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
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 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.
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.
The FCC defines indecency by saying that anything the general public would regard as indecent, is indecent. Therefore, if the FCC sees 10 million complaints about one particular thing, they must assume that that the general public sees that one thing as indecent, because such a large segment of the general public is complaining about it.
This sort of activism skews the standards the FCC uses to judge content, and makes the general public appear much more prudish, to the FCC, than they really are.
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.
But the problem is they don't HAVE to get the FCC to do anything in order to be successful. If they complain to the FCC enough, a company may just voluntarily pull content because it wants to avoid another Howard Stern-esque debacle(in terms of both the fine and the PR problems). The squeaky wheel gets the grease it seems.....
Monstar L
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 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!
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.
'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?
Careful now. WWE didn't kick their ass in court, the PTC and WWE settled out of court. There's a difference.
Seems to me that shutting down the PTC would be censorship too. The PTC has every right to complain to the FCC if that is what they want to do. This is political free speech, constitutionally guaranteed and all. Other's have equal right to lobby FCC for the opposing view.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
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.
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.
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"
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..."
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.
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 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
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!
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?
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.