Media Indecency

[Hababi]

Media indecency hearings have been a talked about issue as of late...actually, namely, on tonight's PBS evening news. So, what do you think the role of government, namely the FCC, is in regulating decency on airwaves?

On one hand, I think that some provisions the FCC has are silly and outdated--what would be so bad about lifting the language restrictions? Is it really that terrible to hear the F bomb dropped on an episode of the Sheild, where it would be perfectly realistic?

At the same time, though, I cringe at the thought of the government having absolutely no role in regulating airwaves. Simply put, you would have televised executions. Fox would run evening shows of every bloody execution they could find. And I don't think anyone could say that'd be healthy for the public.

[PerpetualBurn]

What are the restrictions on swearing on American TV?

[PerpetualBurn]

At all? Or just within certain hours, like in the UK?

[Hababi]

At all? Or just within certain hours, like in the UK?


At all. Well, for non premium channels. Stations like HBO basically do what they want. but for basic stations, never. Every once in a while a show will push it and include a shìt, or a network will air something like Saving Private Ryan uncut.

[Reaganista]

other stations run uncut late night movies

So, what do you think the role of government, namely the FCC, is in regulating decency on airwaves?

I think the FCC should be abolished

[Jharaski]

I believe that the government really doesn't belong in determining what can and cannot be said or showed on television or radio. If I want to watch a show which says "bull****" then I should be entitled to watch it without having it censored or having to get the uncut series on DVD. The same goes with a movie. If I want to watch Titanic, Kate's breasts should show, and Leo SHOULD say "**** **** this water is cold!" and not "crap crap this water is cold!"

However, there should be some limit. Shows where swearing is not to be expected should have it blocked out, especially family and children's shows. If someone loses on the Price is Right (the game AND their tempor) I would certainly expect the network to do their job and not air that!

I do agree with TV ratings. But that's what they're there for! Why can't you say **** on a TV-MA show during the day? It's not like children aren't exposed to that anyway, but that's not the point. If you don't want your kids to watch it, use the V-cast. If you don't want to watch it yourself, then don't!

It is the role of the parents to decide what's best for the family. If the government needs to take over for irresponsible parents failing to keep their foiur-year-old from watching an uncut Saving Private Ryan or Tears of the Sun, then there isn't much hope anyway for that kid being raised properly anyway.
EDIT - to clarify for Tway, I mean a parent who DOESN'T want their kids to watch such shows.

If ANYTHING, the restrictions should be lifted after a certain time, which some stations like FX (I think) get away with.

[Rounder]

I don't mind government regulating telivision in general, But I do oppose them controlling what is said. A word is the same as any other word. in context saying aww damn is exactly the same thing as aw sh1t or aw fxck, and saying I have to take a poop is the same thing as I have to take a sh1t. Its just a word. The meaning is still there. I find it to be archaic, and kind of stupid. Nudity and violence, I really don't think I have a problem with the way it is handled now, aside from the bruhaha made over the airing of Saving Private Ryan a while back, and that was not due to government, but conservative bully groups. If you don't want your kids to watch what really happens in a war, turn off the damn tv or use that v-chip. I really have a problem with people telling me what I can or can't watch just because it offends them.

[Reaganista]

However, there should be some limit. Shows where swearing is not to be expected should have it blocked out, especially family and children's shows. If someone loses on the Price is Right (the game AND their tempor) I would certainly expect the network to do their job and not air that!

I was with you until here

random profanity in children's programming should be encouraged.
****in kids

V-cast
v-chip lol

[Jharaski]

I was with you until here

random profanity in children's programming should be encouraged.
****in kids[/quest]

Hahaha. I do agree that swear words are just that - words. But I'd rather not teach little kids to swear in school and cause a ruckus. Though I wouldn't care if my kids swore around the house, as long as my wife / visiting relatives didn't mind, and I thought they would hold their tongue when they needed to.

[quote]
v-chip lol


I use neither V-cast nor v-chip, and merely mixed the names up. :(

[Reaganista]

Hahaha. I do agree that swear words are just that - words. But I'd rather not teach little kids to swear in school and cause a ruckus. Though I wouldn't care if my kids swore around the house, as long as my wife / visiting relatives didn't mind, and I thought they would hold their tongue when they needed to.

wouldn't be no ruckus if people had been getting called ****ing cunts since 3 or 4 years old.

[Jharaski]

wouldn't be no ruckus if people had been getting called ****ing squirrels since 3 or 4 years old.

Yup, but I'm not so sure that will change anything. I wish it would though.

[Cain]

At this point I'd say the FCC is holding onto the concept of "decency on television" by its fingernails anyway.

[Jude]

I think the FCC should be abolished
Wtf I agree with you?

Personally I think parents need to do a better job supervising their kids and not blame the government. If they don't want their kids watching "dirty" TV then don't have them watch it. If the parents aren't around, the solution is simple, don't have a TV. If this would encourage people to watch TV less overall it would be a good thing. Every household should be like mine and not have a TV at all.

[Against Miik!]

Comedy Central runs some pretty racy movies uneditted late night on the weekends. I don't know what the penalties are for doing this however.

[Iskandar]

The role of government in television is not to regulate at all.

A show intended for children could not have characters Dropping f-bombs left and right. They'd be afraid of the consequences.

[Cain]

Jude is exactly right. Governments can't parent for parents.

Seriously, I wonder sometimes if half the current population of children is a genuine accident. The way I see some parents treating their kids (in public, no less), you'd think they never wanted to have them in the first place.

[Iskandar]

Governments can't parent for parents.
That's my opinion on a lot of things. ...

[Hababi]

The role of government in television is not to regulate at all.


Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.

[Reaganista]

A show intended for children could not have characters Dropping f-bombs left and right. They'd be afraid of the consequences.

not really

not that that's a bad thing

there should be ****ing on daytime TV

[Cain]

Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.

I dunno. The Japanese seem pretty okay, despite the massive amounts of hentai and Battle Royale all over the place.

[dustindow]

Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.


Would you sit there and let your child watch it? No one is saying your child has to watch it.

i remember an episode of the cosbys. One of there childs friend brought over a "fart and booger" video, like imature jokes and skits, to the house and they watched it. When the mother walked in and saw this she immediatly took the video out and booted the kid out of her house and explained to her daughter why she didnt want her watching this.


If you don't want your child watching it. Don't let them. It's just the same as when a teenage boy gets caught watching porn. Most parents don't let there son do that. If you do, you get yoour a$$ wooped for it.

[Against Miik!]

Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.

No, but the point is that it's not up to them. Whether or not it's acceptable is up to the individual. Thats why they have the power to turn something else on. And if things like this are truely dispised by the public, then the market will take care of itself.

[LittlePound]

No, but the point is that it's not up to them. Whether or not it's acceptable is up to the individual. Thats why they have the power to turn something else on. And if things like this are truely dispised by the public, then the market will take care of itself.
true but then the unregultion of media would be used to unregulate many other things. Like products you buy, and food and what not. People will say, well, just becuase there are harmful substances in it (b/c there could potentially be harmful things in media) doesn't mean it should not be allowed, people don't have to buy it. And then, that would mean people would have to be entirely aware of every ingredient of every food they eat, because they could unknowingly be eating something harmful.
Should the certain things in the media be regulated, certanly, becuase if it wasn't, then it would be used as precident to unregulate many other things. And even if you don't see the unregulation of media in itself being bad, it would be a slippery slope.

[dustindow]

true but then the unregultion of media would be used to unregulate many other things. Like products you buy, and food and what not. People will say, well, just becuase there are harmful substances in it (b/c there could potentially be harmful things in media) doesn't mean it should not be allowed, people don't have to buy it. And then, that would mean people would have to be entirely aware of every ingredient of every food they eat, because they could unknowingly be eating something harmful.
Should the certain things in the media be regulated, certanly, becuase if it wasn't, then it would be used as precident to unregulate many other things. And even if you don't see the unregulation of media in itself being bad, it would be a slippery slope.


That was a terrible comparison. ITS TV!!! you dont eat it. Your not gonna get TV poisoning and throw up all night. You regulate food becuase we dont want roaches and disease from contaminated plants in our food. We have no control over how our food is preps. But we do have control of the remote.

[Against Miik!]

true but then the unregultion of media would be used to unregulate many other things. Like products you buy, and food and what not. People will say, well, just becuase there are harmful substances in it (b/c there could potentially be harmful things in media) doesn't mean it should not be allowed, people don't have to buy it. And then, that would mean people would have to be entirely aware of every ingredient of every food they eat, because they could unknowingly be eating something harmful.
Should the certain things in the media be regulated, certanly, becuase if it wasn't, then it would be used as precident to unregulate many other things. And even if you don't see the unregulation of media in itself being bad, it would be a slippery slope.

Do you think people know half of what goes in there food anyways? It wouldn't change anything. Actually, scratch that. It would. The FDA is corrupt government run faction. They are out to make money. Harmful chemicals aren't put into our food for fun. They are put in as cheaper alternatives. And basically, nobody is allowed to challenge the FDA. Watch the documentary "The Corporation". The FDA tried to pay off somebody in the local media in Florida to keep quiet about what was being put into milk or something. Without the FDA, this information would be allowed to get out. IT all follows the basic principle, the freer the market, the freer the people.

[Iskandar]

Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.
Yes, I would be okay with that.

I envision it being a problem that would take care of itself. Few networks would actually show anything extreme, knowing that a) few people would watch it b) the advertising dollars might not agree c) the public wouldn't agree.

Don't forget that most major television networks are slaves to profit. They need to act in ways that will encourage profit, not ways that will scare away advertisers and alienate the public.

[guitrguy]

They're a bit capricious. You can say hell, d@mn, b1tch, b@stard, @ss (don't know if that's censored, but don't want to be pwned by the swear filter), but you can't say sh1t or fück. Or Çock, or Çunt.
What I never understood is how can you be allowed to say *** but not asshole, on TV?

[Against Miik!]

What I never understood is how can you be allowed to say *** but not asshole, on TV?

And how they censor out the "God" in God damn

[dustindow]

And how they censor out the "God" in God damn

I've seen a show cencor jesus.....goes to show you.

[PerpetualBurn]

I dunno. The Japanese seem pretty okay, despite the massive amounts of hentai and Battle Royale all over the place.

Yeah but on the plus side, Battle Royale is an awesome film. I think every child should be made to watch Battle Royale followed by Ichi The Killer. That'd teach'em.

[Jude]

Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.
I wouldn't care if that was on TV. MY kids sure wouldn't be watching it. Or anything. They'd be riding bikes.

[Atomic Rain]

the british system of "9 o clock watershed" is pretty ideal if you ask me.

[Reaganista]

true but then the unregultion of media would be used to unregulate many other things. Like products you buy, and food and what not. People will say, well, just becuase there are harmful substances in it (b/c there could potentially be harmful things in media) doesn't mean it should not be allowed
I think you might be hopeless

[PerpetualBurn]

Actually, that's the funniest post I've seen in a long long time. If it were satire, it would be genius.

It actually amazes me that anyone can think that worth posting.

[guitrguy]

Do you think people know half of what goes in there food anyways? It wouldn't change anything. Actually, scratch that. It would. The FDA is corrupt government run faction. They are out to make money. Harmful chemicals aren't put into our food for fun. They are put in as cheaper alternatives. And basically, nobody is allowed to challenge the FDA. Watch the d0cumentary "The Corporation". The FDA tried to pay off somebody in the local media in Florida to keep quiet about what was being put into milk or something. Without the FDA, this information would be allowed to get out. IT all follows the basic principle, the freer the market, the freer the people.
Thats true to a certain extent. If you completely cut out regulations and agencies that do the regulation of companies then you'll really start to see people taken in advantge of my corporate America.

[Reaganista]

free to pay extra for rat sausage

[Jharaski]

I've seen a show cencor jesus.....goes to show you.

I thought they did that when the person went "JESUS!!!" or something, not like "Jesus loves you." He took the name in vain (supposedly) and they wanted to keep the Christians happy, but it backfired.


And I thought you could say @sshole o_O I've never seen it censored, but then again, I've rarely heard it at all.

[Danish]

The role of government in television is not to regulate at all.

A show intended for children could not have characters Dropping f-bombs left and right. They'd be afraid of the consequences.

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you advocating market forces over state control?

The government has to regulate the media. I don't mean in terms of censorship (I'm of the opinion that most censorship is unnecessary). I mean in terms of ownership, etc. Currently, the FCC does almost nothing to prevent the further monopolization of the media industry. Federal funding for PBS has been cut very deeply. A fully-funded, commercial-free public broadcaster is a minimal necessity in a democratic society.

[Jharaski]

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you advocating market forces over state control?


I knew there was hope for Dropper. :p

[Danish]

Do you think people know half of what goes in there food anyways? It wouldn't change anything. Actually, scratch that. It would. The FDA is corrupt government run faction. They are out to make money. Harmful chemicals aren't put into our food for fun. They are put in as cheaper alternatives. And basically, nobody is allowed to challenge the FDA. Watch the d0cumentary "The Corporation". The FDA tried to pay off somebody in the local media in Florida to keep quiet about what was being put into milk or something. Without the FDA, this information would be allowed to get out. IT all follows the basic principle, the freer the market, the freer the people.

What?!

I've seen that movie and I know exactly what you're talking about. And you've got it all wrong.

Two investigative journalists in Florida created a piece for their show on a local FOX affiliate about Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). They showed, amongst other things, that BGH caused the cows to develop severe, painful infections in their utters. That infection gets into the milk, pus and all. They also divulged that the corporation that manufactures BGH, Monsanto, did their best to keep this information from the public and convinced the FDA to do so as well.

The affiliate they worked for first tried to censor the piece, cutting out everything that mentioned Monsanto or the real effects of BGH. Eventually, the two journalists were fired.

Now, was this piece pulled because of the FDA? No. The FDA has no control over FOX. But you know who does? Monsanto. They buy ad space everywhere on FOX, mostly for products like RoundUp. If FOX aired that piece uncut, Monsanto would have pulled their ads from FOX. And, because advertising is virtually the only source of revenue for media corporations, FOX was forced to pull the piece (though I doubt they had many problems with that decision).

The example you used demonstrates that free markets actually hinder freedoms, in this case freedom of the press and freedom of information. Let's also not forget about Monsanto's role as well. I, personally, do not like the idea of drinking pus in my milk.

And about the FDA, like most federal regulators in the US (ie. the FCC, etc.) are subject to strong pressures from private power. Was it in the public interest to approve BGH for use? Was it in the public interest for the FCC to open up media markets? No. That's what happens when private power has so much influence over the state.

[Against Miik!]

What?!

I've seen that movie and I know exactly what you're talking about. And you've got it all wrong.

Two investigative journalists in Florida created a piece for their show on a local FOX affiliate about Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). They showed, amongst other things, that BGH caused the cows to develop severe, painful infections in their utters. That infection gets into the milk, pus and all. They also divulged that the corporation that manufactures BGH, Monsanto, did their best to keep this information from the public and convinced the FDA to do so as well.

The affiliate they worked for first tried to censor the piece, cutting out everything that mentioned Monsanto or the real effects of BGH. Eventually, the two journalists were fired.

Now, was this piece pulled because of the FDA? No. The FDA has no control over FOX. But you know who does? Monsanto. They buy ad space everywhere on FOX, mostly for products like RoundUp. If FOX aired that piece uncut, Monsanto would have pulled their ads from FOX. And, because advertising is virtually the only source of revenue for media corporations, FOX was forced to pull the piece (though I doubt they had many problems with that decision).

The example you used demonstrates that free markets actually hinder freedoms, in this case freedom of the press and freedom of information. Let's also not forget about Monsanto's role as well. I, personally, do not like the idea of drinking pus in my milk.

And about the FDA, like most federal regulators in the US (ie. the FCC, etc.) are subject to strong pressures from private power. Was it in the public interest to approve BGH for use? Was it in the public interest for the FCC to open up media markets? No. That's what happens when private power has so much influence over the state.


O geez sorry. I saw it once a long time ago. But thats not the point. It. doesn't matter if its the FDA or Fox or whatever. It's still representative of the people in power. Swapping out one for the other doesn't really change my point, except that one is privately owned and one is government run. Just apply the same principles though.

[Danish]

O geez sorry. I saw it once a long time ago. But thats not the point. It. doesn't matter if its the FDA or Fox or whatever. It's still representative of the people in power. Swapping out one for the other doesn't really change my point, except that one is privately owned and one is government run. Just apply the same principles though.

But the same principles don't apply. Private power (in this case, Monsanto) clearly had the veto over the public interest. That's very undemocratic.


Freer markets doesn't mean freer people.

[Against Miik!]

But the same principles don't apply. Private power (in this case, Monsanto) clearly had the veto over the public interest. That's very undemocratic.


Freer markets doesn't mean freer people.


O.k. I get what you are saying now. There really isn't anyway to stop this in that case. I mean would you start regulating the power of these advertisers? I don't know how. I just think that these are things that would occur regardless of how free the market was, so it doesn't really matter.

edit: I just realized how kind of ironic this is. The advertisers are basically taking the place of a government entity, controling the media and such. So it would really take government influence to free up this situation. It really is a textbook definition of irony if you ask me.

[Reaganista]

Two investigative journalists in Florida created a piece for their show on a local FOX affiliate about Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). They showed, amongst other things, that BGH caused the cows to develop severe, painful infections in their utters.

Solidarity with our Bovine brethren!

[Danish]

Solidarity with our Bovine brethren!

You wanna drink infected milk?

[Reaganista]

You wanna drink infected milk?
I don't wanna drink ANY MILK!

I've become Vegan since breakfast.

[guitrguy]

I don't wanna drink ANY MILK!

I've become Vegan since breakfast.
That'll last :rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

going on 8 hours

[guitrguy]

going on 8 hours
If you can last through tomorrow I won't nuke your house when I take over the world.

[Steerpike]

Would you really be comfortable with that severe of an approach? Would you really be ok with the evening television featuring another round of The Most Brutal Executions Ever Caught on Film? Completely eliminating government restrictions would have averse side effects on society.

I can turn it off if I want to. No one's twisting my arm.

At this point, the purpose of the FCC is to tell everyone this message:

"You're all too stupid, gullible, immature, and thoughtless to sensor yourselves. We'll do it for you, because we always know what's best for you, and you're too brainless to show a degree of impetus and get away from things that offend you."

It's downright insulting. If I don't like what's on TV, I turn it off. If I don't like what I hear on the radio, I change the station. I do not need an arbitrary bureacracy of government-appointed reactionary puritans telling me what I can and cannot see and hear.

[Hababi]

I can turn it off if I want to. No one's twisting my arm.


But would it really be good for society, to have executions on television? Someone else brought up Japan, but their culture is different than ours, in terms of pop culture and its relation to society as a whole. Also, their undercurrent of graphic (fake) violence really isn't the same thing as inevitable, real execution footage. That'd be bad for society. We're already a culture of sleazy reality tv and celebrity worship, do we really want to devolve into one of mainstream execution and p0rn footage.

As to whether it would happen, it would. There would be protests, but in the end, the execution show would get incredibely high ratings. And advertisers would know that, and advertise on it.

[Steerpike]

But would it really be good for society, to have executions on television?

They can turn it off, too.

As to whether it would happen, it would. There would be protests, but in the end, the execution show would get incredibely high ratings. And advertisers would know that, and advertise on it.

Then maybe we can shake this Puritan bullshit that's held us back.

[Syncratic]

Comedy Central runs some pretty racy movies uneditted late night on the weekends. I don't know what the penalties are for doing this however.

Actually, they still leave the nudity out.

Which, in retrospect, makes zero sense. If you're going to show the film unedited, go all the way.

[Jude]

But would it really be good for society, to have executions on television? Someone else brought up Japan, but their culture is different than ours, in terms of pop culture and its relation to society as a whole. Also, their undercurrent of graphic (fake) violence really isn't the same thing as inevitable, real execution footage. That'd be bad for society. We're already a culture of sleazy reality tv and celebrity worship, do we really want to devolve into one of mainstream execution and p0rn footage.

As to whether it would happen, it would. There would be protests, but in the end, the execution show would get incredibely high ratings. And advertisers would know that, and advertise on it.
We already have executions. How much worse would showing them on TV be? If anything it would turn people against capital punishment and we could outlaw it like the rest of the civilized world.

[Reaganista]

except China

[Iskandar]

Whoa whoa whoa. Are you advocating market forces over state control?

The government has to regulate the media. I don't mean in terms of censorship (I'm of the opinion that most censorship is unnecessary). I mean in terms of ownership, etc. Currently, the FCC does almost nothing to prevent the further monopolization of the media industry. Federal funding for PBS has been cut very deeply. A fully-funded, commercial-free public broadcaster is a minimal necessity in a democratic society.
Oh nono, I merely meant in terms of censorship. I feel that no medium should be censored.

I agree with you on ownership, of course. I could go for more publicly-funded networks, so long as the government doesn't try to manipulate the networks via control of funding levels.
I knew there was hope for Dropper.
No way. :p

[Jude]

except China
And a few others.

[Against Miik!]

Actually, they still leave the nudity out.

Which, in retrospect, makes zero sense. If you're going to show the film unedited, go all the way.

Not to mention I was watching Scarface the other day and I saw Pacino get ripped to shreds by machine guns but I can't see a titty.

[Reaganista]

I don't see why anyone should really want to watch anything except party programming.

by this of course I mean Taradise, party at the palms, wild on, etc.

[Against Miik!]

I don't see why anyone should really want to watch anything except party programming.

by this of course I mean Taradise, party at the palms, wild on, etc.

Does The Hills count? Because I am totally obsessed. Lauren is totally gonna lose her job.

[Reaganista]

the content should really be at least 50% party for it to be acceptable.

I don't know about that show

[Against Miik!]

the content should really be at least 50% party for it to be acceptable.

on the series premiere she was given a task to gaurd the vip area at this one party. And her and her friends went out one night. I'll call it acceptable. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Hababi]

We already have executions.


We have rodent extermination, too. I don't want to see it on tv, and that fact doesn't make it wrong. Human rodents aren't much different.



How much worse would showing them on TV be? If anything it would turn people against capital punishment and we could outlaw it like the rest of the civilized world.


So you think that over half the world is uncivil?

I don't consider Brazil, Chile, India, Singapore, Israel, etc. to be uncivil. And I don't consider Mozambique to be a beacon of progress in the world.

[Steerpike]

We have rodent extermination, too. I don't want to see it on tv, and that fact doesn't make it wrong. Human rodents aren't much different.

So the only thing keeping you from watching this **** is the fact that it's not on TV?

[Hababi]

So the only thing keeping you from watching this **** is the fact that it's not on TV?


The only thing that keeps it from affecting the culture of society is that it's not on tv.

[Steerpike]

The only thing that keeps it from affecting the culture of society is that it's not on tv.

So did everyone but me magically lose the power to turn off their TVs?

[LittlePound]

i would like to mention just one thing:
sure, everyone has the power to turn of their tv.
but, "harmful material" may still be viewed. How? Well unless all the material deemed "harmful" was limited to only a few select channels, then you could watching some program on FOX or ABC or NBC and turn you're tv off, couple of hours later turn it in, and then there is some "harmful" materical in that present program, but you weren't watching it, you just turned the tv on. So just b/c you can turn it off doesn't eliminate exposure to "harmful" material.

[Steerpike]

i would like to mention just one thing:
sure, everyone has the power to turn of their tv.
but, "harmful material" may still be viewed. How? Well unless all the material deemed "harmful" was limited to only a few select channels, then you could watching some program on FOX or ABC or NBC and turn you're tv off, couple of hours later turn it in, and then there is some "harmful" materical in that present program, but you weren't watching it, you just turned the tv on. So just b/c you can turn it off doesn't eliminate exposure to "harmful" material.

Boo ****in' hoo. You could be flipping channels and come across Kill Bill as well, what's your point?

If you get to make a law about violence on TV because you might accidentally stumble on it, then I get to make a law about televangelists on TV because I might accidentally stumble on it.

But I won't, because I'm not that helpless.

[Mr. Ron]

I do think TV now a days shows a bit too much and go a little too far.

[Steerpike]

I do think TV now a days shows a bit too much and go a little too far.

My problem with TV nowadays is that it sucks. The shows are all either bland, banal, or intellectually insulting. So I protest by not watching it. Jesus, am I the only one who has reached this paradigm?

[Hababi]

So did everyone but me magically lose the power to turn off their TVs?


That doesn't make it acceptable to allow.

[Mr. Ron]

My problem with TV nowadays is that it sucks. The shows are all either bland, banal, or intellectually insulting. So I protest by not watching it. Jesus, am I the only one who has reached this paradigm?
Nah, I agree. There are too many shows now that are just stupid for the sake of being stupid. I just watch the History channel, discovery channel and HBO sometimes.

[Jharaski]

Nah, I agree. There are too many shows now that are just stupid for the sake of being stupid. I just watch the History channel, discovery channel and HBO sometimes.

Hey, do you watch Cash Cab? Man, that's some quality programming.

[LittlePound]

Boo ****in' hoo. You could be flipping channels and come across Kill Bill as well, what's your point?

If you get to make a law about violence on TV because you might accidentally stumble on it, then I get to make a law about televangelists on TV because I might accidentally stumble on it.

But I won't, because I'm not that helpless.
My point is, when flipping channels, it is you changing to the channel to a different program, you can be held responsible. But you really have no control over what program is on when you turn on the tv (except, by picking hte channel you want it on before turning it off in the first place). I'm just saying, sure you have the power to turn you're tv off, but that doesn't stop exposure.

I'm not saying the government should make laws that ban every tv show except Tom and Jerry here, but i am saying that TV has gone a little to far in present times and it does need to be regulated. Saying that "you can turn it off so why does it need to be regulated" isn't a very good excuse becuase that doesn't eliminate exposure to the material that they would want to "turn off". Sure you can tell people not to watch tv, but that in effect could also have an adverse effect on society seeing as the tv and hte internet are two most popular ways to communicate what's going on in the world today. That's just as insane as people boycotting driving ,period, in results to high gas prices. It wouldn't work society needs people to drive to function. Now, you could carpool, take buses, etc. but you couldn't completely stop driving, just like if the TV were completely unregulated it'd be so full of crap that some people would have to completely stop watching television, which, is just as crazy as not driving.

[Mr. Ron]

Hey, do you watch Cash Cab? Man, that's some quality programming.
I'm not familiar with it.

[Jharaski]

My point is, when flipping channels, it is you changing to the channel to a different program, you can be held responsible. But you really have no control over what program is on when you turn on the tv (except, by picking hte channel you want it on before turning it off in the first place). I'm just saying, sure you have the power to turn you're tv off, but that doesn't stop exposure.

I'm not saying the government should make laws that ban every tv show except Tom and Jerry here, but i am saying that TV has gone a little to far in present times and it does need to be regulated. Saying that "you can turn it off so why does it need to be regulated" isn't a very good excuse becuase that doesn't eliminate exposure to the material that they would want to "turn off". Sure you can tell people not to watch tv, but that in effect could also have an adverse effect on society seeing as the tv and hte internet are two most popular ways to communicate what's going on in the world today. That's just as insane as people boycotting driving period, in results to high gas prices. It wouldn't work society needs people to drive to function. Now, you could carpool, take buses, etc. but you couldn't completely stop driving, just like if the TV were completely unregulated it'd be so full of crap that some people would have to completely stop watching television, which, is just as crazy as not driving.


Or just leave it on a network that won't show such things. I'm sure they won't all show executions all night long. Oh my, and what if when you're walking somewhere you hear someone say "ah ****!" We gotta limit that exposure too!

[Jharaski]

I'm not familiar with it.
The Discovery Channel airs it. It's about this mammoth of a cab in New York City, and it picks people up (like normal cabs do)but... but! The cab driver just sits there for a second, then hits this button and these lights go off in the cab. Then he tells them they're on the cash cab and they can win money. So he'll drive you to your destination, asking you questions, and you get money. Three strikes though, and you're out... of the cab. And of the money you collected so far. It's a cool show.

[Steerpike]

That doesn't make it acceptable to allow.

In Japan you can access graphic violence on TV at prime time. Their society hasn't collapsed yet.

In Italy, you can get free pron on TV after 11. Hot damn! They seem to be doing okay to me.

I'm just saying, sure you have the power to turn you're tv off, but that doesn't stop exposure.

Nothing is going to stop anybody from being exposed to things that upset them. But that doesn't make the victim mentality okay.

[LittlePound]

Or just leave it on a network that won't show such things. I'm sure they won't all show executions all night long. Oh my, and what if when you're walking somewhere you hear someone say "ah ****!" We gotta limit that exposure too!
that's why i said they would have to limit the "harmful" material to select channels. That would solve hte problem i mentioned.

but, "harmful material" may still be viewed. How? Well unless all the material deemed "harmful" was limited to only a few select channels, then you could watching some program on FOX or ABC or NBC and turn you're tv off, couple of hours later turn it in, and then there is some "harmful" materical in that present program, but you weren't watching it, you just turned the tv on. So just b/c you can turn it off doesn't eliminate exposure to "harmful" material.

[Jharaski]

that's why i said they would have to limit the "harmful" material to select channels. That would solve hte problem i mentioned.

We're in agreement then, though you made yourself seem a little harder on it than that.

[Steerpike]

that's why i said they would have to limit the "harmful" material to select channels. That would solve hte problem i mentioned.

Well, I believe that to a large extent that would be automatic. Many channels know who their bread and butter are, and they aren't going to want to alienate or piss them off.

[Cain]

I'm not saying the government should make laws that ban every tv show except Tom and Jerry here,

Even that's pretty bad. A cat getting his head routinely flattened by frying pans, crushed into walls by tables, and blown up with dynamite? Hardly wholesome.

[Reaganista]

I don't see why executions shouldn't be televised.
I'd watch em.

Human rodents aren't much different
Dk reference?

right on!

[Jharaski]

I don't see why executions shouldn't be televised.
I'd watch em.


Dk reference?

right on!

I liked the old Tway better. :(

But new one hates freedom more than I do apparently.

[Reaganista]

seriously?

I thought the party programming was hilarious

[Jude]

My problem with TV nowadays is that it sucks. The shows are all either bland, banal, or intellectually insulting. So I protest by not watching it. Jesus, am I the only one who has reached this paradigm?
Nope. Although the reason I don't watch it is because I grew up without a TV in the house and don't enjoy it that much (AND I think most of it is stupid). But of course there are always a few shows that are the exceptions and worthwhile.

That doesn't make it acceptable to allow.The first amendment makes it unacceptable to disallow, for one thing.

[Iskandar]

My problem with TV nowadays is that it sucks. The shows are all either bland, banal, or intellectually insulting. So I protest by not watching it. Jesus, am I the only one who has reached this paradigm?
Nope. I watch one show regularly, and sometimes movies.

[Hababi]

I liked the old Tway better.

But new one hates freedom more than I do apparently.


I'm beginning to wonder whether the old tway was just a gimmick, too :p

[Reaganista]

I would say the real tway is somewhere in the middle

but he thinks it's more fun to take extreme views and then parody himself

ALL tways hate jesus and fetuses, though

[Iskandar]

I would say the real tway is somewhere in the middle

but he thinks it's more fun to take extreme views and then parody himself

ALL tways hate jesus and fetuses, though
I like Comrade Tway better though. He's ever so polite to me.

Obnoxious Neoliberal Tway is honestly kind of a jerk.

[Danger Bird]

I believe that the government really doesn't belong in determining what can and cannot be said or showed on television or radio. If I want to watch a show which says "bull****" then I should be entitled to watch it without having it censored or having to get the uncut series on DVD.

I see you're a Penn & Teller fan. :chug:

I don't see why executions shouldn't be televised.
I'd watch em.

I guess I agree with this to a point. Not that it would be really entertaining, but television is often a projection of society. If executions are really happening, and you find that horrible, don't ignore it or protest the fact that it's on TV. Protest the death penalty if you think it's that bad. Hell, I'll march with you.

[Jharaski]

I see you're a Penn & Teller fan. :chug:

No, but should I be? :p

[Reaganista]

I guess I agree with this to a point. Not that it would be really entertaining, but television is often a projection of society. If executions are really happening, and you find that horrible, don't ignore it or protest the fact that it's on TV. Protest the death penalty if you think it's that bad. Hell, I'll march with you.

the death penalty is unethical when employed by the bourgeois to oppress the third world
but after the revolution we may have to execute 5-25% of the world's population. but no gain, no loss anyway since we have more than enough people to establish a worker's paradise already.