What the PTC has figured out is that indecent TV and radio was being allowed simply because the FCC only takes action when it gets a complaint from somebody in the public. No complaint, nobody was harmed so no foul.
The FCC is still in control over what is indecent, so the PTC's power is merely that of spotter. If they complain about something that isn't over the line nothing will happen. Of course, a big problem with the current system is that the FCC doesn't have a written down definition of what they consider to be indecent so broadcasters are flying blind when it comes to deciding what to air before they actually do it. What they've gotten away with in the past is no help because they've been allow to get away with far too much.
The megacompanies need to realize that they should use their cable outlets for the borderline content they have, because the over-the-air channels are regulated.
EVERYTHING offends these people, their jobs is to get people upset so they will donate money to them so they do not have to get real jobs.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the fifth worst network TV show for families in this year's PTC's Top 10 Best and Worst Report, has licensed a line of toys for kids ages 8 and up. CSI features graphic scenes of blood, violence, and sex. Company Vice President and general manager of CBS Consumer Products, called it
They can sell the toy, but they're not forcing you to buy it. Don't want your kid to have the CSI toys? DON'T BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it won't be under your tree for Christmas!
They can sell the toy, but they're not forcing you to buy it. Don't want your kid to have the CSI toys? DON'T BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it won't be under your tree for Christmas!
Parents? But I thought Santa...OH MY GOD. You ruined Christmas for me.
They can sell the toy, but they're not forcing you to buy it. Don't want your kid to have the CSI toys? DON'T BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it won't be under your tree for Christmas!
Obviously, this dude doesn't believe in Santa Claus!!!
According to a CBS press release "the target age is 14 and up" but it clearly says "Ages 8 +" on the packaging.
To be fair, that packaging is only saying that it's safe for 8 and up, i.e. that children younger than that might injur themselves using the toy. It's in no way an endorsement of a particular age that the toy is appropriate for.
Seems to me that shutting down the PTC would be censorship too. The PTC has every right to complain to the FCC if that is what they want to do. This is political free speech, constitutionally guaranteed and all. Other's have equal right to lobby FCC for the opposing view.
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.
Yes, there is a reason I mentioned snuff films and pornography -- as I stated -- To make an example: I support the constitutional right or you or others to lobby for their position, even if the majority considers it extreme. Just like I do for the accused in thie story.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech.
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.
I am sorry, do you attend public performances of any kind? Please be kind to tell me where.
So I can go there and yell FIRE!!!!!! in the middle of it.
Hey! It speech, and is therefore protected by law.
The court has been smart enough to interpret it as a possibly regulated disemination of ideas. Yelling fire and soap operas are not instances of spreading ideas. If you feel that they are, then you can go to court, and they will apply the litmus test set by SCOTUS to your case and tell you if you are right or
Yep. You can. Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre some time and pay attention to what you're charged with when they arrest you. Things like disrupting the peace, reckless endangerment, neglegent manslaughter, etc. None of those has anything to do with *what* you said, just the *consiquences* of saying it.
True, but as you yourself pointed out, reckless endangerment is a law against speech. Notice how just for saying a word, I can be charged with something. If I do not yell, but just calmly say fire, I
Of course soap operas are protected speech, otherwise they could be banned entirely like obscenity and child pornography. Simply because they are not absolutely protected does not mean that they are not protected at all. And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component. It doesn't matter if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater or if I yell "free pr0n" on slashdot. The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which
And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component.
Correct, but under the strict interpretation of the constitution, the action would have to have no laws for it as well, since all I have done is uttered a word. I did not personally kill anyone, people who listened to me did.
The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result.
You can't read the First Amendment literally like that, as the poster above me noted you can't yell fire in a theater. You can't disclose state secrets (like troop movements in war time), even if it is news.
Congress can regulate contracts (even though this could be seen as a form of speech).
It is not an absolute prohibition since there are other clauses that also have to be taken into consideration. But you're right, more than political speech is protected.
Why do all you religious wingnuts post anonymous? Do you really beleive what you say? I can't see how anyone can honestly believe that garbage.
If you argument holds then Muslims should get school sponsored in class prayer as well and don't foret them cooky hindus and crazy jews.
Give it a break. Go in the hallways and pray all you want. Why does anyone need to sanction it, which EXCLUDES others btw?
...the government shall pass no law preventing me from praying to whatever I want, wherever I want. That means I should be able to pray in schools, pray in libraries
So you think you should be allowed to kneel and start praying in the middle of a busy intersection? No one is stopping you from praying in schools or libraries, quietly and without disrupting other people. If, however, you want to stand on a chair in the middle of the library, and start preaching, I'll bet you'll be asked to leave.
Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Generally, most Christians would not include Deists among their number. The basic idea of Deism is that God created the universe and hasn't had anything to do with it since. Modern Deism generally does not have an opinion as to whether God created the world literally or just jump started the process.
An interesting fact is that Thomas Jefferson once edited a large portion of the New Testament covering the life of Jesus ("The Jefferson Bible"). His main changes
...sort of. What's happening here is that a group is ensuring that they're heard regardless of the rights of others. According to John Locke, on whose writings many of the points of American government are based, your rights stop when they infringe on someone else's rights. The PTC is messing with my right to enjoy Shakespeareian levels of violence and teenage sex, and thus they need to go take a flying leap.
I don't watch TV very much but I went to their website and read their "Latest Action Alert" for an ABC show called "Life as we know it":
[begin excerpt from Parents TV Council] " * Student Dino plots to take his girl friend Jackie's virginity. Viewers see the youngsters in his home while his parents are away; a shirtless Dino is half-lying across Jackie and he puts his hand into her pants. He says, "just take 'em off.... Doesn't it feel good to you?" Jackie says: "Yes. It feels too good. I don't
oooooo sex, masterbation. SCARY. POISENING CHILDREN. Come on! Babies suck on their mothers tits...did you know that? Isn't that indecent? Shouldn't somebody put a stop to it? What kind of crazy organism has a taboo against its own form of reproduction. How could such a thing possibly evolve. Maybe groups like the PTC will slowly leave the gene pool.
I'd say it's the sex and the mixture of sex and violence that bothers them. Conservative bible beaters are not known for being offended by gratuitous violence alone, provided there is no nudity and nobody saying Goddamit or something like that. If a very graphic war video were shown on TV where Iraqis got blown apart by American bombs, I bet my life savings that the fundie bible beaters wouldn't object at all.
If a very graphic war video were shown on TV where Iraqis got blown apart by American bombs, I bet my life savings that the fundie bible beaters wouldn't object at all.
Did you *completely* miss all the furor over "Saving Private Ryan" last month?
Once again, profanity. Fundies hate anything more extreme than gosh darn shucks. Also, I believe there was a mild romance scene in Saving Ryan's Privates. Oops, wrong movie. Saving Private Ryan, yes, it had lots of profanity and general "soldier talk". That combined with some disrespect for authority (the German soldiers) means this movie is fit for fundie parents but not their kids.
The FCC defines indecency by saying that anything the general public would regard as indecent, is indecent. Therefore, if the FCC sees 10 million complaints about one particular thing, they must assume that that the general public sees that one thing as indecent, because such a large segment of the general public is complaining about it.
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.
Therefore, if the FCC sees 10 million complaints about one particular thing, they must assume that that the general public sees that one thing as indecent, because such a large segment of the general public is complaining about it.
10 million out of 293 million do not a majority make. It's 3%.
The only way to detirmine what the majority of people want is to 1. poll everyone or 2. conduct a proper statistical study on it.
The thing is, the parent poster never mentioned "majority", but rather a "large segment". And forgive me for saying, but 10 million is a large segment.
A significant portion doesn't have to be the majority. In fact, significant is no where close to being a majority.
What the FCC is doing is basically working for the people that care. If 99.8% of the people who contact them say they don't want something, then that's a significant amount. Even if the majority want something else, the FCC doesn't see this,
Large, compared to what? 3% is a segment, but I think it would take at least 15% to become a large segment. eln stated that a large segment (3%) of outspoken individuals can represent the entire general public. It can't.
The policy talks what the general public considers indecent. It does not say the loudest members of the general public. In order to support the policy they claim to support, they must go out of their way to find out what the GP wants. Sitting back and listening is easy, but it will produce b
And "proper statistical studies" show that for every person who joins the PTV, writes the FCC, or writes to his congresscritter, 100 don't because they are too lazy or bored or busy. So they see 10million complaints and assume(rightly or wrongly) that ~100Million are or could be offended.
And "proper statistical studies" show that for every person who joins the PTV, writes the FCC, or writes to his congresscritter, 100 don't because they are too lazy or bored or busy.
Which studies are these? Post links.
So they see 10million complaints and assume(rightly or wrongly) that ~100Million are or could be offended.
A proper study wouldn't use this kind of reasoning. Which accepted statistical method allows this kind of deduction? Since the only people who provide data are the ones making noise, the on
Like you, I'm offended by seeing bush on TV. It's just as bad when I see dick on TV. Seeing bush and dick together at the same time is especially obscene.
Hopefully the FCC will take action quickly to stop this pollution of our airwaves.
But the problem is they don't HAVE to get the FCC to do anything in order to be successful. If they complain to the FCC enough, a company may just voluntarily pull content because it wants to avoid another Howard Stern-esque debacle(in terms of both the fine and the PR problems). The squeaky wheel gets the grease it seems.....
We really need to keep tabs on these special interest groups. Just because a small minority gets organized to maximize their effectiveness doesn't mean we should listen to them, change laws, remove items from public view, or pay any attention to them whatsoever.
It seems obvious to most of us here that these special interest groups are a minority, but are they really? The religious right had an extremely important influence this past November, and it seems to me these same people are involved with these various 'I want to change the world' groups.
I would think that there's a HUGE number of people who don't give a rat's ass about whether Howard Stern talks about Sex, or if part of Janet Jackson's boob pops out (I'm bummed because I didn't get to see any nipple!).
I've got something I'd like to quote, it's sort of integral to the topic...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress is the only federal entity that can make a law, and the FCC is appointed by... yup Congress. These fucked up restrictions are LAWS enacted by a branch of CONGRESS.
You are part of an extreme minority, it would seem. You have no intrinsic right to define indecency for the entire United States population of TV viewers. It might be different if you had no way to keep this indecency out of your life, but there's this little thing called an OFF switch. If you see something you don't like or that you think your children shouldn't be watching, turn the idiot box off. Watch a DVD of your own choosing, or read a book. If you think it was really offensive, write a personal lett
Why does someone always applaud when a way is found to abuse a system? There's nothing clever about it, nothing honest, it's a blatant attempt to misrepresent the will of a general populace they consider degenerate. People like this should be deported, not admired.
Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:3, Interesting)
What the PTC has figured out is that indecent TV and radio was being allowed simply because the FCC only takes action when it gets a complaint from somebody in the public. No complaint, nobody was harmed so no foul.
The FCC is still in control over what is indecent, so the PTC's power is merely that of spotter. If they complain about something that isn't over the line nothing will happen. Of course, a big problem with the current system is that the FCC doesn't have a written down definition of what they consider to be indecent so broadcasters are flying blind when it comes to deciding what to air before they actually do it. What they've gotten away with in the past is no help because they've been allow to get away with far too much.
The megacompanies need to realize that they should use their cable outlets for the borderline content they have, because the over-the-air channels are regulated.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Informative)
EVERYTHING offends these people, their jobs is to get people upset so they will donate money to them so they do not have to get real jobs.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the fifth worst network TV show for families in this year's PTC's Top 10 Best and Worst Report, has licensed a line of toys for kids ages 8 and up. CSI features graphic scenes of blood, violence, and sex. Company Vice President and general manager of CBS Consumer Products, called it
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Parents? But I thought Santa...OH MY GOD. You ruined Christmas for me.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
To be fair, that packaging is only saying that it's safe for 8 and up, i.e. that children younger than that might injur themselves using the toy. It's in no way an endorsement of a particular age that the toy is appropriate for.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
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:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
I do not recall supporting snuff films.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
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:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
So I can go there and yell FIRE!!!!!! in the middle of it.
Hey! It speech, and is therefore protected by law.
The court has been smart enough to interpret it as a possibly regulated disemination of ideas. Yelling fire and soap operas are not instances of spreading ideas. If you feel that they are, then you can go to court, and they will apply the litmus test set by SCOTUS to your case and tell you if you are right or
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
True, but as you yourself pointed out, reckless endangerment is a law against speech. Notice how just for saying a word, I can be charged with something. If I do not yell, but just calmly say fire, I
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Correct, but under the strict interpretation of the constitution, the action would have to have no laws for it as well, since all I have done is uttered a word. I did not personally kill anyone, people who listened to me did.
The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result.
I unders
First Amendment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Touche! (Score:1)
Re:Touche! (Score:2)
So you think you should be allowed to kneel and start praying in the middle of a busy intersection? No one is stopping you from praying in schools or libraries, quietly and without disrupting other people. If, however, you want to stand on a chair in the middle of the library, and start preaching, I'll bet you'll be asked to leave.
Re:Touche! (Score:1)
An interesting fact is that Thomas Jefferson once edited a large portion of the New Testament covering the life of Jesus ("The Jefferson Bible"). His main changes
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Interesting)
[begin excerpt from Parents TV Council]
" * Student Dino plots to take his girl friend Jackie's virginity. Viewers see the youngsters in his home while his parents are away; a shirtless Dino is half-lying across Jackie and he puts his hand into her pants. He says, "just take 'em off.... Doesn't it feel good to you?" Jackie says: "Yes. It feels too good. I don't
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
What actual damage is it doing?
You think it is doing damage to your kids? Then don't let them watch it. Not your job to stop other peoples' kids from seeing it.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Did you *completely* miss all the furor over "Saving Private Ryan" last month?
Feel free to send me your life's savings.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Got a link?
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.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
The only way to detirmine what the majority of people want is to 1. poll everyone or 2. conduct a proper statistical study on it.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
A significant portion doesn't have to be the majority. In fact, significant is no where close to being a majority.
What the FCC is doing is basically working for the people that care. If 99.8% of the people who contact them say they don't want something, then that's a significant amount. Even if the majority want something else, the FCC doesn't see this,
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
The policy talks what the general public considers indecent. It does not say the loudest members of the general public. In order to support the policy they claim to support, they must go out of their way to find out what the GP wants.
Sitting back and listening is easy, but it will produce b
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Which studies are these? Post links.
A proper study wouldn't use this kind of reasoning. Which accepted statistical method allows this kind of deduction?
Since the only people who provide data are the ones making noise, the on
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
You actually let your hu-man women wear clothes?
Sincerely,
Quark.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Hopefully the FCC will take action quickly to stop this pollution of our airwaves.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
I would think that there's a HUGE number of people who don't give a rat's ass about whether Howard Stern talks about Sex, or if part of Janet Jackson's boob pops out (I'm bummed because I didn't get to see any nipple!).
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Emphasis mine.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
wanna bet couple of grand that ptc doesn't care if kids get to watch bold and the beautiful for role models?
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Funny)
Parents Television Council
707 Wilshire Boulevard #2075
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213.629.9255
Email: editor@parentstv.org
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Here's the line I added in my
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)