Attempt to Apply Decency Standards to Cable/Satellite Television 709
bigtallmofo writes "Reuters is reporting that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (Senator from Alaska) is pushing for decency standards to apply to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio. You may recall Senator Stevens for voting against a measure to criticize the FCC in 2003 for loosening its broadcast ownership restrictions. Maybe he thinks profanity provides an unfair advantage to his broadcast-company constituents?" We touched on this last year, in the attempt to apply decency standards to satellite radio.
Easy solution (Score:5, Funny)
"Warning: WE HAVE NOT CHECKED IF THIS MOVIE IS DECENT"
Better Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The discussion at hand is about cable/satellite television, for which you have to subscribe. In other words, you need to go out of your way to get it. I don't get cable because I think the vast majority of it is crap and a waste of time. Heck, how many reality TV shows do people really need anyway?
Why do you feel that media companies should treat you like a child and show some parental responsibility? If you're not an adult, then you can't subscribe to the material anyways and your parents should be the ones to regulate what you watch. If you are an adult, then you can choose not to subscribe and police yourself accordingly.
The producers think they are all high and mighty and don't need to show any responsibility and most people disagree.
How do you conclude that most disagree? Is that just a wild guess or can you back it up?
As one person said here a few months ago, just because you change the channel doesn't mean it goes away...
You're right. It doesn't go away. And just because you don't read that particular book in the library doesn't mean it goes away either. How about we rein in the authors while we're at it?
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I have several Christian friends. I do not go out of my way to offend them, but I do consider them to be, for the most part, weak-minded, or, at the very least, programmed since birth. The funny thing is, if it's a cult (unpopular, small religion) it's brainwashing, but if it's religion, then we're teaching our children morals and values.
Also, note that I am not against spiritualism or belief. I am merely against the blind following of any book or creed, specifically one that was made such a long time ago. If you come to these conclusions on your own, I see no problem with them. If you do these things because it says so in an ancient book, I consider you weak-minded. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
Re:Thought crimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
I hate to spoil your fun, but I was referring to a Buddhist tennant of purging the mind of undesireable thought. I did so to demonstrate that a) censoring undesireable material out of television is not for "behavior" as the original grand-parent said, and b) Christians are not the only ones interested in this. Why does this idea make you laugh?
The only problem is th
Re:Thought crimes? (Score:3, Informative)
I also found it humorous that a Buddhist tennant was used as part of an argument by someone defending christianity because most people in general don't know much about other religions, much less use them in their arguments.
but just to tell you, the tennant in buudhism is about being able to be exposed to anything(even those nekk
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:3, Interesting)
The point I was making is that publicizing the gap in reasoning while making another decent argument sacks your credibility as an arguer.
You could make a fantastic argument and have me head over heels, but if you tell me little green men told you the argument... I'd have to try and seperate it, but know that any leeway I gave you in hope you adhered to some scientific method in your research would be gone, and I'd double check everything, dismiss th
Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Discount? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. Are they going to start regulating pay-TV channels next, like HBO? You can't say the f-word anymore in movies?
One thing I've never understood about this censorship was articulated by George Carlin best. His sentiments are something along the lines of, why is it ok to use profanity as long as at least the key vowels are left out? For instance, "f*ck" is perfectly acceptable in most censored media, even though it still clearly expresses the idea, the concept behind the word, just as clearly as if that little asterisk were replaced by the "u" it "censors".
S*ck my fat f*cking c*ck, *ssh*le. Do you really feel protected from my sentiment because I've applied the appropriate amount of "censorship"? (Or am I simply not allowed to express certain sentiments at all under this new bill? Isn't that unConstitutional?)
But it works! (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, I am not at all put out by your statement as you wrote it. But if you had put the actual vowels in, I would have considered you an annoying kid.
That is really weird!
asterisk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just words. They mean the exact same thing as the word they're replacing. The meaning comes through.
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
I belive you are entitled to a full , 100% , refund of that months payment. The service you paid for is the show, complete with "offensive content". If the content is tampered with before it is viewable, you just got screwed out of the product you paid for.
Censorship is a funny thing. I am offended by many blatantly ignorant statements on rightwing religous networks, such as fox news and scarborough country. Some people are offended by the George Carlin, The Daily Show, Real Time, great sex volume 9, or even Chapelle Show.
I developed a solution that I believe works for everyone. I hereby announce my intent to patent a method for preventing access of offensive content via the tuning mechanism of signal receivers which adjust the display to non-offensive content through a remote controll device.
If I am offended by someones kid crying in public, can I run up and put a piece of duct tape over his mouth ? Of course not, it's not my kid.
Well, why then should anybody get to put duct tape over the content I enjoy, it's my content. I paid for it. It's on a subscription service.
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Funny)
Because:
Those of us who have children are smarter than you.
Those of us with children know what's best for everyone.
Those of us with children can't and shouldn't actually be held responsible for raising said children.
Its for the children. Anyone who disagrees with that is just an *ssh*l*
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone who disagrees is logging into a secure shell session? wha?
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Discount? (Score:3, Funny)
No constitutional basis, no public airwaves (Score:5, Insightful)
I was hoping we would all just move to cable and dump the government along the way.
Go all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go all the way (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Go all the way (Score:5, Funny)
> After all, won't somebody think of the children?
I think Michael Jackson has that covered.
Re:Go all the way (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an interesting case (don't have any links, so you'll have to take my word for it) about something similar that happened here in Dallas a few years back. There are some "photo-artists" (Jock Sturges, Robert Mapplethorpe and Sally Mann, to name a few) whose art includes pictures from European nudist beaches, replete with underage subjects. You can legally buy collections of their photos at Barnes & Noble (and, presumedly, other booksellers)... evidently, some right-wing talk-show host got his panties in a knot over this, and encouraged his listeners to go into the bookstores, find those books, and rip them up. A lot of them did, and IIRC, were never prosecuted for anything (neither was B&N for selling what this right-wing talk show host considered CP).
Do as we do in Europe: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:5, Interesting)
You wouldn't be complaining if you'd seen American TV. Commercials out of every orifice (the legal limit on commercials for every hour of programming in the US is 20 minutes; in the UK it's 7 minutes), they're not allowed to swear (you can be fined for saying "god damn"!), and any nudity is a definite no-no.
Comparing that to the UK, I seem to remember the BBC showing American Pie a few weeks back - it was broadcast unencrypted on network TV with no commercials, and no cuts at all, including the full webcam scene. And who can forget that they broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera on a Saturday night complete with all the profanities (3,168 "fucks" and 297 "cunts" according to Mediawatch), and Jesus admitting to being "a bit gay".
Not bad for a country with no written guarantee of free speech. But then again the US consistently shows how little that means.
Legal Limit on Commercials (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there's no legal limit on commercials in the US except for Children's programming. They had dropped that limit too, but it got reintroduced in the Children's Television Act of 1990.
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's still easy, but now it's unlawful...
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:3, Informative)
It's generally accepted that a country controls only its airspace, which ends with the atmosphere, somewhere in the neighborhood of 120km altitude (note the "air" in the name). Geosynchronous satellites (like the ones that broadcast satellite TV) sit at about 38500km altitude, in outer space, far beyond the reaches of national sovreignty. They are definitely not in anyone's airspace.
The Fairness Doctrine as well. (Score:2, Interesting)
I for one do not favor any such content regulation.
Re:The Fairness Doctrine as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought they already had this... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that was 10 years ago.
Now if you mean enforcing all tv producers to say "This movie is rated R" and use some blocking, I agree.
After all, kids watch cable, too, don't they?
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an idea - don't like what you see on cable/sat and don't want to bother parenting the children you decided to have?
Don't shell out the $50 a month to get cable/sat and stop fucking whining.
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, that's the biggest problem with the U.S. -- we got founded by a bunch of guys from England who thought the Church of England wasn't prudish enough... Damn Puritans...
Honestly -- the first thing a baby sees is Mom's boobies...
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:3, Interesting)
So as a parent I could control what little Billy is
Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you were kidding, I think there is a lot of truth to this.
I haven't really watched Saturday morning TV for quite a while now, but is there anything even remotely comparable to Schoolhouse Rock being shown these days?
I mean that was real education slipped right past me as cartoons. It was a sneaky trick, but at least I know what conjunctions and interjections are as well as how a bill becomes a law.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3)
I guess that's because the only difference between a bill and a law are a few piles of small, unmarked bills.
It's hard to keep track when that's all you need to get even to most stupid, evil laws passed.
Personally, I think congressmen should be forced to turn over all their assets to the gov't the day they get elected. From then o
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Interesting)
If I knew of a place that was actually free socially, and didn't have to pay 80% of my salary in taxes (free fiscally), I would move there.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly I'm glad for living this side of the pond, but I am a subject of a bunch of unelected foreigners who used religious hatred to strongarm the country into giving them control of it. I have, ultimately, no rights other than what they deign to grant me. There are many things wrong with America, but at the basis of it they are a free people, whose government rules on
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. If I don't want to do business with Bush supporters, Christians, Women, Blacks, gays, etc.. that SHOULD be my choice. If I want to be stupid enough to turn away 50-90% of my clientele (directly, not counting those who stop patronizing my business because I am an asshole), there's no reason to stop me from running it into the ground, other than
Re:Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Never been to the US "south" and eaten at a Denny's have you?
Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy Crap! (Score:2)
-Jesse
Finally, decent movies! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait, did they mean "decency" as in, no words like "fuck" or "cunt", and no bare tits or ass? Damn. There's a good number of decent flicks that we'll be missing if that goes through then...
Big difference (Score:5, Insightful)
If you find cable indecent, you don't pay for the service. Arguement can be made if you don't like what's on broadcast TV, don't watch as well, but you don't pay directly for the programming on the public airwaves.
If people don't want South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut airing in all its rated R glory at midnight on saturday's then they won't watch it.
Parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to that V-Chip that was supposed to protect the children? DirectTV had the ability to lock out content and disable channels a long time ago. I remember showing my parents how to turn it off when they screwed it up.
Technology and government are not substitutes for parenting
Re:Big difference (Score:5, Insightful)
What really worries me though is that most people now think that censoring (yes, that's what it is) over-the-air TV is ok. If someone isn't able to get cable for whatever reason, they're basically left with what government says is ok, and that sucks.
Voluntary Service (Score:5, Insightful)
This is dangerous ground... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The People Vs. Larry Flint" is a great case to show that there should be firm limits to what the government can or cannot say about decency standards. Larry Flint was able to show that his product, while distasteful to many, is covered under free speech and is not subject to this type of restriction. I don't see how pay-tv services should be treated differently. There are controls in place (parents) to restrict viewing. If these controls are insufficient, the problem is not with the material that's available to be viewed, the problem is with the parent.
Still watching the 700 club too, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh. Still watching the 700 Club [cbn.com], are we?
Re:Still watching the 700 club too, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
I got a mental image of a 24x7 network for SNL's andro-Pat.
(cringe!)
Will this censor premium channels? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will this censor premium channels? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't push it Alaska (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't push it Alaska (Score:5, Funny)
Ted [visi.com] and Lisa [visi.com] and Don [visi.com]are part of our fiendish plot to get the U.S. so sick of us that they kick us out, so that we don't have to go to the bother of a revolution. Sort of a ``be revolting so we don't have to revolt'' strategy.
Paid content should be restricted (Score:2)
That includes all cable, satellite, video rentals, books, and website. We must stop pornography, violence, drugs, swearing, blasphemy, and dissenting opinion! To purge our society of these horrible influences, we should put it all in a big pile and burn it. Next, we will publish a list of government-approved media that you are allowed to create, sell, or consume. Finally, we will hire top scientists to develop tracking chips so t
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
No cause for FCC to get involved (Score:2)
Sure, why not! (Score:2)
In that way, I don't have to assume the responsibility for my actions. I love USA, the nanny state (tm).
Cheers,
Adolfo
PS. What is wrong with the V Chip. Parents should be the ones who are responsible for what the children watch on TV.
We knew this was coming... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't like it? Get involved - Write to the US Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Ted Stevens [senate.gov].
And the Co-Chairman Senator Daniel K. Inouye [senate.gov]. It's cool to complain on websites, but if even a fraction of us actually contacted our representatives in congress, maybe things might change.
Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:5, Insightful)
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
Now let us consider the following:
1. Violator of what, exactly, if there are not laws in place regulating cable right now?
2. You THINK you have the same power to regulate cable as "over-the-air"?
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce." This is fairly straightforward since the airwaves are generally considered publicly owned "space." Cable, however, runs over private property in a physically limited location. While there may be some power to regulate it, how can this be done without interfereing with private contract and first amendment rights?
3. [begin rant] Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds? [end rant]
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce."
Actually from what I recall free speech issues on regulation of broadcast media are gotten around because the information is sent into everyones homes without any kind of subscription. It has nothing to do with being a channel of commerce. It's like regulating nudity on billboards, etc.
Cable television on the other hand is a subscription model, and broadcast into nobodys home that doesn't want it. Cable (and really satelite TV and satelite radio) are really like newpapers and magazines, and are granted the same first amendment protections.
Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds?
No, it bothers me when people try to regulate things that are clearly protected by first amendment rights. It would equally bother me if individual states tried the same thing.
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks to the Beloved Congress, my television has a V-Chip in it. So that argument no longer stands, right?
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because someone pays for cable TV, that is not a request to have all kinds of trash piped into their homes.
Absolutely right. I can't stand Fox News either.
The problem is that there are so many instances now where you are watching one of those "trusted" stations that don't generally show things that children shouldn't see and suddenly, something indecent appears.
I know how you feel. Every now and again I see that nut Jerry Falwell on the 700 club spreading his biggoted crap.
However, people wh
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:3, Insightful)
Because politicians find that running on a smaller government, states's rights, platform is great but once in office they realize that they have "power" and they damn well intend to use it.
I agree that
contradiction (Score:5, Informative)
- There must be decency.
- There must be some person(s) given the task to decide what is decent and what isn't.
- Those given that task will be government officials/bureaucrats.
- Whatever those persons deem not decent should not be shown on CATV or played on satellite radio.
- The not decent material will not be shown/played based on the decisions of the government officials.
How is that not censorship?Opie and Anthony on XM Radio (Score:3, Informative)
I laugh out loud everytime I listen to the show, unlike Howard Stern, etc. If you don't have XM, try to find an mp3 on usenet.
Re:Opie and Anthony on XM Radio (Score:4, Informative)
I used to listen to Opie and Anthony back when they were on FM radio. It was OK, but Howard Stern was much funnier (just not on in the afternoon).
Then a couple months ago I subscribed to a free trial of XM radio, and I once again listened to Opie and Anthony. The program absolutely sucked. Howard Stern has gone somewhat downhill in the last few years too, but O&A was complete crap, it was like they were just being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious.
I think Stern will probably get better when uncensored, but I think that's 'cause he's got more to his show than just being offensive.
With apologies to Johnny Horton (Score:5, Funny)
Bringin' pork, (Pork for Alaska)
Pork! for Alaska,
They bring pork, the rush is on!
Pork! for Alaska,
They bring pork, the rush is on!
Big Ted left Alaska in the year '72,
On the Senate Rules Committee, was a real workhorse too,
With George and Michael Powell, and the FCC gang too.
They crossed the Yukon River and found the bonanza gold
Below that white-domed fountain, way the hell southeast of Nome.
Ted crossed the majestic mountains to the valleys far below.
He talked to his team of lobbyists as he mushed on through the snow.
With the northern lights a-running wild in the land of the midnight sun,
Yes, Teddy Stevens, a mighty man, in the year 2001.
Where the river is winding,
Pig nuggets they're finding!
Pork for Alaska!
They bring pork, the rush is on.
George turned to Ted with his pork in his hand,
Said: "Ted you're a-lookin' at a lonely, lonely man.
"I'd trade all the pork that's buried in this land,
"For one small slab of pork to[no, no NO, we are NOT goin' to find out what happened to Ginny in this filk as long as I have any say at the FCC]
To the tune of North to Alaska [cowboylyrics.com], Johnny Horton
Don't worry (Score:2)
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Now lets move on to next issue.
What slashdot could look like in the future.... (Score:2)
Slippery slope (Score:2)
Fuck you very much, the FCC (Score:2)
Stop trying to NATIONALIZE EVERY ISSUE (Score:3, Insightful)
The right tries to set standards for the whole country, while the left refuses to allow anyone to set any standards anywhere.
Folks, there are all sorts of people out there and just as many ideas about how communities ought to operate.
Some like the order and peace that comes with tough limits on behavior, and some like the thrill of anarchy.
So long as people have the right to choose the city/town/village/rural backwater compatible with their outlook I don't see what the problem is leaving each community to decide for itself what is or isn't appropriate.
Re:Stop trying to NATIONALIZE EVERY ISSUE (Score:3, Interesting)
The philosophy is coming back to bite them on the ass, I suppose.
The shift during the FDR admin should be obvious to everyone. Consider for example prohibition of alcohol, which required an amendment, and later federal laws regulating things like marijuana.
As conservative as people were to want prohibition, they followed the difficult process of getting an amendme
Re:Stop trying to NATIONALIZE EVERY ISSUE (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the question on all of our minds is... (Score:3, Funny)
Republicans for the Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
If they believe in the power of the free market, then let the cable companies respond to the demand for "decent" cable TV.
Re:Republicans for the Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiocy in this case crosses party lines.
Re: Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matt., xxiii, 1-8).
Re: Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
That verse isn't an excuse to defraud people.
Call the Senator and tell him how you feel. (Score:5, Informative)
His webpage is here: http://stevens.senate.gov/ [senate.gov] and his phone number is (202) 224-3004.
Do it now. Kill this crap in the bud. You only earn the right to rant and rave if you pick up the phone, send an email, or write a letter. If not, then keep quiet (no more whining to Slashdot), since that's what they want you to do.
The Land of the Free... My Ass (Score:5, Funny)
Can you imagine what might happen if a child were exposed to a breast again? My goodness, we've got to stop this breastfeeding, surely that's turning infants into sexual deviants!
Imagine some kid hearing the word "fuck". I mean, it's for certain that he'll drop out of his First United Calvinistic Church of Believers are Saved and Unbelievers Will Fry Like BBQed Hotdogs and become a gay Satanist, or even worse, a Democrat!
We must silence Howard Stern! Fartman must die! He must be replaced with righteous men like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, men of loving intolerance! After all, this is a Christian nation (Muslims and Jews temporarily accepted), and we know that the Founding Fathers didn't really mean "free speech" as in free. Besides, we have to make certain sacrifices to assure that Wardrobe Malfunctions, quite possibly planned by Osama bin Laden to destroy Jesus Christ's favorite sports telecast; the Superbowl, never happen again.
In the FCC Patriot Act 2005, we will make sure the US is a decent, moral society where fags are pushed back in the closet, Howard Stern is forced off the air, and rich Republican supporters get more well-deserved tax breaks. After all, that's what America is really about. Oh, and we have $500 kazillion bounty on that freaky English guy, Eric Idle, for his evil anti-FCC song. If you are not with us in our quest to regulate and control your thoughts, then you are against us.
Is there some point to all this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing that there are actually programs or movies being created that are patently offensive to a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the population. Such programs would not be watched and would thereby lose either their commerical sponsorship, or the revenue from paid subscribers.
I don't think I've ever seen anything on television, whether it be broadcast or cable, that struck me as just so henious that I needed the government to protect me from it.
The truth is that this kind of censorship is nothing more than an attempt by a small but organized minority to remove certain ideas from the public airwaves, and thus the public consciousness. Now they'll claim that its "for the children!" but this is at best a half-truth. They may actually care whether kids see the things they're up in arms against, but they're just as worried that adults will see them as well.
Here in America the concept of freedom of speech is enshrined in the document that is the foundation of our government, the US constitution. What most people don't recognize or realize is that freedom of speech itself is not meaningful without freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is dependent upon freedom of information. This is what censorship is an attempt to stifle. The things you know and the ideas and concepts you come into contact with determine the things you think about, which in turn determines what you talk about, the ideas that you express, and the conclusions you reach.
Censorship is evil regardless of who is doing it or the supposed justifcations behind it. If something is a lie, the answer is not to suppress it, but to answer it with the truth. The truth itself, needless to say, is not something that needs to be suppressed, and anyone who does so is NOT your friend. There are times when secrets are necessary, and when information needs to be kept private, but holding details in private is not the same as the active suppression of public discourse.
When Ted Stevens assumed office he took a solemn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution. What he is doing is nothing less than the violation of his oath of office.
Lee
Re:Is there some point to all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your rights extend to the point where your fingers touch the tip of my nose, and vice versa. There are plenty of things that I don't like, but the burden of living in a free society is that we are all going to see, hear, and know about things that we disagree with and do not like. You can either have freedo
What this is all about (Score:3, Informative)
He implies that it is a political issue and control of media issue, not a morality issue as such.
http://www.saveradionow.org/nicholasjohnshon.ht
The guy is no kook. Read it and try to understand.
Uh huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Let children watch violent sporting events which idolize violence and aggression as a means of conflict-resolution and ego gratification (Pro-everything).
Encourage children to idolize rapists (Kobi Bryant), murderers (OJ Simpson), wife-beaters (Mike Tyson) drug abusers (Strawberry), gangsters (the NBA), and cheaters (Canseco, et. al).
Encourage children to become enamored of a system which transferrs public funding (for stadium construction) into private hands (team owners) on the threat of leaving for another city (extortion).
Encourage children to become involved in a government-regulated monopoly, similar to many Soviet bureaucracies.
Encourage children to watch cheerleaders shake their scantily-clad privates into the camera, promoting the objectification of women as sexual property.
Yet it's not okay for a parent to use the remote control to prevent them from seeing 5-seconds of nipple.
Unless it's not really about "protecting the children", and it's really about "controlling the lives of others".
what the hell (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Alaska? (Score:2)