Slashdot Mirror
Lone Activist Group Submits 99.8% of FCC Complaints
andywebz writes "Mediaweek is reporting that complaints to the FCC are rising. Powell spoke before congress, detailing that the complaints are up from 14,000 in 2002, to nearly 240,000 in 2003. There were only 350 complaints during 2000 and 2001. Powell failed to mention however that 99.8% of those complaints came from PTC (Parents Television Council). The article does mention he may have been unaware of this fact. Jonathan Rintels (president of the Center for Creative Voices in Media) commented, 'It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.'"
PTC lost a LOT of their political clout after WWE kicked their ass in court a couple years ago. Other targets should repond the same way.
Alright, I'm going to write a letter to the FCC demanding that they keep doing things just the way they have been, smut-filled and all. Who's with me?!
The pain was excruciating and the scarring is likely permanent, but that just means it's working.
This small group of complainers can then easily be taken out by a small group of assassins... There must be a reason this has not been done yet, but I cannot think of any.
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
I, for one, welcome our new PTC overlords.
What the PTC has figured out is that indecent TV and radio was being allowed simply because the FCC only takes action when it gets a complaint from somebody in the public. No complaint, nobody was harmed so no foul.
The FCC is still in control over what is indecent, so the PTC's power is merely that of spotter. If they complain about something that isn't over the line nothing will happen. Of course, a big problem with the current system is that the FCC doesn't have a written down definition of what they consider to be indecent so broadcasters are flying blind when it comes to deciding what to air before they actually do it. What they've gotten away with in the past is no help because they've been allow to get away with far too much.
The megacompanies need to realize that they should use their cable outlets for the borderline content they have, because the over-the-air channels are regulated.
It would be nice for the FCC to define what is indecent..
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
"It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
I know that Stern pushed for his listeners to complain about Oprah Winfrey (?). Oprah got away with saying things about vaginas and sexual practices that Stern was fined for
"brxref
You mean all I have to do is write 240,000 complaints to the FCC and I can control what goes on television and radio? I can write a script to do that in about an hour.
Producers of the biased, left-wing Today show - fear me.
M
a link to the eponymous Parents Television Council. (Click several times! It's fun!)
I love their motto - "because our children are watching". Paternalism at its finest - television viewers must be treated as children!
(Luckily we can't air, for instance, photographs of caskets of US troops - but that's because voters, not children, are watching.)
I certainly hope these nice fellows will submit an FCC complaint if any television network tries to air "The Passion of the Christ". So much sadomasochism! So little time!
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
I don't see the problem with censoring your own TV for your family, but censoring everyone else's just because you don't like what is on it? Is that acceptable?
Chris
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
Why do you think interest groups are engaging in these kinds of actions?
Because other "interest groups" have recently proven that politicians will usually bow to your wishes if you bitch loud enough.
Why not just grow a spine and keep your brat kids from watching inappropriate material?
How many other people here get the feeling that powell is not qualified for his position. Of all the times I have heard this man talk he has never been able to give a sufficient answer to the true nature of the problem with cencorship. I dont know about you but before I address congress I woudl make it my busines to know everything about the statistics I am about to present. Think about it. you have a exponential growth in complaints aren't you even curious about what group be it age range geographic area, etc that this is coming from. Especially with the US culture being as diverse as it is. I just can't help but think he is totally inept every time I see him.
If there is something that you are offended by on TV, no one is making you watch it. If your concerned about your kids watching something you dont want them to, just rememeber who is the parent. I sure hope your not expecting the FCC to take care of your kids.
Market forces will dictate what programming exists on television. If people want to watch content with sex, then yes you will have that on TV. If you dont like that, start your own station.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
especially when you consider in Canada they broadcast (i.e. no cable needed) the sopranos (at 11pm). Heck even CityTv broadcasts softcore porn after 12.
They ought to charge them the administrative costs for investigating and processing each of these claims if they are found to be baseless. That should slow them down a bit.
Goto http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/ top10bestandworst/main.asp and look at their list of 10 worst shows and 10 best shows. For an org that hates mention of sex on tv, they still rate Every One loves Raymond a top 10 pick.
When emailed on this they refuse to respond.
They also hate Las Vegas because it has sexy women in it and Will and Grace because it has gay people in it.
They are about as far from main stream america as one can be.
I read that in one of the more famous recent indicidents where the FCC issued a big fine. I can't remember if it was the guy who said "fuck" at that award show or not. There were only 3 unique complaint letters out of tens of thousands. All but 2 were form letters from this group.
I think someone should start a form letter accusing Fox News of saying a bad word like "liberal" and we will just flood them with complaints till they get run out of business.
If you don't want some vocal group imposing its religious values on you, I suppose you'll have to be just as vocal. Of course, prohibition was quite profitable for a lot of Americans...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This letter is in regard to your recent complaint to the FCC regarding whatever show you think your child should not be watching.
We would like to inform you, in response to your concern, a device will be installed in all television sets that will allow you to control the content. It is called the OFF button.
We would like to mention that this device has been shipping standard with all television sets since the beginning of TV. We apologize if this was not obvious enough for you.
If you should have any other concerns or complaints then, seriously, fuck you. Use the button.
Sincerely,
The FCC
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Credit for this story ultimately should go to blogger Jeff Jarvis. Jarvis is a longtime journalist, former TV critic, and currently head of the internet division of a major U.S. media company. He filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the FCC's data and followed it up with a searing analysis.
Jarvis is a professional, but anyone can do this. Dig in and report. Many hands make for light work, and all that.
For the children.
Go on, say it.
For the children.
Anything you want changed, just claim that its for the children. There's a big percentage of adults in this country that have kids. Most of these people are die-hard parents.
Their own children can do no wrong, are perfect angels, etc. Its easy to see where you could get something changed if you said for the children, because if you didn't approve, you're automatically against the children.
We all know that anyone against children is a terrorist. Are you a terrorist?
That's the same kind of shit these people pull.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Rather than allowing you to retain responsibility for your own viewing habits, these people are slowly making the decisions for you.
To the PTC I say:
"If something offends, change the channel.
"If it is unsuitable for your children, change the channel.
"If you think that it might offend me, it is not your right to infringe upon mine."
The decision to watch or not watch should be left up to the audience, not determined by a 'morally questionable' group, and filtered for the safety of an unintended audience.
By morally questionable, I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the PTC or it's members. However, having never met them, I cannot vouch for their ability to judge what should or should not be censored. Anyone who stands before me to tell me what my choices are allowed to be is questionable in this fashion.
I think what the FCC is doing to "censor" TV/radio is completely un-American.
(I put "censor" in quotes because they don't actually stop broadcasts from going out, they simply fine you if they later deem it was offensive -- a subtle difference, but a difference.)
But read this quote from the person at PTC:
She has a great point. The problem is not that PTC has sent in a billion complaints, but that the FCC exists and is actually in charge of fining companies who dare to broadcast things people tune in to.
Personally, I think the FCC should be inundated with bogus complaints. When they aired Saving Private Ryan recently, unedited, I was real tempted to send in a complaint about the movie just because I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
It is one thing if ABC says, we're going to show you Monday Night Football, and opens with an intro that might not be suitable for children, or CBS airs a half-time show that features an "accidental" nudie show to a wide audience, but other than that, as long as the networks are correctly classifying their broadcasts, I think they should air whatever people want to watch.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I was just discussing the whole "censorship of mass media" issue with a co-worker yesterday.
I feel like we're witnessing a rebellion of sorts, where TV show hosts and producers, musicians, artists, and the like are all making concerted efforts to push the boundaries of what's "decent" in broadcasting.
Whether or not this prompts niche groups with agendas to file thousands of complaints, it sends out a signal that producers of media are tired of trying to comply with FCC regulations that haven't changed with the times.
For starters, I think the current generation, as a whole, is simply not as offended by or adverse to swearing/curse words. Many of us in the "20-something and 30-something" age groups and below have decided that "words are just words" and curse words are only as "bad" as the attention we choose to artifically draw to them.
Last time I listened to a modern rock music station, for example, I was surprised to hear words edited out of at least 5 songs within an hour or two's time. In at least 3 or 4 of these cases, I had never even noticed the singer was singing a "curse word" before, except they made it obvious by chopping it out of the middle of the music.
When your listening audience is perfectly fine with a singer saying the "F word" in the middle of a song, then why should the FCC prohibit it on the radio? As always, those who don't care for it can change the station or simply listen to their own music, instead of what's served up on the radio.
I'm of the opinion that federal regulation of the media is basically unnecessary and "un-American" when you get right down to it. The people who want "clean TV" for their kids or for themselves are a large demographic, so the free market will cater to them either way. (Why do you think we have 2 Disney Channels on cable/satellite, Nickelodeon and "Nick for Kids", etc. etc.?) If the local stations keep airing things that offend big segments of their viewers, they're the ones who will lose advertising revenue eventually....
But since my rather Libertarian views are in the vast minority, I'm sure we're going to be stuck with the FCC dictating what we can/can't see on TV or hear on the radio during certain hours... That's why I'd still say, ok - fine them for obvious stunts like the Janet Jackson/Superbowl fiasco. (That sort of thing is done knowing full-well there will be punishment for it later... But sometimes people just want the "negative publicity" enough to do it anyway.) But at the very least, reconsider the "1950-esque" standards for "decency" on the radio.
You are misinterpreting how the FCC polices indecency. It doesn't watch channels. It responds to complaints that provide transcripts of the alledgedly offensive broadcasts. The PTC and other American Moralists have been streaming complaints against Howard Stern for over a decade. That's why he's been getting fined.
The Oprah Winfrey example clearly illustrates the hypocrisy in how the FCC arbitrarily chooses to levy fines. If you're a friend to the mainstream, you're safe. If you're outside the status quo, watch out.
Here's a link to the transcripts. Judge for yourself if the FCC is being fair.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Not sure if anyone saw this or not on Friday. Powell wrote an interesting Op-Ed (yada yada -- free reg required --yada yada) piece for the NYT on Friday the 3rd.
The quote I found interesting was, "Even so, there are important limits placed on the F.C.C. Our rules do not ban indecent content entirely; they merely restrict its broadcast during times in which children are likely to be in the audience, namely from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Courts have consistently held these rules constitutional, accepting that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from inappropriate material."
If you think about it, all these fines and issues have basically been for "daytime" and "primetime" programming and not for "late night" shows.
Don't get me wrong -- this PTC group is ruining my bad television! Parents need to control what happens to their kids. JUST TURN OFF THE DAMN TV.
These people just got the president re-elected. They have more power today then they have ever had. Not only does the president agree with them pretty much 100% he is indebted to them for his election.
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
evil is as evil does
Hmmm..
Mod me up... for the children.
(Is it working yet? Is this thing on?)
I am all for showing sex and violence on TV but not when it is deviously smuggled inside shows billed "family entertainment".
And.. to those who say "change the channel", I have tried that as well. The sad fact is that there are hardly any alternatives because almost EVERY show is doing it. There are not many intellectually stimulating shows to watch - unless you want to watch PBS all the time.
I, for one, am glad that there is atleast someone holding the purveyors of dreck accountable - even if they go overboard sometimes.
Political minority groups on the right and left have massive amounts of influence and stage things like this ALL the time. This is the equivalent of PETA for TV... a small group of people focused on a cause so they create a lot of ruckus. (Difference between these guys and PETA... these guys are abusing a system that is set up for legitimate complaints while PETA merely tells everyone they're going to hell.) Really, while this is a non-story, its a non-story because disturbing practices happen like this ALL the time. A small minority inflicting their will upon the majority. Though I tend to agree with this small minority (I think parents should parent their children first and foremost, but I do agree that public television ought to be regulated) I disagree with this kind of "Shock and Awe" attacking.
'It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio.'
What's not clear is exactally what effect these complaints are having, and what are they complaining about. First of all, have these complaints actually affected what gets aired in any significant way?
Do I care if...
Perhaps before we start bitching about censorship we start thinking a bit about what censorship is. People seem to think that eliminating Swearing and Sex on the radio is some sort of terrible crime but it is really meaningless. When you look at the bigger issues.
-- DennisEscape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
If the FCC is getting hundreds of thousands of complaints, then there's no way for them to actually investigate these complains. So probably all they can do is count them.
What this means is that any organization that can muster large numbers of complaints about random programs they don't like can cause the system to collapse completely. There'd be no effective way for the FCC to use the complaint system as an alert mechanism.
The only problem with this is that the slashdot crowd aren't nearly as good at organizing as the PTC. So the question is whether we can write python scripts with output that is not detectably different than the PTC's form letters?
Just how "tiny" is the PTC. They have enough people to witness 240,000 individual broadcast events in one year, and enough of them motivated to file a complaint for every one of them. To me, that sounds like a substantial political voice.
No political lobby is made up of a large portion of the population. Tobacco and alcohol are the largest lobbies (I think the NRA is number 3) and they represent just a hand full of corporations. Their impact is due to the dollars they spend, not the people they represent.
I dont see that much money being made by lodging FCC complaints. Just a bunch of people saying what they think needs to be said. Regardless of what you think of their opinions, the PTC is the closest thing to a legitimate political voice a democracy can hope for. Unfortunatly for them, Americans now communicate with Washington more by putting their asses on a couch than by writing letters.
Here are the emails you need: Chairman Michael K. Powell: Michael.Powell@fcc.gov Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Wanna get nasty? - DaNasty
Careful now. WWE didn't kick their ass in court, the PTC and WWE settled out of court. There's a difference.
Powell spoke before congress, detailing that the complaints are up from 14,000 in 2002, to nearly 240,000 in 2003. There were only 350 complaints during 2000 and 2001. Powell failed to mention however that 99.8% of those complaints came from PTC (Parents Television Council). The article does mention he [Powell] may have been unaware of this fact.
Powell was unaware that a single politically-minded group was driving a campaign leading to the huge increase in complaints?
If the story is true, Powell is irresponsible, or he's being dishonest with congress. There are no other options.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...and the way it has always been. Groups with a sufficiently strong interest in the subject speak up loud enough to be heard. The average person isn't usually affected enough to make a fuss. This same thing happened in the writing of the 1976 reform of the copyright act. From a paper by Harvard Law Professor William W. Fisher III, "...the negotiations privileged groups with interests sufficiently strong and concentrated to have formal representatives. Very rarely was the public -- the consumers of intellectual products -- represented in any way. And Congress itself -- whose job, one might think, is precisely to protect the public's interest -- failed to do so."
I truly hope that some of the responses posted here to this story were being sarcastic or joking. Not all of us that read Slashdot are liberally biased like most of the news media. I guess Slashdot never claimed to be an objective reporter of the facts, but perhaps some of those 240,000 complaints came from people who clicked on the link to complain to the FCC from the PTC website?
Also, I think the issue is not that the PTC or other conservative groups want to censor television for everyone, the biggest issue is when some types of objectionable material air. The reason that CBS was cracked down on so hard during the SuperBowl is because the incident occurred around 9 pm which is still considered "prime-time" TV and is not "late-night" (10pm or later). If that incident would have occurred after 10pm, they might not have been fined at all.
I know this will probably get me flamed, but if the majority of people in the nation voted for a conservative Senate, House, and President, does it not perhaps signify A) That the majority of the nation actually *wants* conservative policies or B) That a large number of people are too lazy to vote and then like to complain when they see the results of their inaction.
Just my two cents. And yes, I am a conservative, and yes I DO think that there is far too much foul language and sex on TV during hours when children are watching. If people want to air uncensored nudity or sex on TV - do it on a pay channel that is an optional addition to your Cable so that parents can choose not to purchase it for their household. Otherwise, there is no excuse for this kind of stuff during times when children are watching.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
For the record, I am a moral conservative, and a strongly religious man. However, I RESENT that other groups are trying to do my job. I don't need somone to censor the internet and filter my TV for me. How can I teach my children the importance of making choices if the choices are already made? If all that's available is G-rated pablum, where is the victory of a choice well made? Life is about choices, and I would like to able to use the low-risk, limited consequence items like TV, internet and music to teach good decision-making skills.
I'm also trying to teach my children something about personal responsibility, moral courage, and tolerance for others. Religious nuts throughout history have tried to enforce their particular morals on the remainder of humanity, usually with tragic consequences. I would like my children to realize that, while we don't want sexually-explicit shows, we don't have any moral imperitive to force others to conform to our standards.
So, for the children, please quit doing my job. Fill the airwaves with every variety of material, leave the internet alone. I will teach my children, and if I will teach them to choose the good, and ignore that which does not enlighten. I am, after all, a parent.
As an outsider who has only visited the US a couple of times, it always seemed to me that the attitude, opinion, rules, what you can and can't do on tv, did not reflect the people I talked to.
I mean, if someone said or did something on TV, the reaction would be "they can do that on TV?", rather than being truly offended. It seemed to me that the rules and culture on TV and what was acceptable or normal, were very different from the real world.
When will the American public wake up and realize that they have a choice? You have a choice in everything you do: wake up, go to work, eat, listen to whatever music you want to, and in regard to this article, you can watch whatever you want to.
Along the same lines, you have the choice of controlling the TV. But please understand this: There are Family channels, religious channels, porn channels, movie channels, music channels, news channels, food channels, etc, etc, etc. for all the people out there in the whole wide world. But, *you* have the choice of watching these channels. If you dont like what is on, then please change it, because someone somewhere might like it. I myself would rather have my children watch smut than violence.
Along with this, this means that you will have to actually pay attention to what your family and/or children are watching. If you dont agree with something or dont like a show, then please change the channel.
I am not pro- or anti-smut/violence/profanity/religion; i am pro-choice. take that away, and you take away Freedom.
I am done. :) Please flame away.
...sell me some of what you are smoking. Just out today, stats about Christmas: Peeps who believe the Xmas tale from top to bottom: 67% Peeps who believe Jesus actually lived: 93% Peeps who believe Jesus is the Son of God, etc... 82% Peeps who believe religion shapes life in America: 86% Find these numbers here So is it really a vocal minority who is raising objections, or a group representing a vast majority? Don't get me wrong, I don't get all hissy about seeing Janet Jackson's nipple, but alot of people do. If you believe America is some secular nation that doesen't act at all on religion, you yourself are in a fanatical minority.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. -Mark Twain
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
yes.
all the way.
...sometimes living in the netherlands isn't so bad really :)
Machine9dotNet
Children don't need protection from something they don't want to see anyways... and keeping stuff from teenagers is impossible anyways.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
I just sent the following email to PTC, from the link on their website:
i cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656] brought your group to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to do something you seem to have taken on for yourself: Speak for Americans everywhere. It disgusts me that you would attempt to skew the number of complaints filed with the FCC to further your own views, and to attempt to regulate television as you see fit.
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/art
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
Go away. You are not wanted here.
-Jared Kling"
Could this be a new slashdot classic, for the children?
Soon we will be imagining a bewolf clusters of children (ala matrix)... & in Soviet Russian the children are for you (which might be true)...
god I hope that when the machines take over they aren't programmed by members of the PTC. Can you imagine the Matrix they would create. No one would ever have any sex... wait a minute... has anyone here on slashdot ever had any sex?
What really chaps my ass are the things which ARE NOT being broadcast into my home. You don't hear about the media conglomerate bills going through congress, limiting national viewership to under 44%, because it would hinder Time-Warner's profit margin. You don't hear about all the Mexicans crossing the border, because it would offend the "Latino" population. You don't hear about anything "good" that's being done in Iraq, because it's not as popular as the more sensational news.
Instead of all the women being raped in Darfur, I'm supposed to be concerned about explaining breasts and mammary glands to my 4 year old. Instead of hearing about the Columbian FARC and the cartels, using "mules" (sometimes, tragically unsucessfully) to move cocaine across the border, I'm supposed to be worried about a naked woman jumping into the arms of a football player. I'm supposed to be offended that Howard Stern coaxes New York women into the studio, to willingly strip bare and be oogled and groped.
I've had more trouble explaining the brainwashed Muslims and the entire hierarchy of aggression and blood-letting over the past 1300 years, than I have sexuality in ANY form. Sexuality, in my house, is a topic discussed over dinner. Shooting women in the back of the head, in a soccer arena at "halftime", is something that DOES NOT make the dinner table.
Wow. Talk about misplaced priorities. The problem with the mainstream media is they do not report anything which isn't popular. Years ago, when people struggled to put print-blocks together and used inked hand-rollers to make 1000 copies, it had a specific purpose. To bring about change. To make people aware of all kinds of issues, however popular or un-popular they might be. It wasn't about the bottom line of the company, it was about the social benefit of decent laws and regulations governing daily life.
This entire country needs an enema.
As it says on the PTC's web site, it's the parents' responsibility to decide what children are able to watch. It then goes on to say that all of the sex, violence, etc is having a negative effect on children. So, it sounds like what they are really saying is that parents aren't effective in their responsiblity.
Why should TV stations change their programming because parents aren't effective? Stupid! What's next? "My skin got burned from being out in the sun too long. Let's eliminate the sun..."
I'm censored from talking about breasts, so breast cancer and cooking chicken can no longer be talked about on TV?
Public radio is censored for talking about homosexuality?
People can't talk about sex education on TV?
Your last two points about censoring Pres. Bush and politicians are valid, but sex is where it starts. And where do you draw the line between pornography, art, and science? Once you try drawing a line, the people start trying to redefine the line in their favor in order to control you.
People try to control your behavior with language. They want control of you. If censorship starts there with sex, it will progress to politics and current events. To coin a cliche, its doubleplusungood.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
SATAN COMMANDS YOU TO BUY THE FAMILY GUY DVDS!!!
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
My definition of decency is probably different from yours. For instance, I believe "decency" means respect for your fellow person; saying "fuck" is not indecent unless it is used disrespectfully. So, "Oh, my fucking Christ with a pogostick!" is not indecent, but "Fuck off, tard!" is, unless the person being talked to *is* a tard, and has been doing something for which he/she should fuck off.
And there is *nothing* indecent about the naked human body. Even gross lookin' folks are not indecent when naked; they are merely gross lookin'.
There seems to be a movement within the US towards some strange version of "decency" that does *not* include the way we treat our fellow person, but has *everything* to do with enforcing a certain religious viewpoint. This is not decency. In fact, the act itself is indecent, as it disrespects other people deserving of respect.
So you might imagine I don't want people deciding for me what is decent or indecent. Our viewpoints are different. I don't believe all viewpoints are equal: I believe I am right. So do the folks who want to censor everything. They believe *they* are right, I mean.
Where was I going with this?
Oh, yeah. Decency is in how we treat our fellow man, not whether Janet's breast was bared. In this, my reading of the Bible tells me even Christ agrees with me. Not that I believe in God, let alone the sacredness of Christ.
After all, I'm just an atheist, and so have no sense of morality.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hillary's right, it does "take a village", but not "to raise a kid". It takes a village to pay for a kid. Parents, think about that the next time you're lobbying for new additions to the local school, or for speed bumps every 10 feet because you're afraid your kid will get run over, etc. We child-free folks pay just as much as you do for those items (ie, in most states property taxes are used to pay for public schooling, and the amount of property tax you pay relies only on the value of your property and not the number of children you have attending a public school), and we don't use the provided services nearly as much as the childed. Consider the catch-22 of moving to a new community because it has a "better" school. Chances are, in many cases that's because the community and school are small, with a low number of students per teacher so that teachers can spend more time per student. You see that and drag in your three progeny. Others do the same and before you know it the school with an average class size of 16 has now skyrocketed to an average size of 35-40, hemmoraging teachers left and right because of the added stress, increasing property taxes to pay for school additions and increased community infrastructure (more/wider roads so all of your huge SUVs can drive junior to school in the morning), etc. Of course, then you start complaining about how bad the school is, or how the community is no longer the quaint place you thought you were moving into, or that you're getting reamed by property taxes. Here's a little video worth watching. (warning: this will likely offend parents, and it's definitely an example of an extreme belief, but the concept is still sound and the video is funny, IMHO)
As for "family values", can anyone define "family values" for me? I'm not considered a family (single, no kids), so why should I embrace "family values"? Who says what a family is, anyway? Is a childless married couple a family? What about a single father with custody of his kid(s)? What about a same-sex domestic partnership (with or without children)? Are those families? If not, why should they "act in ways that value families?" There's nothing in it for them.
(Note: I read your post to be in jest, making fun of Hillary, anti-gun nuts, etc. I just decided to rant.)
It hasn't been about Jesus since Corporate America figured out that you sell things to people so they can give them to other people on December 25th. Now it's all about the $$$
"If Common Sense was so common, it wouldn't be such a valued trait."
ive read through this thread (ugh, yeah - i shouldnt read the comments, just the articles) and i'm so bummed by how biased the moderating is.
the slashdot crowd is so religiously godless and radically liberal and most of 'em dont even have kids so they are talking out of their arse when they speak of parenting (and most of the ones that do have kids frighten me.)
this is not going to get modded at all, or -1 troll if anyone bothers to read it, but on principle i will submit it anyway.
it'd be neat if slashdot was more balanced, but most techno-geeks are hardcore bigots in their own special way anyway. i guess we're all lucky they are techno-bigots instead of lynch-mob bigots, but the thought process is still the same. freaky, huh? in another time/place these whacko's would be running progroms against windows users or something. sad.
Dear PTC activists, We are of the bread of human being that through history promoted science, technology and new ways of communication. Things like The Internet, television, radio and many others exist because of the hard work of many free spirits before us that we admire and from whom we are always trying to take the flame.
In another hand you are of the kind who claimed that the earth was flat and that continue to claim that evolution is non-existent. Your puritan and conservative way of thinking comes from those who have done everything to slow down the research and accomplishment of the first group. If humanity has listened you from the beginning, we will probably still be chasing animals with rocks and sticks and living in caves.
Please stop censuring those technologies that you did not contribute to create, in fact why don't you simply stop using them at all and go communicate though bushes on fire or something else you believe in?
Sincerely yours.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
I nonetheless find it ironic that those who want most to shut down free speech scream the loudest when nobody wants to listen to them.
I sent this letter to the parentstv.org email address. Maybe send them similar letters?
Hello,
I'm not sure who I might be addressing at editor@parentstv.org, so I apologize for the lack of personalization.
I am somewhat curious about your organization and why it exists. I realize you probably get all sorts of crank emails, spam, etc... So I expect this email to most likely get ignored.
I don't like most of what's shown on TV today... I rarely watch TV as a matter of fact. However, I find that trying to prevent other people from doing so is a) futile and b) wrong. I am wondering why your organization thinks it's ok to dictate what other people do in the privacy of thier own homes?
I understand you are working under a "save the children" banner, and that's fine. But is it not more logical for a parent to parent, as opposed to expecting the government or TV and radio stations to do it for them? Why does your organization feel that it's acceptable to deny programming to people who may find it funny/interesting/worth watching? Why do you feel that your "rights" override other's "rights" to watch what they please?
As I said, I have no real agenda; I don't watch the TV shows you label as "Bad" nor do I watch the ones you label as "Good." If either or both of them are cancled or taken off the air, I don't really care one whit. What I do care about is your organizations internal justification for censoring programming because parents can't be bothered to actually monitor what their children watch. I have a very real problem with organizations like yours dictating to others what's "right" and what isn't.
It's time to stop blaming TV, Radio, Newspaper and other media for the poor condition some children find themselves in, and it's time to start looking at the parents. I know it's hard to accept responsibilty for the majority of parents that are part of your organization, but the very real facts of the matter are that any parent that joins your organization is a poor parent and is obviously incapable of taking care of a child in an appropriate manner. They rely on the TV to babysite or educate then children, when that is a job for the parents themselves, not to be shunned off on the anonymous TV screen.
As I said, of course I do not expect this letter to be given any serious thought by the people of your organization. It's often hard, if not impossible to convince a zealot that they are misguided and doing harm rather than good. It's a very sad state of affairs and a very sad day for the nation when people with misguided political agendas are able to influence freedom of speech and democracy. Shame on your ogranization for further erroding our right to free speech and freedom of expression. Your ogranization is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Thank you for your time,
XXXXXX
Powell failed to mention however that 99.8% of those complaints came from PTC (Parents Television Council).
MOD PARENTS DOWN!
I think television has been going into the crapper for years. I rented 'Blues Brothers'. I had seen it as a kid, and remember the R rating... watched it, and decided it might have gotten a PG rating today.
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
But 100% of the complaints about the PTC come from Cowboy Neal.
The NY Times just recently published an article about red America's viewing habits. Surprisingly, the States that voted conservative in the last election are the same States where the highest viewing population for "CSI" and "Desperate Housewives" arise. You should read the article before NY Times starts charging for it. What does that say about America's viewing habits? "Do what I say, not what I do?"
Lastly, all this attention on the PTC should not divert attention away from the thoughtless actions of the American Family Association, who according to an NPR report the night of Veteran's Day, were poised with thousands of people ready to lodge complaints to the FCC about stations that were going to air "Saving Private Ryan" in commemoration of Veteran's Day.
Linux at home
It looses a lot of your intended impact due to using phrases such as "by effectively spamming the crap out of the FCC."
..." The 'until you discover...' bit sound very amaturish and would be better worded in terms like : "However, if the statistics are investigated further it comes to light that 99.8% of all complaints..."
That will get the letter put in the 'loony left' bucket quicker than anything.
Also, using the phrasing of "Until you discover that 99.8% of all complaints
Quickly rushing out a poorly worded email does nothing for the cause I'm afraid.
Damn right. We need more people willing to stand up and say "it's my responsibility." More power to you!
I looked at a couple of this years and previous years shows. This is strictly a group of shows approved by your local church.
I see little to do with "morality" and lots to to with propagating the faith. News flash people don't have to go to church to have morals.
The "best" show are littered with the "godly shows":
Seventh Heaven, touched by an angel. And shows so mind numbingly bland that your intestines would throttle your brain as a defence mechanism if you actually watched them and actually had a brain. Shows like Sue Thomos FBI.
The "Worst" list has many shows I actually enjoyed. Like Buffy, Angel, That 70's Show, Spin City, CSI, Cold Case, and NYPD Blue.
I din't actually see anything on the "Best" list that I could actually tolerate watching.
You can't read the First Amendment literally like that, as the poster above me noted you can't yell fire in a theater. You can't disclose state secrets (like troop movements in war time), even if it is news. Congress can regulate contracts (even though this could be seen as a form of speech). It is not an absolute prohibition since there are other clauses that also have to be taken into consideration. But you're right, more than political speech is protected.
According to the article there were 240,000 complaints in 2003, and the population of the U.S. is about 294,920,046, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock , so if my calcutations are right 240,000 / 294,920,046 * 100 = 0.081377%. That seems to be a very small percentage of the population determining what we see or hear for everybody.
Here's my 2 cents.
I'm Christian, but I'm against having a Theocracy.
Trying to form a Theocracy in the name of God is a blasphemy against him. If God wants a Theocracy, he won't have given us the freedom to choose. Any attempt to for a theocracy is an attempt to judge at others, an act frowned upon in bible. A true Christian Fundamentalist won't attempt to subvert democracy, won't attempt to forcefully convert others, won't judge others for their actions, and won't retaliate when being attacked.
Yes, I would like everyone to believe in Jesus. But in the end, it's your choice and your decision, and it is in my belief and obligation to respect your choice/decision.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
You're a credit to your religion.
I'm not a religious individual, but at least you're not one of the pushy types.
Didn't Jesus himself say something like "give unto the Lord what is his and give unto Caesar what is his?" If that or something similar is true then wouldn't that imply that both olden things like tithes and newer ones like theocracies, gov't by theo?, would not be giving what is actually the Lord's but taking what is "Caesar's."
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Free speech is a bitch when people who disagree with you are speaking, huh?
Get organized. Fight them. They are winning right now because they play the game better.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: 'Who in the world would watch this trash?'"
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Looking at their list of best and worst programmes, the group seems to be very selective on which consequences they like shown and which they don't. They like to see the consequences of sex and drug use being shown, but not the consequences of assault and murder.
If they think that showing the consequences of sex will put people off of having sex, why wouldn't showing the consequences of murder put people off of killing?
Seems to me you used to hear things like 'For every one complaint heard, there are a thousand others unheard'. So it seems almost like the FCC is still living in the backwards days before email where it actually took time to complain and therefore deterred all but 0.1% of the people outraged.
I hope eventually they get the idea (well I hope they are disbanded outright, but that's just me dreaming) that the new equation is more like 'for every thousand complaints heard, theres one wacko fundamentalist christian with a computer'.
I lost all faith when Bush got re-elected? i have come to expect shit like this.... We now have our most self righteous, hypocritical nosy neighbors running our country.
As I scanned the posts here, I began to wonder why no one even checked the "About Us" page of the PTC. "Now nearly a million members strong and growing every day..." Then I remembered that most of you had already made up your minds that anyone complaining to the FCC must be evil.
These guys are submitting complaints because their members want them to, and have given them money to do exactly that, so they wouldn't have to do it themselves. This is what lobbying is about. Farming out your activism because you don't have the time and energy to do it yourself. It's not a "small minority." It's a really big organization.
Regardless of what you think about the substantive issues here, this looks like a group with broad support. And there is a vast group of people in this country that agree with their campaign... They re-elected Bush.
You see, we live in a society in which most people:
1. avoid personal responsibility like the plague,
2. don't want to even talk to their children.
Daddy is too busy doing overtime to impress the boss. Then daddy wants to spend the whole fucking eveing with a beer and the TV, or with a beer and the Linux kernel. Mommy is too busy between impressing her own boss, all those soap operas, and all those female friends she just has to spend hours a day talking to.
And the poor kid is just some pest that just gets in the way. Telling little Billy _why_ this and that is wrong, is a tiresome talk and you just know it'll go right over his little head anyway. Naah... better just avoid him and go watch that football/baseball/soccer/whatever game instead. Watching the idiot box is a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Can't let a kid get in the way of that.
So little Billy grows up basically without any guidance. But here's the fun part: just because Mommy and Daddy are too busy to explain things to Billy, it doesn't mean someone else won't either. So Billy picks up all sorts of wrong ideas off the street or, yes, off TV.
And when Billy finally does something wrong, we get to point 1 again: nobody wants to be personally responsible for it. Noo. It's not our fault that Billy grew up wrong. It's the TV's fault! The government should censor it!
Sad.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Wait, are you one of those right-wing nutjobs who thinks that things can actually be solved through market activism rather than crying to the government to hold our hands? You people make me sick.
Another one bites the dust
TV does suck - but it is also great. I will admit, I do watch some crap. But I try to learn from it. There is a show out now called "Nanny 911". An English nanny (not hot) comes and stays with a family for a week. The family has horribly behaved kids, and it is usually the parents fault. She lays down some guidelines, they eventually learn, and la la la happy ending. Pure trash, right? Well, yes. But I am about to be a dad for the first time. I enjoy watching this show to see just how bad it could possibly get. :-) My wife and I watch this, and we talk about parenting stuff. Could we do this without TV? Of course, and we do. But I try to learn stuff from everything in life, including TV. I watch a lot of the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, and The Food Network. I have learned sooooo much from FoodTV. Even those channels run crap shows, but just because I watch TV doesn't mean I watch all TV. I turn it off - a lot.
But to the point of this article, let them run whatever they want, within some guidelines if need be. Censorship is NOT solving anything.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.