Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fuck the FCC
OK, if things were not goddamn absurd before, they sure as hell are now.
Ayn_Randian|12.10.04 @ 7:10PM|#
I bet Bush and Powell are just mad that the pregnant woman's
"baby daddy" was nowhere in sight.
Where's thoreau? Would this be worse under Kerry too?
Here's the link|12.10.04 @ 7:27PM|#
In somewhat related news, apparently the puritans are trying out
censorship by lawsuit.
Wasn't thoreau asking about some similar hypothetical recently?
|12.10.04 @ 7:30PM|#
I watched the opening ceremonies, and, if I remember correctly,
there was a nude statue.
...When Ashcroft showed us the way it was going to be, we all
laughed at him. We were laughing for all the wrong reasons.
|12.10.04 @ 7:41PM|#
It has to get ridiculous before it can get better.
I say that we complain to the FCC every time anything slightly
offensive is on TV. Maybe when people can't watch TV anymore
they'll start to care :)
|12.10.04 @ 7:54PM|#
During women's team volleyball, one of the americans was not
audible but was in a full-screen front-on headshot dropping
effusive f-bomb. I thought this article was going to cite that...
My girlfriend and I enjoyed it immensely.
quick, no one tll the fcc!
|12.10.04 @ 8:06PM|#
"It also seeks damages of up to $74,500 for each of the
thousands of people who bought the music at Wal-Marts in
Maryland."
People should get $74,500 because their 12 year old may have heard
the word "fuck"?
Too bizarre to seem real, too real to be funny.
|12.10.04 @ 8:18PM|#
"The Olympics opening ceremony on Aug. 14 in Athens included
actors and actresses depicting two lovers dancing in the sea, a
goddess of fertility and a pregnant woman whose belly glowed,
according to an account posted on MSNBC�s Web site."
Ha! When I saw the scene involving the "two lovers", I joked to
myself about how Michael Powell & co. were going to make NBC
pay for it. Sadly, no hypothetical crackdown is absurd enough for
sarcasm when it comes to these airwave Torquemadas.
There's actually a part of me that wants to see the FCC fine them
here, if only because it could demonstrate so brilliantly to
millions how intolerant "the land of the free" can be relative to
other Western nations on matters of human sexuality and lifestyle
choices. But I think the American street is by and large too
fixated on its image of itself to bother to notice.
|12.10.04 @ 8:25PM|#
Eric II,
The "other Western nations" already know how absurdly intolerant
and Puritan the US is. The Janet Jackson incident and the
subsequent reaction made us a laughing stock all over the world
(except in places as backwards as us).
|12.10.04 @ 8:44PM|#
Yet somehow, parents are assumed to be responsible enough to protect their children from what is by far the most violent, offensive programming on television: the 6:00 news.
|12.10.04 @ 9:22PM|#
How many viewer complaints must the FCC receive before it takes action? Soon people should collude to complain about the Fox News or whoever is the popular whipping boy of the month..
|12.10.04 @ 9:54PM|#
Now, there were a few comical reports about how 99.5 percent of FCC complaints come as form e-mails from the Parents Television Council. On Thursday, my newspaper received an e-mail defending said form e-mails (hey, PTC is looking out for us), then I got another that morning, and a third in the afternoon -- all identical, except for the return addresses. Form letters defending form letters ... brilliant.
|12.10.04 @ 10:19PM|#
It is time to flood the FCC with complaints. Every show, every
commercial -- on every broadcast station, everywhere -- should
generate a complaint.
Some possible outcomes:
1) The FCC is overwhelmed, and can no longer process complaints,
or
2) The networks get tired of FCC bullshit and sue, sue, sue for
their right to freely broadcast and the courts (finally) agree that
the 1st Amendment trumps other considerations, or
3) The FCC cripples broadcast TV, making it unprofitable;
viewership migrates to unregulated (for now) cable/satellite.
So, anyone with me on Operation: Leave No Broadcast
Uncomplained?
|12.10.04 @ 11:12PM|#
The Deluge,
I don't know, man, that sounds like a lot of work. Is freedom to
actually watch decent programming on broadcast TV worth getting off
my ass for? Especially when I already have cable.
|12.10.04 @ 11:31PM|#
It isn't *that* much work.
First, compose yourself a form letter in the most rightous,
offended voice you can muster. Just leave spaces for the
"offensive" content, the date, program, and broadcaster.
Second, keep a pen and paper by the couch. Anytime you see
something on TV you like -- I mean, find offensive ;) -- jot it
down.
Lastly, when you have a few minutes, enter the details of the
offensive programs into your form letter, and send it off to the
FCC.
Once your form letter is composed, it shouldn't take more than a
minute per "indecent" incident.
Imagine if we could get a million people to send an e-mail each day
complaining about something on broadcast TV. What would be the
result?
|12.10.04 @ 11:43PM|#
Deluge... maybe you should make a website that provides these
form letters, including ones all filled in with specific
complaints. Then all I'd have to do is visit your site, copy the
text into an email, write my name, and hit "send". Heck you could
even have visitors fill in the specific complaints.
Or, if you wanted to be *really* effective, you might just have an
automated name/address generator and you could send out thousands
of complaints all by yourself. Wonder if that would work...
|12.11.04 @ 12:01AM|#
Andy D said:
"Or, if you wanted to be *really* effective, you might just have an
automated name/address generator and you could send out thousands
of complaints all by yourself. Wonder if that would work..."
But, but, but... that would be SPAMMING! And we all know spamming
is illegal, immoral, and fattening!
|12.11.04 @ 12:18AM|#
AnonyCow, if you have a laptop with a wireless connection, or
even a WebTV device, you won't even have to get off the couch. You
might need one of those dogs you can train to bring you beer and
Cheetos.
Why don't we complain to the FCC everytime a show has Mike Powell
on as a guest, and he says something advocating the restriction of
our freedom. I think that's pretty effin' obscene.
Kevin
|12.11.04 @ 12:24AM|#
If this gets Seventh Heaven off the air, I'm all for it.
Of course, it could be an insidious plot to drive all over the air
broadcasting out of business. The government will have plenty of
bandwidth for all the miniature spy devices they're going to plant
in our butts. Then government agents (computerized, of course) will
be able to monitor our vital statistics (for our health), what we
eat and drink (for our health), our location (for our safety) and
what we see, hear, touch, taste, feel and think (for our safety and
our health). Maybe Joe is right and George Bush is Greg
Stillson.
I need a tin hat.
QFNC cos. V
|12.11.04 @ 4:48AM|#
The "other Western nations" already know how absurdly
intolerant and Puritan the US is
You are, I trust, aware that hardcore porn is illegal in the UK and
tightly restricted in Canada, right? Just checking. You seemed
unaware that, while we're prudes compared to the Continent, we're
pretty much the sex fiends of the English-speaking world.
But sure, the United States is Puritan, inasmuch as pornography and
profanity are only available on cable, in books, in magazines, in
comic books, on video, on DVD, on CD-ROM, in videogames, on trading
cards and on the Internet, as opposed to being available on cable,
in books, in magazines, in comic books, on video, on DVD, on
CD-ROM, in videogames, on trading cards, on the Internet and on
broadcast TV. There are few nations (if any) which have, overall,
less restrictive speech laws than us. We just have restrictions on
public broadcasts of sexual material. Most of the rest of the
western world has content-based restrictions on *private*
political, religious, and scientific speech. Even the travesty that
is McCain-Feingold doesn't compare to the draconian
political-content laws of much of continental Europe.
What good is the trivial culture advantage of being able to see
tits on TV without paying for cable... when you have to clear your
personal beliefs with the thought police?
Mark Draughn|12.11.04 @ 6:37AM|#
I am continually amazed at the capacity of petty bureaucrats to
find new and more demeaning ways to fuck with people. I'm not
talking about the inquiry itself, I'm talking about this:
The Federal Communications Commission's enforcement bureau has asked NBC for tapes of the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics,
They asked them for tapes? The FCC wants to run this giant
censorship program but they're too goddamned lazy to tape the
broadcasts themselves? What the fuck is that?
|12.11.04 @ 7:17AM|#
Wouldn't it be cool if NBC responded in this way:
"Hmmmmm... tape of the opening ceremony, tape of the opening
ceremony. Damn! Now where did I put that... I know I had it back in
September. I loaned it to Jim but he gave it back when we met at
Sparks about a month and a half ago. Damn! I don't see it here, did
you check with the guy over at Madison?"
|12.11.04 @ 8:04AM|#
I hope that Colin Powell -- who is rumored to be trading up his
Secretary post for a talking heads gig -- lands a job in some kind
of network broadcasting.
And I hope his son, Michael Powell, stays on board at the
FCC.
The rest of this delicious hypothetical writes itself....
|12.11.04 @ 9:23AM|#
If a person watching a network program via their cable system sees something they deem complaint worthy, does the complaint still count? Since, well, it's not over the "public airwaves".
|12.11.04 @ 10:33AM|#
Dan,
Most Western countries do not have - as you suggest -
pre-broadcast, pre-publication, etc. censorship (in the U.S. we
call it "prior restraint"); they do have post-broadcast fines,
etc., however, which is an entirely different animal
altogether.
|12.11.04 @ 10:38AM|#
Speaking of the potential for prudery:
Vt. gov. wants nude statue out of Statehouse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697837/
|12.11.04 @ 10:54AM|#
My boyfriend, who works in TV, tolds me last night that the
president of CBS is refusing to pay the Janet Jackson fine, and is
threatening to take this to court. Apparently this news is over a
month old, but I'd never heard of it until last night; he only
knows because he read it in a trade magazine.
I like Deluge's idea. What we should ALL do is complain about EVERY
SINGLE BROADCAST SHOW we see. For example: did you know that the
Teletubbies features two males and two females who live together
without benefit of marriage? (I can't complain about that since I
'Live in Sin' myself, but one of you married folks could write the
Teletubby complaint.) Did you know that last week's Simpsons ended
with a joke suggesting that an unmarried woman was giving oral sex
to an alcoholic piloting a helicopter?
The more I think about this idea the more I'm convinced it could
work, if we got enough people involved. If any of y'all are
interested, email me.
|12.11.04 @ 10:59AM|#
Jennifer,
It has been reported in the general press but it has not been
particularly emphasized. As I recall, I read about it in the
NYT.
|12.11.04 @ 11:01AM|#
What WOULD happen if the FCC got complaints about every single show broadcast? Would they have to stop taking complaints altogether, or at least set out clear guidelines on what is or is not acceptable?
|12.11.04 @ 11:26AM|#
Jennifer, but you're the ~perfect~ person to complain about TV characters living in sin. Afterall, their dark influence has caused you to follow suit, leading to much personal shame and guilt.
|12.11.04 @ 11:42AM|#
Andy-
You're right! Here is a true-life timeline of my descent into
perdition:
1997-grad student living alone, quite happy with my hermitic
existence, except that I occasionally go on a date with the man
with whom I now live with.
1997, later--I am told by said man, "You've GOT to see this weird
kids' show that's come out in Britain." See first-ever Teletubbies
video.
2000-ish- I'm living with guy I'm not married to. America starts
decline.
|12.11.04 @ 11:45AM|#
Let's ask congress to abolish the FCC. If they say "No", then we
can ask that they at least take away any regulatory power that the
FCC has over content.
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
|12.11.04 @ 12:11PM|#
Why does this suprise anyone who accepts the concept of public tv? There's really no arguement if you accept that. It's like arguing about prayer in public schools. What we need to do is to banish the concept of "public".
raymond|12.11.04 @ 12:16PM|#
...the draconian political-content laws of much of
continental Europe.
What good is the trivial culture advantage of being able to see
tits on TV without paying for cable... when you have to clear your
personal beliefs with the thought police?
roflmao
Yeah right.
Someone's becoming my-country-right-or-wrong-ly predictable.
We just have restrictions on public broadcasts of sexual
material.
"Sexual materiel"! hohohohahahahehehe. Pregnant light-shining
ladies. Sheriff-badged breast. hahahahohoho. NAKED STATUES!
ANKLES!
|12.11.04 @ 12:18PM|#
Why does this suprise anyone who accepts the concept of
public tv?
What does this have to do with PBS?
|12.11.04 @ 1:36PM|#
"But sure, the United States is Puritan, inasmuch as pornography
and profanity are only available on cable, in books, in magazines,
in comic books, on video, on DVD, on CD-ROM, in videogames, on
trading cards and on the Internet"
I can't speak for andy, but my comments about the relative
intolerance of America on sexuality and lifestyle issues weren't
about restrictions on porn, per se. They were about a general lack
of a live and let live mentality when it comes to social/cultural
freedom. This relates not only to the FCC's nannyism and obscenity
laws, but also to a range of other issues that include drinking
laws, drug laws, the rights of teenagers, and more recently, gay
rights.
And since we're on the subject, I don't think anyone who hasn't
gotten high on the Bob Jones/Ayatollah Khomeinei brand of
theocratic crack would refer to anything that went on during the
Opening Ceremony of the Olympics as falling within the realm of
pornography. Which is partly why I suggested that an FCC fine
related to the broadcast would demonstrate America's relative
cultural intolerance so magnificently.
"There are few nations (if any) which have, overall, less
restrictive speech laws than us."
Though it's irrelevant to the issue at hand, I agree that the US is
better than many other parts of the West (and most other parts of
the world, period) when it comes to respecting political and
religious freedom, even with McCain-Feingold. But we mostly have
the 1st Amendment and those evil activist judges to thank for that.
God knows what would happen in certain towns, counties, and states
if the final arbitrers on this matter were the votes of the masses
and the populist, authoritarian numbskulls that they elect.
|12.11.04 @ 1:37PM|#
"Sexual materiel"! hohohohahahahehehe. Pregnant
light-shining ladies. Sheriff-badged breast.
hahahahohoho.
Um, raymond, I'm not sure what you smoked before posting that --
but the idea that a woman's naked breasts are "sexual material" is
agreed upon pretty much worldwide among heterosexual men, and has
been for at least the past ten thousand years or so.
As for the "pregnant shining light lady", there is thus far exactly
zero evidence that she's what provoked the investigation. That was
pure speculation on Media Week's part.
|12.11.04 @ 1:49PM|#
I just posted here, and my post vanished. Did anyone see that? That is irritating. I too want to be heard.
raymond|12.11.04 @ 1:53PM|#
(This is not a defence of Europe.)
I've always thought that the leaders of repressive societies must
consider their citizens unable to control themselves. It's as if
you'd all turn into sexual predators if you saw an ankle, a face, a
breast. As if a glass of wine at 16 would see youth rampaging and
raping in the streets. As if smoking dope would create a nation of
Lotus Eaters. Horny Lotus Eaters.
I suppose what those leaders are afraid of is that the citizens are
like _them_.
The philosophical underpinning is... There is no free will. The
people must be protected from themselves. The only thing keeping us
from total depravity is the state.
So. Rather than educating kids to freedom, these leaders ram DARE
and abstinence and fear down their throats.
You can't watch the video because if you do, you'll go out and do
DIRTY THINGS!
|12.11.04 @ 1:59PM|#
I'll say it again, and see if it stick this time.
I don't want to give any of you communists credit who say that the
US is less free than other European countries.
But, when I was in Saudi Arabia, there was an editorial in Arab
News about a 50 cent video that was shown on the German MTV
channel. The video was the unsensored version that they don't show
back in the states.
The article said something to the effect of: "How come we are shown
infidel sexual videos, that they aren't even allowed to show in the
infidel country that made the video."
And as I read it I was thinking "yeah, WTF? Why can't I watch that
back home?".
|12.11.04 @ 1:59PM|#
I can't speak for andy, but my comments about the relative
intolerance of America on sexuality and lifestyle issues weren't
about restrictions on porn, per se. They were about a general lack
of a live and let live mentality when it comes to social/cultural
freedom.
Could you give an example of that? Because pretty much any
lifestyle you care to follow that doesn't involve harming children
or animals is legal here. They're just not all granted official
government sanction and support at the national level. If you want
to live in a commune, engage in group sex, and worship Satan,
you're free to do so.
This relates not only to the FCC's nannyism and obscenity laws,
but also to a range of other issues that include drinking laws,
drug laws, the rights of teenagers, and more recently, gay
rights
How are we worse than the Western average with respect to drinking,
drugs, and the rights of teenagers? And what do you mean "more
recently, gay rights" given that both legal and public support for
gay rights have sharply expanded during the last few years? The
only major area in which we lag behind the west is in legal
recognition of gay marriage -- but legal recognition of marriage is
not a right. The legal institution of marriage just another
government entitlement program, and gays are being denied their
place at the trough.
But we mostly have the 1st Amendment and those evil activist
judges to thank for that.
Polls have shown that Americans are less willing to ban offensive
political and religious speech than Brits, French, or Germans are.
It isn't just the judges and the first amendment.
fyodor|12.11.04 @ 2:03PM|#
raymond,
I agree that repression over things sexual is born of a fear that
people will lose control in the face of certain influences. But
let's not pin this all on "leaders," convenient as that may be.
Those leaders are merely sucking up to constituents who favor the
repression of their fellow citizen.
Also, while I agree that Dan's perpetual defense of America against
all those who might criticize her can get old, but let's not lose
sight that he's generally responding to America-bashers whose
nationally-oriented carps come first.
That said, Dan, the bashers didn't say that America was worse than
other countries about free speech in general, only that we were too
easily upset about public sexuality. And maybe we are?
|12.11.04 @ 2:16PM|#
I kind of Agree with both Dan and Raymond.
Incase I was unclear the Saudi editorial was complaining because
they believed that the US Govt was offering its citizens more
protection from harmful images than the Saudi Govt is.
Which I assume is the same approach as the nanny staters back in
the states.
I see the porn prohibitors as being from the same mindset as the
drug prohibitors and the alcohol prohibitors.
Where does one man get the right to tell another man what he can
enjoy on his own. And what can a SWAT team stop a young'un from
doing that that the parents can't?
And yes the Europeans are worse, if only in the way they understand
the problem.
fyodor|12.11.04 @ 2:53PM|#
Although he should have said differently (is "public broadcast spectrum" the correct terminology?), wellfellow is correct about the heart of the problem, and it explains much of the rift between what Dan and raymond see. The US has a bill of rights that despite pressures against it still does a decent job of protecting citizens in the private sphere. But the broadcast spectrum is considered public, and thus not protected the same way. I suspect Europe has the same concept (someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong), but they're noticeably less antagonized about sexual imagery on those so-called public airwaves, and thus their broadcasts are more free.
James Anderson Merritt|12.11.04 @ 3:47PM|#
Fyodor says, "The US has a bill of rights that despite pressures
against it still does a decent job of protecting citizens in the
private sphere. But the broadcast spectrum is considered public,
and thus not protected the same way."
But what about cable and broadband? The US already exerts
regulatory control in these areas and wants more, as has been
demonstrated by numerous hit-and-run postings over the past couple
of years. Even in a context where the "public commons" argument
cannot possibly be made, lawmakers want to control terms of
commerce and impose censorship, bill of rights be damned. Even in
the broadcast and satellite arenas, the "public commons" and
"scarcity" arguments no longer hold up; I would find free speech
and free press arguments to hold more water in the modern day. Yet
federal control of those channels is tightening, not loosening.
|12.11.04 @ 4:26PM|#
"How are we worse than the Western average with respect to
drinking, drugs, and the rights of teenagers?"
Hmm, let me count the ways:
1. Drinking age and its active enforcement
2. Drinking in public
3. Marijuana decriminilization/legalization
4. Penalties for recreational drug use
5. Privacy/civil liberties infringements in the name of cracking
down on drug use
6. Teenage curfews
7. Age of consent and its active enforcement
I'm sure I'd think of other ones if I took more time to consider
the matter.
"And what do you mean "more recently, gay rights" given that both
legal and public support for gay rights have sharply expanded
during the last few years? The only major area in which we lag
behind the west is in legal recognition of gay marriage"
Well, that's a pretty big difference. And it's not just the
existence of the difference, but the fact that much of the country
appears to be at least a full generation away from doing away with
it. Then there's the fact that if it wasn't for the Supreme Court,
sodomy laws would still be in place in much of the country. Yes,
you can say that they were rarely applied, but people did get
trapped by them every now and then. And it's hard to think of many
places in the West whose voters would consider keeping them on the
books.
"Polls have shown that Americans are less willing to ban offensive
political and religious speech than Brits, French, or Germans are.
It isn't just the judges and the first amendment."
Maybe, but I'm sure that if given the opportunity, there are plenty
of right-wing and left-wing locales throughout the country that
would find some very creative ways to piss all over the rights
protected by the 1st Amendment.
|12.11.04 @ 4:31PM|#
"How are we worse than the Western average with respect to
drinking, drugs, and the rights of teenagers?"
Hmm, let me count the ways:
1. Drinking age and its active enforcement
2. Drinking in public
3. Marijuana decriminilization/legalization
4. Penalties for recreational drug use
5. Privacy/civil liberties infringements in the name of cracking
down on drug use
6. Teenage curfews
7. Age of consent and its active enforcement
I'm sure I'd think of other ones if I took more time to consider
the matter.
"And what do you mean "more recently, gay rights" given that both
legal and public support for gay rights have sharply expanded
during the last few years? The only major area in which we lag
behind the west is in legal recognition of gay marriage"
Well, that's a pretty big difference. And it's not just the
existence of the difference, but the fact that much of the country
appears to be at least a full generation away from doing away with
it. Then there's the fact that if it wasn't for the Supreme Court,
sodomy laws would still be in place in much of the country. Yes,
you can say that they were rarely applied, but people did get
trapped by them every now and then. And it's hard to think of many
places in the West whose voters would consider keeping them on the
books.
"Polls have shown that Americans are less willing to ban offensive
political and religious speech than Brits, French, or Germans are.
It isn't just the judges and the first amendment."
Maybe, but I'm sure that if given the opportunity, there are plenty
of right-wing and left-wing locales throughout the country that
would find some very creative ways to piss all over the rights
protected by the 1st Amendment.
|12.11.04 @ 6:41PM|#
Dan,
Because pretty much any lifestyle you care to follow that
doesn't involve harming children or animals is legal
here.
Clearly polygamy (whatever variety it may come in) is not legal in
the U.S.; nor is recreational drug use generally legal; nor may one
buy alcohol in the dry counties in the U.S.; nor may one create
faux-snuff films (the DOJ is currently prosecuting a number of
creators and distributors of such material); nor may one import or
sell absinthe in the U.S.; nor may one in many U.S. states use
drugs like peyote for religious purposes; etc. There are a lot of
"lifestyles" which are clearly illegal in the U.S. to be involved
in.
Polls have shown that Americans are less willing to ban
offensive political and religious speech than Brits, French, or
Germans are.
Care to give us a citation? Given your earlier erroneous comment on
the nature of "prior restraint" laws in Europe I think I'll need
more proof than what you've provided.
The only major area in which we lag behind the west is in legal
recognition of gay marriage...
That's not really true. There is entire array of things from the
sort of privilege against testimony associated with married
couples, ability of homosexuals (as singles or not) to adopt, etc.
where the U.S. lags behind. Anyway, marraige is far more than an
"entitlement program" though there are entitlement aspects to it
(as usual your hyperbolic manner overstates the reality of the
situation).
fyodor,
Sexuallly explicit material on broadcast TV (the kind you can pick
up with rabbit ears) is pretty common in Europe. Then again, I've
also witnessed political speech on TV in France that I would never
never see on the air in the U.S. - be it communists, fascists, etc.
What happens of course is that someone says something which
violates the law (e.g., something which is racist, etc.) and they
get fined a 1,000 euros.
|12.11.04 @ 6:52PM|#
Another for the list: nor may one buy dildos and other like devices in certain U.S. states (e.g., Texas and Alabama). Indeed a woman who has parties for housewives geared towards such devices, etc. was recently arrested in Texas.
fyodor|12.11.04 @ 8:55PM|#
GG,
Is French TV run by the state? If not, I would suppose the larger
breadth of views expressed on it would be attributed to cultural
differences. Good to be reminded that they can also play a role in
"what is allowed" in addition to legal issues....
|12.11.04 @ 10:21PM|#
So many of you guys are so obsessed with sex that you must by
very ugly, stupid, or just plain nerds. God, just get laid
already!
Yeah, the FCC should fuck off!
Yeah, the US is a bit more puritanical than Europe.
So, I ask:
Would you rather pay a 55% tax rate?
Would you like to go to prison for home-schooling your
children?
Would you like to go to prison for saying something negative about
Islam?
Would you like to be told by the government that you must have your
store closed by 6 pm and all day on Sunday?
Would you like the government to prevent your children from playing
outside because it might disturb your neighbors--during the
daytime?!
Would you like to be subject to conscription?
I could go on, but this should give you a little taste of
"European" freedom. Actually, these are all German laws. Yeah, you
can see a little titty on the TV. Big fucking deal! I'd much rather
see a real-life tit. (My German wife does miss the "tasteful"
soft-porn she used to watch on German TV. We don't have
Cinemax.)
Grow up people! Not being able to see sex on TV is NOT a big deal.
Maybe it is for those that can't get any, but fuck, renting a DVD
ain't that expensive.
|12.11.04 @ 10:29PM|#
"I can't speak for andy, but my comments about the relative
intolerance of America on sexuality and lifestyle issues weren't
about restrictions on porn, per se. They were about a general lack
of a live and let live mentality when it comes to social/cultural
freedom. This relates not only to the FCC's nannyism and obscenity
laws, but also to a range of other issues that include drinking
laws, drug laws, the rights of teenagers, and more recently, gay
rights."
Spot on. In my state an MIP (minor in possession) results in an
increase in CAR INSURANCE rates, even if the kid is nowhere near
his car.
And I remember reading a couple years ago about a young man in high
school who went to a party where a bunch of kids were getting
wasted. He was the DD and drove his friends home safely... AND THEN
HE GOT KICKED OFF HIS SCHOOL SOCCER TEAM AND SUSPENDED! FOR NOT
GETTING DRUNK AND SAVING HIS FRIENDS' ASSES!
Only in America.
|12.11.04 @ 10:34PM|#
Bill,
No one is saying (at least I'm not) that anywhere else on this
planet is some libertarian haven. That's not the point. I'll admit,
we live in the greatest and most free country in the world, in
spite of all its flaws. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't complain
about those flaws and seek to improve them.
|12.12.04 @ 12:05AM|#
Andy,
I agree. I just kind of lose it when Americans start saying how
great Europe is. You should see their faces when I inform them that
in France you are considered guilty until proven innocent, that if
you are middle class in Germany, you are likely to pay as much or
more for (government-mandated) health insurance than here, that one
reason why their drug costs are lower is that they simply do not
allow expensive (and sometimes life-saving) drugs into their
markets, etc. There are many things about Europe that I love, but
their governments are far inferior to ours, especially with respect
to individual liberty.
|12.12.04 @ 12:10AM|#
"Grow up people! Not being able to see sex on TV is NOT a big
deal. Maybe it is for those that can't get any, but fuck, renting a
DVD ain't that expensive."
Suggesting that those who get upset over the FCC's censorship are
driven by a desire to watch porn on TV is as absurd as suggesting
that those who get upset over hate speech laws are driven by a
desire to read neo-Nazi propoganda.
|12.12.04 @ 12:15AM|#
"I just kind of lose it when Americans start saying how great
Europe is."
Who here has suggested that Europe is a libertarian utopia? The
arguments made involving positive comments towards Europe have only
suggested that America can be less liberal in some
respects, not in all respects, and not necessarily
overall.
|12.12.04 @ 12:21AM|#
Andy,
" In my state an MIP (minor in possession) results in an increase
in CAR INSURANCE rates"
How does that work? That is fucked up and a half! I am assuming
that the state govt forces that, because otherwise it would merely
be an issue of changing your insurance company.
How can the state force insurance companys to have rules like that?
Doesn't that go against everything we as a nation believe in. Isn't
that unethical, and not to mention unsound economic policy?
|12.12.04 @ 1:21AM|#
Would you like the government to prevent your children from
playing outside because it might disturb your neighbors--during the
daytime
Bill,
My friends and I got kicked out of a park for disturbing people. We
were playing football and there was no swearing. The police officer
that told us to leave said that he would've let us stay but one
jerk-off kept complaining. We weren't being loud. People are
statist bastards here too.
|12.12.04 @ 2:18AM|#
Interesting note:
The UK is in the process of enacting a law banning
unsanctioned criticism of religion. Such laws are common in Europe
and Canada.
If such laws were enacted here in the United States, many of you
would be subject to prosecution simply for the insulting remarks
you've made about the religious right.
|12.12.04 @ 2:48AM|#
1. Drinking age and its active enforcement
It is admittedly a bit silly that the drinking age is 21 instead of
18. But talking about "its active enforcement" ignores the fact
that 18, 19, or 20-year-olds have little trouble getting their
hands on booze. I certainly didn't, and I doubt you did
either.
2. Drinking in public
Drinking in public is not banned in the United States. It is
certainly true that it is banned in certain communities, but that
is simply because our federalist system gives the people greater
freedom to govern themselves.
3. Marijuana decriminilization/legalization
Marijuana is neither legal nor decriminalized in most of the
western world. Besides, private use of pot is effectively
decriminalized in much of the United States (California, for
example).
4. Penalties for recreational drug use
... exist in every single western nation.
5. Privacy/civil liberties infringements in the name of
cracking down on drug use
Certainly bad, but the rights lost are ones which most of the
western world never had in the first place. The fact that our drug
laws have given our justice system draconian powers comparable to
those of France and Germany is hardly an argument that we're worse
than Europe is.
6. Teenage curfews
I'm stumped on this one. First of all, we're far from being the
only western nation with curfew laws. Secondly, teenagers do not
have a right to unrestricted movement, so our failure to grant them
one is hard to fault. Curfew laws do not generally apply to
teenagers accompanied by their legal guardians. So what's the
problem?
7. Age of consent and its active enforcement
The age of consent laws do not restrict the rights of teenagers.
The people subject to criminal penalties for sleeping with children
are the adults who choose to do so.
On a side note, the 1999 Durex survey of major western nations
found that youth in the United States had the lowest age of first
sexual experience (we tied with Canada, actually) and the largest
number of sex partners by age 21. So it is hard to argue that our
"Puritan culture" is limiting teens' sexual freedom in any
significant way.
raymond|12.12.04 @ 3:28AM|#
in Germany, you are likely to pay as much or
more for (government-mandated) health insurance than
here... (my bold)
omg! AS MUCH! Well, that proves it then.
that one reason why their drug costs are lower is that they
simply do not allow expensive (and sometimes life-saving) drugs
into their markets
Here's the
WHO chart on life expectancy (2001). Even with eastern Germany
included in the stats, Germans seem to live longer.
Here's the 2004
CIA estimate. Germany is 32nd, the US 48th. (I don't know if
the estimate for the US takes combat-related deaths into account.
Or perhaps the significant difference comes for the use of capital
punishment? You know. Where helpless individuals are ritually
killed by the state?)
And here (while I'm looking) is the CDC info
on the difference between whites and blacks in the US. (In 2002,
the difference for males was 6.3 years. If Black USA were its own
country, it'd rank 100th on the CIA chart. And, interestingly, if
Black MALE USA were its own country, it would be... IRAQ! I wonder
if investing 10s of billions of $s into the black
community...)
Maybe Germans do need more expensive life-saving drugs. Then they
could live as long as Americans. :snort:
There are many things about Europe that I love, but their
governments are far inferior to ours, especially with respect to
individual liberty.
Don't worry. Britain (37th) is, slowly but surely, getting her own
version of the PATRIOT Act. So soon, at least _that_ part of Europe
will be as respectful of individual liberty as is the US.
btw, Germany has a federal system, so many of the laws you refer to
are probably Länder. laws.
You should see their faces when I inform them that in
France...
You should see my French friends' faces when I inform them that in
the US it is illegal for any man to
have sexual intercourse with a live fish, and that the law
specifically bans couples from having sex while standing inside a
store's walk-in meat freezer.
So many of you guys are so obsessed with sex that you must by
very ugly, stupid, or just plain nerds. God, just get laid
already
NERDS???
On a more serious note... It seems to me that people who get all
hot and bothered about a badge-covered nipple or a glowing belly or
who pass a law
which cannot be quoted on tv because it's got so many filthy
(unless they are uttered on the floor of the Senate by the
President of that august body) words are the ones "obsessed with
sex".
Would you like to go to prison for saying something negative
about Islam?
And I don't know. A country whose history includes the Holocaust
might have a good reason for banning speech which is an incitement
to hatred. Would you like to be fined half a million dollars for
the use of a simple gerund?
But I digress.
The FCC is the American answer to the burkha.
Without it and the PTC, your men would be roaming the streets in a
frenzy of lust. No live fish would be safe from your
depredations.
raymond|12.12.04 @ 3:59AM|#
The age of consent laws do not restrict the rights of
teenagers. The people subject to criminal penalties for sleeping
with children are the adults who choose to do so.
This
case, Matthew R. Limon v. the State of Kansas,
outrages me.
State attorneys argued in August [2004] that it was appropriate to sentence Matthew R. Limon to 17 years in prison for criminal sodomy for having sex at age 18 with a 14-year-old boy in 2000. Had the victim been a girl, Limon could have received 15 months in prison under a 1999 law. (Kansas City Star)
Convince me that both legal and public support for gay rights
have sharply expanded during the last few years? Convince that
poor kid.
|12.12.04 @ 9:30AM|#
Raymond,
I would rather be free and take having a long healthy life in my
own hands. Rather than have a nanny state take care of me from
cradle to grave, and control what I earn and what I do.
Freedom is what the fight is about, not better govt ensured
longevity.
Dan,
I can't believe how wrong you were on just about every point. I
agree that the US is free-er and better than any other nation I
have been, or know about.
However;
The exact age of the drinking age is irrelevant. It is the belief
that the government can enforce a drinking age that is the problem.
I believe that it is further proof that the drinking age is that as
you state;
"18, 19, or 20-year-olds have little trouble getting their hands on
booze. I certainly didn't, and I doubt you did either."
I really don't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing that the
first thing you learn as an upcoming adult in America, is that the
law is your enemy, and how to succesfully flaunt it.
|12.12.04 @ 9:34AM|#
Dan,
So I read your post again, and really the drinking age one was the
only one that I really have to disagree with you on.
|12.12.04 @ 9:42AM|#
Raymond,
"Convince me that both legal and public support for gay rights have
sharply expanded during the last few years? Convince that poor
kid."
You know that poor kid would have been OK if he were in
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq. These countries seem to be
surprisingly ok with men boning boys. A lot of times they appear to
even be ok if it is not consensual.
So much so, that I have formed my own little theory, that such
behavior, and/or orientation is an inevitable result of
heterosexual repression.
raymond|12.12.04 @ 10:37AM|#
You have actually to read the articles, kwais.
Here
is another one, with a little excerpt below:
In 1999 and 2000, Limon was a resident of the Lakemary Center, a school for developmentally disabled young people in Paola. In February 2000, after he had turned 18, Limon performed a sex act with another boy, identified only as M.A.R., who was one month shy of his 15th birthday. Initially, their encounter was consensual.
The zmag article adds this:
Sometime in mid-February, Limon engaged in oral sex with another male student �named in the court papers only as MAR. MAR initially consented to the sex, but then changed his mind. When he told Limon to stop, Limon did so immediately. Although it remains unclear how the police became involved in the case �presumably someone from the Lakemary Center called them in� both Limon and MAR stated that the sex was consensual.
My point in posting this story was twofold.
1. "Homophobia" and bigotry are still enshrined in the law.
2. This is a cruel injustice, and something ought to be done about
it.
|12.12.04 @ 11:54AM|#
Raymond, dude,
There is only so much I can read in my alotted internet time. There
are only so many links that a slow reader can get through.
I was in a hurry to answer Dan's post, (drinking age is another one
of my pet causes, along with prisons) and I saw your posts, and
felt the need to respond.
I didn't read the articles you linked, because I figured I got the
jist of what was on them. And more importantly, I read in your post
that you were comparing Germany favorably to the US because of
their longer life expectancy that comes as a result of forced
participation in Govt healthcare programs.
There would be little that an article could say to convince me that
is not wrong.
About the dude with the almost 15 year old. I don't really know. I
don't know what the age of consent should be. I know that a girl
reaches sexual maturity long before she is legal. But I don't know,
I don't have any kids that I know of, but if I had some, I would
either have to have the law on my side to protect them, or I would
have to take the law into my own hands on that one. I will take
sole responsibility for their drinking and drug use. But as for
their sexual well being, I don't know. That is a tougher one.
A friend of mine used to joke "there isn't much you can't talk a 16
year old into". And that rings true, and it is a troublesome
thought.
|12.12.04 @ 1:20PM|#
"But talking about "its active enforcement" ignores the fact
that 18, 19, or 20-year-olds have little trouble getting their
hands on booze."
But many kids still get arrested for it. That rarely happens for
those teenagers even under the age of 18 in most other Western
countries.
"Drinking in public is not banned in the United States. It is
certainly true that it is banned in certain communities"
Quite a few communities, in fact. And federalism can't be used as
an excuse.
"Marijuana is neither legal nor decriminalized in most of the
western world."
It's now been decriminalized in much of Western Europe, and appears
to be on the verge of decriminalization in Canada. In no Western
country does it lead to arrests with the frequency that it does in
the US.
"... exist in every single western nation."
But not to the same degree. The idea of imposing jail sentences on
recreational drug users is one that America is quickly developing a
monopoly on within the West.
"Certainly bad, but the rights lost are ones which most of the
western world never had in the first place."
So how many other countries carry out random drug testing of
students? And which ones have something like the RAVE Act in
place?
"First of all, we're far from being the only western nation with
curfew laws."
There's virtually no other place where they're applied and enforced
to the extent they are here.
"Secondly, teenagers do not have a right to unrestricted movement,
so our failure to grant them one is hard to fault."
Why don't they? It's one thing if their parents want them home by a
certain time. But what business is it of the government's if the
parents don't mind?
"The age of consent laws do not restrict the rights of teenagers.
The people subject to criminal penalties for sleeping with children
are the adults who choose to do so."
Granted. So it's the adults who are often unjustly prosecuted in
cases involving sex between two individuals old enough to give
their full consent. Though I'd add that the "children" in these
cases are routinely 16 and 17-year olds, and thus above the age of
consent in most of the rest of the world.
"On a side note, the 1999 Durex survey of major western nations
found that youth in the United States had the lowest age of first
sexual experience (we tied with Canada, actually) and the largest
number of sex partners by age 21."
That's entirely irrelevant. This isn't about what people do in
private in a given country, but what they can be subject to in
public.
|12.12.04 @ 11:24PM|#
Kwais,
"How can the state force insurance companys to have rules like
that? Doesn't that go against everything we as a nation believe
in?"
It goes against everything a free-loving person believes in, but I
think we're in the minority here.
"Isn't that unethical, and not to mention unsound economic
policy?"
I'd say so.
"About the dude with the almost 15 year old. I don't really know. I
don't know what the age of consent should be. I know that a girl
reaches sexual maturity long before she is legal. But I don't know,
I don't have any kids that I know of, but if I had some, I would
either have to have the law on my side to protect them, or I would
have to take the law into my own hands on that one. I will take
sole responsibility for their drinking and drug use. But as for
their sexual well being, I don't know. That is a tougher
one."
Regardless of what age you think the age of consent should be (I
don't like to give a specific date myself, it depends on the
person), the fact is that the law discriminated against the kid
because he performed a homosexual act.
If the 14 yr and 11 mo old had been a girl, he would have gotten a
relative slap on the wrist.
Brendan Perez|12.13.04 @ 9:22AM|#
Dan,
You've got to be joking. Even if it were true that teenagers don't
have right to be outside, that alone wouldn't justify a harsh
restrictive policy that no other country in the world has
adopted.
If a teen is out on the streets, harming no one, then he/she has as
much a right to be there as any adult. If there parents have a
problem with that, it's between the teen and their parents.
It seems that walking down the street, harming no one, has 9th
amendment jurisdiction, and some connections to the 1st and
4th.
In some cities, teenage curfew violators are taken to centers where
they are interviewed (read:questioned/interrogated) about drug use,
sexuality, home environment. Many times, teens whose sole crime is
being outside are put on probation for 6-12 months and subject to
regular drug tests, probation officer call backs, etc. Some states
have had to pass laws forbidding police from strip searching curfew
violators.
When I think free country, I don't imagine that country's law
enforcement walking/driving around questioning who look like they
might of a certain age and ticketing and/or arresting people who
are of a certain age.
When other countries curfew their citizens without a legitimate
emergency ocurring, human rights groups howl about oppression and
violations. When we do it to our own young people, politicians and
police celebrate and praise is it as good policy. The silence of
those same human rights groups is also well noted.
Our drinking age is the highest in the world and is more rigidly
enforce then other countries lower ages. I don't read too much
about European officers going into private houses and
testing/arresting the occupants because alcohol was present, even
when those in attendance are under the legal drinking age in that
country.
Every other country allows a young person to drink with their
parents anywhere. While legal in many states, the practice carries
risks of jailed as neglectful/abusive.
I'm by no means an expert in foreign affairs, but I don't hear much
about European officials running drug dogs through schools, tossing
lockers, frisking students, searching vehicles, and emptying
bookbags the way our police do here.
Each of our crusades against teens doing/seing something have
direct and immediate consequences for them that nearly always
outweigh the harm atrributed to the crusadeee :).
AND each crusade has an affect on adults who are supposed to be
able to see/use/do those things. Anytime a group wants to prohibit
something, they simply ratchet up the laws on young people first
and then on adults in the name of keeping teens from
seeing/doing.
The teen prohibition campaign is just a wedge to begin restricting
adults the same way. Companies and so-called civil liberties who
support anti-teen access measures are giving their opponents a
great big back door with which to achieve their objective.
Even if you don't believe youth should have adult rights, to go
along with the adult level of accountability they have now, you
can't deny that allowing them basic freedoms would make
things easier on adults as well.
Brendan Perez|12.13.04 @ 9:25AM|#
My apologies for the missing words, mispellings, and assorted
grammatical nasties in the above post.
That's what I get for typing when I first wake up and haven't had
my legal wake up drug of choice:)
gaius marius|12.13.04 @ 10:21AM|#
i'm certainly not one to think that europe is somehow idyllic or
utopian. or even wholly progressive -- much of europe is still
rural and quite conservative, and their views tend to be
underrepresented in the american conception of a european
polity.
moreover, i'm an american and a patriot -- as, i suspect, virtually
all americans are.
right. but, that said, a question to mr dan: have you ever been
to europe? even to canada? it doesn't seem to me you could
have been, or you'd realize how preposterous -- utterly ridiculous,
really -- you sound in defending america as the greatest great
bastion of social lawlessness w/r/t sex, speech and everything
else.
a cursory examination of continental television and political
speech and news will tell you so, though i doubt you've accomodated
reality in any way while forming your silly america-first jingoism.
don't bother with articulating your views -- you haven't done a
good job of that anyway. simply watch some euro tv or
observe what constitutes a european political scandal and learn
whereof you speak.
now, we can argue the merits of conventional social restrictions on
speech. i personally happen to believe (unlike most here, who
likely find it anathema) that people in the main are irrational
animals and do need to be safeguarded from their instincts on some
level, and that institutions like state and religion have a social
role in constructing those safeguards. the jist of this thread --
that "national supremacy" is implied by who can destroy all the
rules fastest and most completely -- is anarchic at best.
the united states maintains only a shallow ascetic moralism (which
western europe has largely abandoned) instead of a deeper societal
understanding of social welfare. ridiculous instances like olympic
'obscenity' and covering statuary is the absurd work of reactionary
fools.
but what they are blindly reacting against is real and insidious:
the gradual abandonment of any social conformity or limitation
on individual appetites. one has to look back fifty or a
hundred years (instead of five or ten) to see how far we've moved
in that direction, but the move is profound -- and i have
difficulty separating the abandonment of moral conformity from
decline of social obligation generally that has necessitated (in
some minds) the promotion of the police state to maintain
order.
|12.13.04 @ 10:43AM|#
"i personally happen to believe (unlike most here, who likely
find it anathema) that people in the main are irrational animals
and do need to be safeguarded from their instincts on some level,
and that institutions like state and religion have a social role in
constructing those safeguards"
Yet you simultaneously bemoan the decline of cultural elitism, the
way in which (in your eyes) everything within the culture is being
brought down to a lowest common denominator in order satiate the
masses. Don't you see the contradiction here? The "safeguards" that
you mention inevtiably penalize the "elite", those who are capable
of acting as something other than irrational animals that need to
be "tamed" by government and religion.
gaius marius|12.13.04 @ 11:48AM|#
Don't you see the contradiction here? The "safeguards" that
you mention inevtiably penalize the "elite", those who are capable
of acting as something other than irrational animals that need to
be "tamed" by government and religion.
sorry, mr eric, but we've miscommunicated.
i do think that plebiscitarianism is a consequence of overwrought
individualism and frought with danger for society, true.
but why would you assume that the safeguards i speak of are
designed to control the elites? they aren't -- indeed, i'd prefer
to be able to re-empower an aristocracy through government over the
people as a means of controlling them.
if one idealizes the constitution or the magna carta as a weapon of
the rights of the masses against the aristocracy, and then also
assumes i advocate more constitutionalism, then i can see where
you'd arrive at your opinion.
but documents like the bill of rights and magna carta were designed
to protect *the aristocracy* from monarchic tyranny far more than
the masses -- and it is THAT which i consider important to good
government.
not that it would be ideal -- government by interested aristocrats
is capable of oligarchic tyranny too. but it would be much more
sensible than the rule by mob which we have misguidedly (imo)
adopted.
|12.13.04 @ 11:53AM|#
Brendan Perez,
That was brilliant. The infantilization of young people in our
society cannot be a good thing overall, nor can denying them rights
inherent to them. I don't know what it'll take for the pigs (and
the sheep they're supposed to "protect") to realize this, but many
people will continue to suffer in the process.
|12.13.04 @ 2:41PM|#
"but why would you assume that the safeguards i speak of are
designed to control the elites? they aren't -- indeed, i'd prefer
to be able to re-empower an aristocracy through government over the
people as a means of controlling them."
Ok. So exactly how would you chose to create a new aristocracy, and
what rights/powers would you give them that would be denied to the
hoi polloi?
"but documents like the bill of rights and magna carta were
designed to protect *the aristocracy* from monarchic tyranny far
more than the masses -- and it is THAT which i consider important
to good government."
Perhaps, but the practical effect of the Bill of Rights has been to
protect individuals more from populist tyranny than from the whims
of an autocratic ruler, though it's done that as well (and also
failed to do it at times).
|12.13.04 @ 4:01PM|#
Oops, messed up the italics. The first two parags. above were
from Too Many Steves, and the third and final reply was from
me.
And another thing:
So many of you guys are so obsessed with sex that you must by
very ugly, stupid, or just plain nerds. God, just get laid
already!
Mmm, not all that ugly ... not stupid in most respects ...
I'm going to have to go with "nerd." This is a libertarian blog,
after all. It's not exactly the jocks' table in the
cafeteria.
Come to think of it, my last two opportunities to get laid, I
gently turned down, because -- get this -- I thought I didn't know
the girl well enough yet. Make that "stupid" and "nerd."
:)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245