent would be more appropriate for that than the government. If, as you imply, there are significant non-nurture factors, then the government is mostly
So they want to get rid of shows that inspire (Score:2)
Great, this means that Ryan Seacrest will finally be off the air!
That man has probably inspired more rage than any other actor in history.
Re:So they want to get rid of shows that inspire (Score:2)
this is bad (Score:2, Funny)
this problem can be solved very easily
on most TVs, there is a dial, keypad, or buttons that can be used to change what channel is currently showing. it's an amazing piece of technology that a parent can use to influence the life of a child
Violence in the USA (Score:2)
Well, at least that's how TV has been portraying it.
Removing violence from the average US TV show is going to be a sort of decapitation for the industry, the remarkable result could be no life left for them.
But thank God for the Real American Values there is satellite where the FCC has no power!
Oh god (Score:5, Funny)
It'll be like 80's TV all over again.
Like the A-Team, where they expend 10K rounds of ammo, but no one ever gets hurt.
Or during a fist fight or HtH combat, the guys always land on soft cardboard.
And those god awful wimpy, mustache twirling, limp wristed villains they had back then.
Re:Oh god (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I am too European, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, ... I am from Europe.
Time to regulate... (Score:2)
Funny how... (Score:5, Interesting)
Put another religious leader in the american government, and I guess we'll get the same result.
</politeness>
Why is the US so damn anal about nudity and violence? The mid east cuts off people's appendages on TV and normal public, Europe had free nudity on TV and on the beaches (Canadain women can even walk around topless)... but damned if someone curses or shows a little leg on my good ol' American Television!
Re:Funny how... (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the core beliefs of our founding fathers (that I'll bet is making them turn over in their graves now) was that our government (and any decent government for that matter) should hold as one of its highest priorities the seperation of church and state.
Just about every one of the U.S. Presidents has had a religious background [adherents.com] of some sort.
The problem comes in when they decide that their religion is the best for the entire country and therefore sta
Re:Funny how... (Score:3, Insightful)
The mideast cuts off people's appendages on TV
They also make the US like pretty free and wild compared to how women are allowed to dress. Different strokes and all.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC should do its job instead of that (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of that, they pretend to be working on censoring nudity and violence on TV, which is a comparatively mundane and non-important, and pretend to be working on stuff that way. In reality, they just divert the public's attention from the real issues they're not working on, a method not unlike what Joseph Goebbels was advocating.
Re: (Score:2)
Overheard at the senate (Score:2, Insightful)
Dumbass Politican 2 : "Yea, I'm feeling ya."
D.P. 1 : "Then, we can enact these here laws that allow us squash any kind of creative thought!"
D.P. 2 : "Hell yea, but why do we need that consolidation again?"
D.P. 1 : "Cause numbnuts, the networks said that they're sick of having to compete for viewers. And if theres only two or three companys, and nobody can serve anything but vanilla, THEN they no long
The V-Chip (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The V-Chip (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for TiVo and I implemented most of the "parental controls" functionality present in TiVo software. I can attest to the fact that V-Chip ratings are pretty hit-and-miss: some networks use them consistently, some don't. It's much worse with digital over-the-air broadcasts: even though the FCC has more control over over-the-air broadcasts, all the stations that I have seen very, very rarely broadcast ratings in their PSIP data.
I am all for the V-Chip system because it gives parents the ability to restrict their kids viewing without actually controlling the content itself (V-Chip ratings simply augment the content and make it easier to determine ahead of time if the content is acceptable for a child to watch).
But, I think that V-Chip ratings should be *much* more detailed, precise, and most importantly, UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED. And I think that the FCC should have the responsibility and power to force all broadcasters to very thoroughly and accurately rate their broadcasts.
Re:The V-Chip (Score:2)
well (Score:2)
Really now, how hard is it to change the bloody channel when you see something you don't like?
First they... (Score:2)
then howard stern...
now action movie stars...
Soon they get the gays and the non-English speakers!
Can't interfere with the new plan for the master race and all... can't wait for the FCC and the proposed 9/11 joining of MINT/FBI/CIA SS to issue me my new barcode identity number. I guess instead of star of davids we'll get little frowny jesus figures.
Iraq coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this policy is that it ignores the fact that the world is a violent place. Maybe things aren't so bad out by the FCC building in DC, but if the FCC took a stroll out through the city of DC alone at night, they'd probably get mugged. If they meandered through the streets of Darfur in Sudan, they'd get shot. If they stepped out into the neighborhoods of Fallujah, they'd be blown up.
The world isn't violent because of what's on TV or the Internet. The world is a violent place because people can't get it through their damn head that maybe - JUST MAYBE - if we all started to respect one another and chill out occasionally, we'd live in a happier place. But no. Wars and gang shootings aren't happening because of human frailty, selfishness, or obstinance. No. It's because some guy got shot on network TV last night.
Re:Iraq coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad that CBS had the cajones to break the Abu Gharib prison scandal. If they hadn't reported it, the public would've never heard about it.
I keep hearing conservative criticism that all the coverage of the war is negative, and then I shake my head in disgust. After World War II, official statistics report that 0 Americans died during the reconstruction and aftermath in Germany. However, numerous reports have been floating around for years that contradict these numbers. Why did "0" Americans die in the aftermath of World War II? Because the US government decided not to report those numbers to the American public.
Flash forward to Vietnam. If the press hadn't been in Vietnam, how many American deaths would've been reported?
I'll give you a hint: NOT MANY.
War is heartless. I consider it the duty of the press to make that reality known. People die. Many people. Families are left broken and in pain. But if the government doesn't have to tell us that, why would it?
I want to hear the news. I want to know if 900 or 1,000 or 5,000 soldiers and marines died in Iraq. If the media won't report that these people died, we'll never know. Their memory will be forgotten, and the public will see little but through rose-colored lenses.
I want to see the harsh realities. Those realities are news. Refusing to show "sensitive" things doesn't give us news - it gives us dillusion. And dillusion brings us little security.
I want American soldiers and marines who die in Iraq to be known by their names - not as Anonymous Cowards.
FCC regulates cable? (Score:2)
Thanks a lot (Score:2)
Saved by the Bell...ALL DAY. (Score:2)
The FCC has decided that the only after-school specials will meet their criteria for decency on the airwaves. Starting tomorrow, all networks will begin airing Full House and Saved by the Bell. All day. Every day.
In other news:
Dustin Diamond, reportedly thirty seconds from hanging himself in a closet, quit his failing career as a comedian and signed on with NBC to film ten new seasons of Saved by the Bell.
Start with the Olympics (Score:2)
Violence should be associated with the sponsors (Score:2)
Instead of banning violence just give an AWARD to the best sponsor of violent TV.
This doesn't say it is good or bad, it just says who is paying the most to bring it into your living room.
It's about time... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's about time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well let's look at the bigger picture (Score:2)
Maybe less people will sit around on the couch? Or less will fall victim to ads for useless products and junk food. The future looks truly bleak.
No beheadings are ever shown (Score:2)
They want to censor TV even more?
What violence? It's just reality TV (Score:2)
What violence?
Do they mean channels that are already restricted like HBO?
Why HBO rocks, and I want to live on Mars (Score:4, Interesting)
One reason why I love HBO is because they flip the bird to censorship and guess what? Every single year they rake in the awards for their programming. Censorship kills intelligent programming. Why the hell can't the government get the fuck out of my TV, out of my house, and stop punishing me because some parent is too fucking stupid to take care of their own kid?
Is your kid a little shit who likes to watch bad things behind your back and you are unable to control the little brat? Here is a solution, throw out your fucking TV or lock it in your room. I am so fucking pissed at how much I have to pay for other people's stupidity these days. I can't fucking smoke pot, can't watch violent/sexual TV, my fucking city closes at 2 am (hurray Boston curfew laws!), the rave seen as all been shut down in my area, I can't buy liquor at a bar past 1 am (another hurray for Boston's blue light laws!), violent video games are on the decline because Lieberman takes every chance he can get to threaten the industry, I can't gamble, and I can't even find an all night dinner (one more cheer for Boston curfew laws!) all because somewhere someone out there is too fucking stupid to handle these 'major' responsibilities. I am pissed and I am sick of seeing my liberties being slowly sucked away because some dumbass out there needs the government to protect themselves from themselves or watch their fucking kids.
So let me state it clearly. If you can't take care of yourself or your kids, please do me a favor and go fuck yourself. Don't beg the government to save you from your own incompetence at life. Go move to a nation that gets off on baby sitting its citizens or just purge your worthless genes from the pool. If you can take care of yourself, but really want to help other people take care of themselves, for fucks sake, stop being such a whiny little hypocritical bitch, get off your ass, and go help. Don't beg the government to do the work you want done for you. Want to keep kids from watching violent TV? Get off your fucking ass, make the rounds in your neighborhood and tell parents how to raise their kids. Someone might even listen to. Hell, offer to baby sit the little shits 24/7 and make sure the job gets done right. Just stay the fuck away from me.
Honestly, if we start flinging rockets to mars or asteroids I'll sign up and be the first guy to start a new world. Maybe then in my pressurized habitat in the middle of a barren wasteland I can enjoy some nice violent and sexual explicitly TV in peace.
political judo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tivo (Score:2)
Indeed, that could be a problem with a Tivo. However, with a VCR, children are quite safe: even adults have trouble programming the damn things...
Re:Tivo (Score:2)
Fact: children most probably can learn programming a VCR _QUICKER_ than adults can.
Re:Why won't they... ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we teach our kids that getting a tax break is more important than sacrificing a little to help those who are not as lucky as ourselves, our kids are going to turn out to be MUCH worse than kids who watch "trash" on television - our kids are going to be selfish, callous, and uncompassionate. And I worry quite a bit more about the callous and greedy than I do about the kids who like watching action films.
Teach your children the value of other people. The greed and selfishness I see in the world today is far more indecent than anything I see on television.
Regulation = Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
As to your kids, take some fucking control or don't complain. I am sorry you don't want to be a 'control freak' but the minor inconvenience of knowing what your kids are watching and/or setting up some parental locks is worth censorship of the rest of the population can see. I honestly don't give a damn about your kids and am at a loss as to why you think it makes any sort of sense that the rest of the population should have to endure censorship of what they can view because you don't want your kids to think you are a mean Daddy/Mommy.
I find abhorrent that people think it is okay to use the force of the government to get around being 'control freaks' with their children. This same stupid line of reasoning would dictate that the Internet needs to be controlled by the government because your kids might run into a porn site and you don't want to be a 'control freak' that uses a filter on your computer. Hell, this line of reasoning says that people shouldn't be allowed to swear in public or talk about sex on the streets because your kid might overhear it, and you really don't want to have to be a 'control freak' and always be with your kids to protect them from such vile behavior.
Parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their damned kids. Don't want your kids to see violence or sex on TV? Lock out all channels but PBS and Discovery (although, be careful, god forbid they learn about science of sex through the Discovery channel). Any modern TV can do this simply and easily. Still paranoid PBS might do a special on sexual reproduction or violence, throw away the damn TV. Whatever the case, I, an adult without kids, shouldn't have to suffer because you are manically trying to protect your kids from depictions of sex and violence, yet are too lazy to put in the effort to shield your kids from the fact that violence exists and most adults not only have sex, but have it often.
If you want to shove puritan values down your kids throats yet are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do it, do everyone a favor and don't breed.