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.

Comments

[Number 6]

How dare you question these people? They're parents for god's sake!

[smacky]

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).

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Ruthless]

Rubes demand boobs on their tubes.
Rubes demanded boobs in their circuses in ancient Rome.
Thus will it ever be.
Sic Semper.

[Michael]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[Michael]

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!

[Smappy]

I'm a parent. Can I start wagging my finger at Congress for trying to usurp my job?

[David]

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)".

[smacky]

Smappy,

Come up with an original internet handle. Then come back and talk to us. :p

[Timothy]

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!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

So does this mean that networks can broadcast hardcore porn at 10:01 PM? There may be a silver lining here..

[Evan]

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]

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.

[thoreau]

What about a live feed of that store window in Maine? Is that OK?

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

"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]

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.

[David]

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?

[Smappy]

Smacky,

I've been called Smappy since before you were born (assuming you were born after the late nineties).

[Viking Moose]

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

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

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]

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.

[Derek Ashworth]

Do these folks have any idea how inappropriate "backdoor bundling via penetration requirements" sounds?

[Akira MacKenzie]

What, they don't air Davey and Goliath, Joy Junction, and the Creation Discovery Team anymore?

Don't forget Bibleman and Veggie-Tales.

[David]

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]

"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.

[Serafina]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

...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.

[Phil]

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]

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]

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.

[David]

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]

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?

[Phil]

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.

[smacky]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

[thoreau]

Well, either that or ending monopoly cable services in municipalities, allowing services to compete.

I agree.

[Serafina]

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.

[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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

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]

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.

[David]

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.

[Number 6]

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.

[Phil]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

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]

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.

[David]

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.

[Jim Walsh]

...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...

[Akira MacKenzie]

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.

[Hakluyt]

Remember, Sen. Mark Pryor is a Democrat. We have nothing to fear from Democrats. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

Dan,

The beauty of Oregon law is that you have the constitutional right to be a stripper. 🙂

[Dan]

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.

[smackapappy]

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?

[Pro Libertate]

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).

[Serafina]

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.)

[Johnny Clarke]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

As "South Park" reiterates over and over again, parents need to calm the fuck down.

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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?

[Akira MacKenzie]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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...

[Hakluyt]

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]

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.

[The Peanut Gallery]

Hakluyt sez "parents need to calm the fuck down"

The Peanut Gallery sez: Ditto for you.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Johnny Clarke]

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.

[gaius marius]

I like breasts.

finally -- something we can all agree on!

[Russ D]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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]

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.

[Timothy]

And, for the record, I also like breasts.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Breasts? You better believe I'm for them, but there is so much more of the female anatomy you're forgeting. 😉

[Akira MacKenzie]

Oh, and make some strategic alterations to the Statue of Liberty logo.

Well, she IS French.

[Pro Libertate]

Patience, Akira. One base at a time.

[M1EK]

"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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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?

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Hakluyt]

Akira MacKenzie,

The practical is whatever M1EK fantasizes about Western Europe.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Shawn Smith]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[Evan]

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.

[Evan]

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]

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]

"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.

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Well, the logical conclusion (NOT reductio ad absurdium) of that is that porn should be allowed on broadcast TV.

You're point?

[Stevo Darkly]

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]

"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.

[Pro Libertate]

I am NOT responsible for this double post. Apparently, the server thinks I'm posting too much. Well.

[Hakluyt]

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).

[mediageek]

"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?

[Akira MacKenzie]

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.

[Mad Scientist]

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]

Fortunately, eventhough the sample size is small, there is hope.

Not everybody is like M1KE. Thank The Spaghetti Monster.

[M1EK]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

I think the world would be a much happier place if there were fewer pedophiles and more pedophobes.

[zeiner]

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?

[mediageek]

"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.

[Hakluyt]

M1EK,

Nothing like creating a strawman to make you look good.

[Eric the .5b]

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...

[Hakluyt]

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]

"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?

[Hakluyt]

M1EK,

Nothing like creating a strawman to make you look good.

[untitled]

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.

[Pig Mannix]

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.

[Ken Shultz]

(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.

[Pig Mannix]

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.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[dagny]

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.

[Eric the .5b]

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! 😀