Do you think the decency standards set for network tv and radio are too stringent, not harsh enough? Any thoughts?
Reason I ask is today the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content. "If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.
http//cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005030113370002099374&dt=20050301133700&w=RTR&coview=
To me this is clear cut. Not a chance. Cable and satellite companies are built, owned and function entirely through private companies. As far as I can figure Congress has regulatory control over network telly and radio because the public supposedly owns the airwaves, and Congress keeps them "in trust" for the people. Apart from that, Stevens is another in a long line of people trying to tell everyone else what is offensive. I absolutely think the recent fines that were introduced have been ridiculous. Particularly as it has transpired that stations have been fined based on the complaints of just 3 people.
I say more nipples please.
I believe the current restrictions are too stringent, erring on the ridiculous. Although I hate to admit it, on this occasion I entirely agree with Bush's comment; I agree that parents are indeed "the first line of defence". It's one of the few sensible statements to come out of his gob, IMHO.
Do you think the decency standards set for network tv and radio are too stringent, not harsh enough? Any thoughts?
Reason I ask is today the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content. "If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/stor...TR&coview=
To me this is clear cut. Not a chance. Cable and satellite companies are built, owned and function entirely through private companies. As far as I can figure Congress has regulatory control over network telly and radio because the public supposedly owns the airwaves, and Congress keeps them "in trust" for the people. Apart from that, Stevens is another in a long line of people trying to tell everyone else what is offensive. I absolutely think the recent fines that were introduced have been ridiculous. Particularly as it has transpired that stations have been fined based on the complaints of just 3 people.
I say more nipples please.
Actually it isn't clear cut - the first amendment does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre (or theater) - Congress may regulate speach and it is entirely possible they will attempt to do so, especially since the Republicans have discovered a new found zest for interfering in people's lives and telling them what to do and not do....
whether they should is a different debate.
:roll: :D
Actually it isn't clear cut - the first amendment does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre (or theater) -
But shouting tits is not the same.
ROB isnt there something in the free speach issue that forbids you to speak to incit a riot act of war . murder etc ??.
Having said that the fire in a theater is in aplace ecessable to the public and of course the right to enjoy the show should not be infringed by soem idiot* shouting out anything *
The right wing weidos of the republican party concern me greatly this thing with howard stern / the superbowl ,and the censoring of comedians at the oscars does annoy me .
Cable and sattalite are only obtained if youCHOOSE to subscribe to the company providing them and no GOVT agency should interfer with what you choose to see and hear in the privacy of your own home .
Wether certain programes are or are not availabe to children should be and REMAIN the duty and obligation of the perants.
All modern viewing appliances have a ON /OFF switch and a setting to restict programming which may be offensive/or unsuitable for some family members .
The problem with censorship is WHO DECIDES WHAT FOR WHOM AND WHY? . the one who should decide waht is best for me to watch /read / or listen to is ME not some suit is a govt office
Just think of it if a extreme left wing govt gets in power and chooses to ban religion on the grounds it is harmfull similar to what the situation was in communist russia would that be exceptable to the moral minority? . there is always a excuse to ban something , tolerance and understanding is the key here which appears to be in very short supply at the moment .
Censorship is dangerous even thou we may have to listen to ideas and opinion we dont perticularly like its a small price to pay for the right of free expresion
Just think of it if a extreme left wing govt gets in power and chooses to ban religion on the grounds it is harmfull similar to what the situation was in communist russia would that be exceptable to the moral minority?
Hmmm, not a bad idea that.
Just think of it if a extreme left wing govt gets in power and chooses to ban religion on the grounds it is harmfull similar to what the situation was in communist russia would that be exceptable to the moral minority?
Hmmm, not a bad idea that.
Why did i leave myself open to a reply from you like that , I should have known :D :D :D :D :D :D
I've always thought the most effective tool for dealing with things like this were these-:
I've always thought the most effective tool for dealing with things like this were these-:
It is for me, but I think those who want controls fear that some impressionable young people might not (which of course leads to the question of parental responsibility).
John A - I agree with you, the whole theatre/fire thing is derived from a well known case that established that the First Amendment is not an unfettered right and that Government can lawfully restrict free expression in some circumstances.
Personally I don't like the idea that just because the channel is run entirely through private sector entities it escapes the law - the private sector gets away with more than enough in this country.
From a legal point of view I'd also raise the issue of Movie censorship - again the showing of movies is an entirely private sector activity - but local town ordinances can still restrict what is shown, particularly in respect of Porn.
Like it or not, it is entirley possible that the Republican Right will attempt to impose its questionable moral values on the rest of us, and Clarence Thomas for one will support them.
I must say, I was shocked last year going back home. Me and my daughter Lucy (then 9 years old) were up at 3am through jetlag and she was flipping through the TV channels. There on BBC2 was The Story of O. Tits and bondage everywhere. On the BBC!
OK, so I know you're average 9 year old is normally not up at 3am. I liked the watershed we had back there. Just doesn't work when you're travelling.
Looks like the programing on the beeb is about to undergo some changes to .
http//uk.news.yahoo.com/050302/325/fdk72.html
I've seen clips of ads by Buyonce and J lo which can't be shown over here because they're too raunchy. Someone should do the US a favor and get them out in full on the internet. Then we can really discuss why some of the worshipped clean pop stars over here who little girlies follow are absolute slags once they leave the country.
Personally i couldn't give a toss. When i was fifty I found this weird little red button on the remote. Press it and it all disappears. lol
Someone should do the US a favor and get them out in full on the internet.
I think the response is obvious here.
You first annie :wink:
If you want to see full, unfetterd uncensored TV just subscribe to HBO. I was in Dallas last year flipping through channels and on HBO was a prgram about the porno movie industry and they showed everything but the going-in shots...
On the other hand TV generally here sucks and it's dumbed down to the level of a sleepy 11 year old which really annoys me. I don't see why there can't be a watershed here as there is in the UK - even Amy thought it a good idea!
On the other hand TV generally here sucks and it's dumbed down to the level of a sleepy 11 year old which really annoys me. I don't see why there can't be a watershed here as there is in the UK - even Amy thought it a good idea!
I agree to an extent... network TV sucks bilgewater (CBS, ABC, NBC, etc) but there are some occasional gems that you have to search out for. MythBusters, South Park, The Simpsons, stuff like that. And don't give me that hogwash about Brit TV being better... most of the stuff on Brit TV is complete and utter crap or imported complete and utter crap.
Turn it off once in a while and read a book.