AKD Most people want the words and do we still have a decency standard?:wink: Didn’t Bush do-away with that years ago? after all in mexico his home nation called La Raza ( the race ) no one knows anything about laws or decency standards or borders so why have one here we will be mexico soon and bush will love it all.:lol:
1, AKD, you liberals, especially Gay activists, do not like to be offended. Many yell hate crime at each offense, like Gays hated Jerry Falwell for what he said. So, if words you Gay activists don’t like constitute a hate crime, then words that offend the decency of most of the nation do not need to be broadcast either.
2. Most words don’t need to be spoken. That isn’t, however, a very good argument for censorship.
4. C’mon PCD, even someone as dense as you can see the difference between a community leader blaming homosexuals (and their fellow travellers) for 9/11 and a cartoon character saying “dick” on The Family Guy. Regardless, I never said that Falwell should have been censored; I just said that he was a dick.
6, AKD, when there is balance, you scream censorship. When your opponents get censored, you celebrate. The pendulum swings back. We’ll see how you like being on the receiving end.
So I guess it would be fine to start having the characters on Sesame street and Blues Clues, or Dora go ahead and use the f-word..I mean it is free speech isn’t it?
7. Who censored Falwell? When have I ever celebrated censorship? God, you’re a sloppy thinker.
8. Well, personally I don’t give a f*** if Blues Clues gets a little more…blue; still, if it were to happen, I suspect that parents wouldn’t let their kids watch it and, consequently, all those advertisers selling sugary cereals and action figures would pull their $$$ out. The situation would resolve itself pretty quickly (and if not, some kids would learn a few more naughty words that they’re probably going to learn on the playground anyway; unlike the rants of Falwell, these words don’t directly incite anyone to violence). In the case of programs like “South Park,” or “Family Guy,” or whatever, the customers seem to be pretty pleased with the product. Those who aren’t pleased don’t have to watch—there’s always a rerun of Golden Girls playing somewhere.
Isn’t the right supposed to be for the free-market taking care of itself? Has it lost the batteries to its remote control?
BTW, it seems a little strange that any one of the roughly 300 crime procedurals on the networks can show and discuss the molested bodies of dead hookers (clothed, of course) with no one batting an eye, but if Nicole Ritchie says “shit,” LOOK OUT!! I’m personally fine with “CSI: Molested Corpses Unit,” but I do wonder why so many “cultural conservatives” more bothered by boobs and bad words than by violent death…
I think you are all off base here. The fact of the matter is you are confusing two seperate issues. Ylu have to look at publically owned airwaves vs. those not owned by the citizens.
When discussing governement censorship, one can only apply that to the publicly owned air waves. In that instance of TV and radio, one must censor to the least common denominator, which are children as they have as much right to access those airwaves than any body else.
However, when you are talking about broadcasts mediums not owned by the citizens such as cable and satelite radio, then AKD is correct: let the market place take care of it.
No I am not confusing 2 issues….The Fox Broadcasting Channel, not Fox Sports or Fox News, where the music awards that started this whole ball running, is on network television. The reason that the cable channels have not come under much scrutiny is because the consumer pays for the station…they are still under FCC jurisdiction.
Fox’s money comes from sponsors. Fox is a long way from being publicly owned (actually, so is PBS at this point, but that’s another story). Fox answers to its shareholders, and shows like Family Guy are turning profits.
12-? What is the point of that? Fox still leases the airwaves, they own their stations, as do NBC, ABC, CBS, yet everyone, including HBO, share the airwaves….
The point is that Fox is a corporation and if people don’t watch Fox’s programs (because they’re vulgar, politically questionable, or just because they suck), Fox won’t turn a profit. Their programs will go the way of Manimal and Automan and they’ll either learn their lesson and start broadcasting TV-G or they’ll go out of business. Crying for censorship doesn’t seem to be necessary. Again, use your remote control.
If you’ve gotten too fat from eating at McDonalds, stop dining there; if cigarettes are ruining your health, stop smoking; if all the naughty words on TV are making you a vulgar person, change the channel. Don’t beg the government to save you.
17, AKD, those shows sucked! If you are going to wax nostalgic about long lost TV, how about Lord Lew Grade’s old “Marionation” icons, “Fireball XL-5″, “Stingray”, and “Thunderbirds”?
18. By Fox, etc., I mean stations that rely on advertising dollars (and thus, ratings) rather than viewer subscriptions or public funds as their main source of revenue. I’m thinking of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW).
20. Fair enough; I was joking about Manimal and Automan. I feel like I’m getting a glimpse into you psyche, PCD. So far we’ve heard about dragracing, Heinlein novels, all things gay (Freud reminded us that the unconscious “doesn’t know ‘no’”), and now marionettes. Weird.
21, AKD, again you show your denseness. You tried to sound smart and knowledgable with your examples of failed TV shows. I countered with older, but successful fare. You came back like a true liberal with a nasty remark as your answer. You really are transparent and one dimensional.
Oh, for the adults, anyone remember the kids’ series “Supercar” and for those who only watched US shows, how about “Sky King”?
My point is all these shows were entertaining without foul language, nudity, and sex. Something that can’t be said about any TV fare, except for the “gearhead” shows.
“18. By Fox, etc., I mean stations that rely on advertising dollars (and thus, ratings) rather than viewer subscriptions or public funds as their main source of revenue. I’m thinking of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW).”
That would also include cable channels, as they also rely on advertising revenue.
If discussing censorship and what is viable, you also have to include the medium upon which the channel is presented- it isd an important distinction. Public airwaves are censored for valid reasons. As I said before, they are owned by the citizens of the United States, and as such must cater to the lowest common denominator of it’s citizenry.
PCD, “Sky King” circa 1951? Never saw that, but if that is the era of TV you are pining for, it ain’t happening. They wouldn’t even show a married couple sleeping in the same bed back then– how unreal was that?
23. That would also include cable channels, as they also rely on advertising revenue.
Sure, but not entirely (and not at all in the case of premium channels).
Public airwaves are censored for valid reasons. As I said before, they are owned by the citizens of the United States, and as such must cater to the lowest common denominator of it’s citizenry.
Are you referring to stations like PBS? I’m not clear on whether you’re disagreeing or not. Presumably you’d agree that, e.g., Fox or NBC is a corporation, answerable to shareholders, just as UA, McDonalds, or Marvel Comics is.
22. You tried to sound smart and knowledgable with your examples of failed TV shows. I countered with older, but successful fare. You came back like a true liberal with a nasty remark as your answer. You really are transparent and one dimensional.
Um, did you think I was making an argument about Manimal? I was just joking around, moron. Your reference to Marionation was supposed to be a counter.
My point is all these shows were entertaining without foul language, nudity, and sex.
Ohhh. Is that your point? Why am I not surprised that you prefer sweaty guys with tattoos working on cars to all that nasty nudity and sex on contemporary TV….
Actually, Ted, does your argument take the tack that the major networks are simply borrowing the communally owned airwaves? I’ve heard this position before, it seems to be the argument that was rejected in the court case in question.
I can’t imagine that you actually support censoring “to the least common denominator.” Wouldn’t this mean that anything that anyone finds offensive would have to be removed (as the assumption that only what is obscene would be eliminated obviously begs the question). As a musician, I personally find American Idol offensive.
Once again, I’ll stand by my earlier position: If you’ve gotten too fat from eating at McDonalds, stop dining there; if cigarettes are ruining your health, stop smoking; if all the naughty words on TV are making you a vulgar person, change the channel. Don’t beg the government to save you. They will.
24, Tofu, we know you are culturally deprived and not interested unless the gay lifestyle is promoted. Let me clue you to a concept you seem ignorant of,…, RE-RUNS!!!! Where I grew up, these shows played well into the 60′s, but then again I’m older than you.
Also, where is [sic] the tatoos on Chip Foose, Stacey David, : again, you open your mouth and the garbage can that is your mind empties.
Apparently you’re looking pretty closely, PCD. Do you actually have an argument to make about the topic or have you reached your limits talking about your favorite TV shows?
BTW, references to homosexuality have become more and more frequent in your posts. Is there something you’re trying to tell us, PCD? I promise that I won’t judge you, but I can’t speak for the others here.
29, AKD, gay blade, you are the one with the homosexual agenda. AND you are a liar. You have judged each and everyone who disagreed with you and your Gay TV agenda.
30. Gay, Gay, Gay. You’re like a broken record PCD. Embrace the real you and you’ll be a lot happier. Your repressed homosexuality has become this site’s ultimate “open secret.”
“Actually, Ted, does your argument take the tack that the major networks are simply borrowing the communally owned airwaves? I’ve heard this position before, it seems to be the argument that was rejected in the court case in question.”
That is the position held by the supreme court. This case in no way “rejects” that arguement though.
“I can’t imagine that you actually support censoring “to the least common denominator.”Wouldn’t this mean that anything that anyone finds offensive would have to be removed (as the assumption that only what is obscene would be eliminated obviously begs the question).”
No it doesn’t.
As a musician, I personally find American Idol offensive.
As a professional and semi-professional musician of 22 years I do not find it offensive, as any reasonable person would not either. Do I like it? Not at all. To deem it offensive though is unreasonable.
31, Once again, AKD, you micro focus on obfuscation rather than the point of the discussion. All I did is highlight your propensity to advocate the gay agenda and you don’t like it. I point out your incorrect broad assumptions with specific instances, and again, you get offended ant have to personally attack. You are one frustrated, wrong, and angry liberal.
Why can’t you micro manage your own life and leave everyone else alone in their beliefs? Are you so threatened by people believing that Homosexuality is stupid and that there needs to be guardrails to human behavior?
“Are you referring to stations like PBS? I’m not clear on whether you’re disagreeing or not. Presumably you’d agree that, e.g., Fox or NBC is a corporation, answerable to shareholders, just as UA, McDonalds, or Marvel Comics is.”
Agreeing or disagreing? Hmmm…
The fact that they are beholden to share holders is factaully accurate and like you said is a factor, however that is not the over riding point here. Those channels that use the public airwaves must also be beholden to the fact that those airwaves are owned by the citizens of the United States, and thus must follow the laws imposed by said citizenry in order to use those airwaves. This means censorship, as imposed by the governement who is supposed to represent said people.
Censorship is built into the constition in the forms of laws against slander, liable and public safety. One can not yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, as an example- it infringing upon another’s right’s. This is excactly the same reason the public airwaves are censored.
Censorship is built into the constition in the forms of laws against slander, liable and public safety. One can not yell “fire”in a crowded movie theatre, as an example- it infringing upon another’s right’s. This is excactly the same reason the public airwaves are censored.
I don’t see the comparison. In the case of fire in a crowded theatre, public safety is at risk; in the case of slander/libel, an individual’s well-being is at risk; in the case of obscenity (which has proven notoriously difficult to define anyway), where’s the risk? Do people actually have a right to not be offended (excuse the split infinitive)? I’d agree that they have a right not to be imperilled (as would be the case if someone on, e.g., Fox news announced that a meteor was going to strike the earth in 10 minutes, or if some preacher said that all women wearing short skirts were possessed by demons and in need of cleansing), but is there really a more satisfactory definition of obscenity than “words or images that someone, somewhere, somehow is offended by”?
In the case that started this thread, the examples were of cursing on network television. My questions are:
1. What, exactly, is the harm in Nicole Ritchie saying “shit” (one of the examples from the article), such that the federal government must protect are children from it? Is this the “it takes a village” argument? We know that eating too much sugary, buttery food makes us obese and shortens are life expectancy, so why not prevent candy companies, fast-food chains, etc. from advertising anytime that children might be watching? What about beer companies advertising during televised sporting events (Bud Bowl!)? We all know that underage drinking leads to more deaths than underage swearing, right? Though these examples seem fairly silly to me, I have a much easier time seeing the dangers of fast food and beer than I do seeing the dangers of someone saying “Asshole” on My Name is Earl.
2. Accepting the fact that the issue has proven somewhat ambiguous (since the US court rejected the FCC’s push to censor but the situation is still being debated), why would folks on the right and, I’m assuming, on the left (remember Tipper’s crusade, immortalized in the song “Censorshit” by the Ramones), folks who are typically confident in the ability of the law of supply and demand to regulate this sort of thing, call for government intervention? Why not err on the side of less govenrment intervention rather than more? Is the danger so incredibly great that we need regulation in this particular case (but not in cases where corporations are polluting our waters or running overseas sweatshops)? Again, why is changing the channel (or reading a book for a change) so unsatisfactory as an option?
“but is there really a more satisfactory definition of obscenity than “words or images that someone, somewhere, somehow is offended byâ€?”
Yes, the Supreme court actually defined it although some claim it is not satisfactory. I hinted at it earlier. Perhaps you should do some research on it. It may clarify it for you a bit.
Even though you have a tendancy to take your arguements to ridiculous extremes, I’ll attempt to answer questions for you.
“What, exactly, is the harm in Nicole Ritchie saying “shit”(one of the examples from the article), such that the federal government must protect are children from it? Is this the “it takes a village”argument?”
May I have sex in front you your pre-teenage children with multiple women?3
“2. Accepting the fact that the issue has proven somewhat ambiguous (since the US court rejected the FCC’s push to censor but the situation is still being debated), why would folks on the right and, I’m assuming, on the left (remember Tipper’s crusade, immortalized in the song “Censorshit”by the Ramones), folks who are typically confident in the ability of the law of supply and demand to regulate this sort of thing, call for government intervention?”
Again, an extreme argument. Apply that principal to everything, we would have no laws outside the Constitution but allow the market pace to distate everything. I don’t see how it applies at all.
The purpose of governement is to defend the rights of the governed. It is the right of children to watch the public airways (of which they are owners)in relative safety
Yes, the Supreme court actually defined it although some claim it is not satisfactory. I hinted at it earlier. Perhaps you should do some research on it. It may clarify it for you a bit.
Wow, Ted, you and your “hints”—if only we all listened to you a little more closely.
Federal obscenity law in the U.S. is odd, Ted ” not only is there no uniform national standard; in fact, there’s a legal precedent (the “Miller test”) that guarantees that something deemed (legally) “obscene” in one jurisdiction may not be in another. The First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. To pretend otherwise is dishonest (or misreading, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt).
BTW, if you want to cite court cases, you’ve got one to cite if you follow the link above. If we’re accepting current court decisions as gospel, then I guess we have nothing to argue about—the FCC’s desire to censor has been denied.
May I have sex in front you your pre-teenage children with multiple women?
If you can do so without being guilty of indecent exposure, sexual misconduct, public lewdness, or public indecency, be my guest. None of these headings apply to mass media, however (rock concerts are a different story—can you guess why?).
Again, an extreme argument. Apply that principal to everything, we would have no laws outside the Constitution but allow the market pace to distate everything. I don’t see how it applies at all.
You’re arguing against a position that I didn’t take. I asked why this case was so important that the calls for free market ought to break down here, in particular, rather than elsewhere. You’re the one who’s not dealing with the specific example. I’m still interested to hear someone argue why Nicole Ritchie saying “shit”is so dangerous to the well-being of the nation’s youth—I’m sure that I knew the “S word”as a pre-schooler. Again, this isn’t one of my “extreme examples”(though you’ve proven unable to show where my examples break down, in which case your rejection of them as “extreme”rings pretty hollow), it’s an example from the link above. Please don’t argue “slippery slope,” I expect better.
It is the right of children to watch the public airways (of which they are owners)in relative safety.
Show me where you’ve demonstrated that they’re in danger and why obscenity should be the target rather than, e.g., fast food advertisements. You’re assuming the conclusion that you’re pretending to derive.
I’m also curious where you get your “censor to the lowest common denominator” argument—taken literally, this seems particularly silly.
oops, missed your previous post, Ted, though it seems to anticipate your last post.
One exception:
As a professional and semi-professional musician of 22 years I do not find it offensive, as any reasonable person would not either. Do I like it? Not at all. To deem it offensive though is unreasonable.
I believe that it’s unreasonable not to deem it offensive, I guess that we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Here’s a crazy idea: If it offends you, turn it off.
Why is it that the words need to be spoken?
AKD Most people want the words and do we still have a decency standard?:wink: Didn’t Bush do-away with that years ago? after all in mexico his home nation called La Raza ( the race ) no one knows anything about laws or decency standards or borders so why have one here we will be mexico soon and bush will love it all.:lol:
1, AKD, you liberals, especially Gay activists, do not like to be offended. Many yell hate crime at each offense, like Gays hated Jerry Falwell for what he said. So, if words you Gay activists don’t like constitute a hate crime, then words that offend the decency of most of the nation do not need to be broadcast either.
3- “we will be mexico soon and bush will love it all”
Geez, Fred. Do you have anything other than Mexico rants to offer here. Why do you twist every damn subject of debate into Mexico/Mexicans?
2. Most words don’t need to be spoken. That isn’t, however, a very good argument for censorship.
4. C’mon PCD, even someone as dense as you can see the difference between a community leader blaming homosexuals (and their fellow travellers) for 9/11 and a cartoon character saying “dick” on The Family Guy. Regardless, I never said that Falwell should have been censored; I just said that he was a dick.
6, AKD, when there is balance, you scream censorship. When your opponents get censored, you celebrate. The pendulum swings back. We’ll see how you like being on the receiving end.
So I guess it would be fine to start having the characters on Sesame street and Blues Clues, or Dora go ahead and use the f-word..I mean it is free speech isn’t it?
7. Who censored Falwell? When have I ever celebrated censorship? God, you’re a sloppy thinker.
8. Well, personally I don’t give a f*** if Blues Clues gets a little more…blue; still, if it were to happen, I suspect that parents wouldn’t let their kids watch it and, consequently, all those advertisers selling sugary cereals and action figures would pull their $$$ out. The situation would resolve itself pretty quickly (and if not, some kids would learn a few more naughty words that they’re probably going to learn on the playground anyway; unlike the rants of Falwell, these words don’t directly incite anyone to violence). In the case of programs like “South Park,” or “Family Guy,” or whatever, the customers seem to be pretty pleased with the product. Those who aren’t pleased don’t have to watch—there’s always a rerun of Golden Girls playing somewhere.
Isn’t the right supposed to be for the free-market taking care of itself? Has it lost the batteries to its remote control?
BTW, it seems a little strange that any one of the roughly 300 crime procedurals on the networks can show and discuss the molested bodies of dead hookers (clothed, of course) with no one batting an eye, but if Nicole Ritchie says “shit,” LOOK OUT!! I’m personally fine with “CSI: Molested Corpses Unit,” but I do wonder why so many “cultural conservatives” more bothered by boobs and bad words than by violent death…
I think you are all off base here. The fact of the matter is you are confusing two seperate issues. Ylu have to look at publically owned airwaves vs. those not owned by the citizens.
When discussing governement censorship, one can only apply that to the publicly owned air waves. In that instance of TV and radio, one must censor to the least common denominator, which are children as they have as much right to access those airwaves than any body else.
However, when you are talking about broadcasts mediums not owned by the citizens such as cable and satelite radio, then AKD is correct: let the market place take care of it.
No I am not confusing 2 issues….The Fox Broadcasting Channel, not Fox Sports or Fox News, where the music awards that started this whole ball running, is on network television. The reason that the cable channels have not come under much scrutiny is because the consumer pays for the station…they are still under FCC jurisdiction.
Fox’s money comes from sponsors. Fox is a long way from being publicly owned (actually, so is PBS at this point, but that’s another story). Fox answers to its shareholders, and shows like Family Guy are turning profits.
12-? What is the point of that? Fox still leases the airwaves, they own their stations, as do NBC, ABC, CBS, yet everyone, including HBO, share the airwaves….
The point is that Fox is a corporation and if people don’t watch Fox’s programs (because they’re vulgar, politically questionable, or just because they suck), Fox won’t turn a profit. Their programs will go the way of Manimal and Automan and they’ll either learn their lesson and start broadcasting TV-G or they’ll go out of business. Crying for censorship doesn’t seem to be necessary. Again, use your remote control.
If you’ve gotten too fat from eating at McDonalds, stop dining there; if cigarettes are ruining your health, stop smoking; if all the naughty words on TV are making you a vulgar person, change the channel. Don’t beg the government to save you.
As long as you all are differing between tv on the public airwaves and those on cable and other non-publically owned mediums, that’s fine.
They follow two sets of rules for a reason.
15. Of course. The argument is, I take it, over Fox (in particular) and stations like it.
By the way, I thought that some Manimal or Automan fans would come out of the woodwork…
16.
OOC, what do you specifically mean by “Fox (in particular) and stations like it.”?
16. Ted. AKD means Homophobic TV station that don’t play the TV-G(ay) format.
17, AKD, those shows sucked! If you are going to wax nostalgic about long lost TV, how about Lord Lew Grade’s old “Marionation” icons, “Fireball XL-5″, “Stingray”, and “Thunderbirds”?
18. By Fox, etc., I mean stations that rely on advertising dollars (and thus, ratings) rather than viewer subscriptions or public funds as their main source of revenue. I’m thinking of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW).
20. Fair enough; I was joking about Manimal and Automan. I feel like I’m getting a glimpse into you psyche, PCD. So far we’ve heard about dragracing, Heinlein novels, all things gay (Freud reminded us that the unconscious “doesn’t know ‘no’”), and now marionettes. Weird.
21, AKD, again you show your denseness. You tried to sound smart and knowledgable with your examples of failed TV shows. I countered with older, but successful fare. You came back like a true liberal with a nasty remark as your answer. You really are transparent and one dimensional.
Oh, for the adults, anyone remember the kids’ series “Supercar” and for those who only watched US shows, how about “Sky King”?
My point is all these shows were entertaining without foul language, nudity, and sex. Something that can’t be said about any TV fare, except for the “gearhead” shows.
“18. By Fox, etc., I mean stations that rely on advertising dollars (and thus, ratings) rather than viewer subscriptions or public funds as their main source of revenue. I’m thinking of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW).”
That would also include cable channels, as they also rely on advertising revenue.
If discussing censorship and what is viable, you also have to include the medium upon which the channel is presented- it isd an important distinction. Public airwaves are censored for valid reasons. As I said before, they are owned by the citizens of the United States, and as such must cater to the lowest common denominator of it’s citizenry.
PCD, “Sky King” circa 1951? Never saw that, but if that is the era of TV you are pining for, it ain’t happening. They wouldn’t even show a married couple sleeping in the same bed back then– how unreal was that?
23. That would also include cable channels, as they also rely on advertising revenue.
Sure, but not entirely (and not at all in the case of premium channels).
Public airwaves are censored for valid reasons. As I said before, they are owned by the citizens of the United States, and as such must cater to the lowest common denominator of it’s citizenry.
Are you referring to stations like PBS? I’m not clear on whether you’re disagreeing or not. Presumably you’d agree that, e.g., Fox or NBC is a corporation, answerable to shareholders, just as UA, McDonalds, or Marvel Comics is.
22. You tried to sound smart and knowledgable with your examples of failed TV shows. I countered with older, but successful fare. You came back like a true liberal with a nasty remark as your answer. You really are transparent and one dimensional.
Um, did you think I was making an argument about Manimal? I was just joking around, moron. Your reference to Marionation was supposed to be a counter.
My point is all these shows were entertaining without foul language, nudity, and sex.
Ohhh. Is that your point? Why am I not surprised that you prefer sweaty guys with tattoos working on cars to all that nasty nudity and sex on contemporary TV….
Actually, Ted, does your argument take the tack that the major networks are simply borrowing the communally owned airwaves? I’ve heard this position before, it seems to be the argument that was rejected in the court case in question.
I can’t imagine that you actually support censoring “to the least common denominator.” Wouldn’t this mean that anything that anyone finds offensive would have to be removed (as the assumption that only what is obscene would be eliminated obviously begs the question). As a musician, I personally find American Idol offensive.
Once again, I’ll stand by my earlier position: If you’ve gotten too fat from eating at McDonalds, stop dining there; if cigarettes are ruining your health, stop smoking; if all the naughty words on TV are making you a vulgar person, change the channel. Don’t beg the government to save you. They will.
25, AKD, I do not consider A.J. on “OverHaulin’” and Courtney Hanson on Spike’s Horsepower block sweaty, tatooed men. If you do, you need glasses.
Also, where is the tatoos on Chip Foose, Stacey David, … again, you open your mouth and the garbage can that is your mind empties.
24, Tofu, we know you are culturally deprived and not interested unless the gay lifestyle is promoted. Let me clue you to a concept you seem ignorant of,…, RE-RUNS!!!! Where I grew up, these shows played well into the 60′s, but then again I’m older than you.
Also, where is [sic] the tatoos on Chip Foose, Stacey David, : again, you open your mouth and the garbage can that is your mind empties.
Apparently you’re looking pretty closely, PCD. Do you actually have an argument to make about the topic or have you reached your limits talking about your favorite TV shows?
BTW, references to homosexuality have become more and more frequent in your posts. Is there something you’re trying to tell us, PCD? I promise that I won’t judge you, but I can’t speak for the others here.
29, AKD, gay blade, you are the one with the homosexual agenda. AND you are a liar. You have judged each and everyone who disagreed with you and your Gay TV agenda.
30. Gay, Gay, Gay. You’re like a broken record PCD. Embrace the real you and you’ll be a lot happier. Your repressed homosexuality has become this site’s ultimate “open secret.”
“Actually, Ted, does your argument take the tack that the major networks are simply borrowing the communally owned airwaves? I’ve heard this position before, it seems to be the argument that was rejected in the court case in question.”
That is the position held by the supreme court. This case in no way “rejects” that arguement though.
“I can’t imagine that you actually support censoring “to the least common denominator.”Wouldn’t this mean that anything that anyone finds offensive would have to be removed (as the assumption that only what is obscene would be eliminated obviously begs the question).”
No it doesn’t.
As a musician, I personally find American Idol offensive.
As a professional and semi-professional musician of 22 years I do not find it offensive, as any reasonable person would not either. Do I like it? Not at all. To deem it offensive though is unreasonable.
31, Once again, AKD, you micro focus on obfuscation rather than the point of the discussion. All I did is highlight your propensity to advocate the gay agenda and you don’t like it. I point out your incorrect broad assumptions with specific instances, and again, you get offended ant have to personally attack. You are one frustrated, wrong, and angry liberal.
Why can’t you micro manage your own life and leave everyone else alone in their beliefs? Are you so threatened by people believing that Homosexuality is stupid and that there needs to be guardrails to human behavior?
“Are you referring to stations like PBS? I’m not clear on whether you’re disagreeing or not. Presumably you’d agree that, e.g., Fox or NBC is a corporation, answerable to shareholders, just as UA, McDonalds, or Marvel Comics is.”
Agreeing or disagreing? Hmmm…
The fact that they are beholden to share holders is factaully accurate and like you said is a factor, however that is not the over riding point here. Those channels that use the public airwaves must also be beholden to the fact that those airwaves are owned by the citizens of the United States, and thus must follow the laws imposed by said citizenry in order to use those airwaves. This means censorship, as imposed by the governement who is supposed to represent said people.
Censorship is built into the constition in the forms of laws against slander, liable and public safety. One can not yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, as an example- it infringing upon another’s right’s. This is excactly the same reason the public airwaves are censored.
Censorship is built into the constition in the forms of laws against slander, liable and public safety. One can not yell “fire”in a crowded movie theatre, as an example- it infringing upon another’s right’s. This is excactly the same reason the public airwaves are censored.
I don’t see the comparison. In the case of fire in a crowded theatre, public safety is at risk; in the case of slander/libel, an individual’s well-being is at risk; in the case of obscenity (which has proven notoriously difficult to define anyway), where’s the risk? Do people actually have a right to not be offended (excuse the split infinitive)? I’d agree that they have a right not to be imperilled (as would be the case if someone on, e.g., Fox news announced that a meteor was going to strike the earth in 10 minutes, or if some preacher said that all women wearing short skirts were possessed by demons and in need of cleansing), but is there really a more satisfactory definition of obscenity than “words or images that someone, somewhere, somehow is offended by”?
In the case that started this thread, the examples were of cursing on network television. My questions are:
1. What, exactly, is the harm in Nicole Ritchie saying “shit” (one of the examples from the article), such that the federal government must protect are children from it? Is this the “it takes a village” argument? We know that eating too much sugary, buttery food makes us obese and shortens are life expectancy, so why not prevent candy companies, fast-food chains, etc. from advertising anytime that children might be watching? What about beer companies advertising during televised sporting events (Bud Bowl!)? We all know that underage drinking leads to more deaths than underage swearing, right? Though these examples seem fairly silly to me, I have a much easier time seeing the dangers of fast food and beer than I do seeing the dangers of someone saying “Asshole” on My Name is Earl.
2. Accepting the fact that the issue has proven somewhat ambiguous (since the US court rejected the FCC’s push to censor but the situation is still being debated), why would folks on the right and, I’m assuming, on the left (remember Tipper’s crusade, immortalized in the song “Censorshit” by the Ramones), folks who are typically confident in the ability of the law of supply and demand to regulate this sort of thing, call for government intervention? Why not err on the side of less govenrment intervention rather than more? Is the danger so incredibly great that we need regulation in this particular case (but not in cases where corporations are polluting our waters or running overseas sweatshops)? Again, why is changing the channel (or reading a book for a change) so unsatisfactory as an option?
“but is there really a more satisfactory definition of obscenity than “words or images that someone, somewhere, somehow is offended byâ€?”
Yes, the Supreme court actually defined it although some claim it is not satisfactory. I hinted at it earlier. Perhaps you should do some research on it. It may clarify it for you a bit.
Even though you have a tendancy to take your arguements to ridiculous extremes, I’ll attempt to answer questions for you.
“What, exactly, is the harm in Nicole Ritchie saying “shit”(one of the examples from the article), such that the federal government must protect are children from it? Is this the “it takes a village”argument?”
May I have sex in front you your pre-teenage children with multiple women?3
“2. Accepting the fact that the issue has proven somewhat ambiguous (since the US court rejected the FCC’s push to censor but the situation is still being debated), why would folks on the right and, I’m assuming, on the left (remember Tipper’s crusade, immortalized in the song “Censorshit”by the Ramones), folks who are typically confident in the ability of the law of supply and demand to regulate this sort of thing, call for government intervention?”
Again, an extreme argument. Apply that principal to everything, we would have no laws outside the Constitution but allow the market pace to distate everything. I don’t see how it applies at all.
The purpose of governement is to defend the rights of the governed. It is the right of children to watch the public airways (of which they are owners)in relative safety
Yes, the Supreme court actually defined it although some claim it is not satisfactory. I hinted at it earlier. Perhaps you should do some research on it. It may clarify it for you a bit.
Wow, Ted, you and your “hints”—if only we all listened to you a little more closely.
Federal obscenity law in the U.S. is odd, Ted ” not only is there no uniform national standard; in fact, there’s a legal precedent (the “Miller test”) that guarantees that something deemed (legally) “obscene” in one jurisdiction may not be in another. The First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. To pretend otherwise is dishonest (or misreading, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt).
BTW, if you want to cite court cases, you’ve got one to cite if you follow the link above. If we’re accepting current court decisions as gospel, then I guess we have nothing to argue about—the FCC’s desire to censor has been denied.
May I have sex in front you your pre-teenage children with multiple women?
If you can do so without being guilty of indecent exposure, sexual misconduct, public lewdness, or public indecency, be my guest. None of these headings apply to mass media, however (rock concerts are a different story—can you guess why?).
Again, an extreme argument. Apply that principal to everything, we would have no laws outside the Constitution but allow the market pace to distate everything. I don’t see how it applies at all.
You’re arguing against a position that I didn’t take. I asked why this case was so important that the calls for free market ought to break down here, in particular, rather than elsewhere. You’re the one who’s not dealing with the specific example. I’m still interested to hear someone argue why Nicole Ritchie saying “shit”is so dangerous to the well-being of the nation’s youth—I’m sure that I knew the “S word”as a pre-schooler. Again, this isn’t one of my “extreme examples”(though you’ve proven unable to show where my examples break down, in which case your rejection of them as “extreme”rings pretty hollow), it’s an example from the link above. Please don’t argue “slippery slope,” I expect better.
It is the right of children to watch the public airways (of which they are owners)in relative safety.
Show me where you’ve demonstrated that they’re in danger and why obscenity should be the target rather than, e.g., fast food advertisements. You’re assuming the conclusion that you’re pretending to derive.
I’m also curious where you get your “censor to the lowest common denominator” argument—taken literally, this seems particularly silly.
oops, missed your previous post, Ted, though it seems to anticipate your last post.
One exception:
As a professional and semi-professional musician of 22 years I do not find it offensive, as any reasonable person would not either. Do I like it? Not at all. To deem it offensive though is unreasonable.
I believe that it’s unreasonable not to deem it offensive, I guess that we’ll have to agree to disagree.