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
Obscenity on TV—Live Now on the Web!
Check out the C-SPAN feed right now to check out testimony and moralizing senators yammering on about just how evil the world of cable and satellite TV and radio is--and how much it demands government content regulation. Earlier, Sen. Mark Pryor went off on how he's "scared to death" for his kids to turn on the boob tube if he's not there to cover their eyes. A woman from the Christian Coalition just wrapped up comments about how she shudders for her country when she reflects that God loves only the Disney Channel.
And now Frank Wright, head of the National Religious Broadcasters, is running down exceptions to the First Amendment with a smile to his face. And when it comes to broadcast and media, "We're only talking about restrictions on indecency from 6AM to 10PM," he explains helpfully, adding that the rationale for the indecency standards in broadcast apply to cable and satellite.
More here.
|11.29.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Number 6,
Yeah! As we all know, being a parent makes you become omniscient.
And omnipotent. (Well, at least they are omnipotent...when they're
all banded together in their giant, finger-wagging parental
tribe).
|11.29.05 @ 11:00AM|#
Say, that's a good idea. Let's make a deal with the government. They can ignore civil liberties from 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. ET, M-F, but they have to adhere to natural law principles and the limitations of the Constitution the rest of the time.
|11.29.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Rubes demand boobs on their tubes.
Rubes demanded boobs in their circuses in ancient Rome.
Thus will it ever be.
Sic Semper.
|11.29.05 @ 11:04AM|#
Clearchannel basically said that as long as they have to be regulated, they want EVERYONE to be regulated (cable, satellite, etc). What a bunch of fucking pussies.
|11.29.05 @ 11:07AM|#
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, between the hours of
10:00pm EST, and 6:00am EST; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, between the hours of 10:00pm EST, and 6:00am EST; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances, between the hours of
10:00pm EST, and 6:00am EST.
It sure is comforting to know that our rights are still intact
during the midnight shift.
|11.29.05 @ 11:07AM|#
Oh....but this is just a last gasp for cable and radio anyway. Once everything is internet based it's all over. "Television" as they refer to it now will no longer exist. Instead of children being exposed to adult programming, they'll be able to select it themselves in real time!
|11.29.05 @ 11:08AM|#
I'm a parent. Can I start wagging my finger at Congress for trying to usurp my job?
|11.29.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Clear Channel just has the point backwards. Instead of asking "Why aren't cable and satellite regulated as much as broadcast?" then should be ask "Why is broadcast regulated more?(or at all)".
|11.29.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Smappy,
Come up with an original internet handle. Then come back and talk
to us. :p
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 11:11AM|#
We need to form a pro-nipple coalition. The anti-nipple forces have their heros in James Dobson and the other assorted idiot moralizers. It's high time that we of the pro-nipple creed had our champion!
|11.29.05 @ 11:12AM|#
So does this mean that networks can broadcast hardcore porn at 10:01 PM? There may be a silver lining here..
|11.29.05 @ 11:15AM|#
adding that the rationale for the indecency standards in
broadcast apply to cable and satellite.
Right, because, um, indiscriminately putting content into the air
that anyone can receive is no different than restricting
that content to those who actively request it and pay to receive
it.
Sen. Mark Pryor went off on how he's "scared to death" for his
kids to turn on the boob tube if he's not there to cover their
eyes.
God forbid that motherfucker actually do some real
parenting. Maybe if he didn't spend so much time
bellyaching about TV content, and spent more time raising his kids
and controlling what they see, there wouldn't be such a
problem.
No, no, instead, because the good Senator and countless other
moralizing prudes are too lazy to raise their kids themselves, our
liberties should be squashed.
And somehow, given the constant pay-raises they give themselves, I
doubt that Sen. Pryor is too poor to afford some kind of reception
equipment that has content restricting software (V-chip, etc) on
it. Shit, I got my Dish receiver for free---and it has the software
built into it. So did my digital cable service.
If he's "scared to death" for his kids to watch TV unattended, then
he's just a goddamned retard.
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 11:18AM|#
V-chip has been in all TVs in the US since 1996.
I will admit that I'm too lazy to raise children, so I'm
not going to bloody have any. I wish our "leaders" would
think the same way.
|11.29.05 @ 11:19AM|#
How dare you question these people? They're parents for
god's sake!
Then the answer is obvious: Sterilize all Christians. That way,
they'll never have to worry about their spawn being exposed to
"dirty" words and "evil" sex ever again.
No, I'm being serious.
Viking Moose on the pillage pa|11.29.05 @ 11:20AM|#
"If he's "scared to death" for his kids to watch TV unattended,
then he's just a goddamned retard."
no he's just a useless fucking fundie who's scared that his fantasy
world and imaginary friend might not be real.
fucking spineless assholes. just turn off the goddamned tv. and
shut up. may you all live in a world whose fundies are not you.
then how 'bout them apples?
grrrrrrrr
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 11:21AM|#
Then the answer is obvious: Sterilize all Christians. That
way, they'll never have to worry about their spawn being exposed to
"dirty" words and "evil" sex ever again.
Oddly, my Christian girlfriend would be fine with that. Except for
the surgery part, she'd probably advocate that I be snipped,
eventhough I am a non-believer. Girl hates needles &
doctors.
|11.29.05 @ 11:24AM|#
A woman from the Christian Coalition just wrapped up
comments about how she shudders for her country when she reflects
that God loves only the Disney Channel.
What, they don't air Davey and Goliath, Joy Junction, and the
Creation Discovery Team anymore?
|11.29.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Smacky,
I've been called Smappy since before you were born (assuming you
were born after the late nineties).
Viking Moose|11.29.05 @ 11:33AM|#
Smappy: :) grin. *chuckle*
but did you give yourself that nickname, like "Flipper" does in the
McDonalds $1 menu ads?
but i absolutely love your aol address listed. very cool.
cheers
|11.29.05 @ 11:34AM|#
Oddly, my Christian girlfriend would be fine with that.
Except for the surgery part, she'd probably advocate that I be
snipped, eventhough I am a non-believer. Girl hates needles &
doctors.
Nope, as long as she has functioning ovaries, she's a threat. ;)
You, on the other hand, have an obligation to sire as many
non-believer children as possible to replace the fundie hordes that
would be eventually dying off. In a couple of generations, America
will actually have some semblance of sanity.
Of course, the Bible-beaters could avoid becoming eunuchs by
promising, in writing, that they respect the First Amendment, keep
their mouths shut sex and violence in the media, and start
parenting their own kids rather than having the government do it
for them.
Otherwise... SNIP! SNIP!
Dan|11.29.05 @ 11:38AM|#
While I certainly don�t care for more government regulation of
broadcasting, it is interesting that people who express concern
over the content of our media are so quickly written off and
insulted.
Plus, I�ve found that people have taken the attitude that they have
no reason to be concerned about other people�s kids, yet often
these same types are complaining about how poorly today�s children
behave. (see yesterday�s coffeeshop thread).
raymond|11.29.05 @ 11:40AM|#
You poohpooh the dangers of allowing children to be exposed to
sex. But you are wrong to do so.
Learning about sex has had devastating results on today's children.
And I have proof.
If George Walker and Barbara had never learned about sex, they'd
never have had sex. And the world would be a far, far better place
today.
And more of your children would be alive, too.
|11.29.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Do these folks have any idea how inappropriate "backdoor bundling via penetration requirements" sounds?
|11.29.05 @ 11:44AM|#
What, they don't air Davey and Goliath, Joy Junction, and
the Creation Discovery Team anymore?
Don't forget Bibleman and Veggie-Tales.
|11.29.05 @ 11:45AM|#
Plus, I�ve found that people have taken the attitude that
they have no reason to be concerned about other people�s kids, yet
often these same types are complaining about how poorly today�s
children behave. (see yesterday�s coffeeshop thread).
Dan,
Don't thay sort of play into the same idea? The people who want the
world to conform their children, do so because actually parenting
their kids is a too much of a bother.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 11:51AM|#
"Oh....but this is just a last gasp for cable and radio anyway.
Once everything is internet based it's all over. "Television" as
they refer to it now will no longer exist. Instead of children
being exposed to adult programming, they'll be able to select it
themselves in real time!"
People said the same thing about the transition from broadcast to
cable, and yet, here we are. Enough internet traffic flows through
a few large companies' networks that the government COULD make a
pretty awful try at eventually regulating streaming content on the
internet.
|11.29.05 @ 11:52AM|#
I will never understand the tendency some people have to try to
stop everyone from seeing something they themselves don't
want to see.
Maybe a partial answer could be for the cable and satellite
companies to give consumers more control over which stations they
subscribe to, as opposed to bundling a bunch of crap together in an
all-or-nothing proposition. But I have a feeling that wouldn't
satisfy these people either.
|11.29.05 @ 11:53AM|#
...it is interesting that people who express concern over
the content of our media are so quickly written off and
insulted.
No rational person should be concerned by the utterance of a group
of arbitrary words. (i.e. Obsenities)
No rational person should be concerned by nudity or dipictions of
sexual acts.
No rational person should be concerned by dipictions of
violence.
Therefore, there is nothing interesting about pointing out the
irrational idiocy of these people. Public stupidity should be
punishable with public ridicule.
|11.29.05 @ 11:54AM|#
While I certainly don�t care for more government regulation
of broadcasting, it is interesting that people who express concern
over the content of our media are so quickly written off and
insulted.
Plus, I�ve found that people have taken the attitude that they have
no reason to be concerned about other people�s kids, yet often
these same types are complaining about how poorly today�s children
behave. (see yesterday�s coffeeshop thread).
First off, the proper way to "express concern over the content of
the media" is to not allow media into your home that you don't want
children watching, to use your TV's V-chip and your cable system's
and internet provider's parental controls, etc. It isn't to go
crying to Congress to bend and twist the First Amendment some
more.
Second, your other paragraph is a non sequitur. It isn't my job --
or my government's -- to make sure your kids don't see boobies or
hear F-bombs on TV. It is, however, your job to ensure that your
kids don't annoy people in public.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Oh and to be fair, as a parent, the idea that you chose to buy
cable TV therefore you gave up the right to expect 'non-obscene'
content is pretty fuckin' ridiculous. Broadcast TV-only households
today are like TV-less households 10 years ago - there's no way to
get Discovery and History and the good channels without getting the
channels that these prudes view as bad.
And the V-chip is a joke; I could have figured out a way around it
at 12 and I expect my 12-year-old stepson can too. There's no
substitute for just checking up on the TV.
This is an argument for forcing cable TV monopolies to produce more
bundles of channels, if not a-la-carte, in my opinion. Otherwise,
watch as the fundies and bad parents end up making sure NOBODY can
watch the good stuff.
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Akira: Well, damn, lucky for me her collegiate experiences are
turning her slowly to the dark side. Yes, libertarianism is the
dark side, because the dark side is WAY cooler.
Anyway, she very much hates government regulation of TV, and thinks
parents should control their children rather than asking that the
FCC do it.
Dan: Expressing concern over media content is different than asking
the government to "deal with" media content. Rather than getting
Congress's panties in a wad, folks concerned about content should
write to ABC, cancel their cable, and try to persuade other
citizens to do the same. I'll still think they're uptight, foolish
prudes, but at least they won't be uptight foolish prudes who're
using the long-arm of government to ruin my TV watching
experience.
I wasn't allowed to watch anything but PBS until I was about 10 or
11, and I learned all about sex anyway...from a show on PBS. When I
was six there was a news story about a woman in Houston giving her
husband her birthcontrol pills, I ended up commenting that they
wouldn't work and explaining to my parents how birthcontrol
prevented ovulation. I'd seen NOVA and some other shows like that
about the subject. So not only are the prudes trying to abridge our
freedom, but also they're doing it in a way that's unlikely to have
any substantiative effect on what kids learn about and when. They
can all go bugger themselves. Bastards.
|11.29.05 @ 11:57AM|#
I have the same feeling you do, Serafina. After all, these same people are all about banning video games and porn too. Which, last time I checked, need to be individually purchased.
Dan|11.29.05 @ 11:58AM|#
Dan,
Don't thay sort of play into the same idea? The people who want the
world to conform their children, do so because actually parenting
their kids is a too much of a bother.
But that�s exactly the type of dismissive attitude I�m talking
about. Expressing concern about media content = not wanting to be a
parent. But if they weren�t trying to be good parents, why would
they care about indecency in the first place?
|11.29.05 @ 12:01PM|#
This is an argument for forcing cable TV monopolies to
produce more bundles of channels, if not a-la-carte, in my
opinion.
Well, either that or ending monopoly cable services in
municipalities, allowing services to compete.
|11.29.05 @ 12:03PM|#
I've been called Smappy since before you were born (assuming
you were born after the late nineties).
Smappy,
Why, how did you know I was six years old? Goodness, I haven't hit
puberty yet and I'm already beginning to show my age! :)
Dan|11.29.05 @ 12:04PM|#
First off, the proper way to "express concern over the
content of the media" is to not allow media into your home that you
don't want children watching, to use your TV's V-chip and your
cable system's and internet provider's parental controls, etc. It
isn't to go crying to Congress to bend and twist the First
Amendment some more.
Actually, people do have the right to petition Congress to pass
laws. That is totally proper.
Second, your other paragraph is a non sequitur. It isn't my job
-- or my government's -- to make sure your kids don't see boobies
or hear F-bombs on TV. It is, however, your job to ensure that your
kids don't annoy people in public.
This reinforces my point exactly � if you don�t feel you have some
responsibility to the youth of our society then don�t complain when
they behave in ways that you find annoying.
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 12:04PM|#
Dan: Because they're obviously too damn lazy to use the tools
they already have available in their own homes: Cable controls,
v-chip, satellite controls, etc. My cable company runs ads at least
a few times an hour for the parental control options
available.
It must be a cold day in hell, because M1KE is right that cable
monopolies should be forced to offer channel-by-channel selection
rather than bundles...but I ask, when was the last time you saw a
nipple on TNT? Never? If you buy a premium channel like HBO, you
know what you're getting, and if you don't like it don't buy it. If
you don't want your kids watching Nip/Tuck on FX, well,
don't let your kids watch Nip/Tuck. Use the
aforementioned controls, don't go crying to congress.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 12:04PM|#
"Well, either that or ending monopoly cable services in
municipalities, allowing services to compete."
Ideal in theory; but in reality, I live in an area with a whopping
TWO choices for cable, which is more than most, despite our state
forcing municipalities to suspend street-digging rules whenever
anybody wants to lay a competitive cable for anything.
There just ain't gonna be ten cable companies ready to ask for your
business. Never. Satellite? Maybe, if they can get the technology
to the point where it's as 'reliable' as cable.
|11.29.05 @ 12:05PM|#
Well, either that or ending monopoly cable services in
municipalities, allowing services to compete.
I agree.
|11.29.05 @ 12:06PM|#
What we need to do is to come up with a way of phrasing the
debate that makes it hard to fight against the "right" side. For
instance, we libertarians (and non-libertarian libertines) could be
Pro-Breast. The other side would be Anti-Breast. Given that few
males would want to be labeled "Anti-Breast", the Pro-Breast
coalition would start off with a distinct advantage.
It's all about the marketing.
|11.29.05 @ 12:06PM|#
There's a difference between expressing concern about media content and trying to coerce others to your own views. Parents who want to avoid content they see as indecent should work together to get more choices for themselves rather than worry about what others may enjoy.
|11.29.05 @ 12:07PM|#
I often feel conflicted about how to deal with the Evangelicals.
One side of me wants to "live-and-let-live" and allow them to live
by what ever delusion they happen to believe as long as they let me
live how I choose. However, the other side of me, thinks we need to
drag these people, kicking and screaming if need be, into reality
before they have a chance to drag the rest of humanity back to the
Stone Age.
After the last five years, guess which side I'm leaning toward?
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 12:10PM|#
Akira: I can sympathize, but if the government would actually subscribe to the rules governing it, well, it wouldn't even be an issue. That's sort of a fantasy, I know, but I don't care what they believe so long as they leave me alone about it. Or at the very least don't try to force me with government.
Dan|11.29.05 @ 12:12PM|#
The whole �parental controls� argument ignores the rather
obvious fact that children generally don�t spend all their time at
home.
Like I said, I�m not terribly comfortable with the government
deciding what is to be allowed and what isn�t. However, I�m equally
uncomfortable with the idea that anybody who expresses concern
about what children are exposed to is automatically some kind of
zealot who is just too lazy to �be a good parent�.
If anything, it might be the job of a good parent to defend their
children against the increasingly powerful and persuasive media in
our culture.
|11.29.05 @ 12:13PM|#
But if they weren�t trying to be good parents, why would
they care about indecency in the first place?
Dan,
Is that the mark of a good parent? Caring about indecency? Or is it
providing food, shelter, education, and instilling values? All of
which can be done without your neighbors, community, town, state,
or country sharing those values. It just requires involvement with
the kids on a personal level, which is not always convenient.
Besides, I don't believe that most of the argument coming from
these "parent" and "family" groups are really about children. The
kids, as usual, are a shield against criticism. It's about making
sure the entire country conforms the their view of an ideal
society, but they're not honest enough to to say it up front.
|11.29.05 @ 12:13PM|#
Dan-Perhaps you can demonstrate some causation between hearing the dreaded f word on TV (or seeing people have sex) and rude behavior in coffee shops. If not, your point is really moot.
|11.29.05 @ 12:17PM|#
Actually, people do have the right to petition Congress to
pass laws. That is totally proper.
Nobody has the right to ask the Congress to pass laws which violate
others' Constitutional rights. Morally or legally. Period.
This reinforces my point exactly � if you don�t feel you have
some responsibility to the youth of our society then don�t complain
when they behave in ways that you find annoying.
"Some responsibility to the youth of our society" != "Substituting
Congress' power for good parenting, nor catering all popular
culture to the narrow tastes of a benighted, prudish few."
I managed to be raised by parents who didn't let their children
behave badly in public, and who didn't need Congress's, or
your, help to control their media consumption. Weird.
|11.29.05 @ 12:17PM|#
Akira,
Sterilize all Christians? That's a bit, um, harsh.
Especially considering that a huge percentage of the moderates and
left-wingers in this country are also Christians of varying degree.
Sure you don't want to more narrowly construe your oppressive
dictate?
Evan, I've rethought my morning hour fermata on civil
liberties. It should be one day a week. That way, I can take a boat
offshore and avoid Tyranny Monday. Can you draft an amendment to
handle that? Thanks.
|11.29.05 @ 12:21PM|#
Nobody has the right to ask the Congress to pass laws which
violate others' Constitutional rights. Morally or legally.
Period.
Actually, if free speech means anything, they do have that
right.
Rich Ard|11.29.05 @ 12:21PM|#
As I do everytime TV comes up, I'll let John Prine do the
talkin':
"blow up your tv
throw away the paper
move to the country
live on the farm
plant a little garden
eat a lot of peaches
you can find jesus
on yer own"
Dan|11.29.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Nobody has the right to ask the Congress to pass laws which
violate others' Constitutional rights. Morally or legally.
Period.
Wrong � I have the Constitutional right to ask Congress to do
whatever I like.
I managed to be raised by parents who didn't let their children
behave badly in public, and who didn't need Congress's, or your,
help to control their media consumption. Weird.
That�s certainly not true � there have always been laws that
control/regulate media content. Otherwise, somebody could have
opened an adult movie theater next to your house�but I�m sure your
parents wouldn�t have minded.
|11.29.05 @ 12:25PM|#
If anything, it might be the job of a good parent to defend
their children against the increasingly powerful and persuasive
media in our culture.
I guess we differ at what defending their children should mean. I
don't that that regulating(banning, fining out of existence,etc.)
material that some people don't want their children to see is
nearly as effective as parents teaching their kids why they
shouldn't see something, why it's wrong to do X. It makes for a few
uncomfortable conversations, and there's the possibility that the
kids will reject the moral stance, but they are individuals after
all.
|11.29.05 @ 12:26PM|#
...the good Senator and countless other moralizing prudes
are too lazy to raise their kids themselves, our liberties should
be squashed.
That's not so far removed from what Brent Bozell said. (Good God:
Bozell, the old biddy from the Xtian Coalition...the fix is in,
folks...)
Sterilize all Christians?
Or just hold them under the water longer...
|11.29.05 @ 12:27PM|#
Sterilize all Christians? That's a bit, um,
harsh.
Harsh? Yes, but so is eating babies to control the population of
Eighteenth Century Irish Catholics.
|11.29.05 @ 12:30PM|#
Remember, Sen. Mark Pryor is a Democrat. We have nothing to fear from Democrats. :)
|11.29.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Dan,
The beauty of Oregon law is that you have the constitutional right
to be a stripper. :)
Dan|11.29.05 @ 12:36PM|#
I guess we differ at what defending their children should
mean. I don't that that regulating(banning, fining out of
existence,etc.) material that some people don't want their children
to see is nearly as effective as parents teaching their kids why
they shouldn't see something, why it's wrong to do X. It makes for
a few uncomfortable conversations, and there's the possibility that
the kids will reject the moral stance, but they are individuals
after all.
I respect this viewpoint and have said before that I�m not really
in favor of the government banning media content. But I don�t think
you have to be a fundie to be concerned about the effects of media
on our society�s children and I can�t see how thinking people would
believe that parents themselves can maintain total control of what
their kids are exposed to.
|11.29.05 @ 12:41PM|#
I feel sorry for these Christians who are forced to buy a TV
set, forced to watch pornographic material on it, and are prevented
from turning it off or changing the channel. Boohoo.
I suppose they are incapable of using the TV remote to exclude
'dangerous' channels from being selected using the buttons on the
TV (and can't hide the remote from the kids). Good thing for them
that their kids are too stupid to google the word "sex".
Think the idea of sterilizing Christians is preposterous? Didn't
Ann Coulter advocate forcing all Muslims to become Christians?
|11.29.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Akira, you mean you weren't serious? How disappointing. A Modest Proposal has really ruined western discourse, if you ask me. I wonder if Hitler ever planned to say he was just kidding in Mein Kampf ("I was being ironic") if he had ended up on trial. Hmm. Of course, I suppose Swift would've had trouble if he'd actually served up some children (yuck).
|11.29.05 @ 12:43PM|#
I couldn't imagine that a good parent would want to maintain total control of what their children are exposed to. I'm just arguing that there are better ways than forcing the entire media spectrum into a parent-friendly zone. (And it would be parent-friendly rather than kid-friendly, because it's the parents more than the kids who are uncomfortable.)
|11.29.05 @ 12:46PM|#
Y'know, my grandmother taught college sex education classes so I
was exposed to the whole process at a fairly young age. By the time
I hit puberty I knew more about sex than I ever wanted to and I was
actually a bit bored by it.
I remained a virgin until, well, much later in life than most of
you, I'd bet (Christians included), I have no unwed mothers or
divorces in my past, never had to worry about abortion and I've
been happily married for the last 8 years.
I know education is a terrifying thing, but parents might want to
take a closer look at this approach.
|11.29.05 @ 12:50PM|#
Pro Libertate,
If his trial for the Beer Hall Putsch was any indication of how he
would defend himself generally, then no.
Dan,
...and I can�t see how thinking people would believe that
parents themselves can maintain total control of what their kids
are exposed to.
They never have been able to, thank goodness. Children aren't the
slaves of their parents after all.
smackapappy,
The fact that we are awash in Christian-oriented content further
bolsters your point.
|11.29.05 @ 12:52PM|#
Johnny Clarke,
My wife knows so many "good Christian girls" who were sheltered by
their parents who ended up getting pregnant the first chance they
got.
|11.29.05 @ 12:53PM|#
As "South Park" reiterates over and over again, parents need to calm the fuck down.
|11.29.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Ah, Hakluyt, but that was a pre-war German jury. I'm
thinking irony and "just kidding about that Jew thing" would've
been the least of the words he would've tried. Actually, on second
thought, you're right. He would've ranted and raved about the
decadence of the Allies and blamed the loss on being stabbed in the
back by someone.
Incidentally, are you Pro-Breast, or are you some sort of
anti-breast scum? The "freedom to fondle" is clearly stated in the
Bill of Rights. Well, in a penumbra I saw there once, anyway.
gaius marius|11.29.05 @ 1:00PM|#
No rational person should be concerned by the utterance of a
group of arbitrary words. ... No rational person should be
concerned by nudity or dipictions of sexual acts. ... No rational
person should be concerned by dipictions of violence.
are you saying, mr mackenzie, that if a correlation could be
established that indulgences in obscenity, nudity and violence were
detrimental to society, you would advocate their regulation or
elimination?
|11.29.05 @ 1:03PM|#
Akira, you mean you weren't serious?
No, I wasn't being serious, but I can't say it's not a tempting
idea.
Modest Proposal has really ruined western discourse, if you ask
me.
Sigh... Maybe irony really is dead.
In the final analysis the solution is simple: Parent your kids and
make sure they don't see what you object to. Then again, I'm not
sure I approve of sheltering children from reality, especially in
the name of a will-o-wisp like religion. My uber-religious parents
did and it really helped to mess up my adolescence (calling a girl
a "whore" in health class when she said that pre-marital sex wasn't
a sin should qualify)which, in turned, helped make me one messed up
adult.
Besides, I don't think that any of this really has anything to do
with "the children" anyway. This is about making it more and more
difficult for consenting adults to access media that the fundies
find objectionable. They're religion gave them a mandate to meddle
in our lives for our own sakes, but they know that they can't sell
that if they admit that they want no one to enjoy adult
entertainment. Ergo, they claim they're protecting the children and
slip censorship right under the door.
|11.29.05 @ 1:04PM|#
are you saying, mr mackenzie, that if a correlation could be
established that indulgences in obscenity, nudity and violence were
detrimental to society, you would advocate their regulation or
elimination?
No.
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Dan: Anyone who wants to use congress's power to abridge
specifically ennumerated freedoms (Congress shall make no law, etc)
is, ipso facto, a zealot. There's not a middle ground on that.
Sure, they have a constitutional right to these opinions, but it
doesn't make them any less totalitarian.
And, again, there is a major difference between being concerned
about content and pettitioning congress to "do something for the
children" about it. Call ABC, call CBS, stop watching channels you
don't like to affect the all-important ratings. DON'T BUY HBO, use
the controls available if you must have cable...these are
appropriate actions. Calling congress and trying to get them to use
the FCC's billy-club on content most people have no problem with is
exactly the wrong thing to do, and is, frankly, a fairly
totalitarian impulse.
And, besides, if little Johnny is so fragile that seeing something
his folks wouldn't allow at his pal Stan's house will cause him to
spiral off into a notorious life of crime & debauchery, maybe
his parents' neuroses are more to blame than the media content.
|11.29.05 @ 1:06PM|#
My wife knows so many "good Christian girls" who were
sheltered by their parents who ended up getting pregnant the first
chance they got.
Either that, or they end so sexually repressed that they never
enjoy the act. However, the holy rollers say she shouldn't to begin
with...
|11.29.05 @ 1:09PM|#
Pro Libertate,
He would've ranted and raved about the decadence of the Allies
and blamed the loss on being stabbed in the back by
someone.
Maybe. I could be wrong. He did take the coward's way out and ate a
bullet, when if he had an ounce of man in him he should have picked
up a panzerfaust and went into battle against the Soviet
seige.
I like breasts.
gaius marius|11.29.05 @ 1:10PM|#
i have to agree that there is a false dichotomy at work here --
either we abandon all attempts at social organization and not only
our children but ourselves with it, or we ignore the first
amendment and create an orwellian media for the sake of the
children? i'm not alone, i'm sure, in thinking there are other
paths.
i can't help but think that too many reactionary parents are
concerning themselves with sheltering their children instead of
teaching them -- and some, concerned with using children as a
cassus bellum for instituting a general draconian utopia.
but i also wonder just how many on the other end would apply their
first amendment arguments all the way to defending the prime time
broadcasting of tossing palestinians to lions to entertain the
masses. the bill of rights isn't a holy edict; there are
justifiable limits to free speech that rational people can
acknowledge as good for us.
|11.29.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Hakluyt sez "parents need to calm the fuck down"
The Peanut Gallery sez: Ditto for you.
|11.29.05 @ 1:14PM|#
No, Akira, I was being ironic about my distress about irony. Though I do tire of today's version of irony, which generally leads to ennui and nihilism.
|11.29.05 @ 1:15PM|#
So where do people's right to dictate content and protect their
children end and the right of women to breast-feed in public
begin?
I mean, I stumbled across a woman breast-feeding outside my
apartment complex's gym one day and, like, I was scarred for
life.
|11.29.05 @ 1:17PM|#
there's no way to get Discovery and History and the good
channels without getting the channels that these prudes view as
bad.
That's only true as far as the channels themselves are concerned.
As far as the content shown on The Discovery Channel and
The History Channel, lots of it and content similar to it is
available on DVD and videocassette. So if you want to watch those
shows, you can get rid of your cable service and rent or purchase
the stuff.
And then we can hear the bitching about the other content available
for rental at the video store or Netflix that some
parent-who-is-stupider-than-their-children will notice in
passing.
I don't hear the Amish bitching about what's on TV. And they're
surviving just fine.
|11.29.05 @ 1:17PM|#
I mean, I stumbled across a woman breast-feeding outside my
apartment complex's gym one day and, like, I was scarred for
life.
LOOK OUT! THOSE THINGS ARE LOADED!
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 1:19PM|#
but i also wonder just how many on the other end would apply
their first amendment arguments all the way to defending the prime
time broadcasting of tossing palestinians to lions to entertain the
masses.
Well, I wouldn't defend the tossing of Palestinians to lions (I'm
agains the death penalty), but if it happens I think the press has
a right to report on it during prime time.
Unless all Palestinians (and anybody else who whished to be) tossed
to the lions were volunteers who signed up to be tossed to lions.
Then it's purely a contract matter between the hypothetical lion
show's producers, the volunteers, and the volunteers' families. I
presume some suicidals might sign up to ensure money for their
families after their demise, as insurance doesn't pay out for
suicides IIRC.
|11.29.05 @ 1:27PM|#
Well, seeing the popularity of the Pro-Breast movement, I think
I see a way for the Libertarians to win some elections. Drop the
platform and go single issue. Oh, and make some strategic
alterations to the Statue of Liberty logo.
Given that we never agree on anything here, I'm eagerly awaiting
the anti-breast troll and his/her launching of a flame war.
|11.29.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Breasts? You better believe I'm for them, but there is so much more of the female anatomy you're forgeting. ;)
|11.29.05 @ 1:32PM|#
Oh, and make some strategic alterations to the Statue of
Liberty logo.
Well, she IS French.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 1:36PM|#
"I don't hear the Amish bitching about what's on TV. And they're
surviving just fine."
Well, that settles it then.
Seriously, do you people think about what you type, or what? If
you're saying that your negotiating position with these fired-up
parents is "don't own a TV", you're kind of back in a corner,
aren't you?
Hell, I take the TV away from my stepson all the time, but that
doesn't mean I'm going to get it out of the house; and it doesn't
mean I can keep him from seeing it at his friends' houses. Get
real.
And I'm very pro-breast; and would let him watch almost anything
but the ultra-violence. But some of y'all here are pretty damn
clueless about what's practical and what isn't.
|11.29.05 @ 1:40PM|#
But some of y'all here are pretty damn clueless about what's
practical and what isn't.
So, in order to be "practical" we all have to suffer by having our
entertainment decisions made by the prigs and the prudes just
because Junior might see something "objectionable" on someone
else's TV?
|11.29.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Russ,
...there's no way to get Discovery and History and the good
channels without getting the channels that these prudes view as
bad.
If I had my druthers I'd get rid of the History Channel entirely
and replace it with something that deals with something more broad
than WWII. :)
Anyway, its safe to say a high tide lifts all boats, and that has
been the case for all genre, etc. of media.
|11.29.05 @ 1:44PM|#
Akira MacKenzie,
The practical is whatever M1EK fantasizes about Western Europe.
|11.29.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Honestly, I don't know why concerned parents don't focus their
energies on pushing for technological solutions. I just read
something about Sony building in parental controls for the
Playstation 3, for instance.
Now, I don't want government mandating (any additional) controls,
but companies providing technological controls are just serving a
large market of people who want to protect their kids (or
themselves) from whatever. And for any who say that kids can get
around such controls, well, sometimes that will be true. Then
again, my first view of a nude woman was seeing a Playboy
magazine some friend's older brother snagged when I was quite
young. Other than banning the magazine, how do you stop that? The
real secret is good parenting and good sense. The worst threat to
your kids isn't TV or games, it's other kids and crazy parents.
|11.29.05 @ 1:52PM|#
Aww, come on Hakluyt, The History Channel also covers
(occasionally and superficially) the Roman Empire, the American
Revolution, the American Civil War, and the American expansion into
the western half of North America. :-) :-)
Modern Marvels can be cool, sometimes, too.
|11.29.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Speaking of frustration with the World War II Channel, I've always wondered whether there isn't a market for a more scholarly channel, maybe along the lines of the Teaching Company (though tarted up--not just lectures). Between people really interested in such information and people who want to be viewed as intellectuals, it could draw at least MSNBC's market share.
|11.29.05 @ 2:26PM|#
Dan,
"Actually, people do have the right to petition Congress to
pass laws. That is totally proper."
You're confusing that which you have the right to do with
that which is proper. I have the right to
petition the government to euthanize all people named "Dan", but
that doesn't make it proper. If your only standard for
"good vs. bad" is whether or not it is allowed by law, then I'm
afraid of what else you find to be "proper".
"But if they weren�t trying to be good parents, why would they
care about indecency in the first place?"
Just because a parent is concerned about what their child sees
doesn't make them a good parent. In my opinion, someone who cares
about what their child sees, and takes the initiative to limit that
content without abrogating the rights of other parties, is a
good parent. On the other hand, a parent who cares about
what their child sees, and instead of taking the time to actually
pay attention to their children, they petition the State to take
away everyone else's rights, I would consider a bad
parent. Yes, you can be concerned about what your child sees,
and still be a bad parent.
"The whole �parental controls� argument ignores the rather
obvious fact that children generally don�t spend all their time at
home."
No, it doesn't. If you're a good parent and you truly care about
what your child sees, then you'll know the whereabouts of your
child, and know whether there's a chance that they might see stuff
you don't want them to see. And if you care enough about
that content, then you'll forbid them from partaking in that
particular activity. Just because parents aren't able to monitor
their children 100% of the time doesn't mean that it's the media's
fault every time their kids see something that they disapprove of.
Which gets into another discussion about the subjectivity of
content standards.
|11.29.05 @ 2:45PM|#
If you're saying that your negotiating position with these
fired-up parents is "don't own a TV", you're kind of back in a
corner, aren't you?
Nobody's saying "don't own a TV" is their actual negotiating
position---the Amish comment was, quite obviously, for
effect. Y'know, to make a point? That point
(which is a pretty valid one) is: it is hypocritical for people to
consciously and actively purchase equipment and services, and then
demand that, not just the manufacturer/provider of those particular
equipment/services, but everyone in the country, conform to their
subjective standards of acceptable content.
I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now if folks
limited their moralizing petitioning to the private
sector---because then, at least, if a company decides to impose a
policy of banning "improper" content, and you disagree, you can
choose to get another product/service. When the gubmint
makes that decree, you have no choice within the law.
"Hell, I take the TV away from my stepson all the time, but
that doesn't mean I'm going to get it out of the house; and it
doesn't mean I can keep him from seeing it at his friends' houses.
Get real."
Again, M1EK, it was for effect. Here's a clue: when
someone uses a hyperbolic example in order to drive a peripheral
point home, it doesn't automatically mean that they're
"impractical".
"But some of y'all here are pretty damn clueless about what's
practical and what isn't."
So, because its "impractical" to demand that parents not be
hypocritical/lazy, we should do that which is "practical", i.e.,
just impose one-size-fits-all government mandates on
everyone.
As an aside, I knew some kids in school. Their mom was/is a friend
of my mom. She was a librarian at the time, and as such, thought
that TV was the root of badness. So they never had a
television---she refused, regardless of how much they whined. And
you know what? Those kids were always in trouble, and they were in
all the remedial classes. I think people put too much stock in the
effects of television...
gaius marius|11.29.05 @ 2:58PM|#
I've always wondered whether there isn't a market for a more
scholarly channel
try c-span on the weekends, mr liberate -- "book tv". the closest
thing to actual depth in broadcasting i've found, although even it
has shortcomings. (including a propensity to air a disproportionate
number of neocon gabfests.)
is there a market for that? i sincerely doubt it.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 2:59PM|#
"So, in order to be "practical" we all have to suffer by having
our entertainment decisions made by the prigs and the prudes just
because Junior might see something "objectionable" on someone
else's TV?"
Well, the logical conclusion (NOT reductio ad absurdium) of that is
that porn should be allowed on broadcast TV. Good luck with that
one.
|11.29.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Speaking of frustration with the World War II Channel, I've always wondered whether there isn't a market for a more scholarly channel, maybe along the lines of the Teaching Company (though tarted up--not just lectures). Between people really interested in such information and people who want to be viewed as intellectuals, it could draw at least MSNBC's market share.
dhex|11.29.05 @ 3:05PM|#
bah. let the fucking cable companies and the entertainment
companies take care of this shit. everything is going to come out
on dvd anyway; in five years, we'll be so broadbanded up that all
of this will seem quite quaint.
as gaius might say, this is basically technological determinism,
but so far the arc of gadgetry innovation is on my side.
|11.29.05 @ 3:06PM|#
Well, the logical conclusion (NOT reductio ad absurdium) of
that is that porn should be allowed on broadcast TV.
You're point?
|11.29.05 @ 3:07PM|#
Pro Libertate:
What we need to do is to come up with a way of phrasing the
debate that makes it hard to fight against the "right" side. For
instance, we libertarians (and non-libertarian libertines) could be
Pro-Breast. The other side would be Anti-Breast. Given that few
males would want to be labeled "Anti-Breast", the Pro-Breast
coalition would start off with a distinct advantage.
It's all about the marketing.
We can go this one even better. Since it's women who have
breasts (the type of breasts that people get all worked up about,
anyway), it's really a matter of whether you're Pro-Woman
or Anti-Woman.
Why does Sen. Mark Pryor hate women?
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 3:07PM|#
"I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now if folks
limited their moralizing petitioning to the private sector"
Markets with such high barrier to entry which rely on government to
allocate resources (like broadcast spectrum, or fiber in the
street) are pretty far from the idealized "private sector" you
envision here.
You can talk about how nice it would be if there were more cable
companies so that there might be a company which actually supplied
more than one or two huge bundles of channels (smaller groups of
channels into which you could opt), but that'll never happen due to
physical constraints.
|11.29.05 @ 3:09PM|#
I am NOT responsible for this double post. Apparently, the server thinks I'm posting too much. Well.
|11.29.05 @ 3:27PM|#
Shawn Smith,
I can't say enough negative things about The History Channel.
Pro Libertate,
The audience exists. The problem is that putting together a decent
program would cost money and a lot of time. Though I don't always
agree with either the focus (or the overall interpretation of the
period) of the Ken Burns series on the Civil War, its an example of
a decent documentary about historical events. Until you get that
level of commitment for the length and breadth of human history
you're going to continue to get shit.
Until then the market remains where it is for me, in reading
monographs and primary sources (this probably places me in such a
selective audience that I'm probably screwed).
|11.29.05 @ 3:32PM|#
"Actually, people do have the right to petition Congress to
pass laws. That is totally proper."
Even if the laws they petition for go against the very spirit and
letter of the laws protecting the inalienable rights upon which the
republic is founded?
Are you fucking high?
|11.29.05 @ 3:37PM|#
Even if the laws they petition for go against the very
spirit and letter of the laws protecting the inalienable rights
upon which the republic is founded?
That's the problem with living in a system with any vestiage of
democracy. Sooner or later, the mob will vote in some form of
tyranny or another.
|11.29.05 @ 5:01PM|#
Personally, I find children offensive in almost every way. That's why I've decided not to have any. I still have to put up with them in the grocery store, on the beach, and (shudder) aboard airplanes, but part of living in a free society is that other people will choose to do things I find objectionable. That's fine. I can always remove myself from the situation by going home. Seems reasonable, no? I found an acceptable solution without lobbying congress for no children zones between 6 and 10, and without infringing on anyone else's rights. So why can't these parents, likewise, just turn off the damn TV when there's something on they don't want their kids to see? They could. Many do. Problem solved. The assholes who propose to censor the rest of us between 6 and 10 aren't doing so for the sake of The Children, they're doing it for me. Because I'm misguided. Perhaps I was dropped when I was a baby. Because they know best. Whatever the reason, I desperately need their guidance, and preventing me from being offended by hearing the word fuck will certainly do me a lot of good. If I had never heard that word I'm sure I'd be a decent, church-going Christian today. Or maybe a hard-working, gun control advocate. Certainly I'd be something better than I am now, but, you see, they can't convince me of that because I'm already too misguided to know what's good for me. Instead, they're counting on my still being sane enough to adore their fucking (excuse me, it's surely a disease) children, and to make concessions for the sake of those children. If I allow just a little censorship for that reason, it will all work out the best for me in the end. Then I'll be normal. Then I'll be happy. I'll see. They'll make me.
Timothy|11.29.05 @ 5:14PM|#
Fortunately, eventhough the sample size is small, there is
hope.
Not everybody is like M1KE. Thank The Spaghetti Monster.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 5:19PM|#
Timothy, you're a sad fuck.
I don't want to ban _anything_; but I think people who think that
"everything goes" is OK for the broadcast airwaves, which is
essentially where you and a few others have planted yourselves, are
as stupid as the people who want to turn us into the Taliban.
|11.29.05 @ 5:21PM|#
I think the world would be a much happier place if there were fewer pedophiles and more pedophobes.
|11.29.05 @ 5:23PM|#
I didn�t get a chance to watch this on C-SPAN yet (I refuse to install RealPlayer on my computer), I�ll probably watch the hearing later tonight. I would like to know one thing before I start watching the hearing and start swearing uncontrollably, is anybody on Capitol Hill actually taking this seriously?
|11.29.05 @ 5:25PM|#
"I don't want to ban _anything_; but I think people who
think that "everything goes" is OK for the broadcast airwaves,
which is essentially where you and a few others have planted
yourselves, are as stupid as the people who want to turn us into
the Taliban."
Yeah, because we all know that having to do your job as a parent by
monitoring your own crotch goblins is exactly the same as herding
people into soccer stadiums and shooting them in the head.
God forbid you actually have to make a sacrifice as a parent. Oh,
think of the horrors of having to give up cable! My God! It's the
end of the world.
I Lived without cable all through college, you get zero sympathy
from me. Still want History Channel and Discover Channel programs
without all the other shit? Do what I do and buy the programs you
like on DVD.
|11.29.05 @ 6:13PM|#
I don't want to ban _anything_; but I think people who think
that "everything goes" is OK for the broadcast airwaves, which is
essentially where you and a few others have planted yourselves, are
as stupid as the people who want to turn us into the
Taliban.
Thank you, M1EK, I was taking you entirely too seriously in that
last thread...
|11.29.05 @ 6:22PM|#
Anyway, technology will work around whatever the government does. It takes a lot of work by the M1EK's, joe's, etc. of the world to fuck things up for long periods.
M1EK|11.29.05 @ 6:40PM|#
"God forbid you actually have to make a sacrifice as a parent.
Oh, think of the horrors of having to give up cable! My God! It's
the end of the world."
Once again, you idiots, if you want to WIN, and in this case I ALSO
WANT YOU TO WIN, it HELPS if you don't paint eliminating cable as a
reasonable thing for parents to have to do.
Because it's just NOT reasonable, in this day and age, to live
without some form of TV delivery other than an antenna. Doesn't
mean some people don't do it. Hell, some people live without TV at
all; but you want to WIN, don't you? Don't you?
|11.29.05 @ 7:35PM|#
I grew up in a small town with three channels. From these three
channels I saw plenty of breasts, female pubic hair, softcore
sexual intercourse, and on the rare occasion, a flaccid penis. I
also heard most of the dirty words that are still used today. In
English and French!
Did I grow up to be some kind of monster?
No, actually I grew up to be Canadian. Whether that's as bad as a
monster is not for me to decide but I will say that maybe those who
wish to regulate what some can and cannot see/hear on the public
airwaves after six on a Thursday during the winter solstice ... I'm
getting confused.
Maybe they're afraid that their children will grow up to be
Canadian. Or even worse!
European.
|11.29.05 @ 8:22PM|#
I often feel conflicted about how to deal with the
Evangelicals. One side of me wants to "live-and-let-live" and allow
them to live by what ever delusion they happen to believe as long
as they let me live how I choose. However, the other side of me,
thinks we need to drag these people, kicking and screaming if need
be, into reality before they have a chance to drag the rest of
humanity back to the Stone Age.
Yeah, that's the problem with this libertarian thing - "live and
let live", like "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs", doesn't seem to work very well unless
universally accepted. And of course, neither one is.
So I'm inclined to agree with your position - I'll leave alone
anyone who leaves me alone, and those who won't leave me alone -
off with their heads!
One thing for sure, the next time the liberals are back in power
and land on the evangelicals with both feet, they aren't going to
get any sympathy from me.
|11.29.05 @ 8:25PM|#
(including a propensity to air a disproportionate number of
neocon gabfests.) ...is there a market for that? i sincerely doubt
it.
Be careful G! You may have just inspired someone to start
necongabfest.com.
|11.29.05 @ 8:31PM|#
Because it's just NOT reasonable, in this day and age, to
live without some form of TV delivery other than an
antenna.
Haven't had a working TV in my home for nearly 30 years, and I'm
doing nicely without it. Just got out of the habit of watching it
as a teenager, and never picked it up again.
Of course, the last time I owned a TV, they weren't showing breasts
on them. Perhaps it's time to revisit that decision.
|11.29.05 @ 8:59PM|#
I just wish liberals like M1EK, joe, etc. would stop treating
libertarians like they are automatically anarchists.
They act like its a novel thing to us that wow, gee, some
government exists to create a backbone for society. Honestly I tire
of their constant use of this strawman.
|11.29.05 @ 11:01PM|#
I think John Prine has the right idea too :) Well maybe not that
farm bit, farming is hard.
But if you're honestly "scared to death" of things on the
television, get rid of your fucking television! It's not rocket
science, folks!
It may not be something people want to do. It may not be practical.
But if people are out there tossing around rhetoric like "scared to
death" that's what they need to do. I mean, if there were a wild
bear in my house threatening to eat my two-year-old (assuming I had
a two year old. Or a house.) then I think my best option would be
shooting the bear in the head, not petitioning the government to
kill all bears.
|11.30.05 @ 12:06AM|#
Did I grow up to be some kind of monster?
Yes, as explained by M1EK, you're as bad as the Taliban.
And there's a whole country of you people! :D
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