Slashdot Mirror
FCC Looks Into Regulating Violence on TV
The Importance of writes "The FCC's regulation of indecent and profane speech has gotten a lot of attention recently. Now, the FCC is considering getting into the business of regulating violence on television (broadcast and cable/satellite). This isn't unexpected, because the House Commerce Committee ordered the FCC to conduct the study. Notice of Inquiry [PDF] [TXT]. Somehow, I don't think the FCC is going to tell Congress there is nothing they can do about violence on TV."
Does everyone in DC have a tv set from max headroom? I mean how fscking hard is it to turn the tv off or program your tv to skip the channels you do not like?
Hey, I thought Cable and Satelite were more or less restriction free on what they can broadcast. They just do some self censoring. It works now, why mess with a good thing?
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
there isn't enough violence for me and we need to regulate it to get more.
Anybody notice something missing here? Check what they don't mention...this is television altogether, not just broadcast. Sure, they don't mention DVDs and videogames specifically, but those are forms of non-broadcast television. Will they be under attack next? What about books? Is violence in books any better? Sure, TV violence is bad, but that's only been effecting people for a few decades...books have been around for centuries, and there are scores of violent books.
What is the FCC asking for? This is not just a survey of violent visual material, but an index of how it effects people, and on what levels, and these questions are asked very broadly. To the FCC I say: Good freaking luck.
There was a report issued in 2002 to determine whether the FCC had jurisdiction over webcasts (internet TV and the like) and whether or not their current TV regulations would apply. It's pretty interesting and their conclusions are somewhat alarming (especially if you oppose regulation on the internet), but it appears not much came of it. You can read the report here: DOC, PDF, or TXT.
+ Donald Gunth
+ Email: dgunth@quicktek.net
"Caffeine is the greatest lubricant ever created." -ESR
Next month they'll be regulating reality TV and EST (American's biggest bestest craziest funniest americans) on TV, now that's one thing I don't mind.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
I don't think they can go after language.
But really, are we so different than we were when Bob Dole recommended Swartenegger's True Lies? I think they'll go after a certain segment of "Violent Programs" (ie. those that aren't politically connected) and leave the rest alone.
I'll shoot the next guy who tries to tell me that violence on TV is a bad thing!
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
that we can no longer see wartime footage? Highly convenient that such steps should become popular about the time the most American casualties are occurring in this administration's ill-guided war.
Finally they are trying to equalise their violence vs nudity vs language levels, going the wrong way though.
How is it that in the US you can see as many shootings as you want on TV bvut as soon as someone says fuck or bares a breast, the loonies go nuts... I thought seeing people getting killed would harm a kid more than seeing a breast or two.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
... for me and for my kids. Better yet, don't censor the airwaves at all, just require a very thorough, detailed, and precise rating system, and enforce it. Then parents can decide what is suitable for themselves to view as well as their children, and nobody needs to step on anyone else's right to broadcast what they want or watch what they want.
Also, I think that any program whose audience is intended to be children, should not be allowed to have commercials. This would protect kids from commercial interests and would have the side benefit of reducing the amount of insipid commercial programming that wastes kids' time and rots their brains and bodies (because producing such programming would no longer be profitable, and all that kids would be left with would be educational programming on PBS).
Of course, there's nothing more important than responsible parenting, and that should be the first line of defense for children. But just because we want parents to be responsible doesn't mean that we shouldn't give them all the tools possible to be such, and provide as much of a safety net as possible for those kids whose parents are not responsible.
Expect more of this to fire up the GOP base and conservative democrats.
I mean, how many people are going to be upset at a politician who claims "I fought to clean up violent media."
Its a shame most people don't see that as meaning, "I'm big on censorship."
come on - you can't show sex or drugs - at least leave us our ultraviolence. or regulate the news channels.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.
The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.
The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
violence?
Great, this means that Ryan Seacrest will finally be off the air!
That man has probably inspired more rage than any other actor in history.
this is not a problem for the gov't
this problem can be solved very easily
on most TVs, there is a dial, keypad, or buttons that can be used to change what channel is currently showing. it's an amazing piece of technology that a parent can use to influence the life of a child
vodka, straight up, thank you!
when it fits their authoritarian agenda. Embrace your huge, deficit-spewing government Americans.
Well, at least that's how TV has been portraying it.
Removing violence from the average US TV show is going to be a sort of decapitation for the industry, the remarkable result could be no life left for them.
But thank God for the Real American Values there is satellite where the FCC has no power!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
For some reason they always arbitrate what constitutes obscene/etc through the court system rather than through official ratings ...
It'll be like 80's TV all over again.
Like the A-Team, where they expend 10K rounds of ammo, but no one ever gets hurt.
Or during a fist fight or HtH combat, the guys always land on soft cardboard.
And those god awful wimpy, mustache twirling, limp wristed villains they had back then.
But, ... I am from Europe.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
bad TV. I'm more offended that we see all the WWF wrestling and shows like "Saved by the Bell." Once sex and violence is gone, then we can get rid of the crud, and we'll only have good wholesome shows like "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman." Star Trek is out, because they have guns.
...we used to make fun of other countries (like in the middle east) because of how their government censored the public.
Put another religious leader in the american government, and I guess we'll get the same result.
</politeness>
Why is the US so damn anal about nudity and violence? The mid east cuts off people's appendages on TV and normal public, Europe had free nudity on TV and on the beaches (Canadain women can even walk around topless)... but damned if someone curses or shows a little leg on my good ol' American Television!
The article seems to suggest they don't want a blanket ban on Television. So perhaps they should take several factors into account...
a) Which channel
b) When
c) Will parents have a chance to see whether or not violence is coming up and make a decision beforehand(e.g. displaying symbols in the corner of the screen warning of violence, obscene language, etc..., or warning trailers).
Parents could then tell their children, for example, never watch this channel, or only watch this channel between certain hours.
Then it could be up to parents to decide. If parents can stop their children playing with matches, they can stop children watching things they don't want, if they get warnings first.
X-Has-Sig: yes
I mean it makes more sense to censor violence than to censor sex, right? At least comments that mention this hypocrisy are usually modded up on here... so mod away ! ;)
They should regulate the media industry. Prevent, instead of encourage, media consolidation. Regulate if/how media businesses should be owned by corporations, and ensure said corps don't dictate the media outlet's line. And most of all, they should prevent its CEO (the chief regulator) to have such close tie with a member of a government that demonstrably wants a total secrecy and government-approved only press releases.
Instead of that, they pretend to be working on censoring nudity and violence on TV, which is a comparatively mundane and non-important, and pretend to be working on stuff that way. In reality, they just divert the public's attention from the real issues they're not working on, a method not unlike what Joseph Goebbels was advocating.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The problem is that they have to appease the people who gave them their jobs. Since the FCC officials weren't voted in, that means appeasing Congress. Since Congressional seats ARE voted on, whoever's constituents make the most noise are the ones that will, ultimately, decide where this goes.
It's kind of scary to think that people you didn't even vote for and can't (directly) rid yourself of have this much power, isn't it?
Seriously. It seems the news focuses on the bad more then the good sometimes. I watch the headlines and maybe one of them will be a good story, the others...
fire kills family, cop murdered, hit and run, etc...
Does that mean news stations will have to report all nonviolent news stories?
im sick of the lack of violence on television. its great the FCC is going to set a minimum level.
i dont read articles anymore. the news is much better that way.
Now would be a perfect time to come up with a digital tv standard to fix this - when theres violence/sex/profanity or whatever thing the FCC prudes like to censor it gets transmitted with a signal, your tv or add-on box gets the signal and depending how you've set it will either show everything as normal, or blank the audio/video or black out some of the screen - could be done at a dct block level without any major changes to the current standards, it could even be done on current analog, the only question is do you show the stuff by default and get a box to block it, or do you block it by default and get a box to see it. Its really that simple. Otherwise American TV will end up like TV in countries like Saudi Arabia. Already most of the world is laughing at you - when janet jackson gets interviewed they keep a still of the nipple shot in the background!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I say, let them do it. It'll piss off more people than they know and nothing will motivate the people to doing squat about it until their choice has been taken from them. After all, it appears that we, the people, have been ruled incompetent, and judged incapable of making these sorts of decisions on our own. It's a good thing Uncle Sam is there to pass those judgments and make those choices, for us.
i have a feeling real violence does more harm then violence on the TV.
Well, they won't allow pr0n on TV because... Why? Why won't they allow pr0n on TV? Because it's offensive? Why is it offensive? Because it goes against the bible? Guess what, murder, rape, incest, theft, idol worship, etc. are all against the bible too. So, why do we see the resemblence of these things on TV every day?
It's about time someone cracked down and did something about the daily TRASH on television. Not everyone can monitor their child's behaviour 24/7, so there's is no telling what our children are watching. If they see something that is socially acceptable on TV, they may grow up to feel that it is not wrong, and, boom, they rob a bank or kill people. Then they are left wondering: "What the fuck did I do wrong?"
Like I said, It's about time someone cracked down and did something about the daily TRASH on television.
Dumbass Politican 1 : "Okay, heres the plan. Lets fist make it so we only got like 3 media companys."
Dumbass Politican 2 : "Yea, I'm feeling ya."
D.P. 1 : "Then, we can enact these here laws that allow us squash any kind of creative thought!"
D.P. 2 : "Hell yea, but why do we need that consolidation again?"
D.P. 1 : "Cause numbnuts, the networks said that they're sick of having to compete for viewers. And if theres only two or three companys, and nobody can serve anything but vanilla, THEN they no longer have to worry about dealing anybody that can muff with their hold on the public. No dissent, no new ideas, no thinking. We win all around! Duh."
D.P. 2 : "And we get fat paid"?
D.P. 1 : "A-fuckin-men".
This is a great use for the V-Chip, the much maligned device that would be put in all televisions and allow parents to censor what shows their kids could watch and let others watch whatever the hell they want. However, thanks to over reactive "experts", the V-Chip was crucified as being a tool of government sanctioned censorship of our airwaves, ignoring the fact that it's actually self censorship. I say bring the V-Chip back and establish a consistent rating system for all television shows to use.
so much for raunchy NBC-style sex or senseless CBS-style violence.
..or teach your kids what they shouldn't be watching, or if mature enough watch and understand what's wrong with it or what was being shown on tv reflect on our own real world? If there's a shoot-em-up special and people want to watch it, let them watch in peace. If there's a skinamax special and people want to watch it, let them watch in peace. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't pretend that it doesn't exist and that it's "wrong" based on your standards. Besides, as with any literature, if something affirms your beliefs, it's served its purpose. If it contradicts your belief and/or makes you think, it has also served its purpose.
Really now, how hard is it to change the bloody channel when you see something you don't like?
$cat
The comment period is open until Sept. 15. If you don't want to see the FCC step in and regulate violence on TV -- don't whine about it here; do something about it and send in your comments to the FCC.
It's a little bit of work, but really, you don't have to write a treatise, one well written page will do. Comments do get read - and the more the better.
Cool! As long as they make the violence mandatory, I'm ok with it!
"I mean it makes more sense to censor violence than to censor sex, right? "
No, it doesn't. You can't justify either one, because to justify one ultimately justifies any censorhip, as long as the reason is popular enough.
The FCC has no business censoring anything. Its only the weak minded who are looking for the FCC to enforce their own worldview.
first they came after topless black women...
then howard stern...
now action movie stars...
Soon they get the gays and the non-English speakers!
Can't interfere with the new plan for the master race and all... can't wait for the FCC and the proposed 9/11 joining of MINT/FBI/CIA SS to issue me my new barcode identity number. I guess instead of star of davids we'll get little frowny jesus figures.
"unlawful for any person to distribute to the public any violent video programming not blockable by electronic means specifically on the basis of its violent content when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience."
would they regulate Tivo too? Tivo (or vcr for that matter) allows viewing of programs at other times than the transmission time. so at the time of transmission, children may not likely to see, but they may be likely to see later. should tivo also have a v-chip, so that it forbids viewing of violent programs at times when children are likely to see?
What, does this mean that we won't be able to hear about the actual events that occur in Iraq, since that's too violent for our poor, virgin American ears and eyes?
The problem with this policy is that it ignores the fact that the world is a violent place. Maybe things aren't so bad out by the FCC building in DC, but if the FCC took a stroll out through the city of DC alone at night, they'd probably get mugged. If they meandered through the streets of Darfur in Sudan, they'd get shot. If they stepped out into the neighborhoods of Fallujah, they'd be blown up.
The world isn't violent because of what's on TV or the Internet. The world is a violent place because people can't get it through their damn head that maybe - JUST MAYBE - if we all started to respect one another and chill out occasionally, we'd live in a happier place. But no. Wars and gang shootings aren't happening because of human frailty, selfishness, or obstinance. No. It's because some guy got shot on network TV last night.
You know, some of my friends complain that there is too much sax and violins on TV and this is ruining our children... *ducks*
Horrific, deplorable violence is OK as long as people don't say any naughty words
The Raven
Since when does the FCC have jurisdiction over non-broadcast technology like cable TV? Just one more example of a government agency overstepping the bounds of its intended purpose.
Well, as a young adult male who is sexually attracted to women, I demand to see more sex on TV.
However I am decidedly allergic to violence.
Also can we please PLEASE "regulate" those goddamn annoying "erection" commercials?? They get more and more explicit and just plain annoying every year. I have no problem talking about sex and erections but it just seems so wrong to talk about it in between TV shows or during dinner. And it's just obscene for drug companies peddle such a useless "cure" when there are so many diseases to work on. How about teaching people that there's more to sex than a hard dick?
I only watch TV for the news at night and occasionally financial news. I can't imagine what kids who watch it many a hours a day are like, there brains must be like oatmeal. Excuse me, Quaker(R) brand Peaches'n'Cream(R) instant Oatmeal(tm)!
ANYTHING you can make for TV will never be as violent as the wars we've had recently. If I can turn on the news and see people with no arms and legs then why can't I do the same with a movie where I know they got up after and went "hehe, that was fun"?
I like muppets.
I guess we have to blame all those people that said "hey, there's so much violence on TV, what's the big deal about Janet's boob?" Did you really think that the result would be more boobs on TV? Where am I supposed to get my sex and violence now? Yeah, thanks a lot.
This just in:
The FCC has decided that the only after-school specials will meet their criteria for decency on the airwaves. Starting tomorrow, all networks will begin airing Full House and Saved by the Bell. All day. Every day.
In other news:
Dustin Diamond, reportedly thirty seconds from hanging himself in a closet, quit his failing career as a comedian and signed on with NBC to film ten new seasons of Saved by the Bell.
of John Woo HK films. Those films rock. Of course,
there probably is too much violence on my tv set anyways,
after watching such exciting films as Bad Taste, Story of Ricky,
The Killer, A Better Tomorrow (I and II), and Hard
Boiled.
Oh well, guess this was a rather pointless post then,
just like the rest.
since archery, shooting, boxing, fencing, judo, taekwondo, and wrestling glorify violence, they should be either banned, or only broadcast after 10 pm.
House Speaker: I understand the report on violence on tv is ready to be disclosed, may the house hear of its findings.
;)
House Representative: The house committee has determined after months of stuides into violence on tv - that we do have the power and means to remove violece from tv, the web, video games, and books. We predict that the cost and overhead of such censorship will amount to a few billion dollers and the department that oversees this process should be merged with the department of homeland security. After much debate amongst us, we also believe that educating americans on how to use their remote contols - or just how to prolong usage of such remotes by replacing their batteries, would all but stop the viewing of innappropriate material. Apparently Tv's have been shipped with parental tool for some time, and americans just need to be informed.
House Speaker: Do I understand correctly? The house committee sugests we have a 'how to use your tv remote control' campaign?
Representative: Thats correct, the proposed bill allowing tax money to be spent on educating americans on how to use their remote controls is in the process. We are still working on a cost estimate, but costs are believed to be in the millions.
----- IANAL.. Just a geek... -----
This is pure fiction, but... How much tax money is wasted because some americans just don't have a clue?
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
It is easy for the FCC to say what words cannot be used on broadcast television. It is a clear brightline rule. I would imagine they would want to do this for violence as well, how much blood or how many dead bodies, etc. However, this really doesn't address the real problem, Americans are more shocked by sex than violence. Sex is something almost everybody is going to have. Yes, parents Sally is probably going to do it someday. So maybe we ought to lighten up on things like breasts. Maybe not worry about kids seeing the statue of the thinker because it has a penis! Or of course we could "protect" ourselves from the "bad" TV companies rather than expecting the government to think for us.
I agree, the kids must be protected. Let's go back to the fifties, where you can't see a married couple share a double bed or, God forbid, show a toilet. And all entertainment shall be Westerns and detective shows where not a single bullet lands on its target, except perhaps to harmlessly shoot the bad guy's gun from his hand.
Of course, sex has to go. Not just dirty shows like Sex in the City and Friends, but any show about divorce, single parenthood and unmaried couples engaged in any sort of relationship. We don't want kids to know that there is any sort of lifestyle beyond the two-parent house. We also don't want them to know that their parents are real people who have lives beyond complete servitude to them.
But why stop there? Let's abolish Conan O'Brien and The Daily Show and The Simpsons and Adult Swim, because the humor is just too hard to get for a young child's fragile mind and we wouldn't want them to get confused.
We should also abolish all beverages but milk for kids, because that's the only one that's guaranteed wholesome.
That would be a start, but there's still a long way to go. The number one priority of our government should be protecting our children at all costs. That is, for the eighteen years or so when they're actually kids... Once they turn into ignorant, sheltered adults we should send them out into society and feed them to the wolves.
Instead of banning violence just give an AWARD to the best sponsor of violent TV.
This doesn't say it is good or bad, it just says who is paying the most to bring it into your living room.
The government really needs to regulate violence on television. The violence on television lately is so poor that the only fix is for the government to step in and ensure that all violence shown on television meets standards of quality. I for one demand that the violence in my entertainment be the finest violence available.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
So, tv becomes "worse".
Maybe less people will sit around on the couch? Or less will fall victim to ads for useless products and junk food. The future looks truly bleak.
Once you've applied your new rating system to every TeeVee in the house, provide every one of your brood with a Library Card.
Yeah, right.
Nothing will ever come of this. If you made a list of conservative politicians' favorite movies, most of them would be violent. This is simply an election year ploy to kiss up to the religious right and squeeze out a few more votes. After the election, this will not be mentioned again and if anyone asks about it, the failure to regulate TV will be blamed on liberals. Hollywood and TV networks donate to almost all political campaigns, and their donations are far larger than the Christian Coalition's, so that tells you where the legislative priorities are.
Over the air TV is different than cable, which an entirely private operation. Over the air tv is on publically owned air waves, and it is more like a public park. This may be a suprise to the slashdot crowd, but doing what ever you want in park isn't allowed, so it is not a big leap to see doing whatever you want on over the air tv is not either.
I have kids, and yes I take my parental responsibility seriously. I pretty much have the TV off all the time, and I don't have cable or dish TV either, in part to protect my kids.
There is a difference since I was kid, and that is most, not all, TV is worse in general, so I don't watch it much either. TV had less violence and sex during that time, especially during the times that kids might be watching, and I think it is in the best interest of country to have that.
I also don't see this issue as violence vs sex on TV. I have been to Europe, and I wasn't any more impressed with their TV than what goes on US TV.
I think cable TV being wholly private and already has pretty much anything and everything shows 1st amendment ok. I think public airwave TV should be regulated, just like public parks don't allow anything. Based on court decisions, and laws the public already has a right to regulate public areas for the common good, and that includes free speech activities. Public airwave TV isn't really any different.
They want to censor TV even more?
Oh well, what the hell...
There's no such thing as a "Web broadcast". Broadcasts mean that you're sending information in a broad manner. Web streams are no-sort-of-casts because they have to be requested before the information is transmitted. This is important to realize when considering whether or not the gov't has their normal TV regulation authority over Web streams.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Excuse me, but the FCC will decide that FOR you, you know.
And if some pesky wording of the law gets in the way, I'm sure Congress can easily pass an amendment.
You're relying on reality which is always a sure path to defeat when dealing with politicians.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The wealthiest portions of the IT industry basically "ignored their duty" to make political donations in the 1990's. How dare they! The pigopolists like Microsoft would never have come into the crosshairs of the DoJ if they had been "sharing the wealth" more amongst the polititians. The anti-trust settlement against Microsoft was finalized under a GOP administration that has gone out of its way to be friendly (with out- stretched hand) with big business. It was no accident that Microsoft's "punishment" was as moderate as it was: -- they could not have written the punishment they received better themselves (oops, oh, wait). Money is the "mother's milk" of politics, and those with the biggest teats get the most out of our wonderful "representative" government in the USA. I believe it was Samuel Clemmens that once stated "We have the best system of government that money can buy!" And the Bush administration has made it known (from the start) that they are "open for business" ...
Just because the colors remind you of the creamy swirls of Michael Simm's white jizz oozing out of your anus mixed with your light brown shit bits DOESN'T MEAN it should be forced upon the rest of us.
You are truly a poet, man. That brought a tear to my eye.
Seriously what violence are they talking about? Talk shows? Eat Bugs shows? The Real World? Golf? The Fishing Channel? Who wants to marry my Dad? Oprah? Fairly Odd Parents?
What violence?
Do they mean channels that are already restricted like HBO?
Broadcast TV is far different from cable/sat. During broadcast prime time hours, there is the expectation of no nudity. i.e. family time. A safe place for kids to hang with the parents and watch TV. It wasn't so much the nipple, but the expectation of not seeing a nipple during the Superbowl. And you KNOW they did that for the shock value, and the rating spurt it brought.
Cable is far, far different. You KNOW there will be some sex & violence, so hopefully you regulate your kids appropriately.
Nudity, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But in the search for ever higher ratings, the line would be pushed back farther and farther. Given free reign, the advertisers would have Mr. & Mrs. McFeely live up to their name.
Says the FCC can go F@!%( itself!
Also can we please PLEASE "regulate" those goddamn annoying "erection" commercials?? They get more and more explicit and just plain annoying every year.
I'd be happy if Enzyte was found by the FDA to be making illegal medical claims and shut them down. Perhaps I'm just watching the Impotence Network, but I feel like every other commercial is for Enzyte. At least with the Viagra and Cialis commercials, they can't get specific about what it does without having to list the side effects and such, so there are more of them that are just flying kites and couples running in fields.
However, since they've started better aiming adds based off gender and age, I've had to sit through fewer feminine hygene commercials. I guess I don't watch what 13 yr old girls watch.
Or, to put this specifically on topic, there are many commercials for sex related items on, so why not shows with sexual subect content? Why is that off limits, when CSI (the most popular show in the country) shows about 2 murders every show, 3 or more shows a week (at least once NY comes on, plus more with reruns).
Learn to love Alaska
There is no need for regulation of any kind of programming by the state.
Not porn, not violence, not snuff films, not commercials, nothing.
Children are not "harmed" by any of this crap. They are harmed by moronic primate parents who can't explain reality to them because neither THEIR parents nor the educational system in this pathetic country ever explained it to them. Period. And that's the way the government and the religious and educational and corporate institutions in this country like it.
You want regulation of violence? Learn to shoot politicians without hitting anyone else.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I say take care of your own damned kids and leave me alone. I am an adult, I don't want a fucking V-chip in my TV and I don't want the FCC to decide what program I can and can not watch. The networks are already squeamish enough about what they show, I don't need the FCC to kill entirely kill any hope for a TV show being gritty.
One reason why I love HBO is because they flip the bird to censorship and guess what? Every single year they rake in the awards for their programming. Censorship kills intelligent programming. Why the hell can't the government get the fuck out of my TV, out of my house, and stop punishing me because some parent is too fucking stupid to take care of their own kid?
Is your kid a little shit who likes to watch bad things behind your back and you are unable to control the little brat? Here is a solution, throw out your fucking TV or lock it in your room. I am so fucking pissed at how much I have to pay for other people's stupidity these days. I can't fucking smoke pot, can't watch violent/sexual TV, my fucking city closes at 2 am (hurray Boston curfew laws!), the rave seen as all been shut down in my area, I can't buy liquor at a bar past 1 am (another hurray for Boston's blue light laws!), violent video games are on the decline because Lieberman takes every chance he can get to threaten the industry, I can't gamble, and I can't even find an all night dinner (one more cheer for Boston curfew laws!) all because somewhere someone out there is too fucking stupid to handle these 'major' responsibilities. I am pissed and I am sick of seeing my liberties being slowly sucked away because some dumbass out there needs the government to protect themselves from themselves or watch their fucking kids.
So let me state it clearly. If you can't take care of yourself or your kids, please do me a favor and go fuck yourself. Don't beg the government to save you from your own incompetence at life. Go move to a nation that gets off on baby sitting its citizens or just purge your worthless genes from the pool. If you can take care of yourself, but really want to help other people take care of themselves, for fucks sake, stop being such a whiny little hypocritical bitch, get off your ass, and go help. Don't beg the government to do the work you want done for you. Want to keep kids from watching violent TV? Get off your fucking ass, make the rounds in your neighborhood and tell parents how to raise their kids. Someone might even listen to. Hell, offer to baby sit the little shits 24/7 and make sure the job gets done right. Just stay the fuck away from me.
Honestly, if we start flinging rockets to mars or asteroids I'll sign up and be the first guy to start a new world. Maybe then in my pressurized habitat in the middle of a barren wasteland I can enjoy some nice violent and sexual explicitly TV in peace.
now we have the sissies b%tching & moaning there's nothing on or what's on is too violent.
It's like reading the letters to the cheap, flimsy magazines they shove in the Sunday newspapers. "Why aren't the shows|movies as good as they used to be? There's so much swearing|violence"
What if we like that stuff to be there so it all meshes togther? It's no different than the hew & cry about violence in video games. Are they going to [try to]regulate them [again]? Jeez, if the parents are worried about that, then why do the parents leave them unattended to do what they want to? Why should adults be punished because of 'parents' (loose term) who don't know what they're doing?
Parents put PCs and TVs in a kid's bedroom then throw a fit because their kid wasn't "protected".
"If you can't control your children when they are fifteen or sixteen, it's because you didn't control them when they were five or six, and usually before that." Rev. Jesse Jackson at a PUSH Rally.
I should be able to see nudists shooting each other, and cussing while they do it, for hours on end during prime time. On a serious note, perhaps parents should pull their head out of their ass and actually be involved in what their child sees. I don't wanna have censorship because of some stupid Christian that doesn't like their children seeing violence or (God forbid!) breasts!
CRTC (Canada's FCC equivalent) decided to not renew CHOI-FM's broadcasting license, because of some offensive comments, personal attacks and harassment.
This decision is made in the same week then CRTC approval for al-Jazeera broadcasting rights. Beheading, anyone?
External links:
Journal entry commenting about this
CRTC report about non-renewal
News: Thousands march to support CHOI-FM
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
Restructuring how you deal with violence on TV has nothing to do with censoring it. The fact that the government is looking into helping me control what comes into my home and affects my children is great in my book.
Why does everyone throw the 'you-are-all-for-censorship' flag? Saying that I'm not tolerant or supressing free-speech is a bit hypocritical: I would ask you to be tolerant of my desire to shield my children (and myself) from harmful images and behavior portrayed on public TV.
Accusing me that I can't control my children (just turn off the TV or change the channel) doesn't especially work either. I fully agree that parents have prime responsibility for their chidren. But I don't want to have to be a control freak to protect my children. Besides: allowing me to filter things coming into my home protects me (and them) from accidentally coming across things I don't want to see.
Let's not skirt this issue either: The fact that people scoff at the US's sex/guns ratio is beside the point as well. I assume that it is the general consensus of the population of the world that viewing graphic sexual or violent content isn't beneficial, and if anything, harmful. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Mix it however you want. Or we could say its some sort of election year tactic by the conservatives..... blah. Let's talk about the issue.
--J
Your TV and your computer both broadcast over the public airwaves even if you use cable television and do not use any wireless networking. Every electronic device is a transmitter, if you don't believe me, google for "TEMPEST for Eliza" (CRT monitor required). Your computer (not just your monitor) is broadcasting everything it does both over the airwaves and through the power lines. True, it does take about $50,000 worth of equipment to decode the signals from your CPU/video card/DVD player but it can be done.
Great news! I am looking forward to watching Sesame Street 24/7. We don't have to watch nasty things or hear bad words ever again. America is safe, the birds sing, the flower blooms, the rainbow spans accross and the people live happily ever after.
TV? What's a TV? I'll stick to my monitor thank-you-very-much.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Many slashdotters wanted greater government regulation of those evil TV stations owned by the TV corporation. I guess you need to be careful of what you wish for.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
You should have logged in.
"Just because the colors remind you of the creamy swirls of Michael Simm's white jizz oozing out of your anus mixed with your light brown shit bits DOESN'T MEAN it should be forced upon the rest of us."
That would have given you instant friends list status.
Regulation absolutely does equal censorship. If government controls dictate that certain types of programming can't be on until after 9 P.M. that IS censorship. If the FCC fines NBC (or whoever) because someone flops a boob around on TV, that IS censorship. Yes, even a mandated rating system is censorship is because it means that you can't show something unless you jump through a certain hoop. If you are not allowed to show something unless the government reviews it first, that, my friend, is without a doubt censorship. You can not 'regulate' speech without censoring.
As to your kids, take some fucking control or don't complain. I am sorry you don't want to be a 'control freak' but the minor inconvenience of knowing what your kids are watching and/or setting up some parental locks is worth censorship of the rest of the population can see. I honestly don't give a damn about your kids and am at a loss as to why you think it makes any sort of sense that the rest of the population should have to endure censorship of what they can view because you don't want your kids to think you are a mean Daddy/Mommy.
I find abhorrent that people think it is okay to use the force of the government to get around being 'control freaks' with their children. This same stupid line of reasoning would dictate that the Internet needs to be controlled by the government because your kids might run into a porn site and you don't want to be a 'control freak' that uses a filter on your computer. Hell, this line of reasoning says that people shouldn't be allowed to swear in public or talk about sex on the streets because your kid might overhear it, and you really don't want to have to be a 'control freak' and always be with your kids to protect them from such vile behavior.
Parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their damned kids. Don't want your kids to see violence or sex on TV? Lock out all channels but PBS and Discovery (although, be careful, god forbid they learn about science of sex through the Discovery channel). Any modern TV can do this simply and easily. Still paranoid PBS might do a special on sexual reproduction or violence, throw away the damn TV. Whatever the case, I, an adult without kids, shouldn't have to suffer because you are manically trying to protect your kids from depictions of sex and violence, yet are too lazy to put in the effort to shield your kids from the fact that violence exists and most adults not only have sex, but have it often.
If you want to shove puritan values down your kids throats yet are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do it, do everyone a favor and don't breed.
Ever wonder where stupid, ignorant, detrimental ideas like the FCC censoring the airwaves come from? That's right, from stupid, ignorant people whose continued existence on this planet is detrimental to anyone with a triple digit IQ. I say we neuter and castrate them so their offspring don't carry on in the family tradition and cause the same problems for our children and grandchildren.
The more time goes by and the older I get, the more certain I become that the average person is dumb as a sack of shit, not to mention superstitious, reactionary, and last but not least, easily led.
I wish there was some way of culling these people and snipping what needs to be snipped. Unfortunately any process or proceedure to do this created by human minds and administered by human hands is guaranteed to be a disaster. What we need is a naturally occuring process that cannot be tampered with or easily avoided. Traditionally man has benefitted from natural selection just like all other life on this planet. Unfortunately civilization has trumped that and has created an environment where really stupid and useless idiots are not only surviving, but are breeding in increasingly large numbers.
I really, really, really wish that nature would find some way to get rid of the dregs of humanity instead of letting them multiply and eventually find jobs working for the FCC, organized religion, and political extremist groups.
Too bad we can't do what that one planet in Douglas Adam's books did and trick all their morons into going off to colonize another planet. The fact that those colonists eventually found their way to earth is something I find less and less suprising with each passing day.
Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers. I say castrate all the cretins!
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
first they came for janet jackson's breast, but i didn't speak up, because i'm a girl and have my own.
then they came for the violence, but i didn't speak up, because i have video games.
then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up for me.
The role of the CRTC should be reviewed. Censorship shall not be tolerated.
why not TV? After all if its not in the constitution is banned right?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Damn, had I known I was that talented I would have logged in with one of my trolly accounts. I appreciate the comments (you both repliers), and I shall endevour to continue my /. shit-a-thon to the best of my abilities.
Yours truly,
A Part-Time But Dedicated CrapTrollFlooder
Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law..." does Congress not understand?
That that is all total BS, the same BS right wingers always spout.
As the parent said, America is the only country in the world who is this prudish about sex (especially on TV), and guess who has the highest teen pregnancy rates, and the most date rapes, and the most sex crimes?
One hint, is it is the *SA. Fill in the blank letter.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much still true. Let's not blame the boobs.
Network Working Group S. Deering
Request for Comments: 1112 Stanford University
Obsoletes: RFCs 988, 1054 August 1989
Host Extensions for IP Multicasting
1. STATUS OF THIS MEMO
This memo specifies the extensions required of a host implementation
of the Internet Protocol (IP) to support multicasting. It is the
recommended standard for IP multicasting in the Internet.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
2. INTRODUCTION
IP multicasting is the transmission of an IP datagram to a "host
group", a set of zero or more hosts identified by a single IP
destination address. A multicast datagram is delivered to all
members of its destination host group with the same "best-efforts"
reliability as regular unicast IP datagrams, i.e., the datagram is
not guaranteed to arrive intact at all members of the destination
group or in the same order relative to other datagrams.
The membership of a host group is dynamic; that is, hosts may join
and leave groups at any time. There is no restriction on the
location or number of members in a host group. A host may be a
member of more than one group at a time. A host need not be a member
of a group to send datagrams to it.
A host group may be permanent or transient. A permanent group has a
well-known, administratively assigned IP address. It is the address,
not the membership of the group, that is permanent; at any time a
permanent group may have any number of members, even zero. Those IP
multicast addresses that are not reserved for permanent groups are
available for dynamic assignment to transient groups which exist only
as long as they have members.
Internetwork forwarding of IP multicast datagrams is handled by
"multicast routers" which may be co-resident with, or separate from,
internet gateways. A host transmits an IP multicast datagram as a
local network multicast which reaches all immediately-neighboring
members of the destination host group. If the datagram has an IP
time-to-live greater than 1, the multicast router(s) attached to the
local network take responsibility for forwarding it towards all other
networks that have members of the destination group. On those other
member networks that are reachable within the IP time-to-live, an
attached multicast router completes delivery by transmitting the
datagram as a local multicast.
This memo specifies the extensions required of a host IP
implementation to support IP multicasting, where a "host" is any
internet host or gateway other than those acting as multicast
routers. The algorithms and protocols used within and between
multicast routers are transparent to hosts and will be specified in
separate documents. This memo also does not specify how local
network multicasting is accomplished for all types of network,
although it does specify the required service interface to an
arbitrary local network and gives an Ethernet specification as an
example. Specifications for other types of network will be the
subject of future memos.
Jeff Fillion went too far, I agree.
Genex Communications knew they were playing with fire by letting Fillion fully express himself: that attracted listeners, so it was at Genex advantage to let him talk. But now they went too far and want to come back... its a bit late.
Also, i'd fire Fillion and the subject would be closed. But oh well, I dont understand governments. (Quebecer, Canadian, American, English, you name it all.)
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
I dawnt like violence on the telly, I always fall off.
I suppose those liberals will be happy now that SATA will get rid of "master/slave" term us racist geeks use with our racist computer devices.
Good lord, it's not the scary, scary liberals who are up in arms about the "master/slave" term; it's the equally-scary, scary conservatives, because it reminds them of bondage and dominance, and that nanny they once had, the one with the leather outfits and that ever-so-intrusive rod.
You know the one.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
He went too far with what? He's just a radio show host expressing his opinions. If somebody got hurt as a result, they can always sue him in court and let the justice system decide. It's not up to the CRTC. The CRTC is now gonna start censoring radio stations and decides who get to speak and who doesn't based on what they say? That's pathetic.
It is *NOT* the duty of the FCC to take the place of irresponsible poor exuses for parents. This applies to TV, Movies, Video Games, Radio, and any other medium they make a power grab for. Violence and horrors are a part of human nature, to try and candy coat life by making it disappear only within American borders is not the solution to it. Removing it prevents responsible parents from educating children on this dark side of human nature when the child is ready for such subjects. If a child has access to such things without guidance, the parents need to be penalized not the masses.
/soapboax /home/nextslashdotter
If you are offended by something you hear and/or see, change the damn channel. There is enough of a market for that show to be on the air, so the minority who cries the loudest should not be allowed to proxy an already over burdened government agency into their holy crusade. Trying to recreate reality will only add to the problem, it will exist until we evolve past the point of our obsessions with numbers, chunks of metal, and thousand year old compilations of short stories. Humans bleed, humans hurt other humans, and we all to often kill each other. With proper guidance perhaps we can recover our failed society, but guidance is not sweeping under the rug. I watch shows that contain all sorts of content that is not morally modelling, but I sure as shit do not allow my children to watch them. I take the responsibility as a parent to filter what they take in and provide education and guidance as they grow old enough to understand more and more reality. When they are old enough to understand I will explain the difference between fantasy and reality and make sure they understand the full ramifications of violence and immoral actions/words towards their fellow humans. They will understand fully the pain it brings to everybody connected, even if you do not see them right away. I watch these shows, but I'm not running organized crime ordering hits on people and settling things with a pistol. I don't need the government trying to be a parent, that is what the MOTHER and FATHER are for or responsible guardian. The government really needs to try focussing on something else rather than taking on another project they can fail miserably at. Their track record speaks for itself.
See: War on Drugs, Prohibition, Peace keeping in Iraq, Defoliating in Columbia, Supporting Bin Laden, Bay of Pigs Invasion, and Growing Urban Poverty.
mv
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
They are %10000 completely worthless, as well as most governments. How long do you think it will take before we have a revolution? How much crap will the American people swallow until they stop and say why, wtf? It's your right to take YOUR country back. Do it now before it becomes harder and bloodier.
The other question everyone needs to ask is, what right does the IRS have by taking your money and calling it income tax, where do they come off convicting people for not paying taxes? There is NO LAW that says you have too, do your research!!
Sounds you are not wanting to be a parent, how about some excuses about why you bothered to breed?
If you can't handle raising your children and be burdended by the tasks required to raise healthy children aware of reality...give em up to somebody who would. You cry like the failure of parent you are, TV is not a right. It is a luxury and if you choose not to invest in managing it for your children sell the motherfucker or give your children up. Don't trample on the rest of us. The issue is, you don't want to be burdened with everything in your children's life including luxuries like TV so you push for big government to make everybody suffer for your laziness and complete failure as a parent.
You can't control your children and you had no business breeding.
Just the non-violent pieces, please. News shouldn't be tied to a rule like this one. If something is violent or the result of violence yet important, it should be shown. I guess it boils down now to "being said" only on TV? Or the radio?
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Our culture has degraded. There's just no craftsmanship in art anymore, and TV shows are only one example of the arts that have taken a hit. Which is why it's good if the FCC goes censorship happy. Now, it's better to be pro-censorship. It's like how Slashdot started out unmoderated and now there are some controls in place. It's way past the time to implement these controls, on a rigorous, complete basis, cable companies be damned.
For example:
1. Paint random lines/shapes onto a canvas.
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. GOTO 1
(Damn, I'm using this joke too much. Someone shoot me.)
Now do the likewise thing for a TV show:
1. Insert boobs.
2. Insert ass.
3. Insert random bouts of angst and unnecessary violence. Call it "reality."
4. ???
5. Profit!
6. GOTO 1
And THIS is mainstream? God help us. The FCC can do lots to stem the tide of shallowness by censoring the offending programs. Sure, shock tactics worked for a while...but today they have it the other way around. It's shocking NOT to display a scene of violence or sex used to fill out the $6.99 script. Real TV shows that are good (not "reality" shows, which reflect reality as well as a media CEO reflects speeding bullets) are the exception. This kind of TV also does nothing to stop the inherent rot in American culture, maintaining a recursive cycle.
And music? Sure, that remains as one of the last bastions of craftsmanship. You can't stick T&A into a guitar riff or piano solo. However, the first cracks are beginning to show there too.
Take one noise that you synthesized by adding 200dB to the Imp growling sound from Doom, distorting it, applying multiple audiofilters (# of filters = level of skill apparently) and looping it for God knows how many times, and you get "good dance/house/techno." Oh and slap on a cookie cutter rhythm while you're at it, because it will make all the Cool Dudes bounce and wiggle (NOT dance) to it and think it's "phat."
Whatever happened to making techno that had depth in its rhythm? Is the popular techno these days really what I think it is?
Whatever happened to learning how to play an instrument? And I don't mean "jamming on the guitar," because most of the mainstream music these days shouldn't be mainstream. Top 40 singers routinely get their voices pitch-corrected and filtered up to make you think they sing well. Pop singers who can hit notes (!) do an extreme amount of pitch bending in their songs so they don't so much as hit a note as swipe past it.
And your tech support is from India.
Would you rather see a bullet or fist coming towards you in 3D... or breasts?
"Without context, a snapshot is worth ten thousand words of propaganda!"
Riiight.
Like Rodney King, that's just propaganda. If that nigga had just laid down, they wouldn't beat him. Oh wait, he did and they did.
There can be no "context" that explains those prison pictures. You hate it because it confirms what you don't want to hear... invading Iraq had nothing to do with terror, nothing to do with WMD. It was bad idea and put ill-trained Americans in charge of prisions that were told all the way up the chain of command to break the geneva convention.
And in doing so, we became more hated than the evil that we fought. Bush has humiliated our country, spent a 1/2 a trillion dollars and we got nothing. NOTHING. out of it.
That's the cold, hard reality, and those snapshots from Iraq make you understand so much that you don't want to see it, so you claim they're out of context.
Stop being so stupid. Stop defending bush, because he is indefensible at this point.
"I would ask you to be tolerant of my desire to shield my children (and myself) from harmful images and behavior portrayed on public TV."
Oh brother. You can do that all by yourself. Get rid of your TV.
That fact that you can't do it shows you and your children have a far bigger issue than a few tits or gunshots on TV.
Yo're like the guy who smokes, is hooked and then blames the cigarette companies for getting him addicted. And what's worse, you seem proud of your inability to simply turn off the tube.
My god, this is what we've come to as a nation... we so desperately demand that we be entertained that we insist the government make our entertainment safe enough to satisfy some weird ethic about sex and violence that exists only in fairy stories and your decrepit mind.
If you don't see the problem with yourself it means you have at least two problems.
As for your kids, they're already doomed. Daddy can't turn off the TV, or spend the time figuring out what's acceptable to watch, so he wants some bureaucrat to help him. Your kids don't stand a chance with you as a parent. They'll probably rebel and run away when they hit 15, because being a crack-whore will surely be better than living with you. It will make them feel less dirty and pathetic.
Good graph of the crime situation
"just allow me a sure way to block it all."
Easy. The off switch. That's not even a difficult thing to do. I have two kids, and I don't forbid them to watch anything. Nothing. They don't watch much TV though. Life is too interesting. Surfing, martial arts, scuba, going to parties, playing sports, going to plays. TV is for the few minutes in between living life, or to put you to sleep when you're too keyed up from an exciting day.
For you though, apparently, its a way to babysit the kids. Good luck to your kids. They need it.
Your right, sex should be open to all children. It's ok if a 13 year old girl has sex. She must explore her sexuality at a young age so she can grow up the be strong and confident. ...and don't worry if she get's knocked up or has STDs. The government will pay for all the abortions as a form of birth control. The question is, how does the government get all it's money?
Is your face turning red yet? I hope so, because it means your thinking.
Life is not for the lazy.
That quote seems to be fictitious.
I'm glad to see that the FCC is finally taking up the responsibility of censoring what little kiddies watch on tv, because it sure as hell isn't the parents anymore. When I turn on the tv and flip through the stations and pause on, say, USA and see a police show about gang violence and how it glorifies street life with kids carrying pistols, it makes me wonder about gun violence among youths. It also makes me wonder when it's going to push the feds to take all the guns from us good guys. I enjoy my freedom in my state to legally carry a firearm for self defense. If no one steps up and does something about the growing problem we have with teen violence, we will all lose that right. If you don't agree with me, you must've already done something to lose that right and don't give a shit about anyone else. If this offends you, you are probably one of the millions of parents who don't give a shit about what your kids watch on tv. Don't think it can happen? Ask a Canadian. Ask a European. I just hope we haven't let it get too far out of hand.
After this, on comes some new boxing movie, completely uncut, with the classic slow motion head-jarring blood-spitting sequences that they seem to thrive on.
Jokes aside, can someone explain to me how a bit of saggy tit is more offensive than gratuitous full-screen slow motion violence?
i dont watch TV anymore anyways. if i want video i find a good divX clip or go to http://sfdt.com./, stick figure death theater. some funny stuff on that, and a little bit of it isnt that bad. search: rob denbleyker
Not to defend Bush, but his contention is that the Geneva convention requires that soldiers identify themselves as soldiers via an insignia, uniform, etc. Those that don't do this, he claims aren't offered the protections of the Geneva convention. Thus the phrase "enemy combatatant" you keep hearing. He's trying to create a new class of enemy so that old protections don't apply.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I mean, nobody seems able to stop the NRA, eh? So they cure the symptom instead of the disease. Duh.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
My daughter was born when I was 16.
Why? Because I *HAD* to know what those lumps on my girlfriend's chest were. I just couldn't figure out what the hell they were. And one night, she showed me. And other nights, I had to see them again, because I *HAD* to study them. Something so elusive that I'd not seen them my entire life *MUST* be something worth studying. Or something.
Re: health and circumcision.
t ml
Circumcision protects against cervical cancer and HPV.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3421602b.h
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I wonder if somebody could slip "raping the truth" as a punishable offence. Considering what the big broadcast media does of lately, that might solve a lot of trouble.
Fox TV: President Bush never lied to the congress.
FCC: That will be $100,000 fine for you.
Fox TV: People say that Kerry is a Frenchman.
FCC: That will be another $100,000 fine for you.
Yes, I know... FCC will never regulate Fox, but I can dream, can't I.
Anonymous Cowards Unite
If the stuff on TV was better, maybe I'd start caring if it were harmful or not.
Right now, it's not worth watching. If 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' was done in the buff, I couldn't care less.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Well no nudity on tv lead to mass internet porn. Let's hope this leads to flash animations and possibly full length series, comrecialless, and enough gore to make doom 3 look more innocent than the teletubbies! So far the flash animations at www.newgrounds.com have been great!
Congress will regulate the TV violence display choices for everyone, which will have wide support from lazy parents. Then, when they apply the same rules to sex, there will be momentum, and it will be easy. Then, when they apply the same rules to "dangerous ideas", it won't be so hard. Then it doesn't matter what they do.
--
make install -not war
At the risk of a troll, conspiracy theories aside, I would say the US is anything but an apathetic nation. Perhaps you could point the Europe as being apathetic these days, but the US seems very much hell bent on changing the world. Forget whether it is changing for better or for worse. I would say in the past 60 years the US touched just about everything in this world, and done it with a great passion. The Cuban missile crisis was the US stating pretty clearly that they care enough to risk a nuclear war. In fact, the entire cold war was a pretty strong declaration of a lack of apathy. Two nations sitting with their finger hovering over the button to end it all and utterly dead serious about pressing it is not a sign of apathy. The cold war was no bluff. The US would have sent everything and anything to defend Europe if the USSR ever game, and the US cared enough that it was more then willing to wipe everyone and everything out to make sure the communist couldn't have it if they had to.
In this day in age the US is still very much not an apathetic player in the game. Conspiracy theories of corporate overlords and Saudi families aside, the US seems pretty hell bent on making Iraq a democracy regardless of the pain either side has to suffer. The strategy might be stupid and counter productive, but it certainly is not apathetic. If WMDs were the issue the US could have just wiped Iraq's government and military off the face of the earth and left the people of Iraq to fight over a new government that might or might not have democratic ideals. Instead though, the US is slugging through, pissing off the rest of the world, restraining from using its full might to gain control of the situation, and taking their licks. Further, the US isn't showing any signs of backing off from the rest of the world.
Even if you look beyond the Middle East, lack of apathy is easy to see. The US has set up shop off the cost of Taiwan with every intention of fighting one of the most powerful nations in the world to defend a tiny island thousands of miles away and sitting on the enemy's doorstep. Risking a war with China for a little island where democracy seems to have taken hold might be a sign of madness, but not apathy.
I don't care if you agree with what the US is doing; though I am sure an idiot is going to reply anyways telling me the US is evil and in doing so utterly miss my point. What the US isn't doing is being apathetic or complacent. The US might be sowing the seeds of its own demise, but it is digging its own grave with great enthusiasm, and not slowing rotting with apathy or complacency. With the track the US is headed down right now, if the US goes down, it is going down with a bang, not a whimper.
I thought your sig attributed to ESR was great "Caffeine is the greatest lubricrant ever created." I did a Google search for it and found no similar quote even with "lubricrant" spelled correctly. Where did you find this quote?
There are 2 main problems with the V-chip. As you said, the ratings are pretty weird sometimes. PBS documentaries and news get zapped a lot ?!?!
The biggest problem, though, is that commercials aren't rated. It's amazing the stuff that appears in commercials even between 8 am and 5pm. Extremely violent commercials pop up in the middle of some pretty innocent shows.
"No need to look down your nose that folks that enjoy some television"
I think he/she was looking down his nose at people (like you) who expect the government to make sure entertainment is "safe" so as to avoid responsibility to monitor what their children do.
So in that respect, I think it is correct to ridicule you, becase you're a bad parent.
...someone from the shallow end of the gene pool.
I'll bet you think Hummers are "cool", and you think George W Bush is "smart".
That's NOT really standing up for what you believe in. That'd be just plain murder. Sure, violence is part of a man's (and woman's) arsenal. It's on the extreme end, to be used when necessary, such as defending yourself, your family, other innocents, and ultimatly, especially in those days where the majority didn't have insurance and the nearest sheriff was three days away, the property used to make your living.
that right will win in the end if you let the law handle it.
Sure. The police never have an agenda. Waco, Ruby Ridge, anybody? If you're going to go and commit a violent crime in front of me, I'm going to at least consider stopping it.
I don't read AC A human right
Sure, the little kids (I think they were preschool age) showed a short term effect. They were seen playing out parts of the show. It didn't help that they were shown the power rangers or equivalent. However, have any studies shown that these kids retain a more violent approach to life in general? It's like writing a paper about the effects of alcohol, and not including any observations a couple of days later.
I don't read AC A human right
That unlike regulations for greenhouse emissions and various polutants the government won't issue "volutary guidelines" on televised violence?
If its anything like how they regulate profanity, you'll be able to kick twice, but not three times. You can have blood spew when a kick/punch happens, but only if it's not a blow to the face. You can't show someone getting punched in the cojones but you can kick someone there... Etc..
My biggest pet peeve is when you hear music on the radio and ass by itself is ok, but not ass-h$@e.. Bitch is ok, but not s@*t, nig##$ is ok but not da@n. I mean come on, really. Either let it all go or really make it right. Current regulations are completely assinine, of course that's probably a bad word too.
You made a key point about parenting. In many families, the TV has become more influencial to children than the mothers and fathers.
A childs mind is like a bank. What you put into it, you get back with interest 10 years later.
The plural of "mom" is "moms". It is not "mom's".
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Be aware that the announced deaths in Iraq only count military personnel. Contractor and civilian deaths are not reported.
Haven't you heard about the new prime-time Fox game show coming this fall? It's called "Who Died?" It shows three video clips of violence being done to people, then the contestants have to guess which of the victims died from the attacks. The audience also gets controls, and gets to vote, too. In order to promote the show, they are ditributing "Who Died?" coloring books to elementary schools across the country, along with boxes of crayons containing extra red crayons for drawing the blood. The show should be very popular with George W. Bush, who seems to enjoy sending people to their deaths, because it has no sex in it whatsoever. (He and people in his administration are so sexaphobic, it wouldn't surprise me if none of their kids were really theirs.)
I'll fuckin' cut 'em.
I agree completely. So much so that I published a rant on the subject - Aug. 8 is National KidsDay
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
then don't be a parent.
What he said on-air.
Granted, its not CRTC to judge whats good for listeners or not, i totally agree, but they (CHOI-FM) got warned in the past about many things (see the CRTC report), and their broadcast rights got extended for two years (2002-2004) instead of seven because of complaints etc.
CHOI-FM 'doesnt seem to comply to the rules even with that warning' (from CRTC point of view), so here they are, axed.
I sound like im taking CRTC side with this message, but dont get me wrong, CHOI must stay alive, its the only good private radio station that doesnt belong to any big networks (Astral & Quebecor), and AFAIK the only radio that focuses on rock music in the eastern Quebec.
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
Go ahead and tell me what I can and cannot film. Tell me what cannot be seen because your archaic model of 1950's suburbia is still being held in high regard by your church.
Go ahread and try. A federal lawsuit claiming violation of my first amendment rights will be slapped on the FCC so fast, it'll take three days for the sound to catch up.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
People are influenced by what they think about. People think about what they watch. We cannot assume that anything is harmless on TV because "everyone is mature enough to keep it in perspective of reality." No, this becomes reality for many, especially children growing up without the luxury of parents who teach them the truth and give them some self-image and self-worth outside of what the media says.
Let's use discretion and at least a hint of moral integrity about what's OK for broadcast.
In fact, take a look at the left wing states that collapsed and you'll see they were heavy censors, not just of violence. Pravda, anyone?
Funny how a series set in the future still resolved issues by punching and kicking etc.
Slamming all those innocent little electrons against the TV screen... We must cease and desist this violence immediately!
[Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
Racist Motherfucker -> Racist Melon Farmer ( TBS, some Eddie Murphy Movie I forget which )
Yippie-Kay-Ay, Motherfucker -> Yippie-Kay-Ay, Mr. Falcon ( TBS, end of Die Hard 2 )
uh.. I don't see where in your links it says anything about broadcasting over the internet.. they're talking about cable rates not internet tv
Just have to tell you your acronym retort was well worth the +1 Funny mod I gave it. Keep it up.
I hate Grammar Nazi's