New at Reason

Jacob Sullum looks into the dark future of censorship regulations after the FCC report.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Russ 2000||

    others worry that it causes anxiety by making the world seem dangerous.

    Like kids don't already get that feeling at school.

  • E. Money||

    these cocksuckers are at it again

  • RSDavis||

    You know, I think the 1st Amendment is pretty unambiguous when it says: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech

    - Rick

  • ||

    The part I love is the a la carte cable channels. Next thing you know, Congress will be trying to prevent restaurants from offering sides with meals.

    Oh wait, they already are, if there are trans-fats in them.

  • Ray||

    Television is not for kids. There is nothing to be learned from a passive medium. Its only real use is for entertainment and babysitting. The FCC has no need to regulate it. Parents should not be letting children watch TV and if they do, they should be watching it with them. Parenting is not the job of the government.

  • LarryA||

    Logically, the government has to choose between a lot more censorship and a little more respect for parents.

    Jacob. "Logically" and "government" in the same sentence again?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement