# FCC Censorship



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

How do you feel about FCC regulation of TV broadcast content?


----------



## Becky (Nov 5, 2003)

too lax


----------



## U.P.Kev (Apr 6, 2008)

I voted too restrictive. However, I think perhaps there should be sometype of 2 tier system in reality. We all own the airways and we have freedom of expression, but I don't think kids need be exposed to the same topics adults are (unless the parents want it that way) and not all can afford cable or satellite radio nor be forced to pay for it.

Yes all T.V.'s now a days have the V Chip and inappropriate material can be weeded out, but parents don't have all the time in the world nor control every T.V. 

I don't have a specific idea other than some hassle free way to restrict kids from certain channels when an adult isn't present.


----------



## trey (Nov 26, 2007)

Too unbalanced. It's too lax on certain criteria, while overly restrictive on others.

Like you can see someone get shot in the head, but they wont show a bare ***.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

tv doesnt have enough t&a


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

I think it's hilarious how acceptability of criteria changes over time. Violence is pretty much unrestricted (excluding the ultra gory movies that are sometimes released these days), but nudity is restricted. Genitals are evil, as are nipples (but not some "side boob"). The nipples themselves are _horrific_ (more harmful than seeing mass murder and physical abuse) and should be covered though. Humans are insane. :lol


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

Voted too lax. What gets shown and depicted in the television world has gotten out of hand. How much is enough?


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

Too restrictive.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

ardrum said:


> I think it's hilarious how acceptability of criteria changes over time. Violence is pretty much unrestricted (excluding the ultra gory movies that are sometimes released these days), but nudity is restricted. Genitals are evil, as are nipples (but not some "side boob"). The nipples themselves are _horrific_ (more harmful than seeing mass murder and physical abuse) and should be covered though. Humans are insane. :lol


I agree

I voted that it's too restrictive. Parents can use a v-chip if they don't want their children to watch "bad" programming. And I really don't want to hear them ***** about not having enough time. If they really cared, they'd pick it up. It's easy. It's also easy setting up parental controls on consoles.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Yeah, no time to be a parent. That's a good excuse. :roll

Sometimes I think people just have kids for the novelty of the experience, and then they get sick of it and complain about their situation afterwards, choosing to neglect their kids instead.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

> ...but parents don't have all the time in the world nor control every T.V.


I deem the FCC far too restrictive and do not consider the regulation of broadcast content to be a legitimate function of government. If NBC wants to show hardcore porn at 7 AM on Saturday they should be free to do so. They'll also be free to go bankrupt by 8 AM after every sponsor pulls their ads, not wanting to be associated with such programming.

The free market can very effectively control what gets on TV.

Censorship is idiotic in many cases. Is there any kid who watched "The Osborne's" several years ago and didn't know what word got bleeped in every other sentence? It was some variant of f*** and that doesn't stand for "food", "fist", nor "fast".


----------



## WinterDave (Dec 5, 2003)

Interestingly, censorship of broadcasts in Europe go exactly the opposite...Nudity to a certain extent is fine on broadcast TV, but violence is THEIR taboo....
Action movies that we wouldn't even blink an eye at in America are banned/censored on TV even at the movie theater sometime...At least this was the case many years ago...I remember that the first Batman movie starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson had some difficulties being shown in some European locales because of its dark and violent nature....I recall some other action flicks as well having this problem....Actually, censorship is a LOT worse in Europe....You can be sent to jail for simply questioning if the Holocaust took place, or on the vague charge of "Inciting racial hated."....So it's not so bad in America, at least we still have Freedom of Speech....That is not the case in the EU....

Tuesday, Apr. 15, 2008
Is Brigitte Bardot Bashing Islam?
By Bruce Crumley/Paris

"She may be better remembered as the revolutionary sex kitten of 1960s French cinema, but these days Brigitte Bardot is better known as a standard-bearer of the anti-immigrant wing of France's political spectrum. Bardot went on trial Tuesday charged with "inciting racial hatred," and in view of her four previous convictions on similar charges, prosecutors sought exceptionally stiff penalties of $22,000 and a two-month suspended sentence.

"I'm a bit tired of trying Madame Bardot," admitted assistant prosecutor Anne de Fonette, as she urged the court to impose "the most striking and remarkable" punishment in the case. A verdict is expected on June 3.

The current charge against Bardot was lodged by the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), citing a letter Bardot wrote to French officials in 2004 in which she alluded to Muslims as "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country." The former actress-turned-animal rights crusader had written that letter to protest the ritual slaughter of sheep during the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kabir. Her missive, whose contents were later leaked to the media, had been sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, whose rising popularity was based in part on his hard line on immigration and tough stand against troublesome youths from immigrant backgrounds.

Lawyers for the 73-year-old Bardot, who did not attend the trial, argued the offending sections of the letter had been taken out of the context of her militant defense of animal rights over the years, a cause in support of which she has raised and spent millions of dollars. Her work in the area has been hailed by French political leaders and organizations around the world, although more recently French courts have interpreted some of her statements as Islamophobia.

Bardot's defense Tuesday was that her passionate denunciation of the ritual slaughter of Eid-al-Kabir had been misinterpreted as an attack on Islam in France. A similar defense had failed to spare her from conviction in four earlier trials. In 1997, for example, Bardot was first convicted on the charge of "inciting racial hatred" for her open letter to French daily Le Figaro, complaining of "foreign over-population", mostly by Muslim families.

The following year she was convicted anew for decrying the loss of French identity and tradition due to the multiplication of mosques "while our church bells fall silent for want of priests." Darkening Bardot's public image in both cases was her marriage to an active supporter and political ally of French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

In 2000, Bardot was again convicted - this time for comments in her book Pluto's Square, whose chapter "Open Letter to My Lost France" grieved for "...my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims." And in 2004, another Bardot book, A Cry In the Silence, again took up the question of immigration and Islam - ultimately running afoul of anti-racism laws by generally associating Islam with the 9/11 terror attacks, and denouncing the "Islamization of France" by people she described as "invaders".

The prosecution has called for the harshest possible punishment in the hope of getting through to Bardot the seriousness of her transgressions of French law. MRAP implored the judge to "take note of this refusal by (Bardot) to learn the lessons of previous convictions and cease using racist language". The court will make its decision by June, although the repeat convictions on similar charges suggest that Bardot has not exactly been chastened by previous court rulings."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,881 ... 98,00.html


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

i think people are missing the boat when it comes to the fcc and 'censorship'

it involves a whole lot more than dirty words and sex scenes.

theyve auctioned off our airwaves to the highest bidders. they have left no room on the airwaves for people who dont have the money of clear channel and entercom et al.

we need to advocate *real* low power fm radio licenses for people, political groups and religious groups

until then, i applaud the pirate radio operators like radio free berkley. 

and im at a loss at how the fcc can sell something they dont own (the airwaves)


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

,,


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

too lax

More television shows are letting breasts fall out, and dresses becoming belts. Worse, dropping cuss bombs with liberality is something I am sick of hearing.

It leads to the dumbing down of America.


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

Know what I do when something comes on tv I don't want to see? I change the channel! More people should give that a try.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Even though I think it's far too restrictive, I don't even watch TV due to my hating to expose myself to all those annoying commercials. I do not subscribe to cable, and I don't regret that decision at all. There are only a few (out of 1000s) shows I actually like, and I just get the DVDs in order to bypass the commercial interruptions (yuck, how did we convince ourselves that this was tolerable??).

I do watch NFL football, and I drive myself crazy though with all those commercials. I just mute them.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

There needs to be more educational programming like there was in the 70s and 80s. It's all [email protected] these days. No intellectual stimulation, just a bunch of pretty lights and sounds.

23032 posts......it's PALINDROMATIC! :lol


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Beautiful post count. :lol


----------



## Becky (Nov 5, 2003)

Cerberus said:


> Parents can use a v-chip if they don't want their children to watch "bad" programming. And I really don't want to hear them ***** about not having enough time. If they really cared, they'd pick it up. It's easy. It's also easy setting up parental controls on consoles.


After all these years I still don't know what a v chip is, but I do have stuff set on my tv so the kids can't see certain channels. However, you can watch a show like Friends, that you think is going to be ok, but then they're cussing all over the place. I don't like that.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

My daughter watches porn.

I went into the bathroom, I told her she could watch Charter on demand, Noggin. I come out, she's looking at the TV, in a strange way. I stood there stairing at the tube for a sec, cocking my head like a dog does when it hears a strange sound trying to figure what, what is, then I grabbed the romote the same time I said her name in a loud fashion, in less than 5 minutes she bought a porn, she didn't know what she was doing, but it cost $14.99...........She's 5...... Didn't even look like a good one!


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Bon said:


> My daughter watches porn.
> 
> I went into the bathroom, I told her she could watch Charter on demand, Noggin. I come out, she's looking at the TV, in a strange way. I stood there stairing at the tube for a sec, cocking my head like a dog does when it hears a strange sound trying to figure what, what is, then I grabbed the romote the same time I said her name in a loud fashion, in less than 5 minutes she bought a porn, she didn't know what she was doing, but it cost $14.99...........She's 5...... Didn't even look like a good one!


:lol WOW!


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

From what I hear it sounds pretty restrictive. Do boobs really present that much of a challenge to a nation's morality?


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Oh the horrors of boobs!!! Cover them!!! They cut through the very fabric of morality and dignity. They are horrendously evil, demonic creatures that should never see the light of day! They should probably just be cut off! Oh, and they feed infants too. :roll


----------



## daaaaave (Jan 1, 2007)

They focus too much on PC stuff like nudity and portrayal of stereotypes, but I would like to see them cut down the violence and crap like American Idol.


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

daaaaave said:


> They focus too much on PC stuff like nudity and portrayal of stereotypes, but I would like to see them cut down the violence *and crap like American Idol.*


Hey, now there's an idea! Where's the FCC when you really need them? :lol


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

I'm so proud to say I've never watched that show. :lol


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Bon said:


> My daughter watches porn.
> 
> I went into the bathroom, I told her she could watch Charter on demand, Noggin. I come out, she's looking at the TV, in a strange way. I stood there stairing at the tube for a sec, cocking my head like a dog does when it hears a strange sound trying to figure what, what is, then I grabbed the romote the same time I said her name in a loud fashion, in less than 5 minutes she bought a porn, she didn't know what she was doing, but it cost $14.99...........She's 5...... Didn't even look like a good one!


sucky porn for $14.99? now *that* is what the FCC should be focusing on banning


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

What's wrong with _sucky_ porn?


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

ardrum said:


> What's wrong with _sucky_ porn?


 :spank :spank :troll


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Bon said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with _sucky_ porn?


 :spank :spank :troll

Edit: wait, perhaps I should not have used a spanking icon. :eek :lol


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Yeah, that was a bit low brow for me.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

Who cares? You can watch anything on the internet and the fcc doesn't censor that. 

And I'm sure some parents like having at least one medium where they don't have to constantly watch their kids over. To say that parents shouldn't fret over nudity or gruesome images makes you the authoritarian telling others how they should live their lives.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

coldmorning said:


> And I'm sure some parents like having at least one medium where they don't have to constantly watch their kids over. To say that parents shouldn't fret over nudity or gruesome images makes you the authoritarian telling others how they should live their lives.


I don't think anyone's made the claim that parents shouldn't fret about x, y, or z content on television though. Nobody is telling people how they should live their lives. The FCC is telling you what you can handle watching though.

This dislike of the parental control directed toward _adults_ is what most people seem to have a problem with. Parents are there to control content from reaching their kids. Surely they can be more efficient in monitoring their children than the government is.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

ardrum said:


> This dislike of the parental control directed toward _adults_ is what most people seem to have a problem with. Parents are there to control content from reaching their kids. Surely they can be more efficient in monitoring their children than the government is.


I agree that the parent has to take ultimate responsibility for what reaches their kids. But a lot of parents don't have the time or money to constantly watch over their kids. And people don't want to have to buy special equipment to filter content.

The FCC errs on the side of caution trying to please most parents (and the censorship is meant for kids...not adults). While I personally think censorship is excessive, it isn't killing me to hear curse words getting bleeped out. And if a handful of parents find their lives a little less stressful because of it, I can be content with that.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

ardrum said:


> Nobody is telling people how they should live their lives. The FCC is telling you what you can handle watching though.
> 
> This dislike of the parental control directed toward _adults_ is what most people seem to have a problem with.


FCC censorship is _entirely_ directed at kids...not adults.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

coldmorning said:


> I agree that the parent has to take ultimate responsibility for what reaches their kids. But a lot of parents don't have the time or money to constantly watch over their kids. And people don't want to have to buy special equipment to filter content.


:agree

It DOES NOT make one a "bad" parent to allow your kids to watch an hour of TV to give the parent a little downtime, or to get the laundry done or cook dinner or whatever. And its not horrible for kids to watch TV in moderation, as long as that is not all they do. Almost anyone who has a kid has done that, including yours truly.

I am not so much for censorship but feel family and kid friendly programming on TV isnt such a bad idea.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Penny said:


> coldmorning said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the parent has to take ultimate responsibility for what reaches their kids. But a lot of parents don't have the time or money to constantly watch over their kids. And people don't want to have to buy special equipment to filter content.
> ...


 :nw :nw :nw :nw :nw

That's exactly what goes on here......Around 7:00 it's time to start toning it down. The TV goes on, kick back and relax, and my daughter is occupied before it's time to turn in.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > This dislike of the parental control directed toward _adults_ is what most people seem to have a problem with. Parents are there to control content from reaching their kids. Surely they can be more efficient in monitoring their children than the government is.
> ...


As has been said earlier, with the market consisting of so many families with children, I think the networks would be capable of policing themselves (and not be dumb enough to put porn on the air, for one example). They would lose all their sponsors (their cash cow) instantaneously.

I'm curious how many people think that hearing the complete sound of a curse word is somehow categorically more harmful than knowing what they are saying but not hearing it. Is there something about the sound waves that hurts people, but that knowing the word and meaning is okay? I don't get it at all unless someone can prove that the sound itself is harmful, since virtually everyone knows when someone goes "F-bleeped you!!" they know what was communicated.



coldmorning said:


> FCC censorship is entirely directed at kids...not adults.


Then the "aim" is not very good, because it affects everyone who is watching, not just kids. If it was targeting children, then technology should be in place to verify who is watching. Parents are going to be far more efficient at determining what their children can and can't see than a governmental organization. The best the government can do is set one-size-fits-all regulations that end up keeping a naughty word from being vocalized in the presence of 5-year-old Billy as well as 50-year-old Ben. That's not targeting children. That's targeting everyone.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

"I'm curious how many people think that hearing the complete sound of a curse word is somehow categorically more harmful than knowing what they are saying but not hearing it. Is there something about the sound waves that hurts people, but that knowing the word and meaning is okay? I don't get it at all unless someone can prove that the sound itself is harmful, since virtually everyone knows when someone goes "F-bleeped you!!" they know what was communicated."

You have a point here. Even my 5 year old said "Mommy why do they do that when people swear" (bleep). Kid's learn fast.

The porn I spoke of was on Cable, pay per view, I think it's self supporting and there are blocks that I can use, I just never thought she would stumble upon this, this was my fault, because kids that have an interest in technology learn fast. You select 999.....then select the station you want. It's "On demand."

So I wonder why cable companie have different rules?


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Bon said:


> "I'm curious how many people think that hearing the complete sound of a curse word is somehow categorically more harmful than knowing what they are saying but not hearing it. Is there something about the sound waves that hurts people, but that knowing the word and meaning is okay? I don't get it at all unless someone can prove that the sound itself is harmful, since virtually everyone knows when someone goes "F-bleeped you!!" they know what was communicated."
> 
> You have a point here. Even my 5 year old said "Mommy why do they do that when people swear" (bleep). Kid's learn fast.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't blame yourself. That just seemed like a bizarre and unlikely coincidence/accident.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Oh I don't;-))) minus the $14.95 I found it rather....Amusing, now if she had time to watch the entire program I would have been extremely laxed;-)


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

My niece managed to call 911 when she briefly picked up my sister's cell phone. Not bad for age 2. :lol


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

ardrum said:


> As has been said earlier, with the market consisting of so many families with children, I think the networks would be capable of policing themselves (and not be dumb enough to put porn on the air, for one example). They would lose all their sponsors (their cash cow) instantaneously.


You're showing a misunderstanding of what the market is or what the role of the FCC is. If 90% of viewers were single males, all those advertisers would not care what a few families with kids think. The role of the FCC is to balance the market based incentives that drive broadcast tv. But 99% of the people who rant on about how great the free market is don't actually have a clue about what the free market is.



ardrum said:


> I'm curious how many people think that hearing the complete sound of a curse word is somehow categorically more harmful than knowing what they are saying but not hearing it. Is there something about the sound waves that hurts people, but that knowing the word and meaning is okay? I don't get it at all unless someone can prove that the sound itself is harmful, since virtually everyone knows when someone goes "F-bleeped you!!" they know what was communicated.


I don't know, but that's why I try to respect the decisions of all those parents who say it is harmful. Maybe they know something you or I don't. Maybe hearing the F word 50 times a day makes children think more aggressively. Or perhaps some parents think showing women naked all the time with guys drooling over them somehow shapes their values in a negative way. I really don't know but that doesn't mean something isn't there.



coldmorning said:


> FCC censorship is entirely directed at kids...not adults.





ardrum said:


> Then the "aim" is not very good, because it affects everyone who is watching, not just kids. If it was targeting children, then technology should be in place to verify who is watching. Parents are going to be far more efficient at determining what their children can and can't see than a governmental organization. The best the government can do is set one-size-fits-all regulations that end up keeping a naughty word from being vocalized in the presence of 5-year-old Billy as well as 50-year-old Ben. That's not targeting children. That's targeting everyone.


That is why only broadcast tv is censored as much as it is...because you can't filter out who watches what. That is why the movie theater is not censored the same way...cause you can see who enters. That is the nature of the technology. But if the FCC were trying to censor adults, they would be trying to censor everything...and they aren't doing that.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > As has been said earlier, with the market consisting of so many families with children, I think the networks would be capable of policing themselves (and not be dumb enough to put porn on the air, for one example). They would lose all their sponsors (their cash cow) instantaneously.
> ...


My understanding of the "market" is in the actual demographic facts of the United States that show that many people have children. 90% of American television watchers are not single males. That is a misunderstanding on your part of the demographics of people who watch TV. If a network tried to air something currently deemed unacceptable by a large portion of the public (such as the sound waves that produce the interpretation of currently censored curse words), then public outrage (if people didn't like it) would turn on companies that are sponsoring the programming. Not wanting to face boycotts and bad publicity from a media circus, they would make an economically wise decision in condemning the programming and pulling their money.

What I would expect to happen is that niche markets (single horny males, for instance) would result in a smaller, obscure station that could be blocked with technological preferences on the hardware/software itself (or perhaps the default setting could be blocked, allowing it to be added). Of course, this would require that P-word (parenting).



> The role of the FCC is to balance the market based incentives that drive broadcast tv.


It is confusing to try to understand what sense you use the word "balance" here. Under whose perception of a balance is targeted, if not the collective populace itself? Special interest groups?



coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious how many people think that hearing the complete sound of a curse word is somehow categorically more harmful than knowing what they are saying but not hearing it. Is there something about the sound waves that hurts people, but that knowing the word and meaning is okay? I don't get it at all unless someone can prove that the sound itself is harmful, since virtually everyone knows when someone goes "F-bleeped you!!" they know what was communicated.
> ...


See, I've actually never heard parents addressing this issue in any significant way. They say they don't like curse words, but there is no outrage about a bleeped out f-word even when the same aggressive tone/message is communicated. I can't see a reason to support the mass opinion (the sound of a curse word, but not the message/tone/meaning itself, is the decidedly harmful component) is wrong. I can't see why the sound specifically is the point at which harm is enacted.

There is nothing inherently harmful about the sound associated with curse words. Sounds are arbitrarily assigned meaning after all (the existence of different languages proves this). But censorship targets the SOUND itself, rather than the word's usage. The sound is bleeped, but the message itself is allowed to be communicated. Very bizarre indeed!

Again, I would be shocked if NBC insisted on airing pornography (softcore or hardcore) for the young male target market. See the above reasoning regarding public (the mass market) outrage and ties to sponsorship.



coldmorning said:


> coldmorning said:
> 
> 
> > FCC censorship is entirely directed at kids...not adults.
> ...


You can't? I think you underestimate the capability of technology if you think it's impossible to filter out TV programming based on who is watching. The effectiveness of such options is only increasing, making the role of the FCC even more pointless than it already is. I do not think it is the role of the government to make parenting decisions for parents regarding what TV shows are appropriate in the first place, and with regulation tools being produced specifically for the market of parents who _want_ to regulate what their children can see, what is the point of the FCC?


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

^You're not reading my posts with diligence. The 90% males was a hypothetical...hence the use of the word 'if'. I'm quite aware that 90% of the population doesn't in fact consist of single males. But there's no point in belaboring the point if you're not going to read my response.

Just to clarify, I don't really care about censorship. I actually don't see the harm in foul language or nudity, even among younger people. What I do find troubling is that there are people who believe they know what is best for others and would like to eliminate a choice some parents want to make for their own children.

What is more authoritarian? Someone who goes around telling parents that they are stupid for trying to isolate their kids from certain cultural influences and dictates that they are to let their kids hear cursing and see nudity? or an agency that decides, for a certain time period on a particular channel, limited to a certain media, there will be content free of cursing and nudity so that those who choose to have this can do so? (all while leaving numerous other options for those who choose no censorship).

I could care less about foul language. I do have a big problem with those who impose their ways on others in the name of freedom, or the free market.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

coldmorning said:


> ^You're not reading my posts with diligence. The 90% males was a hypothetical...hence the use of the word 'if'. I'm quite aware that 90% of the population doesn't in fact consist of single males. But there's no point in belaboring the point if you're not going to read my response.


You lost me. :con I read your post fully. What specifically would you like me to address more fully?



coldmorning said:


> Just to clarify, I don't really care about censorship. I actually don't see the harm in foul language or nudity, even among younger people. What I do find troubling is that there are people who believe they know what is best for others and would like to eliminate a choice some parents want to make for their own children.


I'm not aware that this is a significant group of people. Who wants to tell parents that they cannot use technology to restrict their children from watching TV?



coldmorning said:


> What is more authoritarian? Someone who goes around telling parents that they are stupid for trying to isolate their kids from certain cultural influences and dictates that they are to let their kids hear cursing and see nudity? or an agency that decides, for a certain time period on a particular channel, limited to a certain media, there will be content free of cursing and nudity so that those who choose to have this can do so? (all while leaving numerous other options for those who choose no censorship).


Strange analogy. Are you suggesting my position is the former? I don't know a single person or group that is telling parents they are stupid for trying to isolate their kids from certain cultural influences and tells them they should let their kids hear cursing and see nudity. Where are you seeing these people?

In any case, I would support neither of the above positions. Both are far too restrictive.



coldmorning said:


> I could care less about foul language. I do have a big problem with those who impose their ways on others in the name of freedom, or the free market.


Who is doing this?


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

ardrum said:


> Strange analogy. Are you suggesting my position is the former?


I wasn't referring to you.



ardrum said:


> I don't know a single person or group that is telling parents they are stupid for trying to isolate their kids from certain cultural influences and tells them they should let their kids hear cursing and see nudity. Where are you seeing these people?


Yes, they're out there. Search around on the net.



coldmorning said:


> I could care less about foul language. I do have a big problem with those who impose their ways on others in the name of freedom, or the free market.





ardrum said:


> Who is doing this?


If you believe that the appropriate level of censorship is determined by viewers who decide to boycott shows that are too extreme in their opinion, then that would be allowing the others to impose their views on the basis of the free market. So if person A finds a show offensive, and they happen to have the money to buy products or not buy products from the advertisers, they would have a say in whether the show gets cancelled. If you don't have money than you don't get a say. And if you have more money, you get more say.

There's more to this, but I think you did say you thought the market should allow the networks to "police themselves" which would fall under this. If that wasn't what you meant, it's still a popular opinion out there.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know a single person or group that is telling parents they are stupid for trying to isolate their kids from certain cultural influences and tells them they should let their kids hear cursing and see nudity. Where are you seeing these people?
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised. But what I am skeptical about is the extent to which such a sector of the population (as of yet, unidentified) has. It sounds like you're overly concerned about fringe groups that require searching around on the internet to even know exist. If it requires that much to even know they exist, I'm not concerned about their influence.



coldmorning said:


> coldmorning said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less about foul language. I do have a big problem with those who impose their ways on others in the name of freedom, or the free market.
> ...


Are you against voting? The act of voting also allows people to impose their views on the basis of the free market (only restriction being who can legally vote).

I'm also curious what people's interests you're concerned about, if it is not inclusive to everyone who watches TV. You haven't yet specified this. Also, you didn't answer this question:

"It is confusing to try to understand what sense you use the word "balance" here. Under whose perception of a balance is targeted, if not the collective populace itself? Special interest groups?"

For the record, I've never argued that markets are perfect. Two major weaknesses in market solutions involve irrationality and imperfect information. Even with the flaws of market solutions, I have yet to see you provide a superior alternative solution. :stu


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I think it shouldn't exist. At least I don't want my TV censored at all and I should have that choice. Oh wait, that is what the internet is for.

I think it would be better if there was an anti-v-chip developed that would allow the director/producer to put in the nudity, cursing, sex scenes, violence, etc...It is the whole attitude surrounding nudity = bad that is wrong with this country and when you see the huge percentage of porn sites on-line, you know that a lot of people are ok with it, just embarrassed that other people might think they like it.

As for the kids, a little bit isn't going to hurt them, they shouldn't have to be exposed to it all the time though. All people are naked under their clothes, and they all have different body shapes and sizes, and maybe if they love each other they have sex. It's like most TV shows now show everything leading up to it but stop. 'Porn' is the TV show that doesn't stop. Most guys for the past 50+ years have been trying to find naked girls in magazines, video,TV, or the internet since they were teenagers(13,14,15). Before that they just got married as teenagers (13, 14, 15). And I could argue that the fantasy relationships in Friends, Desperate Housewives, Sex in the City and others are just as damaging or unrealistic to some teenager than watching a few people naked. Maybe if we teach kids the truth about sex and relationships we wouldn't have a lot of the issues we have today.

I do agree that the FCC should do something about American Idol though and figure out how there can be 1/10 of the population in this country watching it. :lol


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

ardrum said:


> Are you against voting? The act of voting also allows people to impose their views on the basis of the free market (only restriction being who can legally vote).


I'm not against voting in every situation. But in some situations it's inappropriate. The majority does not always rule and what most people want isn't what's necessarily right. If in Nazi Germany, 90% of the people wanted to exterminate Jews, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do (once again this is a hypothetical...meaning that I don't actually think 90% of people in Nazi Germany thought this). Neither is the free market a cure all for every situation. In the case of censorship, I don't believe that allowing the market to determine what level of censorship to use works. The free market does a lot of things very well...like allocating resources in a way that maximizes efficiency. But it doesn't necessarily result in good policy.



ardrum said:


> I'm also curious what people's interests you're concerned about, if it is not inclusive to everyone who watches TV. You haven't yet specified this.


My interest is inclusive to everyone who watches tv. That's why this interest in removing censorship bothers me....the ones who want to remove it don't really have anything to gain from it. In this day and age, you can turn around and rent a movie, go on the internet or talk to your neighbors and get all the foul language, nudity and violence you want. If the only option were broadcast tv, then that would be different. But it's not the only option.

That's also why I think the basis of this is principle rather than practical. By this I mean that the ones interested in removing censorship are more interested in the removing of what someone else has then in making their own life easier or better. It takes more effort for someone to have to buy and install filters for their kids than it does for someone to have to go through the horrible inconvenience of seeing a few words bleeped from the show they're watching.



ardrum said:


> Also, you didn't answer this question:
> 
> "It is confusing to try to understand what sense you use the word "balance" here. Under whose perception of a balance is targeted, if not the collective populace itself? Special interest groups?"


Define special interest group. By balance, I mean that the FCC is supposed to balance the influence of the populist view in the same way that the judicial branch balances the more populist branches of government. So if you consider families that want to keep their kids from seeing violence a special interest, so be it. But I usually see special interest groups as having an agenda that benefits them at the expense of others. And I really don't see censoring broadcast tv as creating a benefit at the expense of others. So I wouldn't consider them to be a special interest group, per se. But I could see that argument as well.

"I have yet to see you provide a superior alternative solution."

Why do I need to provide a superior solution? The point of my initial post was to ask what the problem is. I asked who cares? Tell me what the major injustice is by leaving censorship the way it is. Are porn addicts being deprived of their entertainment because we don't have hard core on NBC in the middle of the day? Is the job of a comedian being made more difficult because we can't hear the word their using though we can still make it out?

So this is my solution....if it isn't hurting you, leave it the (Censored!) alone.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

coldmorning said:


> Neither is the free market a cure all for every situation. In the case of censorship, I don't believe that allowing the market to determine what level of censorship to use works. The free market does a lot of things very well...like allocating resources in a way that maximizes efficiency. But it doesn't necessarily result in good policy.


I guess what keeps leaving me puzzled is the basis or criteria by which you are referring to "good policy." What if your view of good policy differs with most others? Who has the ultimate right to make decisions for others in order to maximize collective utility? On average, do people other than ourselves know what will maximize our personal utility better than ourselves?



coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also curious what people's interests you're concerned about, if it is not inclusive to everyone who watches TV. You haven't yet specified this.
> ...


That is the sentiment that leads to nanny-state policies. You seem to be suggesting that you know what others have to gain better than they know themselves. Do you not trust people to make that determination by themselves?



coldmorning said:


> In this day and age, you can turn around and rent a movie, go on the internet or talk to your neighbors and get all the foul language, nudity and violence you want. If the only option were broadcast tv, then that would be different. But it's not the only option.


You seem to think that there would be no market for traditional programming. If there are a significant number of people who like "family-friendly" programming (without curse words, nudity, violence, controversy, etc), why do you think programming that targets these people would cease?



coldmorning said:


> That's also why I think the basis of this is principle rather than practical. By this I mean that the ones interested in removing censorship are more interested in the removing of what someone else has then in making their own life easier or better. It takes more effort for someone to have to buy and install filters for their kids than it does for someone to have to go through the horrible inconvenience of seeing a few words bleeped from the show they're watching.


Removing what someone else has? I'm not sure I follow that sentence. If there is a market for the programming you see currently on TV, then why wouldn't networks continue to provide it?

Would you hold the same objection if the default setting in new televisions was "censorship," and special actions had to be taken to activate other channels? So for instance, you start from scratch and add channels, rather than start with them all and remove.



coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > Also, you didn't answer this question:
> ...


By special interest group, I suppose I just refer to any demographic that is smaller than the total population. I mean it in a broad sense, rather than a technical term in politics or something like that.

See, I'd be on the camp that favoring one special interest over another as problematic when it comes to censorship. But keep in mind that I would want parents to still have the full ability to keep their own children from seeing something they find objectionable. I want them to have that option available to them, just like I want others to have the option to not be babysat by the FCC. I think it's a win-win situation in this case, rather than a struggle of either one-size-fits-all regulation or forced exposure to controversial content.



coldmorning said:


> ardrum said:
> 
> 
> > "I have yet to see you provide a superior alternative solution."
> ...


You are inserting your subjective opinion by denigrating "porn addicts" as being in some manner "less than" others in regards to their utility-maximizing decisions by declaring (rhetorically) that they are not being deprived. Not everyone who thinks there is too much regulation is a "porn addict."

Just because _you_ don't want to see or hear certain content does not mean that others equally do not. Just because you don't derive a benefit does not mean that they do not. It seems a bit elitist to suggest that their utility is not as important due to your personal opinion about their tastes. I think that makes for bad _public_ policy.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

Ardum,

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not denigrate porn addicts nor did I denigrate comedians. I did not say there would be no market for traditional programming or most of the other nonsense you state above in order to incite an angry response from me. Go back to your lawyer buddies and tell them that the guy you tried to troll an argument from said you should go back to paper pushing in administration. At least you gave me something to do today.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Classy. :lol

If you want to respond on topic, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I have no idea why people take something personally when the subject has nothing to do with them though. :con I guess that's the nature of online communication though. :stu


----------



## OneIsALonelyNumber (Mar 28, 2005)

The censorship is a joke and it seems pointless to me. I can understand how some people desire to watch "clean" TV, but if there's a market for that sort of thing, broadcasters will provide it. You don't need censorship.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

OneIsALonelyNumber said:


> The censorship is a joke and it seems pointless to me. I can understand how some people desire to watch "clean" TV, but if there's a market for that sort of thing, broadcasters will provide it. You don't need censorship.


Prezactly. :yes

I think censorship only arises when a group in power starts to suggest that one special interest is more important than another. That's a slippery slope though because no criteria is provided to discern which special interest should be favored.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

ardrum said:


> Classy. :lol
> 
> If you want to respond on topic, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I have no idea why people take something personally when the subject has nothing to do with them though. :con I guess that's the nature of online communication though. :stu


How'd you do on the LSAT? And why are you reading so much post-modernism junk.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Dude, calm down. Why are you trying to make things personal? I don't bite on ad hominems.

I had no intentions to upset you. :hug


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

Just trying to show you how it feels to have someone assume stuff about you.


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

I know you may not believe me, but I haven't assumed anything about you. I know practically nothing about you, and you know practically nothing about me. 

I can see why you'd be frustrated if you thought I was suggesting you believe "x" when you don't, but I'm only reacting to the words I see on a screen. There's no way I can make any statement about you. I usually qualify sentences in which I'm trying to understand what someone's position is with "It seems like you're saying..." These sort of sentences are 100% ready to be changed if the person says that's not their position at all. I'm very flexible when it comes to my being willing to explore what a person's position is. 

Evidently, I was way off on my last post. Since it was not explained how though, I'm basically left in the dark in regards to what you were trying to communicate. In any case, this thread is ultimately not that important in the grand scheme of life. :lol

Hope there's no hard feelings.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Now boys, if you don't chill, it's pretty much a given, a mod will come along that has full censorship abilities;-)))))

Now, let's take a commercial break;-)))


----------



## ardrum (May 13, 2007)

Hehe, I think I'm turning off the TV set now...


----------

