Lone Activist Group Submits 99.8% of FCC Complaints 1373
andywebz writes "Mediaweek is reporting that complaints to the FCC are rising. Powell spoke before congress, detailing that the complaints are up from 14,000 in 2002, to nearly 240,000 in 2003. There were only 350 complaints during 2000 and 2001. Powell failed to mention however that 99.8% of those complaints came from PTC (Parents Television Council). The article does mention he may have been unaware of this fact. Jonathan Rintels (president of the Center for Creative Voices in Media) commented, 'It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.'"
Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
F the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
Too bad story doesn't have (Score:5, Insightful)
I love their motto - "because our children are watching". Paternalism at its finest - television viewers must be treated as children!
(Luckily we can't air, for instance, photographs of caskets of US troops - but that's because voters, not children, are watching.)
I certainly hope these nice fellows will submit an FCC complaint if any television network tries to air "The Passion of the Christ". So much sadomasochism! So little time!
TV Censorship & Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Powell not qualified (Score:5, Insightful)
How many other people here get the feeling that powell is not qualified for his position. Of all the times I have heard this man talk he has never been able to give a sufficient answer to the true nature of the problem with cencorship. I dont know about you but before I address congress I woudl make it my busines to know everything about the statistics I am about to present. Think about it. you have a exponential growth in complaints aren't you even curious about what group be it age range geographic area, etc that this is coming from. Especially with the US culture being as diverse as it is. I just can't help but think he is totally inept every time I see him.
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Market forces will dictate what programming exists on television. If people want to watch content with sex, then yes you will have that on TV. If you dont like that, start your own station.
Re:Too bad story doesn't have (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they should change their motto to:
Because we're not watching our children.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of activism skews the standards the FCC uses to judge content, and makes the general public appear much more prudish, to the FCC, than they really are.
Another Fringe Group (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1, Insightful)
Reminds me of an episode of News Radio. Phil Hartman's character did an on air editorial about how another station shouldn't have run a show where they constantly and continuisly used words like "Penis" and how people shouldn't stand for that indecency, blah blah blah.
Later in the show he was forced to retract that on air because the show was talking to a doctor about Erectile Disfunction (or some such).
It all depends on the situation.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, they should be looking closely after their own children instead of forcing their concept of propriety on others.
You gave them the power... (Score:5, Insightful)
To the PTC I say:
"If something offends, change the channel.
"If it is unsuitable for your children, change the channel.
"If you think that it might offend me, it is not your right to infringe upon mine."
The decision to watch or not watch should be left up to the audience, not determined by a 'morally questionable' group, and filtered for the safety of an unintended audience.
By morally questionable, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the PTC or it's members. However, having never met them, I cannot vouch for their ability to judge what should or should not be censored. Anyone who stands before me to tell me what my choices are allowed to be is questionable in this fashion.
Re:Stupid parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the parents watch the "inappropriate" material WITH their children and explain it to them during/afterward?
Oh, sorry, that would be real parenting. We don't want any of that. (Though actually, I'm not so sure that having children find out about things such as sex independently from their extremist religious parents is such a bad thing -- it's rather sad that so many people think that it is somehow immoral.)
This is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what the FCC is doing to "censor" TV/radio is completely un-American.
(I put "censor" in quotes because they don't actually stop broadcasts from going out, they simply fine you if they later deem it was offensive -- a subtle difference, but a difference.)
But read this quote from the person at PTC:
She has a great point. The problem is not that PTC has sent in a billion complaints, but that the FCC exists and is actually in charge of fining companies who dare to broadcast things people tune in to.
Personally, I think the FCC should be inundated with bogus complaints. When they aired Saving Private Ryan recently, unedited, I was real tempted to send in a complaint about the movie just because I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
It is one thing if ABC says, we're going to show you Monday Night Football, and opens with an intro that might not be suitable for children, or CBS airs a half-time show that features an "accidental" nudie show to a wide audience, but other than that, as long as the networks are correctly classifying their broadcasts, I think they should air whatever people want to watch.
Re:TV Censorship & Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too bad story doesn't have (Score:1, Insightful)
On their front page, you can send a complaint to the FCC.
I sent a complaint that the PTC is trying to hijack the Amercian airwaves with their agenda, and that they send 99% of the complaints the FCC receives.
Imagine if the FCC received more complaints about the PTC than complaints about indecency?Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel like we're witnessing a rebellion of sorts, where TV show hosts and producers, musicians, artists, and the like are all making concerted efforts to push the boundaries of what's "decent" in broadcasting.
Whether or not this prompts niche groups with agendas to file thousands of complaints, it sends out a signal that producers of media are tired of trying to comply with FCC regulations that haven't changed with the times.
For starters, I think the current generation, as a whole, is simply not as offended by or adverse to swearing/curse words. Many of us in the "20-something and 30-something" age groups and below have decided that "words are just words" and curse words are only as "bad" as the attention we choose to artifically draw to them.
Last time I listened to a modern rock music station, for example, I was surprised to hear words edited out of at least 5 songs within an hour or two's time. In at least 3 or 4 of these cases, I had never even noticed the singer was singing a "curse word" before, except they made it obvious by chopping it out of the middle of the music.
When your listening audience is perfectly fine with a singer saying the "F word" in the middle of a song, then why should the FCC prohibit it on the radio? As always, those who don't care for it can change the station or simply listen to their own music, instead of what's served up on the radio.
I'm of the opinion that federal regulation of the media is basically unnecessary and "un-American" when you get right down to it. The people who want "clean TV" for their kids or for themselves are a large demographic, so the free market will cater to them either way. (Why do you think we have 2 Disney Channels on cable/satellite, Nickelodeon and "Nick for Kids", etc. etc.?) If the local stations keep airing things that offend big segments of their viewers, they're the ones who will lose advertising revenue eventually....
But since my rather Libertarian views are in the vast minority, I'm sure we're going to be stuck with the FCC dictating what we can/can't see on TV or hear on the radio during certain hours... That's why I'd still say, ok - fine them for obvious stunts like the Janet Jackson/Superbowl fiasco. (That sort of thing is done knowing full-well there will be punishment for it later... But sometimes people just want the "negative publicity" enough to do it anyway.) But at the very least, reconsider the "1950-esque" standards for "decency" on the radio.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
My fellow Slashdotters:
I found pr0n and prototype schematics for a $25 Linux-based Xbox while surfing the inter-net! Find it here! [parentstv.org].
Damage done.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:4, Insightful)
Try any nordic country..
I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
Re:Children (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in the end, more sex and violence is definitely for the children.
Be amusing if the FCC got a few hundred thousand letters telling them that.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Insightful)
That does raise the question of why a whole bunch of upstanding Christians were listening to Howard Stern. I mean, come on, are you really telling me that the people that are getting offended by Stern are otherwise usual Stern listeners? It's like that other group lobbying radio stations not to play Skinny Puppy or else they'll boycott the station... because as we all know the impact of the hordes of fundamentalist christian right wing nutjobs that actually listen to any radio station ever that plays Skinny Puppy is enourmous. These people are deliberately going out looking for trouble and looking to be offended. That's the reason that people that make their name off shock tactics (Stern etc.) are getting targetted, but people doing equally graphics things that aren't known for it (Oprah) get away with it. It's all just silly.
Jedidiah.
Re:Small group... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:2, Insightful)
What Exactally is Being Censored? (Score:5, Insightful)
'It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.'
What's not clear is exactally what effect these complaints are having, and what are they complaining about. First of all, have these complaints actually affected what gets aired in any significant way?
Do I care if...
Perhaps before we start bitching about censorship we start thinking a bit about what censorship is. People seem to think that eliminating Swearing and Sex on the radio is some sort of terrible crime but it is really meaningless. When you look at the bigger issues.
-- DennisRe:What Exactally is Being Censored? (Score:1, Insightful)
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
Main Entry: 1censor
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
See #2.
Just because it's not polictical censership doesn't mean it's not wrong fruitcake. People like this are why television stations won't play movies like Saving Private Ryan.
The bottom line is these people want to let the boob tube raise their kids... the cast of 7th Heaven seems to be better parents then themself.
Tiny my ass! (Score:2, Insightful)
No political lobby is made up of a large portion of the population. Tobacco and alcohol are the largest lobbies (I think the NRA is number 3) and they represent just a hand full of corporations. Their impact is due to the dollars they spend, not the people they represent.
I dont see that much money being made by lodging FCC complaints. Just a bunch of people saying what they think needs to be said. Regardless of what you think of their opinions, the PTC is the closest thing to a legitimate political voice a democracy can hope for. Unfortunatly for them, Americans now communicate with Washington more by putting their asses on a couch than by writing letters.
Re:Keep in Mind (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not trying to make you all gay or lesbian they just want the same rights as everyone else.
If they are so misguided that they think marriage is a nifty thing by all means let them.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
Re:so sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Powell honesty or reliability? (Score:3, Insightful)
Powell was unaware that a single politically-minded group was driving a campaign leading to the huge increase in complaints?
If the story is true, Powell is irresponsible, or he's being dishonest with congress. There are no other options.
That's the way the system works (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What Exactally is Being Censored? (Score:2, Insightful)
>People can't criticise the Bush administration for
>repeated mistakes in Iraq? Yes
There certainly is open discussion of this, and people aren't disappearing in the dark of night, at least not in my neighborhood. And I know some rather vocal critics of the administration.
Opponents may be dedicated, but not dedicated enough to move to rural parts of the country in the tens of millions. And that seems to be the bottom line.
> People can't call policians to the table for
> spending our kids future away? Hell Yes
We had a chance to do this, and when they came to the table we served them pork.
Re:You gave them the power... (Score:2, Insightful)
They are not infringing upon your rights to view smutty televsion. They are however using their right to say that they don't like the type of programming on TV. They didn't come into you home and put a gun to you head and make you watch "7th Heaven" or some crap like that. They have just as much right to complain to the FCC as you have to send praises to the FCC for what ever TV show you want.
The decision to watch or not watch should be left up to the audience...
The PTC is the audience, albiet a small one, who just happens to have an agenda and is persuing it.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:5, Insightful)
You are addressing two separate issues here. You take issue with shows being full of objectionable content, and the lack of "intellectually stimulating" shows on television. These issues do NOT go hand-in-hand. Shows like 7th Heaven, which are wholesome and do not contain objectionable content, can be (and often are) poorly written, with unrealistic characters and repetitive plots. Likewise, many people find shows with objectionable content, such as CSI, to be intellectually stimulating. While I understand that some shows on the Fox channel are absolutely mindless AND cross decency lines, it's incorrect to lump the two together and claim the PTC is supporting "intellectually stimulating" programming.
Re:Powell not qualified (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Selective censorship never works. Bleeping a cuss word doesn't stop everyone from understanding it's a cuss word and, because of the nasty context, does nothing to protect children or anyone else. You can remove every "motherfucker" you want from Rap music and it's still talking about fucking hos and doing drugs.
I don't know the answer, but I'm growing fatigued of all the shows and songs that punch holes in the dialog, yet still leave you feeling violated. We're not only protecting no one, but we're treating adults like children in the process. Though I'm not asking for it in this case, I sure wish a government who claims to be trying to protect me would actually try to protect me... or butt the fuck out.
TW
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are religious fundamentalists. It's no surprise that a fundamentalist like Leiberman was on their board.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously you're exactly right, but for some reason a great many people don't see it this way. Interestingly, these people (right-wing Christian Fundamentalists and many conservative Republicans) are also constantly railing against the "Nanny-State" of the looney left. Do they even see the contradiction? They think the government SHOULD censor TV content, but should stay away from things like helmet laws? I'm not sure I get the mentality behind all this, personally.
As you say: there's an off-switch and a channel changing device, let alone the V-chip.
I guess they want the government to be a nanny to their kids, just not THEM? Or something. I dunno. It's not like it makes any sense at all.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Please babysit my children. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record, I am a moral conservative, and a strongly religious man. However, I RESENT that other groups are trying to do my job. I don't need somone to censor the internet and filter my TV for me. How can I teach my children the importance of making choices if the choices are already made? If all that's available is G-rated pablum, where is the victory of a choice well made? Life is about choices, and I would like to able to use the low-risk, limited consequence items like TV, internet and music to teach good decision-making skills.
I'm also trying to teach my children something about personal responsibility, moral courage, and tolerance for others. Religious nuts throughout history have tried to enforce their particular morals on the remainder of humanity, usually with tragic consequences. I would like my children to realize that, while we don't want sexually-explicit shows, we don't have any moral imperitive to force others to conform to our standards.
So, for the children, please quit doing my job. Fill the airwaves with every variety of material, leave the internet alone. I will teach my children, and if I will teach them to choose the good, and ignore that which does not enlighten. I am, after all, a parent.
It does explain an awful lot. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, if someone said or did something on TV, the reaction would be "they can do that on TV?", rather than being truly offended. It seemed to me that the rules and culture on TV and what was acceptable or normal, were very different from the real world.
this is getting ridiculous... (Score:5, Insightful)
When will the American public wake up and realize that they have a choice? You have a choice in everything you do: wake up, go to work, eat, listen to whatever music you want to, and in regard to this article, you can watch whatever you want to.
Along the same lines, you have the choice of controlling the TV. But please understand this: There are Family channels, religious channels, porn channels, movie channels, music channels, news channels, food channels, etc, etc, etc. for all the people out there in the whole wide world. But, *you* have the choice of watching these channels. If you dont like what is on, then please change it, because someone somewhere might like it. I myself would rather have my children watch smut than violence.
Along with this, this means that you will have to actually pay attention to what your family and/or children are watching. If you dont agree with something or dont like a show, then please change the channel.
I am not pro- or anti-smut/violence/profanity/religion; i am pro-choice. take that away, and you take away Freedom.
I am done. :) Please flame away.
If peeps who believe in Jesus are "a minority"... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They must be stopped. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note, I'm not disputing the extreme christian slant of their list, just not for two out of the three reasons you mentioned
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
The rule is that any group with a family related word in it isn't really about the family at all.
Might as well get this one out there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Timely topic, IMHO.... (Score:1, Insightful)
1950-esque standards? Ye gads! If we had 1950-esque standards on the radio, people wouldn't be able to say "damn" and "hell" and "ass" or probably even take the name of the Lord in vain. Explicit (pardon the pun) discussion of sexual topics would be verboten; at best it would have to be couched in innuendo (does anyone really want to hear, "makin' whoopie" again) so as to kiddify things beyond belief.
And don't even get me started on TV... I still remember when Northern Exposure made news for being the first network program to air shots of a topless white woman. If we were 1950s-esque, we'd see couples still sleeping in separate beds, for crying out loud! Will and Grace would be positively unthinkable!
No, if anything, we have seen considerable relaxing in standards on profanity, violence, and sex on American television over the past 20 or so years. It may not be relaxing as quickly as some would like - and it is obviously relaxing MORE quickly than some would like - but let's be honest with ourselves here, standards ARE relaxing.
It should be noted that standards across the board are being relaxed... women, for example, used to be considered "unladylike" if they cursed. Now, no one is surprised anymore and women aren't "held to a different standard" of language use. Common courtesy and politeness is by and large a thing of the past; everyone is more brusque than they used to be.
Whether or not this is a good thing, who can say? I personally don't like the lowering of standards; I think we've lost some basic decency in our dealings with each other - which disappoints me - and as a side effect of that general decline, standards on radio and television have declined. I don't blame radio and TV for causing the decline, it's just easiest to follow them since we have records of what "it used to be like" and can thus compare a radio show from 1950 to one in 2000... something that we can't easily do with, say, casual conversations.
--AC
Send PTC an email (Score:5, Insightful)
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/art
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
Go away. You are not wanted here.
-Jared Kling"
This entire country needs an enema (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of all the women being raped in Darfur, I'm supposed to be concerned about explaining breasts and mammary glands to my 4 year old. Instead of hearing about the Columbian FARC and the cartels, using "mules" (sometimes, tragically unsucessfully) to move cocaine across the border, I'm supposed to be worried about a naked woman jumping into the arms of a football player. I'm supposed to be offended that Howard Stern coaxes New York women into the studio, to willingly strip bare and be oogled and groped.
I've had more trouble explaining the brainwashed Muslims and the entire hierarchy of aggression and blood-letting over the past 1300 years, than I have sexuality in ANY form. Sexuality, in my house, is a topic discussed over dinner. Shooting women in the back of the head, in a soccer arena at "halftime", is something that DOES NOT make the dinner table.
Wow. Talk about misplaced priorities. The problem with the mainstream media is they do not report anything which isn't popular. Years ago, when people struggled to put print-blocks together and used inked hand-rollers to make 1000 copies, it had a specific purpose. To bring about change. To make people aware of all kinds of issues, however popular or un-popular they might be. It wasn't about the bottom line of the company, it was about the social benefit of decent laws and regulations governing daily life.
This entire country needs an enema.
Responsibility of the parents (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should TV stations change their programming because parents aren't effective? Stupid! What's next? "My skin got burned from being out in the sun too long. Let's eliminate the sun..."
Re:PTC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:3, Insightful)
This has a lot to do with the USA slowly succumbing to a new Dark Age of fundamentalist religion being the dominant force. All fundamentalists of Judeo-Christian origin (including Muslims) are obsessed with sex and quite enamoured with death and violence. Here in Canada I am seeing the creep too from the West (Harper and crew). Already around 20% of Canadians respond as "born again" or some such cretinism to polls. This seems to be a global problem people who adhere to the principles of Enlightement will have an increasingly hard time ahead. A War On Reason is underway (all present Washington's "wars" can be rolled into this one) and TV is just one battleground in it.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Insightful)
Context is everything.
If only it was as pure as you make it out to be. As you can see by the transcript below it's not about context. The things they were talking about are just as titillating as what goes on on Sterns show. It's not about context, it's about viewership and perception.
It's OK for Oprah to talk about it because she's perceived as a caring, loving black woman who gives out free cars. Her viewership is mostly middle aged suburban white woman who think of her as some kind of saint. Titillating lesbianism among hot teenage girls? Oh no, not on Oprah! It's uh.. educational! These damn kids and their hot hot descriptions of rampant sex!
It's NOT ok for Stern to talk about it because he's perceived as a perverted white guy. His listeners are young men.. crass bastards.
I guess you can call all of that context, but it's a LOT more twisted kind of context than you're making it out to be.
I'm sick of this stupid crap about "indecency". The whole thing is just a fight about the so called "culture war". The christian right doesn't want anyone exposed to things they don't like because they believe it'll turn everyone evil. They cloak the whole thing in a "protect our children" wrapping because a lot of people seem to lose their brains at any mention of the world children.
Hell, I'm offended by most of reality TV and I think its rotting peoples brains and beliefs. I don't however think the solution is banning it from the airwaves. Unfortunately the moral crusaders of the Christian right think they're the only ones with a moral system, (or at least the only possible "correct" moral system) and wish to enforce it on everyone else.
Re:Please babysit my children. (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know? My parents tell me they're happy with how I turned out. I just hope I can do as well with my own kids.
Re:What Exactally is Being Censored? (Score:2, Insightful)
Slippery Slope
Re:PTC (Score:2, Insightful)
Another tact would be that every time you see something on television you like, send an email to: fccinfo@fcc.gov and let them know that you your feelings about the show and be sure to cc the network or station too.
Your mind is being censored that's what (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm censored from talking about breasts, so breast cancer and cooking chicken can no longer be talked about on TV?
Public radio is censored for talking about homosexuality?
People can't talk about sex education on TV?
Your last two points about censoring Pres. Bush and politicians are valid, but sex is where it starts. And where do you draw the line between pornography, art, and science? Once you try drawing a line, the people start trying to redefine the line in their favor in order to control you.
People try to control your behavior with language. They want control of you. If censorship starts there with sex, it will progress to politics and current events. To coin a cliche, its doubleplusungood.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:1, Insightful)
It's one thing to not want your children to watch, but the PTC consistently has on their Worst list shows like CSI, and NYPD Blue, because they're on in the 'wrong' time-slot (Plus, I'd be surprised if kids even want to watch NYPD Blue).
The point is that the air-waves are public and should cater to people who want inoffensive children's programing AND those who want shows that include violence, swearing, and sex; Even if they want to watch it during the day.
Decency (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is *nothing* indecent about the naked human body. Even gross lookin' folks are not indecent when naked; they are merely gross lookin'.
There seems to be a movement within the US towards some strange version of "decency" that does *not* include the way we treat our fellow person, but has *everything* to do with enforcing a certain religious viewpoint. This is not decency. In fact, the act itself is indecent, as it disrespects other people deserving of respect.
So you might imagine I don't want people deciding for me what is decent or indecent. Our viewpoints are different. I don't believe all viewpoints are equal: I believe I am right. So do the folks who want to censor everything. They believe *they* are right, I mean.
Where was I going with this?
Oh, yeah. Decency is in how we treat our fellow man, not whether Janet's breast was bared. In this, my reading of the Bible tells me even Christ agrees with me. Not that I believe in God, let alone the sacredness of Christ.
After all, I'm just an atheist, and so have no sense of morality.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:5, Insightful)
Charmed
"The show's sexual content mainly consists of sexual innuendo and implied intercourse (much of it non-marital)." - "Women witches and demons in the show often wear scant clothing, resulting in an unsettling mixture of sex and violence." - "ass" is common, as are "suck" and "bitch," and euphemisms for "f--k."
Or, I had a laugh at some comments for Everybody Loves Raymond: "Language on this series, used to be harsh, but since the first of 2004, has dropped to a record low number of just 8 uses of mild "hell," "crap," and "damn" in 6 episodes. Sexual references have been non-existent since January 2004."
Reading through other show "reviews", it sounds like these people have problems with entire plot, not so much the content. How do you make a Sex in the City that's acceptable to them, or a CSI without any graphic scenes? They also mentioned they have a problem with the occult theme in Charmed, but I can assure you they would have no issue with the Christian theme in 7th Heaven (technically both are just a religion, and probably just as offensive to members of the opposing group.
Re:If peeps who believe in Jesus are "a minority". (Score:2, Insightful)
It hasn't been about Jesus since Corporate America figured out that you sell things to people so they can give them to other people on December 25th. Now it's all about the $$$
note: slashdot crowd are mostly idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
ive read through this thread (ugh, yeah - i shouldnt read the comments, just the articles) and i'm so bummed by how biased the moderating is.
the slashdot crowd is so religiously godless and radically liberal and most of 'em dont even have kids so they are talking out of their arse when they speak of parenting (and most of the ones that do have kids frighten me.)
this is not going to get modded at all, or -1 troll if anyone bothers to read it, but on principle i will submit it anyway.
it'd be neat if slashdot was more balanced, but most techno-geeks are hardcore bigots in their own special way anyway. i guess we're all lucky they are techno-bigots instead of lynch-mob bigots, but the thought process is still the same. freaky, huh? in another time/place these whacko's would be running progroms against windows users or something. sad.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I think the "The Christians put Bush in the white house" argument is a bunch of bull and just another excuse why Kerry lost without pointing the finger at Kerry himself.
If that was the case, then how the hell did Clinton win against Dole in 96? The Christian fundemantilist movement wanted Clinton out so bad it wasn't even funny. They saw Clinton as a Morality Void soul that killed babies, smoked dope, loved Gays and screwed just about anybody That looked better than Hillary, Yet Dole got blown away.
Same goes with Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was Probably the most moral president this country's ever seen, but he got totally destroyed by Reagan.
Face it. Your guy lost cause the Democrats managed to nominate someone that sucked more than Bush. If they would have put a real canidate in there Bush would have been gone in less than 2 months.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm,no. They want the government to be a nanny to your kids.
rj
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Carter was an Evangelical... but he was a liberal one... he probably pissed off the fundies more then Clinton did, one of the reasons Reagan was elected.
I think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
Re:What Exactally is Being Censored? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if an artistic movie could not be shown on TV, even though it would begin with explicit warnings about its content, due to the after-the-fact censorship performed by the FCC? [cnn.com]
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that pretty much sums up our American Hypocrisy... Even the Christian Fundementalist hypocrisy...
;) but i like it so hey it gets the point accross... got a problem with it, tell Jim Norton.)
:)
As adults we're very prudish publically, but in private we're peeing on each other, sticking things in our asses, eating our own shit, dressing up in cheerleader outfits for our husbands, dancing erotically, whipping each other, covering our sexual organs with whipcream and other food items, screwing in the kitchen, finger banging in cars, getting our dick sucked on the freeway, mutual masturbation, fucking chickens and other various animals, orgies, cheating on our loved ones, we're jacking off to budwiser commercials and underwear advertisements in the sunday papers, we're spanking each other, peircing our tongues for pleasure, buying huge amounts of porn, using vibrators and vegatables as dildos, preforming mock rape scenarios, getting sex changes, wearing diapers, pretending we're teenagers again, dressing up as the opposite sex while being tickled to death by a dominating opposite sex partner, jacking off to just about anything, fucking each other in the ass hard, oral sex all over the place, and drinking piss and eating our own, or others shit. ( i think i mentioned the shit thing already
You name it, Adults are doing it. The list goes on and on.
And the funny part is... We were once the children of this country. Lets see... EVERYONE as a teenager has tried to get beer underage, EVERYONE as a teenager wanted to get laid and some of us were lucky enough to succeed at that... (not speaking for myself of course)
EVERYONE as a teenager tried their damnest to be adult like... why? because we were growing up. Thats what kids do.
Cant drink legally, but you get go to war and murder people in foreign lands!
Oh the Hypocrisy of humanity... Especially the christian fundementalist movement... the same organized folks that preach their morallity... are fucking our young children behind our backs. And i'm not just speaking in that "gurgling alterboy cum" and a wink wink and a tussle "good lad" kind of sense... I'm talking about brain fucking as well.
You tell me who is more moral...
I'll tell you who is winning... THEM. The kid touchers, the god hates fags people, the anti abortion wackos, the god is coming back to earth and we all better be christian wackos...
The fairytale beleivers who are affraid of their own penis... and or vagina
Those people are winning... Becuase they're making everyone feel ashamed for what we all do in private.... which is fucking like rabbits.
Who's children are we protecting? It sounds like we're trying to protect ourselves from ourselves and dumping a mind fucked guilt trip on the kids... who are only doing the very same thing you did... which i will remind you of... Get beer while underage, fuck each other, dream of getting laid etc
Life is pretty simple when you boil it down. Eat shit, Sleep, Fuck and by nature we do care about each other as a civilization (we dont need religion for that... our caring for each other is natural.. we're pack animals).
Its when those who tell you how to live, that things get complicated.
Joe Rogan said it best...
"I saw a documentary on the brilliant cosmologist Stephen Hawking, where he said he had a meeting with the pope, and that the pope said to him that it's all right to explore the universe, but told him not to look into the origins of the big bang, for that would be questioning God's story of creation.
Wow.
Just imagine that... one of the greatest minds to come along in the last few hundred years, and he's tak
Re:I think so. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is pretty obvious that a huge block of the people for Bush (including all Bush supporters I know) were more concerned about Terrorism or economic policies or taxes or the free market than about "moral issues". They believe that Bush would be better for the economy or their safety or for their future, and the extreme conservative social values are a *problem* with Bush, but don't outweigh their desire for Bush's other policies. Trying to claim that Kerry lost because of a small group of religous bigots is just an attempt by the left to pretend that only crazy people disagree with them.
The best proof of the unimportance of the "moral majority" is that they are starting to go crazy with attempts to kill any change to the constitution to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to be president. You would think the liberals would be the ones trying to stop it, but they are not. The "moral majority" knows that Arnold would easily win the Republican nomination despite the fact that he disagrees with their "majority" on virtually everything.
Re:I think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know? You haven't watched TV in four years.
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun.
No, he/she is someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else, and should therefore make their decisions for them.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America.
And you are also free to not support the "dumbing down" by not watching this crap. I don't like it either, but there are alternatives [discovery.com] to [pbs.org] broadcast [go.com] smut. Before "moral" groups start taking away my choices, perhaps they should exercise some restraint like you did.
Re:Children (Score:2, Insightful)
That is correct. The evangelicals and the christian fundementalists (same thing) beleive that life should be kid safe and sex should be only used by married people to create children...
So yes.. It is really all for the Children... even fucking your wife.
Cant abort them, cant have recreational, lude, dirty monkey love... you can only make babies... because jesus may be one of them one day...
It would be a dam shame to abort jesus by accident.
That is afterall the real reason behind the anti abortion movement.
Politics is hard. (Score:3, Insightful)
Get organized. Fight them. They are winning right now because they play the game better.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
PTC is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
Selective on their Consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
If they think that showing the consequences of sex will put people off of having sex, why wouldn't showing the consequences of murder put people off of killing?
Re:I think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, they have *NO* right to do this. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, it doesn't offer a person the ability to take away someone elses speech becuase they disagree with what is being said. They clearly have a right to complain if they wish, but there is no way that a fringe organization should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be heard/seen over the public airwaves becuase they find it indecent. You see, indecency is in the eye of the beholder, it is subjective and therefore one cannot say something is indecent becuase another may not find that same thing idecent. If they care about what their childern watch on T.V. then they should sit with their children and monitor what they watch, and if the find it innapropriate, TURN IT OFF.
-kaplanfx
It's our job to parent, but can we get some help. (Score:1, Insightful)
Much ado has been made about the importance of parenting, instruction, and "being there". It is said that all these special-interest groups (demeaningly called right-wing nutjobs) are somehow trying to foist he responsibility of the parent to society.
The question is why not?
It is purely a Western concept that families are solely responsible for the raising of good citizens, that somehow these nuclear environments are they only things that form a child. In other cultures, there is a deep realization that children are only as good as the environment around them.
In other words it takes a village to raise a child. Being a parent is hard, and I think a reason so few people do it well is they lack support; they can't turn their backs. If I can't trust my society to keep my telivision shows reasonably clean in the mid-afternoon if I need a quick break, what is it good for?
Yes, yes "reasonably clean" is difficult term to gauge...it's a slippery slope. But the truth that I see is that it is a lot easier to inform your child on something that he/she needs to know than it is to remove erroneous information they have learned. It is much easier to teach a new behavior than to eradicate an old one.
just to be #800+ (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me you used to hear things like 'For every one complaint heard, there are a thousand others unheard'. So it seems almost like the FCC is still living in the backwards days before email where it actually took time to complain and therefore deterred all but 0.1% of the people outraged.
I hope eventually they get the idea (well I hope they are disbanded outright, but that's just me dreaming) that the new equation is more like 'for every thousand complaints heard, theres one wacko fundamentalist christian with a computer'.
I fucking love this country! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:note: slashdot crowd are mostly idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
My TV has an off button. And I am teaching my children the truth about the whole picture - not just one narrow sanitized one. My children are learning things like - there is nothing inherantly evil in the word "fuck", however there are times and places where using the word "fuck" is inappropriate. Or they are learning that a naked breast can be a beautiful thing, but a War is always a terrible thing.
But I must be a terrible parent, and godless heathan because I don't want your morals legislated onto me and my own...
(disclaimer: naked breasts' beauty are dependant on the owner of the breasts and the eye of the beholder)
Re:I think so. (Score:1, Insightful)
I hear this "parents need to take more responsibility" argument all the time, but while that is definitely true, it's NOT an excuse for media/consumers/etc taking responsibility for the pure garbage that is most media today.
Re:Please babysit my children. (Score:1, Insightful)
There are two types of Americans(and slashdotters). Those who have a 'rights' based mentality. And those who have a 'responsibility' based mentality.
I believe that the television industry pushes the envelope because they think it is their 'right'. The complaints to the fcc were filed by those who think it is their responsibility.
I would rather live with a bunch of people who act out of responsibility than a bunch of people who are only out for their personal rights.
If you don't think the moral system portrayed on television is the work of an active minority group with an agenda you are fooling yourself.
For those who post that parents should censor the telvision with the v-chip can kiss my shiny metal ass. You obviously haven't tried it or tried raising children while holding down a full time job. First of all the automatic rating system is moronic. You can see people screwing and using all kinds of profanity, but if there is one fist fight the rating system will block it. Because the envelope of morality is constantly being pushed, you would have to only use a tivo and pre-watch every tv show personally. What you used to not see on tv till after childrens bed times now comes on during the saturday morning cartoon time.
I don't want censorship, but I do want good quality family programming and free network television that doesn't need constant supervision. Let the cable channels do whatever and keep the network programming 'family consummable' till after the news.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
The American people just got Bush elected. Not some group that you want to make a boogyman.
Re:Please babysit my children. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I think so. (Score:1, Insightful)
They do have a right to do this (although they are not *taking* away anyone's speech, just to make sure that the "speech" in question is done in a different venue) and represent the views of their members because the government has decided that it has to control the radio frequencies over which everything is transmitted. We the people (individually or as a group) can petition the government for change, etc. (Who says it really listens, though)
The PTC is a group that sends its propaganda out to people in order to get them to sign up and petition lawmakers to change laws or write new ones. It is no different than the Sierra Club trying to censor my choice in vehicle or anti-freeze. They each have constituent members that want to have a louder voice than if they shouted alone.
My opinion:
I personally think much of what is shown on broadcast TV in the U.S. is trash. Take all the "reality" shows and chuck 'em. There is too much profanity and explicit sex on broadcast TV. There are too many preachy shows on for kids. Commercials often go overboard with their use of sex. I have a difficult time watching sports with my kids because I have to keep turning the channel during commercial breaks so my kids don't have to see a lot of the smut out there - try explaining an Herbal Essences commercial to a five year old. I am not speaking of cable TV (I think if you 're going to pay a monthly fee for this stuff, the TV show creators can show whatever they want 'cause you're asking for it). I know that there are things called ON/OFF switches and buttons to change channels, but I know of no one who can watch what their kids watch 100% of the time - the Internet only makes it harder.
I also believe that those who argue that frequent exposure to porn and explicit sexual situations does not harm children are just plain stupid and haven't seen the results of the frequent exposure. I have cousins whose parents were heavy into porn when they were children. Both of them were sexually active by the time they were 8 years old (I am certain the uncle abused them, too) and one is HIV positive. I know that porn did not cause them to make every poor decision in their lives, but I am quite certain that their addiction along with their father's addiction led to their perception that such behavior is acceptable and normal. Call me prude, I don't care. I often wonder why I feel compelled to express my opinions on this site because I know a good 75% of you are left-wing nutjobs that think anyone who is a Christian or Jew (and adheres to the standards of their respective religions) is a whacko in the same vein as those idiot terrorist who killed over 3,000 people on 9/11.
Anyway, this is just my opinion and I know that some 34 year old living in mom's basement will reply with something base and rude just because I actually think there should be limits to what is shown on TV.
Later
Re:Dear PTC activists (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no grounds to suggest that we can attribute the great ideas of Faraday, Pasteur & Newton to a deep seated belief in Creation. At that time, everybody has such deep-seated belief because science has not sufficiently progressed to explain nature, and nobody dares to question the church authorities anyway. I am not disputing if Newton and Kepler are devout, but that the devoutness has nothing to do with the quality of their ideas.
Who knows if they might have progressed further in science if they were not hindered with issues on how to marry their troubling science with their religious belief, or trying to justify it in a creationist framework without pissing off the Church? And I can also quote names like Abelard, Averroes, Galileo, Darwin, Spinoza, William of Ockham, whose thoughts were attacked by the Church for differing from the dogma.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:1, Insightful)
Instead he had a net job loss, turned a surplus into a massive deficit, increased the size of the govt more then anybody else in history including creating one of the largest departments in govt, and royally botched an invasion and occupation of iraq.
So the only reason to vote for him was because "god spoke though him", "god told him to run", "god made him win", and "god told him to invade iraq". That and he promised never to let the homosexuals marry.
Actually, they want it to nanny theirs too (Score:4, Insightful)
1. avoid personal responsibility like the plague,
2. don't want to even talk to their children.
Daddy is too busy doing overtime to impress the boss. Then daddy wants to spend the whole fucking eveing with a beer and the TV, or with a beer and the Linux kernel. Mommy is too busy between impressing her own boss, all those soap operas, and all those female friends she just has to spend hours a day talking to.
And the poor kid is just some pest that just gets in the way. Telling little Billy _why_ this and that is wrong, is a tiresome talk and you just know it'll go right over his little head anyway. Naah... better just avoid him and go watch that football/baseball/soccer/whatever game instead. Watching the idiot box is a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Can't let a kid get in the way of that.
So little Billy grows up basically without any guidance. But here's the fun part: just because Mommy and Daddy are too busy to explain things to Billy, it doesn't mean someone else won't either. So Billy picks up all sorts of wrong ideas off the street or, yes, off TV.
And when Billy finally does something wrong, we get to point 1 again: nobody wants to be personally responsible for it. Noo. It's not our fault that Billy grew up wrong. It's the TV's fault! The government should censor it!
Sad.
Re:I think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
People like you are responsible for ruining the values the United States of America stood and were respected for.
Freedom means being free to do whatever one wants while not hurting others. A free person can participate in the process of law making, own firearms, has inalienable rights against governmental force and sure as hell can watch anything he wants on his TV in his home.
If you're not someone from the former Soviet Union, that is...
Re:99.8% (Score:0, Insightful)
Would you like to see all network TV and all cable channels like PAX?
What's to stop them from complaining to the FCC that the news is too graphic, too depressing, etc?
Why should one group of religious zealots be allowed influence control on what the rest of the country sees and hears?
And why the hell is the FCC allowing this to happen? What? They figure that since a single group is complaining then its indicative of what the rest of us want?
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I think so. (Score:1, Insightful)
I call BS. TV isn't hurting your kids or anyone else's. TV is hurting your feelings because it makes kids ask you awkward questions about the real world you try too hard to shelter from them.
If you want to create an elaborate illusion of a perfect world and convince your children that this illusion is real, that's fine. Set Herry Potter books ablaze and turn the knob on your V-chip to "Ludicrous Speed". I don't care. If your children are observant and intelligent (and I hope they are) the day will come when your kids will notice that their parents have been dishonest with them since birth.
This revelation will come and it will embitter them towards you and hopefully they'll rebel and become goth and get arrested for posession of all sorts of narcotics. Then you'll get stuck with the therapy and attorney bills. Too bad I won't be there at the police station to point at you and bellow a hearty Nelson Muntz [snpp.com] "HAAAA-HAAAA".
Ok it probably won't be that bad.
So the world isn't the way your small mind would like it to be. Hiding in a hole isn't going to fix anything. Living in a dream world will only make things worse for you. Enforcing a dream world on your children will only make things worse for them when the real world their parents insisted didn't exist bitch-slaps them.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
That's just it, though. It's not being forced into your house. You have every right to change the channel. You have every right to purchase or view alternative programming (whether that be purchasing cable or choosing to NOT purchase cable) and, most importantly, you have the one option that proves most telling to advertisers, you can simply turn the television off.
Re:I think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not a threat to this republic. I am a mostly Libertarian-thinking and acting person, but I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug policies.This country is going to hell in a handbasket because the people have lost any moral compass not because people like me want to go back to real comedy and not-so-real action shows. They seem to think that if some "old-fashioned" people want to keep some things sacred that they are prudes and trying to censor everyone's thinking.
I know the
Some replies back I noticed that someone posted about violence being worse and I partly agree. There is a difference, though. Most people can tell the difference between real life and television. Most of the violence on TV is acted out (musch like a lot of the sex), but the sex on TV is "real" - you can't fake the nudity, touching, etc. of sex.
Later.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just curious... Are you pro-death penalty as it's implemented in this country, or just in theory? In an ideal world, I think that there is true justice in a fair and reasonable application of the death penalty. If a person is convicted by a jury of their true peers, then once they've exhausted their appeals it's toasty time for them.
My problem with the implementation in this country is that it seems all too often that if you've got enough money to pay a good legal team to raise enough reasonable doubt and/or stack the jury in your favor, you at least avoid the death penalty, and maybe even get an acquittal. If you're poor and get stuck with the schmuck from the Public Defenders' office, you're right fucked, mate.
For that reason, I believe that the death penalty should be outlawed. I can't see our legal system being reworked to guarantee truly fair trials (too much money involved), so since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison mates will take care of them in time.
I also think that prison should be a much worse place than it is, and that Club Fed-style prisons should go away. Either that, or the entire prison system should be segregated between violent and non-violent offenders. I think it's ridiculous that "Steve the pot dealer" is stuck in a cell with "Bruno the serial rapist", while Martha crochets doilies in her comfy room.
Bah. Sorry to rant in reply to your comment. Just thinking about the death penalty got me going on the other stuff. Have you seen "The Execution of Wanda Jean"? Ask Google about it, and try to catch it on HBO or DVD sometime. It's pretty disturbing, and may cause you to reconsider your stance on the death penalty in this country. You might not change your mind, but I hope that it would at least stop to really think about your position on the subject.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate that people keep interpreting the poll results this way. It's a possible explanation, but still a significant leap.
The poll was multiple choice, for one thing. So, let's say I hate most of GW Bush's policies, and I think he's made some horrible decisions, but ... I don't trust Kerry. His voting record is horrible and his character is more than questionable. His running mate made his fortune as an ambulance chaser, and these guys' most vocal supporters are folks like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.
So... let's see... Why did I vote for Bush?
Ok, yea, I'll say moral values, then, Bob.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
in one breath, these people are a tiny minority that the FCC should ignore.
in the next, they're a monsterous force that got the president elected.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
See son, this comercial is designed to make you think that the product makes you feel good if you use it. This is one of the things that people do to try and sell you something. They try to make it seem like the product will make you something that you are not.
seems prety simple to me.
if your kids can recognize an orgasm then perhaps its time to be talking to them more frankly about sex. Other than that, you talk around it... Parents have been doing this for a very long time.
Re:Let's anti-protest! (Score:3, Insightful)
Take gay-bashing for instance. While you may think things are okay because you live in NYC or LA or some place where such crimes are treated like actual crimes... there are people in back-woods Mississippi, where juries and judgies tend to think "Eh, he was just a fag, probably had it comming" (or similar things in the case of race).
These protections are necessary because entire classes of people suffer not just societal but systemic discrimination. It wasn't THAT long ago that even in the big cities, crimes against openly gay people were shuffled to the bottom of the stacks.
When someone commits a crime of pure bias (a gay bashing, a racial lynching) designed to intimidate an entire class of people, then that crime deserves a stiffer penalty, and it should NOT be easy to brush the crime under the carpet just because the Judge and the Jury share the offender's bias.
If you were a member of such a minority, you'd understand a little more clearly. Even if you were close friends with members of such minorities, ones who didn't grow up in more enlightened big cities, you'd understand the necessity of such things.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on radio waves instead of just sound waves is against free speech.