Slashdot Mirror
Attempt to Apply Decency Standards to Cable/Satellite Television
bigtallmofo writes "Reuters is reporting that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (Senator from Alaska) is pushing for decency standards to apply to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio. You may recall Senator Stevens for voting against a measure to criticize the FCC in 2003 for loosening its broadcast ownership restrictions. Maybe he thinks profanity provides an unfair advantage to his broadcast-company constituents?" We touched on this last year, in the attempt to apply decency standards to satellite radio.
Before running a movie, just place a statement:
"Warning: WE HAVE NOT CHECKED IF THIS MOVIE IS DECENT"
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Do cable subscribers get to withhold a percentage of their monthly payments in compensation for the good bits of programs that have been cut/bleeped out? If they edit out 10% of the total months content, then it is only fair that their subscribers get a 10% discount right?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Simply block channels or just cancel the cable/satellite service, end of story. Don't like broadcast? There are always G rated movies...
There is no sig
I wish that was enough to stop them.
I was hoping we would all just move to cable and dump the government along the way.
If you can't apply it to Sat radio what is the logic of applying it to Sat TV?
Ask them to apply decency standards to books, movies in theatres, and finally to what you say in your own home. After all, won't somebody think of the children?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Transmit the sattelite TV from another country. Easy-peasy, no problem.
I for one do not favor any such content regulation.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
In satellite TV, decoders had a parental-block, and would stop you if the movie was rated-R or something.
And that was 10 years ago.
Now if you mean enforcing all tv producers to say "This movie is rated R" and use some blocking, I agree.
After all, kids watch cable, too, don't they?
I wonder why some US people still say that they live in the land of the Free with all the regulation that their government is imposing on them...
Fuck this!
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
if you dont want to see it you have many options:
1) dont buy
2) block it
3) learn to appreciate it
4) learn not to be so retarded as to find any of this scary and threatning
5) kill your self and your family and send them to heaven.
You people need to get out of the way now.
Next, we won't be able to swear on the internet... How can someone think that they're right when they're saying something like that, ho-ly-crap.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
When did they start getting cable there?
Excellent! Finally someone is doing something about filtering out all that motion picture equivalent of spam that comes out of Hollywood, keeping these "blockbusters" from congesting our airwaves and cable lines! We may see television dominated by decent, quality entertainment at last!
Oh, wait, did they mean "decency" as in, no words like "fuck" or "cunt", and no bare tits or ass? Damn. There's a good number of decent flicks that we'll be missing if that goes through then...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If you find cable indecent, you don't pay for the service. Arguement can be made if you don't like what's on broadcast TV, don't watch as well, but you don't pay directly for the programming on the public airwaves.
If people don't want South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut airing in all its rated R glory at midnight on saturday's then they won't watch it.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
This is bad. If they can apply decency to media I pay to have piped into my house, they'll shoot at DVD and CD content. The only difference is the transmission media. Only adults can order cable, so you already have your "adult check" verification.
Land of the free indeed....
The entire concept of pat-television is that it is not available to everyone, and that people should be able to view what they wish in their own homes. If we take measures like this to the extreme, then the next argument will be to prevent people from buying porn.
"The People Vs. Larry Flint" is a great case to show that there should be firm limits to what the government can or cannot say about decency standards. Larry Flint was able to show that his product, while distasteful to many, is covered under free speech and is not subject to this type of restriction. I don't see how pay-tv services should be treated differently. There are controls in place (parents) to restrict viewing. If these controls are insufficient, the problem is not with the material that's available to be viewed, the problem is with the parent.
If anything has ever seen the TBS version of "The Breakfast Club" will notice that a good chunk of the movie is replaced with bad voice overs and pieces missing.
I realize that the movie is going on 20 years old, but couldn't they re-release it.
On a side note, I do find the TBS version very funny with the obvious voice overs.
I don't know about the rest of slashdot but I enjoy Cinemax after dark.
/clears throat Fuck you.
Your lucky you even get a vote.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
I mean, "stinks".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We need to apply decency standards to all content sources, not just broadcast.
That includes all cable, satellite, video rentals, books, and website. We must stop pornography, violence, drugs, swearing, blasphemy, and dissenting opinion! To purge our society of these horrible influences, we should put it all in a big pile and burn it. Next, we will publish a list of government-approved media that you are allowed to create, sell, or consume. Finally, we will hire top scientists to develop tracking chips so that we can ensure that 1) our children* are safe and 2) they aren't in danger of having evil thoughts.
This is, as always, in the best interest of the people.
* All persons, regardless of age, will be required to wear the implants.
Oh. Still watching the 700 Club, are we?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The whole difference between broadcast and cable is broadcast is in the public domain. Anyone with the proper equipment can receive the signal and hear/view the content. What comes over the air is regulated for "the public good". Cable and Satellite are closed non-public systems. You pay for the ability to receive and/or decode their signals. It is a private transaction, and should not be subject to regulation. This would be akin to saying p1*yb0y cannot publish material of their choice for their private subscribers. Now, I try to limit my intake of indecent material, and I certainly screen for my kids. But that is the whole point, to me. My responsibility, My rights to view what I have payed to receive in the form originally produced. I don't need the government babysitting me and my kids.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
1) Patent software for automagically bleeping profanities
2) Government mandated profanity bleeping
3) Profit!
What, no flipping ziti?
With broadcast TV/radio, the argument was that airwaves are limited public resource and should have content that the majority in the public will find acceptable. Last I heard, cable lines are built by private companies, so what cause does FCC have to regulate what they do or don't show? Consumer groups are insane if they voluntarily sign up for a cable channel and then expect to control its content. I am sure there are a few christian or whatever channels already where they don't even say "darn". Do people in US really have to be educated about the revolutionary idea that you can buy stuff you like rather than trying to change the stuff you don't through legislation?
The problem is the Alaskan senator does not understand the law (typical republican moron.) Congress can regulate broadcast TV because of the "surprise" element (much like broadcast radio) where a child or a person may--without warning--accidentally stumble onto a station that is playing objectionable material (to the local community.) Cable is a private company for which people must subscribe--thus, it is treated differently in terms of restrictions from a pubilc forum. One cannot accidentally stumble onto a cable "broadcast" because it is something that must be sought after and the consumer knows what it is they are purchasing & hence are not "surprised." That's my limited understanding of the situation.
I love it when the government takes away the pain and hardships associated with having to make desitions on my own.
In that way, I don't have to assume the responsibility for my actions. I love USA, the nanny state (tm).
Cheers,
Adolfo
PS. What is wrong with the V Chip. Parents should be the ones who are responsible for what the children watch on TV.
I remember listening to some sort of interview with the head of the FCC (Powell), months ago. He remarked that kids didn't know the difference between a pay channel and a broadcast channel. So he felt the FCC should be regulating any sort of medium that kids might listen/view, no matter where it came from.
Don't like it? Get involved - Write to the US Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Ted Stevens.
And the Co-Chairman Senator Daniel K. Inouye. It's cool to complain on websites, but if even a fraction of us actually contacted our representatives in congress, maybe things might change.
From TFA:
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
Now let us consider the following:
1. Violator of what, exactly, if there are not laws in place regulating cable right now?
2. You THINK you have the same power to regulate cable as "over-the-air"?
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce." This is fairly straightforward since the airwaves are generally considered publicly owned "space." Cable, however, runs over private property in a physically limited location. While there may be some power to regulate it, how can this be done without interfereing with private contract and first amendment rights?
3. [begin rant] Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds? [end rant]
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
- There must be decency.
- There must be some person(s) given the task to decide what is decent and what isn't.
- Those given that task will be government officials/bureaucrats.
- Whatever those persons deem not decent should not be shown on CATV or played on satellite radio.
- The not decent material will not be shown/played based on the decisions of the government officials.
How is that not censorship?everything in moderation
Fuck that.
Call it whatever you want, censorship is censorship.
If you don't like what you see/hear, turn it off. Don't force your flavor of "decency" on other people.
What happened to all these freedoms that terrorists are supposed to hate us for?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I laugh out loud everytime I listen to the show, unlike Howard Stern, etc. If you don't have XM, try to find an mp3 on usenet.
Bringin' pork, (Pork for Alaska)
Pork! for Alaska,
They bring pork, the rush is on!
Pork! for Alaska,
They bring pork, the rush is on!
Big Ted left Alaska in the year '72,
On the Senate Rules Committee, was a real workhorse too,
With George and Michael Powell, and the FCC gang too.
They crossed the Yukon River and found the bonanza gold
Below that white-domed fountain, way the hell southeast of Nome.
Ted crossed the majestic mountains to the valleys far below.
He talked to his team of lobbyists as he mushed on through the snow.
With the northern lights a-running wild in the land of the midnight sun,
Yes, Teddy Stevens, a mighty man, in the year 2001.
Where the river is winding,
Pig nuggets they're finding!
Pork for Alaska!
They bring pork, the rush is on.
George turned to Ted with his pork in his hand,
Said: "Ted you're a-lookin' at a lonely, lonely man.
"I'd trade all the pork that's buried in this land,
"For one small slab of pork to[no, no NO, we are NOT goin' to find out what happened to Ginny in this filk as long as I have any say at the FCC]
To the tune of North to Alaska, Johnny Horton
This will never pass. I don't care that this guy is a Republican. There won't be a majority that will vote for this.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Given that pay per view porn is *not* a small industry, I strongly suspect this man will fail miserably. Did I read right that this came from Alaska, land of libertarians?
If cable/satellite providers would only sell channels individually, there would be no need for "decency standards". If you are not happy with the contents of this channel, simply don't buy it. Dont' want your kids looking at porn on your tv ? Simply don't buy channels that air such material.
Now lets move on to next issue.
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
We have the CBC, and I've yet to see them censor anything.
I do enjoy watch the French CBC station in the middle of the night, there is some interesting French "soft porn" that comes on.
We have 2 competing groups (progressives and conservatives) that both think their regulation is wonderful and responsible for our freedom. Neither group seems to have any respect for the constitutional limits that get in the way of their values policing or social engineering. And more things spiral around the drain hole, the more totalitarian, and friendly fascist we become, the more we speak of our freedoms, so we can remain in denial to the crumbing of the empire that is appearing before our eyes.
**The following message has been Super-Moderated by the F.C.C. Any further disregard to the Internet Decency Standards Act of 2007 will result in a really crappy karma score.**
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
back to National Geography mag and Victoria Secret's catalog for me...
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
If the government can censor speech on a closed proprietary system, then nothing stops them from censoring speech on our phones, on the internet, or even talking amongst ourselves.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
... if they're my standards that is. And rest assured, they are low.
because it will infringe upon the 1st amendment rights of broadcasters. The consumer is paying for the content and its not free the courts and freedom of speech advocates will be all over this like white on rice.
I have an alternative, let's get rid of all of the federal decency regulations.
I believe that if entertainment providers were exposed to the market, the market would dictate different standards for different providers and you wouldn't have wardrobe malfunctions b/c the provider would want to keep a level of trust with their customers.
Wow. Free market. What a concept.
next thing you know we will have little boxes in our houses that give out demerits and fines for cursing, and wiping our asses with sea http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/
obligatory link on the topic.
We could avoid much hostility and conflict if we'd just agree to let each community decide for itself what is permitted.
The right tries to set standards for the whole country, while the left refuses to allow anyone to set any standards anywhere.
Folks, there are all sorts of people out there and just as many ideas about how communities ought to operate.
Some like the order and peace that comes with tough limits on behavior, and some like the thrill of anarchy.
So long as people have the right to choose the city/town/village/rural backwater compatible with their outlook I don't see what the problem is leaving each community to decide for itself what is or isn't appropriate.
You know, there might be a silver lining to this. I'm sure the argument will be made that cable needs to be regulated because it's largely a have it/don't have it proposition. Can't have my Learning Channel and Discover Channel and Cartoon Network for my kids without also having to have Comedy Central (where they will hear bad words) or Oxygen (where they might hear stuff that even I don't want to know about).
So, if this passes, this might be an incentive for the cable companies and content providers to provide a more a la carte experience. If you have to specifically seek out and pay for X, instead of having X forced down your throat because it only comes bundled with Y, it's a lot easier to argue that X should be exempt from decency regulation.
How will this affect South Park???
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
When will we be able to get decency laws applied to Congress? I consider the wholesale abandonment of the ideals embodied in the Constitution by our legislators to be indecent.
And I DO vote, and I always favor the candidate who I think will do the "right" thing, not necessarily what I favor, but I haven't noticed that it does a lot of good. Especially since neither party in our "two-party government" fields candidates that seem to care about preserving what once made our government unique and outstanding. Those who even make noises about it seem to sell out quickly.
OK, yes... I know I'm ranting.
Err... just practicing for later today.
Gotta keep my fingers nimble.
:)
First of all, this already got decided in the Supreme Court, so this is FUD right?
Second of all, if they were to somehow do this, it would be the beginning of the book burnings.
These religious zealots all trying to dream of a way to get rid of pornography while they're busy shacking up with everyone but their wife. 'Nuff said.
Maybe we should just change the language so you can't offend people or bad-mouth the government.
We could call it "newspeak".
If they believe in the power of the free market, then let the cable companies respond to the demand for "decent" cable TV.
If they wanted a long-term, cost effective solution to this problem, they would just poke out each citizen's eyes at birth or time of naturalization. Simple and easy, and no more chance of sinful images being impressed upon the eyes, but in the end the citizenries right to bear eyes is probably a state's right.
well focused energy, guys! lets let some bible thumping idiots parent our children.
fucking republican scum.
like unto sheep.
Well, now that the Broadcast Flag is dead (or dying), they will try the next thing to harrass us on how we pay for what we want to view, then make our TV watching habits unbearable... why? What happened to "Land of the Free"?
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
*You are free to watch what we tell you to watch. **You are free to listen to what we tell you to listen. Soon you will see "Rated R" movies or even your favorite "indecent" shows with asterisks and fine print everywhere. But who reads them anyway..?
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King.
The FCC needs to get OUT of censorship, and let the market decide. We need to get religion, including the Vatican, out of our government.
I agree that the FCC needs to "regulate" frequencies. And I think there needs to be an annual fee to cover the administration costs, only. They should be able to enforce people stepping on frequencies for which they are not licensed. This includes HAM "operators" without a handle. This includes freelancers who jam ambulance and police frequencies.
That's it. No indecency fines or any other moronic behavior like that. No control over content. If the Islamists take over our airwaves, then we should have gotten to them years ago; it's our own fault. If parents can't handle explain a pair of boobs to their 7 year old, then they can throw the TV out in the dumpster. If you can't handle a pair of tits, then Christ knows there's no good reason you should be having kids or a TV. Or they can buy from a manufacturer that locks the TV to stations which market themselves as PROMOTING VIRTUE AND PREVENTING VICE, just like the Saudis do (with public beatings, but that's another thread).
I want the FCC out of censorship. I want to be required to decide what my child will, and will not, watch.
Parental responsibility.
Do something about it. If every Slashdot member calls the Senator, believe me, they will get the message.
His webpage is here: http://stevens.senate.gov/ and his phone number is (202) 224-3004.
Do it now. Kill this crap in the bud. You only earn the right to rant and rave if you pick up the phone, send an email, or write a letter. If not, then keep quiet (no more whining to Slashdot), since that's what they want you to do.
Radio stations are threatened by satellite radio, and they should be, if satellite radio takes off in the next year or two, there will be little if any use to broadcast radio and radio station owners will lose money unless they use these laws and corrput politicians to keep themselves in the money making area. Making satellite radio indecent is a way to level the playing field. The issue here is that satellite is a subscription service and should not be subjected to the same rules as a free one.
Cable is regulated. It is regulated by the advertisers. If every MTV program started using the work fuck then advertisers might not want to advertise on their network and so they don't say fuck. The advertisers don't want to advertise on a network that uses the word fuck because they don't like the bad publicity they get from the MILF's(Mothers Intended on Limiting Fuck).
This is how it has worked, how it is working, and how it should continue to work. Why fix something that is not broken, especially when it does not involve the use of duck tape in any way!
First off, I have to say that the government has no business getting involved here. But, practically speaking, the government gets involved in all sorts of places I believe it has no business in, so automatically assuming that we'd be able to keep it out is possible too optimistic.
Maybe a reasonable compromise is to require that cable operators offer a "family safe" package of channels. They can receive all the broadcast networks and any basic cable networks who self censor sufficiently.
It's clearly a compromise, and I hate letting the govt get their foot in the door in yet another area, but maybe in this post janet jackson era it's inevitable. Hopefully this whole wave of hypersensitivity will settle back down, but really I doubt that people in this country will ever relearn the level of disdain for a nanny state that our forefathers had.
First of all, holy contradictions Batman!
Second of all, the standard of decency is LOCAL. Or, it's supposed to be. Meaning that there is not, nor should there ever be, a national standard of decency for any form of broadcast media. To have one would amount to blatant federal government-sponsored censorship (as opposed to the subtle censorship we already enjoy).
Taking away the ability for CITIZENS to decide LOCAL standards of decency is a stick in the eye of states' rights, to say the least, and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We're really screwed here in the US if we don't do something. It's hard to believe that people can't get past the "Howard Stern"-ness of this issue and see that this is a bad direction to go. This is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Free speech won't even have a tax (as it does with the $500,000 fine bill); it will be plain illegal.
As someone who recently discovered Podcasts (and such shows as the "Dawn and Drew Show", "The Daily Source Code", "ITConversations" and other Mac news and information shows), it's a breath of fresh air to hear people talking frankly without any kind of hindrance of their conversation. Not necessarily the swearing - I don't think you need that, but that people can talk about whatever they want.
But I can also see where this is a competitor to talk radio. What happens as the advertisements head to Podcasting and it becomes as popular as radio over time (given about 5-10 years of generation gaps closing and better UI's to get Podcasts). Will we see senators such as this one who want to add "decency" restrictions to private networks (which is really what cable channels are - private wires strung through neighborhoods to deliver licensed and open content)? We already see laws being enacted to try and bring Internet Decency to the, well, Internet.
Here's hoping that this guy's law gets shut down. Some shows are moving to cable because that's where they can say what they want, while others are moving online for the some reasons. If people want to go out and download the information of their own free will and volition, then the FCC should be kept out. The FCC is around to regulate public airwaves to keep public standards of decency in place. This I have no argument with - after all, this is information that companies are play we the citizens who own those airwaves the right to use, so we enforce a contract that they won't show extreme violence or nekked people (which, based on public decency, is all right). Since it's over the public airwaves and there's a chance a channel changer may find something offensive over the airwaves they partly own (as a citizen).
Anyway. Hopefully this guy will buy the clue and keep his fingers out of non-public airwaves forms of distributing information and entertainment - if I have to go out and seek it and manually bring it into my home, then it's not on the public airwaves, and it should be left the hell alone.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Stevens can go fuck himself.
Can you imagine what might happen if a child were exposed to a breast again? My goodness, we've got to stop this breastfeeding, surely that's turning infants into sexual deviants!
Imagine some kid hearing the word "fuck". I mean, it's for certain that he'll drop out of his First United Calvinistic Church of Believers are Saved and Unbelievers Will Fry Like BBQed Hotdogs and become a gay Satanist, or even worse, a Democrat!
We must silence Howard Stern! Fartman must die! He must be replaced with righteous men like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, men of loving intolerance! After all, this is a Christian nation (Muslims and Jews temporarily accepted), and we know that the Founding Fathers didn't really mean "free speech" as in free. Besides, we have to make certain sacrifices to assure that Wardrobe Malfunctions, quite possibly planned by Osama bin Laden to destroy Jesus Christ's favorite sports telecast; the Superbowl, never happen again.
In the FCC Patriot Act 2005, we will make sure the US is a decent, moral society where fags are pushed back in the closet, Howard Stern is forced off the air, and rich Republican supporters get more well-deserved tax breaks. After all, that's what America is really about. Oh, and we have $500 kazillion bounty on that freaky English guy, Eric Idle, for his evil anti-FCC song. If you are not with us in our quest to regulate and control your thoughts, then you are against us.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
People forget that we are restricted all over the place. Most places you can't run around naked or have sex on the side of the street or even play fight club with willing participants. These things are regulated to be done only on private property out of sight of neighbors. So where does your private property end and your next door neighbor begin? Currently it only considers airwaves but XM, Sat tv all go over airwaves also. The main difference is the expectation that the viewers are "participants" by their willingness to pay for the service instead of being "innocent bystanders". Don't get me wrong I think his idea at face value is stupid and moves us down a slippery slope, but it does raise a good question (more likely his true intent). What is the purpose of decency censorship and where should it be used? And before you say that it has no use and should never be used how many times have you meta-moderated goatse.cx? I would be on the phone if that image ever came on my TV.
So where should the line be drawn and who is exempt from the restrictions?
Forgive me if I just don't understand what this decency stuff is supposed to be about. Do we really need the government to dictate a program's content?
I have a hard time believing that there are actually programs or movies being created that are patently offensive to a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the population. Such programs would not be watched and would thereby lose either their commerical sponsorship, or the revenue from paid subscribers.
I don't think I've ever seen anything on television, whether it be broadcast or cable, that struck me as just so henious that I needed the government to protect me from it.
The truth is that this kind of censorship is nothing more than an attempt by a small but organized minority to remove certain ideas from the public airwaves, and thus the public consciousness. Now they'll claim that its "for the children!" but this is at best a half-truth. They may actually care whether kids see the things they're up in arms against, but they're just as worried that adults will see them as well.
Here in America the concept of freedom of speech is enshrined in the document that is the foundation of our government, the US constitution. What most people don't recognize or realize is that freedom of speech itself is not meaningful without freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is dependent upon freedom of information. This is what censorship is an attempt to stifle. The things you know and the ideas and concepts you come into contact with determine the things you think about, which in turn determines what you talk about, the ideas that you express, and the conclusions you reach.
Censorship is evil regardless of who is doing it or the supposed justifcations behind it. If something is a lie, the answer is not to suppress it, but to answer it with the truth. The truth itself, needless to say, is not something that needs to be suppressed, and anyone who does so is NOT your friend. There are times when secrets are necessary, and when information needs to be kept private, but holding details in private is not the same as the active suppression of public discourse.
When Ted Stevens assumed office he took a solemn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution. What he is doing is nothing less than the violation of his oath of office.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
What the FUCK is the GODDAMN V-CHIP FUCKING for?!!!!!
I pay beacoup bucks to hear swearing on cable!
Child porn is already illegal dumbass.
Child pron I can see but why edit everything for 12 year olds? Are Christians really that weak-minded to allow anything influence their behavior?
If I'm paying for pr0n then I want to see pr0n!
Oh wait...that's what I've got internet for...time to dump pay TV.
"Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
Ah, but you're living in the Moral States of America now. Free speech is going going gone. Only Democrats, who are nothing more than godless gay-loving atheists, want free speech. Children must be protected from seeing T&A, or even hearing it mentioned. They must not know what sex is until they're married, or until they're sixteen, piss-ignorant and discover that Peg A fits in Slot B, and then abortion will be banned so that kids lives can be further destroyed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well said.
What ever happened to that V-Chip that was supposed to protect the children? DirectTV had the ability to lock out content and disable channels a long time ago. I remember showing my parents how to turn it off when they screwed it up.
Technology and government are not substitutes for parenting
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."
Umm.. newsflash, Mr. Senator.. your "standard of decency" (which is almost certainly different than mine, or anyone elses for that matter), IS censorship.
The point is, there are people who want to watch the content you deem "indecent", and they should not be restricted from doing so. "Land of the free", remember?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
choo choo!
Once they have complete control over all media, then shit is gonna get REALLY ugly.
we all want decent porn if we are going to pay for it LOL....
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Well, let's see: the idea behind censoring the airwaves is (or was) that it's a limited natural resource in the public trust, so it makes sense to mandate what it can and can't be used for.
/end rant
Obviously, this doesn't apply to cable and satellite, so the only justification for this (other than stupid legal loophole nonsense) is that we're censoring the airwaves for some other purpose.
Further, if that purpose isn't about the technology itself, you could expand this to just about anything else over the coming years. How about videos distributed over the internet? Ooo, and eBooks, while we're at it? And how about books themselves? It'll be a riot. And the PHONES. Let's do the phones now!
Obviously, I'm taking this to an extreme, but broadcast television != cable/satellite television unless you're talking about the content delivered, and last I checked the FCC only mandates censorship of the content delivered because of the method in which it is delivered (that limited natural resource in the public trust thing again).
The last time the FCC tried to do this, they were struck down by the SCotUS who agreed with a lower court which ruled that the FCC can't censor cable broadcasts the way they wanted to. This is seperate from the airwaves since cable TV isn't a public right like access to the EM spectrum. This ruling pretty much said that cable operators can do whatever they want with regards to content since the customer always has the option of not subscribing to the cable network. Most channels still self-censor, but they are under no legal requirement to do so. In fact, MTV sometimes airs uncensored videos at odd hours of the night and there is nothing the right wing can do about it but complain to the advertisers.
- 1682.html
I also believe that cable TV will pretty much die out once we have enough bandwith that the majority of people can legally order shows in real time over their Internet connection. It's just going to take a while for the big dinosaurs to realize that they have to adapt or die.
BTW, the original case of US v. Playboy: http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof
Malaysia (along with many other coutnries) already nasty censorship over what artists are allowed to produce. Here is a story of a film maker who make a film that dealt with inter race/relgion relationship. She was required to make something like 8 cuts to the film or they would not allow it to be released in Malaysia. These cuts gennerally have nothing to do with sex and violence but with how people are suppose to act to each other being of diffrent faiths.
I could see something like that happening here if the wrong people are allowed to have thier way. Lets make sure that doesnt happen.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Radio does not go over the air, it goes over these things called frequencies. Cable also goes over frequencies. In fact last I checked cables went through this part of the earth called ground which is mostly owned by the state.
"Are Christians really that weak-minded to allow anything influence their behavior?"
Apparently, yes.
whatever happened to conservative values? you know the ones that let market forces decide what stays and what goes?
if people are willing to pay for what the gentleman has termed "indecent" and there are enough people paying for it, then that's what should drive the market.
you don't see government saying that other items are succeeding so we must stop their sale.
the gop and conservatives have longed preached "let the market decide" so why can't they stand back and let the market decide what we can and cannot watch.
if they are so gung ho on family styled programming, then watch what's available and turn off the other stuff.
but see...the problem is that few people tune into family programs and more people turn on the provocative fare so now congress wants to squash it.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Maybe we should start applying decency standards to congress and the courts...
Or perhaps we should start with those awful campaign ads they use to get elected.
If a parent has a gun in their home, it's expected of them to prevent kids from using it. If a parent does not want a kid from using a cable box, you get the FCC to do it? Where's the consistency in that? Wouldn't it be easier to take the H4/Satellite card out of the box when you aren't using it? Or remove the cable box when no one is using it? That is ignoring the features that prevent kids from seeing certain channels and viewing times!
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
All I have to say is about fuckin' time someone stands up for a little fuckin' decency. Seriously... this fuckin' guy is my fuckin' hero. This fuckin' country is goin' to shit... all those motherfuckers talking shit on the fuckin' TV all the time. I don't need to hear and see that fuckin' shit. Fucking bullshit on TV.. back in my fuckin' day we didn't have any TV, but that shit never flied on the god damned radio, that's for fuckin' sure. Now we got fuckin' wankers spewing shit and shit, bitch this cunt that, suck my dick this, suck my dick that. Man, this country is going so far in the fucking wrong direction. Thank the good lord jesus fucking christ for this guy. We need more mother fuckin' 81 year olds standing up against this bullshit. All you fucking young geek whippersnapper dickheads need to wake up!. You fucking god damned cunt dick asshole fuckers!
I know this is rather simplistic, I have several qualms about the rating systems and the v-chip myself (which ammendment is that again? the one about freedom to leech or something like that?) but from the eyes of a manufacturer/broadcaster, wouldn't this help keep those pesky senators quiet, being that anybody who allows "indecent" content on their television is doing so by their own will? I'd imagine this would protect most homes, and make more parents aware of the v-chip and how to use it. To my understanding, that's a big problem with the v-chip issue today is that most parents don't even think about whether or not it exists, and never notice the "parental controls" feature which is usually hidden in the setup menus.
Please keep in my that my ADHD keeps me a little scatter brained and I sometimes can't focus long enough to
Unfortunately, the only decent politician I know of was Screaming Lord Sutch, and he's dead.
Oh! Violence, false advertising, corruption, drug abuse and blasphemy don't count? But politically incorrect flesh does, at least when it's the "wrong party" involved?
Y'know, if you're going to have a decency standard, you need to have a REAL decency standard and a REAL deterrent. If Bill Gates is proven to be using media manipulation and journalistic terrorism to keep Windows dominant, exile him to a penguin colony for a few years. If a politician is caught in a lie, have them live at the South Pole for a while, where there is no spotlight.
Only one problem. Put all the liars in Washington DC at the South Pole, you'd destabilize the Earth's orbit with the mass of egos.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Note: there are documented cases where these ultra-conservatives don't win. Look at the so-called "American Family Association" and their pathetic attempt to sabotage NYPD blue.
They don't give up-EVER, and never learn because they are convinced beyond any rational argument that their agenda, is the correct one.
Ummm... they got converted to Christianity somehow... probably by reading a 2000 year old book... obviously they are pretty weak-minded when it comes to things that influence their behaviour.
I'd call myself a Democrat, but they're a bunch of bleeding hearts who want to take from those who work and give to those who don't. I'd call myself a Libertarian, but they're a bunch of pansy-ass isolationists who wouldn't lift a finger to defend their country. I'd call myself a Republican, but they're a bunch of ram-it-down-your-throat morality police who think they know what's best for everyone to believe.
...Especially since things like the V-chip and parental locks already enable parents to monitor and control their children's viewing habits.
It just goes to show how desperate America's right wing is to exert total control over all forms of speech.
The next phase of his plan is how our conservative overlords will define obscenity. Afterall, aren't these the same people who define any discussion on birth control, safe sex, or abortion as pornography?
How does his argument jive with all you good libertarians and conservatives who supposedly believe in limited government and free market solutions to society's needs?
Create a subscription channel called SCAF: the Shit, Cunt, Asshole, Fuck channel. Broadcast nothing but those four words over and over again. Subscribers can pay something like 25 cents a month to get it -- the money counts as a contribution towards freedom of speech. Then, if something like this is ever passed, it will result in the channel being 100% censored since there's nothing decent left to transmit. It'd certainly make for an interesting court case to challenge the constitutionality (oh, how I love made-up words) of these types of regulations.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Bastards. Fuck that shit. I'm on-goddamn'd-line!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I was watching Glengarry Glen Ross on daytime TV and there was no sound at all, just beeps the whole time. It was kinda fun, like an alien translation.
I wonder why they bother showing movies with a lot of forbidden words, if they are going to butcher it to the point where its completely unwatchable. Hopefully they don't get to do it on satellite TV too, not that I get any...
Cartman: F*ck f*ckitty f*ck f*ck f*ck, What's the big f*cking deal?
Time to get this bozo out of office...
I am so sick of everything being about "Protecting the Children". Why is it we spend like 90% percent of our lives trying to protect 10% of someone else life? This is all the parents Job anyway to monitor what their childrens what and play. The greatest irony is that the older generations live in a time when lynching African Americans was okay. So even though it will warp my mind to play GTA 3 watching ethnic minorities being brutally murdered apparently has no long term effect. Oh you say your faimly memebers in the older generations never witnessed that? Well take your pick of horrible things that happend around those times like the Vietnam war or World War 2.
Don't get me wrong I don't think kids should see everything on TV but it isn't my job or the Government Job to do that.
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
You made it sound like it was the Republicans that were solely to blame for all this crapola, and it's not. That might not have been your intention, but it came off that way.
A Democrat, Michael Copp, started all this crap when Janet Jackson had her "malfunction", and it got blamed on the Republicans.
Are you saying that the Democrats are for the Nanny State, and now the Republicans have jumped on that band wagon? I think one senator proposing a stupid bill is hardly making your point.
Yet again this whole issue could have been settled when digital TV standards were being set, oh wait the FCC was too caught up in trying to push the broadcast flag, obviously thats more important than free speech and kids seeing extreme violence and hardcore porn. The standard im talking about is basically V-chip on steroids, with digital TV you'd be able to set your own TV to censor as much or as little as you liked - you could choose a rating and then choose to have either the entire show blanked out or just the dodgy scenes or even just have black boxes appear to cover things up or bleep words, it would essentially be the broadcast flag for decency, the tv networks could even do it on live tv with a small delay! and heres the best part! if the networks couldn't be assed, they could decide not to bother flagging stuff, no problem, you could set your TV to block any unflagged content and the networks would soon learn to maximise their viewers. This way parents would be able to set it how they wanted and everyone else would have the most important thing: free speech without draconian censorship that makes the rest of the world laugh at the US. But of course that would never happen, because that would actually be a good idea and we all know what retarded old-man out-raged by everything politicians think about good ideas.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I find the oil pollution spewed all over Alaska that Stevens champions to be obscene. Who the hell is this sleazebag to tell anyone about "decency" standards?
--
make install -not war
Guess what? Parents should be the censor here... I'm sick of hearing everyone say that, but apparently some people still don't get it. They moan and bitch that, "well, both parents have to work" and whatever other dumb excuses their tiny brains can come up with. If neither of you have a decent job, use a condom, or DON'T FUCK! If you're not sure you want to spend the rest of your life with this person, use a condom, or DON'T FUCK! Society shouldn't have to pay because of your poor planning. Also, these whiny asshole parents should look into the idea of daycare if they absolutely must both work, and, for some reason, they figured out how to pollute the gene pool further. Are these people stupid?
When I here people say the US is getting "less free" I wonder what they're talking about. Was there ever a time when there weren't people who wanted to censor the media? When was the last time a book (or even a movie) was banned? Used to a happen all the time. Was there ever a time when more obscene (in the everyday sense of the term) material was more accessible?
Was America "more free" before the advent of Civil Rights Act, Title 9, American's with Disabilities Act, etc? I would say no. The problem is that its a struggle to stay free, and you're gonna win some and lose some.
Don't like it? than don't watch it, it's really that simple.
Why do you want to take the decision for me? Please let me choose whatever I want to watch.
Is this how democracy is supposed to work? People vote other people to think in their place?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
What is to stop Bush from calling Micheal Moore and Al Frankin "indecent" and transversly, what stops, say Sen. Hillary Clinton from deeming Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity "indecent"?
The Parents Television Council is responsible for a huge number of complaints to the FCC, prompting most of the recent crackdown. The above group is the first (I believe) group to consolidate people concerned about broadcast freedom. They have forms (just like the PTC) to send "anti-complaints" to the FCC, stating, in a nutshell, that the PTC is crossing the line, and that you as a viewer don't find some things offensive.
The FCC only acts on complaints, not on public opinion, so if only the crazies make up .012% of a viewing audience, and they complain, the FCC will open an investigation, even if the other 99+% didn't care in the least.
Check it out.
I'm Peggy.
I just want to hold Republicans to their rhetoric. Nothing annoys me like hypocrisy. The reason why Repubicans get caught in binds like this is that they are beholden to two interest groups: the Christian Right, which wants total moral regulation, and the Plutocrats, who want less regulation. There's no way to square that circle.
First, the FCC needs to keep their fucking hands off of services I pay for. No one is forced to pay for cable or satellite tv or satellite radio.
Second, parent your fucking children. Don't make the government do it. Don't tell me what I can or can't see or hear. That's my choice. If you want to 'protect the children', start with your own by turning the channel.
IANAF (I Am Not A Father) but I'm an average male, 18 to 35. Do I want to be able to watch what I want to watch on television? Hell, yes.
Do I want kiddie porn being sold on every corner? No way!
** Keep adult materials out of any venue that a child can be expected to be frequenting without adult supervision. **
Now, my definition of adult materials is assuredly different from someone else's. I think the human body is natural and beautiful (well, except for ugly fat people, but they're still natural), and it does not harm a child to see a naked woman or naked man, in a non-sexually explicit act. (That means I also do not believe a sexually aroused man with an erect penis is not acceptable for a public venue where there may be children).
I think all modern televisions have the V-chip, yes? All cable boxes that I've seen also have select channel lockout as well. If some repressed Christian with guilt issues wants to make nudity a Mature only setting, fine. If they want to label "hell" and "bitch" and "damn" as profanity, fine.
Just leave the filter off when I buy my television and order my cable box. I'm an adult, I will view what I want. If I find watersports objectionable to my personal taste, I will not watch it. If I have relatives with small children visiting, I will block out any adult materials for the duration of their stay.
How hard is it to define levels? Something like;
- Mild language (dammit, hell)
- Mild violence (head-bonking, wrestling, kicking)
- "French" kissing/soul kissing
- Topless nudity
- Bottomless nudity
- Medium violence (punching, weapons, kung fu, blood, simple wounds)
- Profane language without sexual connotations (god damn, shit, piss, bitch, fuck, asshole, dick -- used as namecalling, not as requests or as descriptions of a sexual act) (I guarantee you this is already in 95% of homes with children anyway)
- Extreme violence (realistic wounds, gaping wounds, battering, decapitation, amputation, ripping, sexually-related abuse)
- Sexually explicit language (fuck you, go fuck yourself, suck my dick, lick my balls you cunt whore, etc.)
- Sexually-charged scenes (non-genital rubbing, implications of nudity, and post- or pre-coital setup)
- Sexually implicit scenes (rubbing crotches, feeling breasts, clothed sexual maneuverings or bodies engaged in obviously sexual activity, but hidden)
- Sexually explicit scenes (sexual scenes with nudity, but no actual display of penetration or contact with genitals -- ie, Cinemax after dark)
- Hardcore sexually explicit scenes (shows genital contact, ejaculation, penetration, oral sexual stimulation)
I think these are all things that most people would agree to cover 99% of the cases where an adult may want to censor what a child sees, and children of various ages are considered "old enough" to view these materials. Consider popular movies that involve some extreme violence (per my chart) yet it is more acceptable than a naked woman for some fucked up reason.
Regardless, these language, violence, and sexual guidelines can be mixed and matched in real life, to match the maturity of the child. The parent makes these choices every time they decide on a movie their child should or should not watch. The V-chip and/or television/movie listings should be as thorough. If they aren't, why are you letting your child watch these things without personally checking them out?
Label it what you want; come to a sensible, reasonable agreement as to what labels go on what materials, and then assign the filter mechanisms appropriately. Parents have the burden to filter what is in their homes. Filter your cable, filter your internet.
According to some statistics I just Asked Jeeves for, 26% of the population is 18 and under. That's a sizeable number of non-adults to watch out for, and I can understand a parent's concern if they don't want their children to listen to swearing and see nudity and sexual situations before they are mature enough to
"I used to listen to the radio
. html
And I don't guess they're listenin' to me no more
They talk too much but that's okay
I don't understand a single word they say
Piss and moan about the immigrants
But don't say nothin' about the president
A democracy don't work that way
I can say anything I wanna say
So fuck the FCC
Fuck the FBI
Fuck the CIA
Livin' in the motherfuckin' USA."
--Steve Earle
http://journal.bad.lv/users/aptieka/292742
and anywhere else freedom still rings
What is even weirder is that putting in the astericks really does make a difference - I personally don't swear much, but the "niceness" of swear words in a public forum is really increased by using astericks in my opinion.
In fact, I am not at all put out by your statement as you wrote it. But if you had put the actual vowels in, I would have considered you an annoying kid.
That is really weird!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
if "Those of us with children can't and shouldn't actually be held responsible for raising said children" is taken as insightful, what do you have to say to be taken humerously. Those of us with a TV can't and shouldn't be allowed to controll the display ourselves, either through the power switch or changing the channel. We demand a single government approved freespeech network with all DRM content and no way to turn it off !
Don't most (if not all) satellite and CATV receivers have parental control features now?
If you can't be bothered to talk to your children about what they're watching and why, just use the mandated V-chip in your TV set along with the parental control features of your receivers and LEAVE MY CABLE ALONE!
This is one that could pass just because it will never get past the Supreme Court. the congressman who proposed it knows that and will get his moral decency points without actually changing anything. What will happen is that the day any such law is issued and an attempt to apply it takes place a preliminary injunction will be issued pending resolution.
If this guy thought for one second that he might actually deprive his overwhelmingly male constituency of their only source of T&A he would be at the forefront opposing the bill.
My opinion if very important, so I have stated it in bold print. Please mod me down to -3 (bold).
I found a new invention to assist me in censoring material in my home. It's called the remote control. I can change the channel, or even turn the whole device off if I find something that does not interest me. I'm offended by the blatent attacks on personal freedom and the lack of integrity of our elected officials, so I choose not to watch CSPAN.
The Force has a strong influence on the weak minded
They fought hard for the V-chip so any parent could block any objectional material on cable. There is no need to censor everything for us. The government is not my parent nor is it my religion!
Trix are for kids!
nip/tuck were to be canceled over this crap
That should be Religious Right as it appears most of them haven't understood what Jesus and the Bible mean. Just look at how they raise money for starters.
"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matt., xxiii, 1-8).
There is nothing more terrifiying to the Jesus freaks than the idea that somewhere someone might just be enjoying their God given freedom. It's not fair, they have to spend all their time in their victim cult suffering, thinking about suffering, or wishing that they were suffering.
How about tolerance for parents and their desire to raise their children decently and to have time to do things other than monitoring their children's TV watching.
The hook to enforce TV standards for cable is the TV-ratings. Putting a rating on a TV program implies a trust that the program does not have content inappropriate for that TV rating, and violating that trust can warrant a fine. Enforcement of TV ratings can be done either publicly (FCC) or privately (like the MPAA movie ratings). Because TV programs are self rated unlike movies, complaints that are deemed to be violations would require a fine for misuse of their license to use the TV ratings (not for indecency). Fines should be small for one-off violations and larger for greater violations (like a man tearing a woman's clothes off at the super-bowl). That way parents could have confidence that they can program their box for content ratings and not need to spend as much time monitoring their children.
The folks who did the airplane bowdlerization for the movie "Sideways" decided they should replace one insult starting with "As" with another one.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Only Democrats, who are nothing more than godless gay-loving atheists, want free speech.
Yeah, right. Remember the CDA? Both parties will happily demagogue any issue "for the children" if it will get them votes.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Big difference.
Seems like Alaska has been taking notes from Bill Gates and Ballmer...
If a government body (such as the FCC) is legally empowered by the government to censor speech, is this not a violation of First Ammendment of the US constitution?
I'm not asking for formal legal advice, but a clarification would be nice.
Thanks,
--
AC
Aren't they all made up, by -- so to speak -- definition?
Breakfast served all day!
I would like to make a motion to apply decency standards to politicians. Chiefly, they should not be the bitches of businesses right wing religious groups. Turn off the fucking TV if you don't want to watch it. Dumb asses.
A more effective solution would be to force cable and sattelite providers to offer a-la-carte content channels.
You only want the discovery and history channels, but you can't get them without "indecent" material being piped into your home?
This would solve that. The current system in the US requires you to take a set of channels as part of basic service.
How did it do this? By having the government demand or hang over media so they did what the government thought was "fair". Until the station added government-approved content. It is also censorship because under the doctrine, broadcasters are forced NOT to broadcast material to make up for the "offical government content" taking up the schedule. Shouldn't "Freedom of the press" mean that you can do what you want, even on your editorial page (or your broadcast megaphone), without the government dictating content? I wonder if Ben Franklin and others would have agreed that the First Amendment meant that government could force newspapers to present government-approved "viewpoints".
As far as the public good, let the public decide if they like the content or not. Not the government.
Governor Mario Cuomo, who opposes censorship under the guise of the "fairness doctrine", said it best in this statement: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.".
"but I don't think the Fairness Doctrine counts as such since..."
And then you go on to describe how the Fairness Doctrine DOES dictate content.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
making so much money from decency fines, why would they forego satellite when Stern is about to move? There's gold in them thar hills. It's a pittance, but every little bit helps.
What?
Having never heard of this senator from Alaska, I did some research online just now and read a Washington Post article describing his "shakedown" (WaPo's word, not mine) attempt in organizing a $5,000-a-ticket fund-raising event to benefit a "non-profit organization", whose sole beneficiary turns out to be, you guessed it, Senator Ted Stevens. Here is the link to the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31925-20 04Mar4?language=printer
Sun and Fun
You say it did not promote censorship, and then go on to describe how it involved the government mandating certain content. How is this not censorship? Especially when it forces the station to remove other content?
"Removing the Fairness Doctrine made it possible for stations to promote political causes.
Check the Bill of Rights. The first amendment was made precisely to protect people from being able to promote political causes. Even if the government did not like it.
"but doesn't it make sense that both sides of a issue should be presented on stations that have been granted the right to broadcast using public airwaves? "
No, it does not. Unless the station chooses to do this on their own. The government has no business meddling in the viewpoints (i.e. censoring political views). This includes mandating that someone present a "side" they do not agree with.
"It's dishonest to claim that a law does the exact opposite or what it really does."
This is exactly what you did, even while you described how the censorship worked. It is quite honest to recognize that a government policy in which it controlled media content is indeed censorship.
Let's say you have a blog. Uncle Sam comes in and says "if you say this, we have to let Joe Hackslob have his say. If you want to keep Joe Hackslob of your site, shut up about politics." How is this not censorship? This is exactly what the "Fairness Doctrine" did.
With the Fairness Doctrine, the government decided what was fair. With it gone, this is left up to the public.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Fine, have NIST or ANSI make up some "standards of decency" if you're really convinced that it's useful. Just don't pass any laws requiring compliance with your made-up "standards", because that's not your fucking job, comrade.
Fuck the Republicans.
Fuck the Religious Wrong.
What's next? Regulating books?
It is called the "off" switch.
Perhaps if people exercised some self-control and personal responsibility, instead of asking Big Bother to do it for them, we'd all be better off. There are certainly enough alternatives that people like you can safely drain their brains in front of the TeeVee without subjecting the rest of us to your morals.
If you don't like it, turn it off or change the channel. It's not that hard.
Yeah, right.
"Asterisk" repeat after me, "asterisk" not "asterick", not "astersisk" A-S-T-E-R-I-S-K
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Heard this about Ashcroft at the outset of the current administration, heard this about Meese at the outset of the Reagan administration, hearing this again, always hearing this...
Those evil conservatives are taking away all my rights!
Meanwhile, whereas Gallery Magazine was Playboy without airbrushing during the Reagan administration it is now hardcore city and I can watch porn in video on demand on cable at home and at almost every hotel I ever visit.
Yeah, I feel so censored.
It won't stand if it does manage to get feet. The trend of the modern world is towards Everything Not Forbidden is Compulsory Especially if it Tweaks Someone. That's not changing any time soon. Mores the pity as lack of self control and embrace of every absolute on every side is making everyone look like children.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I suppose he might have solicited a donation from Comcast or XM or someone and been snubbed, and this could be retribution for that. It's a lot harder to call than the usual congressperson whoring themselves out, though. Maybe the groups providing the funding are just getting better at hiding their tracks...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What was on the air wasn't funny. Not even close.
Did they get a funny injection before moving to XM?
Here's an ex-commisioner's take on the whole FCC censorship issue.
m
He implies that it is a political issue and control of media issue, not a morality issue as such.
http://www.saveradionow.org/nicholasjohnshon.ht
The guy is no kook. Read it and try to understand.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
XM satellite radio is fine the way it is.
Risque channels are well-labelled, and the general channels don't have to make heroic efforts to extirpate every last ${curseWord} from the music or conversation.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Ok, giving this guy the biggest benefit of doubt I can, I'm interpreting this story as he has a genuine concern for the quality of television because it is such a huge part of our culture and he wants the consolidation of media because it is easier to control that way.
What is being refered to here as censorship, removing "offensive" material from media, can be construed as improving it; raising the quality of the information and entertainment we enjoy. Taken this way, I can fully support what he wants, but not the way he wants to do it. You can look at this as one slightly misguided approach to the very difficult problem of mass media catering to the lower common denominator.
I think we should have higher quality television. Personally I'd start by removing such "news" programs which attempt to dazzle thier viewers with "clear and balanced" reporting that only marginally pertains to the lives of anyone watching.
But the real problem with censorship is that its not easy to agree on what should be deemed fit for public consumption. The best solution I can come up with is increasing funding for National Endowment for the Arts and starting a grass-roots campaign to get some networks to try more progressive programming. But what do I know.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
While we're doing quotes, people would be better off remembering this:
"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"
The Christians in the real world all have differing opinions. I, for one, don't mind watching movies with swear words--I very seldom swear despite hearing them both on TV and out in the real world.
As for things like nudity, I must admit that watching nekkid women turns me on, and causes me to think about things I know I shouldn't, but that's why I make it a point not to watch nekkid women.
The general consensus from Christians is "garbage in, garbage out." What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me, and even if there is no perceptible change in behavior, even change in thought is undesireable. Before you peg me as being an extremist, I believe that "right thought" is part of the eight-fold path--the difference is what is deemed acceptible and what is not.
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
> ... is already illegal dumba...
Mischaracterizing any application of a decency standard as censorship is FUD since there must be some minimal standard.
Pointing out that there must be a minimal standard is not being dumb.
..is that it is always somebody else doing the censoring and not me. Why do I have to have somebody else deciding what is fit for me, or not? And who says their standards are "better" than mine? Not that I personally want to watch XXXX TV. I just believe in resonable freedom.
What's your point?
As long as you're holding parties to their rhetoric, I would suggest you do the same thing for the Democrats. They're the ones that started all this crap in the FCC, and they're the ones that are blaming the Republicans for it. Freaking double standard, if you ask me.
> ... Christianity somehow... obviously they are pretty weak-minded
My guess is your values, however atheist they may be, are significantly based on religious principles.
Let me repeat part of my post:
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
Please, tell me what exactly you think my argument is.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I thought the whole idea of the V-chip was so that if you want to censor your child's TV, you can. With the V-chip in place, I don't see why broadcast television even needs to have decency regulations any longer (beyond having accurate V-chip ratings).
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Calling it a broadcast standard is like calling the rule 'You can't murder people with a hammer' a 'hammer regulation'. No, it's a murder regulation.
You can't murder people with [anything]. You can't offer child porn via [anything]. They're not [anything] regulations.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You want to compare an unelected FCC commissioner to a US Senator? Find a Democratic Senator that wants to extend censorship to cable TV and I'll take you seriously.
This is just one more instance of someone else trying to tell me what I can or can not watch. They use the excuse that they are protecting our children. In effect they are trying to tell me what I should and should not let my children watch. I don't need someone else making decisions for me! I personally monitor what my children watch, and I don't need someone else telling me right from wrong.
If it was up to these types of people, the only thing that would be on TV is the Christian Broadcasting Channel.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for the are subtle and quick to anger.
I was watching a documentary lastnight all about the current censorship laws trying to be passed in the US at the moment.
The fashion label 'FCUK' French Connection United Kingdom has great sales globally but can't penetrate the US market because their products were all pulled from US stores because the christian right were complaining that the label was an offensive word. Its not even spelt that way. How far will this go people?
A great quote from the show was from an ex shock jock in florida who was pulled off the the air due to concerns by his radio station of getting fined by the FCC.
I can't say fuck on the radio but I can own a gun that can kill over 100 people.
While holding his military machine gun (Think it was an M16)
This docco also discussed a law which was attempting to be passed in one of your southern states for people who reveal their underwear above their jeans to be put in jail for up to 150 days.
You guys live in a very morally bizzare country.
There's decency ... and there's decency. Some of the things that we see and hear in our media qualify as "indecent", or at least, unpleasant. But some might consider it indecent to try and tell other people what to do, say and think.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I don't understand why it's okay to:
Let children watch violent sporting events which idolize violence and aggression as a means of conflict-resolution and ego gratification (Pro-everything).
Encourage children to idolize rapists (Kobi Bryant), murderers (OJ Simpson), wife-beaters (Mike Tyson) drug abusers (Strawberry), gangsters (the NBA), and cheaters (Canseco, et. al).
Encourage children to become enamored of a system which transferrs public funding (for stadium construction) into private hands (team owners) on the threat of leaving for another city (extortion).
Encourage children to become involved in a government-regulated monopoly, similar to many Soviet bureaucracies.
Encourage children to watch cheerleaders shake their scantily-clad privates into the camera, promoting the objectification of women as sexual property.
Yet it's not okay for a parent to use the remote control to prevent them from seeing 5-seconds of nipple.
Unless it's not really about "protecting the children", and it's really about "controlling the lives of others".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I often wonder how people like this get elected. There seem to be a lot of people who don't want to think for themselves. I can imagine a world with two classes...those who think, read, and run their lives, and another class who want to be told what they like, what is good for them, and want to be protected from the dangers of free choice.
I'd love to round up all of the latter and put them in one area of the country where their fears of freedom can be addressed and the government can help them live free of influence from the things they think are going to corrupt them. I'd be happy for that area to break away and adopt a marxist government while I continue to make my own choices and put whatever I want on my tv, radio, and in my body.
Turn off your TV.
Seriously.
The microwaves from satellite TV broadcasts are still coming into your house whether you subscribe to pay TV or not, as are the radio waves that terrestrial television is broadcast on. It doesn't mean you have to view the content of either.
But you need not bother with a faraday cage encompassing your entire home, or even tinfoil hats. Just press the off button on your TV remote.
TV waves are the real mind-control waves.
Geosynchronous satellites such as those used by DirectTV are located over the equator in international water (600 miles due west of the Galapagos, in the case of my antenna, at 101 West Longitude). What say-so does the FCC have over this satellite? It could just as easily be owned by a Cuban or Costa Rican company if DirectTV got in trouble (our present government generally supports off-shoring of corporations for labor and tax reasons after all). Of course, the Supremes would surely hold that subscription TV is free speech, end of story. Unless, of course, it included five John Ashcroft clones.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
Actually, there's no legal limit on commercials in the US except for Children's programming. They had dropped that limit too, but it got reintroduced in the Children's Television Act of 1990.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
You Euro-weenies jus hate us 'cause we are cooler and freer.
http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/index.shtml
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Autographed D&D items for sale. Click the link under my username.
ROTFL
This is troubling... and amusing.
One thing that both Europeans and US politics are missing in their WTO discussions as well as in their decency regulartions is that the means of delivering media is changing: Whereas in the past you would turn your TV on (content push), in the future we will be connecting to a server (content pull).
The point here is you cannot regulate anything, except at a world level, because all you have to do is connect to a web site to catch the relevant data stream. So if a country allows porn 24/24, then, technically, every country in the world allows porn 24/24.
what the hell has happened to the Republican party? I remember a time when they used to argue against frivolous regulation.
I like to replace letters with asterisks that don't obscure the word (e.g. fucki*g, assho*e). To me it illustrates how absurd the whole thing is. I'm crazy that way.
What do you do if you can compete with the guy down the street? Pay (err lobby) the government to pass laws which will make your competition less competitive. Bet if you dig deep enough into the Senator's contributions you'll find $$ from the Broadcast lobby. My .02, this is nothing more than Broadcast media trying to legislate competition into the cable channels under the guise of 'standards'.
They're trying to do it to XM and Sirius under the guise of 'National Security', this is nothing different.
Call me cynical...
I am not standing in a 3000 dollar suit asking people to send in thier last 60 dollars like pat robinson does on the 700 club.
Senator Stevens,
As pertaining to your desire to regulate decency on Cable T.V. and Satellite Radio, it would be unneeded legislation.
Cable T.V. and Satellite Radio are subscription based services, thus if their content is undesirable, one does not need to subscribe. If more control is needed, create legislation that allows consumers to subscribe only to stations they want rather than entire packages of stations with diverse content. Individual subscription will create an option to tailor content to your tastes and beliefs that is not possible either under the current or your proposed system of regulated content.
Thank you for you time,
[Your Name Here]
Cherry is a prick, they have a few minutes delay
so they can remove the worst insanities coming out
of his mouth. CBC should have done as ESPN did
with Limbaugh. Those two are big assholes with a
few differences. Cherry is a canuck prick and
Limbaugh is an American prick. Cherry doesn't use
drugs and Limbaugh does. Cherry insults his French
Canadian audience to increase his bloke audience.
Limbaugh lies thru his teeth to increase his right
wing nut audience.
That doesn't excuse what they do, nor is simply pointing out what they are doing equal to 'casting the first stone'
That verse isn't an excuse to defraud people.
No, of course not, and I didn't mean to imply you were.
In any case, Pat Robertson is not funny. But I still think your previous message was.
The majority of US citizens is against any further censorship and new "decency standards". Why are our representatives not representing us? What is happening to our democracy and our constitution? Is our country controlled by ultra right-wing christian fundamentalists now who use the word "democracy" only when it fits their right-wing Orwellian agenda? God bless America...!
I was with you right up to the part where i realized you believe in things you have absolutely no proof of and then try to apply them to others in any form.
One can't have an argument of reason when facts and proof are nowhere to be found.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Boy, does your sig ring true. I might not agree with your stance, but I'm glad someone on Slashdot can post without such smugness.
Thanks. (an atheist)
Aleister Crowley said it best: "The Christians to the lions!"
I say we deal with "decency" matters by bringing back the Roman Games, rounding up all Christians (AND Jews AND Muslims and assorted spinoff cults - but not Buddhists or Taoists or pagans) and feed them to lions.
Actually, I'm not sure we want to insult lions' tastes that way - maybe we should feed them to cockroaches...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Grandparent probably got as far as What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me Before criticizing you.
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
As for your actual argument, we have the V-chip. Have had it for years. We have little icons at the top of the screen that tell you what the rating of the show is. My parents' tv can even tell you what the rating of the show is at any time during the broadcast -- and it works with directTV (it even tells the name of the show and the channel the directTV receiver is on)
The only problem is that this requires mommy and daddy to come home for an hour to read the instruction book and learn how to set up the TV and decide just what they want little timmy to see. And these days, thats just too hard for too many parents.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Who's we? I thought you said there is no protoypical Christian...
The problem with the evangelical fundamentalist Christians who cluster in the middle of the US is their ego-centric view of their religion tends to overwhelm their sense of civic responsibility. Censorship of the kind being proposed is wrong. Full stop. Whether "The Sopranos" offends you or the "Weather Channel" offends me or "ET" offends your God is immaterial.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
Lordy you are a hypocrite. Would you kiss your Lord with that mouth? Try living the Word instead of preaching it.
personally, my favorite part of the post was about how right thought was part of the 8 fold path. You do know that is a Buddhist tennant? forgive my horrid spelling, I bit out of my right mind:-P
"Religious principles". Do you really think that religion has a monopoly on morality? Being averse to murder, theft, adultery - these are human traits, not religious traits.
What's wrong with violins on television?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
And I'm not trying to apply my beliefs to others in any form. Show me where I have. I dare you. You only think I am because you have a gigantic pigeon hole in your mind that you drop all Christians in so that you can actually avoid thinking about such matters critically.
I would love for you to prove my claim wrong, because it would demonstrate that you have given my views the same consideration as you would any one elses--anything less than that is morally wrong by almost any value system on earth.
Besides, how would you respond if I told you I didn't want to talk to you because you're not a Christian?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Um, I should have made it more clear. I know that "right thought" is a Buddhist tennant (part of the 8 fold path). I was demonstrating that Christians aren't the only people out there who believe in making an honest attempt at getting rid of certain thoughts, while promoting others. Why is that such a laughable concept? Please enlighten me.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Who's we? I thought you said there is no protoypical Christian...
I used 'we' there because the standards are not set by Christians themselves.
Lordy you are a hypocrite. Would you kiss your Lord with that mouth? Try living the Word instead of preaching it.
I'm in the dark here--could you please spell it out for me?
Did I ever suggest that censorship was a good thing? Did I ever demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness as I defined it? My guess is that you called me a hypocrite because you assume that I fail to meet my definition of open-mindedness, because you believe that most Christians don't.
Please, if you're going to get smarmy and call me names, make sure you've read my post. I never claimed to be in favor of censorship--I was responding to someone who attacked Christianity in his post, and I stepped in to defend.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Pearls & Swine...just stop. You cannot win, not here, not in this place.
If you were any other religion, such as Buddhist, Taoist, American Indian or even Muslim that post would have brought you praise for your tolerance and vision.
However, my brother, you represent the hated Christianity and so you will be shouted down no matter how fair your words may be.
Even Jesus left a place to it's own devices when he became convinced that he was wasting his time.
If you want to post in a looney liberal leftist place like this, check your religion at the door...unless it is one of those new age "trendy" ones.
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
I hate to spoil your fun, but I was referring to a Buddhist tennant of purging the mind of undesireable thought. I did so to demonstrate that a) censoring undesireable material out of television is not for "behavior" as the original grand-parent said, and b) Christians are not the only ones interested in this. Why does this idea make you laugh?
The only problem is that this requires mommy and daddy to come home for an hour to read the instruction book and learn how to set up the TV and decide just what they want little timmy to see. And these days, thats just too hard for too many parents.
I agree--I have a real problem with parents that want to go along with censorship and all the first amendment problems it entails just because they're letting the TV raise their children and they don't want to do anything about it.
This is, incidentally, the core of the problem, so I'm glad we agree.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
no, I just found the thought of you saying it and not knowing where it came from funny. I'm actually hindu, which is where that idea originated(as world religions of Eur-asia go).
I also found it humorous that a Buddhist tennant was used as part of an argument by someone defending christianity because most people in general don't know much about other religions, much less use them in their arguments.
but just to tell you, the tennant in buudhism is about being able to be exposed to anything(even those nekkid women) and still remain in complete control and not have those thoughts form. That is the self control they shoot for.
If you want to post in a looney liberal leftist place like this, check your religion at the door...unless it is one of those new age "trendy" ones.
I agree, but I'm hesitant to pit Christianity against political "leftism" because, while there is a strong correlation between political sides and religious views, my views are somewhat radical Libertarian and I am at odds with Republicanism today. Which means that I can't mix religion and politics lest I alienate myself from my religion.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Hehehe.
I'd moderate you "+1 Funny" but I've already posted on this story and don't want to lose it.
That is the self control they shoot for.
Thanks for educating me. That's actually what I strive for as well.
I also found it humorous that a Buddhist tennant was used as part of an argument by someone defending christianity because most people in general don't know much about other religions, much less use them in their arguments.
Early Christians actually learned all about other religions, but that's something I won't go into here (it's not at all pertinent).
The issue here is that I was using Buddhism to defend the position that wanting to shelter your young from certain thoughts--I can see now that Buddhism wasn't actually a good example, but I suspect that still the premise is true.
Thanks for the info. I'm glad to see someone is understanding me.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Why does this idea make you laugh?
Your failure to grasp the humor in invoking mental images of one of the most famous books about Big Brother in the modern world in a story about Big Brother in the real modern world is doubleplus ungood. Report to MiniLuv for reeducation.
My bad.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
So ... you support open mindedness, provided your open mind doesn't think about naked women. That's real enlightened. What else is forbidden thought?
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Do you ever wonder why you have bad karma in the real world, and no karma on Slashdot?
I used 'we' there because the standards are not set by Christians themselves.
Got it now. You're original paragraph was ambiguous.
Did I ever suggest that censorship was a good thing? Did I ever demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness as I defined it?
Frankly, I couldn't understand the definition of open-mindedness you gave:
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically
What does suppose mean? It sounds like you try not to laugh out loud when someone says something you disagree with.
I have little time for people that talk a lot about being open-minded, but never actually change their mind, and who walk around calling everyone else close-minded. Let me catalog the insults you've hurled at others already in this thread:
My guess is that you called me a hypocrite because you assume that I fail to meet my definition of open-mindedness, because you believe that most Christians don't.
Your assumption is wrong. My wife is a Christian. My children are Christians. My in-laws are Christians. I attended a Church of Christ for a number of years and even co-led the class for college students for two of them. Many of the people who are closest to me are Christians. But none are evangelical/fundamentalist types. I found that when I get to know people of this persuasion sufficiently well, I find hatred in their hearts and thoughts of controlling/punishing others in their minds.
The Christians in your mind are.
Maybe the Christians he's met in the world and seen on TV and who are actively attempting to curtail his freedom are.
because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Hypocrite. You have repeatedly refused to take people at face value. When they've expressed sentiments you disagree with, you've closed your mind and branded them Christian haters.
Look at how evangelical/fundamental types in the US are trying to use the law to enfore their belief system on everyone else -- atheists, agnostics, Jews, Catholics, mainline Protestants. Their agenda is to make this country a theocracy safe for their precious children. These are the folks who give all Christians a bad name. It's unfair. It's more than unfair. It should kill you that these people are debasing the Word.
Before you castigate others for making assumptions about you based on your religious brand, you should accept the greater Christian community for what it is, including those with whom you disagree, and you should clean up your own house before you accuse others of misrepresenting the Christian faith.
The standards to which I hold myself are different than the standards to which I hold others. By open-mindedness I meant at least an honest attempt at understanding other people's ideas in an unbiased fashion. I'm not even asking other people to hold their own minds to the same standards I hold mine. So, in one case I'm talking about the open exchange of ideas, in the other I'm talking about a personal decision to avoid images and content which I find destructive.
I suspect you're getting ready to hit "reply" so you can tell me that the two are actually the same. I will just go ahead and disagree with that idea here. What if I wrote, instead of this post, a big long chain of insults hurled at you. You might not care, but you certainly wouldn't read the post (after a few lines, you'd get the idea). And I wouldn't blame you--I wouldn't be trying to present you with an idea, so you wouldn't need to be "open" to it.
I fail to meet these standards constantly anyway. Not to bore you with theology, but a central tennant to Christianity is that we don't have to meet those stardards. Only try.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I agree about openmindedness..That's why I don't understand why christians want to censor everything. They, like everyone else, have the option of not viewing objectionable content. You're telling me to be tolerant? Take your own advice.
I'm not in favor of censorship, so I don't know why your post is directed at me.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
If you were any other religion, such as Buddhist, Taoist, American Indian or even Muslim that post would have brought you praise for your tolerance and vision.
When will the whining stop! Do you want cheese with that? Some people always think they're the victims. Yes, anything that remotely has to do with your identity is being massively and unfairly attacked! You're delusional, my friend, and very wrong. Wake up. Get some perspective and stop whining. You don't want to join that club of delusional whiners. There are so many on this site it makes me sick.
I have no argument with your desire to hold your mind to a particular standard. What censorship does, however, is hold others' minds to your standard. If I see nothing wrong with exposing myself to nudity, profanity, and other images of 'sin', then there shouldn't be some societal wall there. If someone wants to show it and I want to see it, an open minded individual wouldn't have a problem.
It is the natural right of every person to do what they want, provided they don't bother anyone. I think that anyone can agree with that. The difference is in the definition of 'bother anyone'. Apparently those who censor are bothered by me hearing profanity in a television program I go out of my way to watch, even though in this case I live several thousand miles from them (assuming the senator from Alaska actually leaves the beltway on occasion).
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productI
After watching it there may be certain questions that arise...
ted stevens r-alaska is rather goofy and should be taken with a large grain of salt. similar comments can and should be made about orrin hatch, r-utah, and john (non-)sensenbrenner, r-wisconsin. every chance you get, thanks.
every time they propose a piece of legislation, look at it and see if the average american does better under it. you will find, invariably, not.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
What does suppose mean? It sounds like you try not to laugh out loud when someone says something you disagree with.
I meant "suppose" the way mathemeticians and logicians use it. My definition of open-mindedness merely meant that we should accept that any idea is possible, until we've disproven it, and that we should treat all such ideas with equal respect.
Your assumption is wrong.
Fair enough.
My wife is a Christian. My children are Christians. My in-laws are Christians. I attended a Church of Christ for a number of years and even co-led the class for college students for two of them. Many of the people who are closest to me are Christians. But none are evangelical/fundamentalist types. I found that when I get to know people of this persuasion sufficiently well, I find hatred in their hearts and thoughts of controlling/punishing others in their minds.
Well, this shouldn't come as any big suprise, because they're human. I have all of those things in my mind as well--but I recognize that they are wrong. I'll even concede that my tone has gotten overly contemptuous in other posts I've made. You have to understand that my post basically said, "I disagree with a lot of Christians in that I don't think government censorship of media is a good thing, but the core idea of wanting to shelter your children from content that you deem harmful is not only good, but not exclusive to Christianity." I got a lot of responses along the lines of "You idiot. Why do you stupid Christians want to tell me what I can and cannot watch?" Can you see how that would be frustrating?
I would be a hypocrite if I were claiming to be perfect, but I am not making that claim.
Hypocrite. You have repeatedly refused to take people at face value. When they've expressed sentiments you disagree with, you've closed your mind and branded them Christian haters.
Again, my tone has been contemptuous in some posts--I should not have done that. I owe everyone a big apology. But I'm not trying to get everyone to believe what I believe--my position from the beginning is defending the idea of parents wanting to control what their children watch. I have not defended censorship (I have actually attacked it).
And I haven't called anyone names--merely suggested that their views are the result of strong personal biases against Christians. I still maintain that view for the majority of the posts, but have changed my view on at least one sub-thread--the one about Buddhism.
Look at how evangelical/fundamental types in the US are trying to use the law to enfore their belief system on everyone else -- atheists, agnostics, Jews, Catholics, mainline Protestants. Their agenda is to make this country a theocracy safe for their precious children. These are the folks who give all Christians a bad name. It's unfair. It's more than unfair. It should kill you that these people are debasing the Word.
I am extremely upset at the Evangelical Christian movement. The entire name is a misnomer; it has nothing to do with evangelism. The entire point seems to be to convince non-believers that Christians hate them. However, my beliefs about that movement aren't the issue.
Before you castigate others for making assumptions about you based on your religious brand, you should accept the greater Christian community for what it is, including those with whom you disagree, and you should clean up your own house before you accuse others of misrepresenting the Christian faith.
You and I both have just accused others (the Evangelicals) of misrepresenting the Christian faith. However, I agree that you should take plank out of your own eye first.
Again, this could go on and on, I just want to make sure you know exactly where I stand on the issue of censorship, and why I have responded the way I did to many posts.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
What censorship does, however, is hold others' minds to your standard.
Also, censorship allows a corrupt government to suppress the truth.
It is the natural right of every person to do what they want, provided they don't bother anyone.
That's another debate, but I'll agree that no one has the ability to control what you do or think, and the laws should reflect that by staying out of your business. However, I think a much better alternative to censorship is my right to come tell you that I think what you're doing to yourself is harmful and potentially fatal. And then, you can further excersize your right to ignore me, or (even better, in my opinion) disagree with me.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Also, I have several Christian friends. I do not go out of my way to offend them, but I do consider them to be, for the most part, weak-minded, or, at the very least, programmed since birth. The funny thing is, if it's a cult (unpopular, small religion) it's brainwashing, but if it's religion, then we're teaching our children morals and values.
Also, note that I am not against spiritualism or belief. I am merely against the blind following of any book or creed, specifically one that was made such a long time ago. If you come to these conclusions on your own, I see no problem with them. If you do these things because it says so in an ancient book, I consider you weak-minded. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
http://stevens.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
As for things like nudity, I must admit that watching nekkid women turns me on, and causes me to think about things I know I shouldn't, but that's why I make it a point not to watch nekkid women.
Isn't that more about your marital commitment, as opposed to whether or not something should be censored from everyone?
I think skin and slang tend to become inappropriate only when they are restricted. What constitutes as indecent differs with what people are used to.
To many muslims, a woman not wearing a hijab is considered indecent. To the English in the 1600s, showing leg or shoulder skin was considered indecent while what was appropriate and fashionable for women at that time was fully exposing their breasts. People can say "sexual intercourse" and "feces" openly on the media, but "fuck" and "shit" is not okay, only because it's lower class.
Decency is not maintained, but defined, by censorship. So the question is how we want to define decency. How much shame do we want to put on skin and slang? How much do we want to discourage breastfeeding, and the health benefits associated with that, by making the act more socially unacceptable? etc.
Increasing censorship to me sounds like more laws being legislated without a problem to solve.
"The more laws, the less justice." Marcus Tullius Cicero
I agree--censorship is wrong.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I want to know where the problem with the "social degradation" really lies. Is it the medias influence on society? Or, is it society's influence on the media? Not being alive in the 60s, I'm pretty sure that 99% of the media was "clean" and "proper", yet there was an extreme hippie/free love/drug movement. There was no NYPD Blue or Real Sex on TV at that time. Did Howard Stern contribute to the amount of sex in the Media? Or was it the relaxation of taboos between regular people that made him so popular? Rather than putting the restrictions on cable and satellite that may not work at all, causing people like Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony and hundreds of comedians to loose their jobs, the politicians should look at society's influence on each other and try to teach parents/children right and wrong rather than censoring media that might have little to no effect on society.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"
I think you misread what i wrote... I said I was with you...agreeing. Then you had to throw religious discourse into the argument.
If I was trying to have a reasoned discourse, and then introduced proof that i believed in things that have no proof at all, that would certainly undermine my validity as an arguer.
For you to assume that this is a religious bias is totally wrong, this is a bias against having an argument of reason with someone that refuses to apply those rules to arguments.
religious belief arent distinguishable from pseudoscience in the level of proof they present. "Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so evcen in principle they cannot be invalidated. practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed."
If you didnt like that last part, ask Carl Sagan about it... he said it.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
If I was trying to have a reasoned discourse, and then introduced proof that i believed in things that have no proof at all, that would certainly undermine my validity as an arguer.
Right--and I have introduced no such proof, so there's not much disagreement here.
Even though I have been given personal proof in my life that compels me to believe what I do, I still am a skeptic at heart. In spite of the fact that you and I could probably not discuss Christianity without coming to a stalling point, we can probably discuss politics because both of us seem to have an areligious view of how government should work.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I would hope so. Most of Christianity is derivative of all those other religions. :)
or is it more of the push for theocracy? political experts what do you think? Both systems restrict freedom of speech and individual rights. Although historically the framers of the Constitution knew the Bill of Rights was the most useless part of it as the majority will always blast right through them - which is exactly why 100% democracy doesn't work and instead we live in a (or are supposed to anyway) constitutional representative republic not technically a democracy but in the end they stuck it in there anyway to end the filibuster. (few know this historical tidbit).
Ok, people, it looks like this Christian has taken enough of a beating. All the angry responses have only made him look better in comparison. I, for one, disagree with some of his views (I find that acknowledging human sexuality, for example, is not wrong), but his views are clearly based on thought and he has shown that he's at least fairly open to other peoples beliefs, which is more than most /.ers can honestly say.
GreyWolf, while I admire your attempt to show these swine a differing point of view, I think it's wasted here. This kind of pointless argument is why I've started coming here less often, and going to forums where people show more respect for people who think differently.
...but try do it decently and after 9:00 pm. What is it with Republicans; are they sex-obsessed or do they just lack the opposable thumb required to change a channel???
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
Good post...you're absolutely right...I'm completely exhausted from this. Thanks for being more than civil.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Your argument is that the only reason for the government not to censor is so that each parent can individually enjoy the fun of censoring information for their own children.
Get this though your head: children are not property. They are people. It is not up to you to tell them what they can think. When you do that kind of crap its called child abuse and its why so many adults are in therapy.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I think you should re-read your post. It is brilliant. I am not joking. Do you see how it undercuts and disarms me?
This started with an arrogant post of your's. (But it was arrogance of the best kind of post -- more on that in a second.) I dashed off a fast and firey response, you responded, and then I upped the ante with an all-out assault -- the grandparent to this post.
Your response -- the parent to this post -- was beautiful. It did not just shed the arrogance of your prior posts. It was apologetic. It demonstrated that you indeed possess humility and are indeed capable of empathy. This is remarkable. Frankly, it is more than I would have given you credit for. You have earned the right to be called a human being. (I think this is a reference to Dune, but I forget.)
Your post showed humility and empathy when none of mine did. That is an example of what your Christianity can do. It is the only thing that will interest others in your message. Conventional apolgetics aren't worth shit.
The reason the arrogance of your first post was of the best kind was that it suggested ever so slightly that you have taken the first step away from the prejudices of your upbringing, the profoundly egocentric, holier-than-thou attitude of many conservative American Protestant flavors of Christianity.
If I may extrapolate wildly for a moment, I imagine you to be a young guy who, when walking down the street, doesn't "look like a Christian." This is something you take a guilty pride in. But you also take your faith very seriously -- and always have. You are a student of the Bible and theological writings. You and your close group of friends view yourselves as outside mainstream Christendom, present day Martin Luthers disgusted by the hypocrisies you see in church. You dare to confront Christ head-on using just your intellect. You believe you are less racist, sexist and homophobic than other Christians (and you are correct). You gather in coffeeshops, look like members of the alternative nation, and go to museums. But you consider yourselves superior to your counterparts in the secular intellgentsia, and not just because they smoke and drink and swear. No, you alone are on a vital quest for your God.
The question I have -- or at least had -- was whether you are willing to take the second step. The first step is impossible for most and hard for many, but it was natural for you, given your philosophical interests and internal skepticism. You see the broader world. The second step is to engage it with humility and with empathy. If you can do this, then you will demonstrate to non-believers that there is value to Christianity. And just as important, you will learn to see the value in what others believe, and what they believe as strongly as you your own beliefs. No, I don't mean the sterile, disinterested step of "keeping an open mind." I mean something much more than that.
I apologize for underestimating you.
children are not property. They are people. It is not up to you to tell them what they can think.
It is entirely up to the parents to imprint their impressionable young minds with good values. I wasn't raised in a Christian household--but I'm glad I was taught the value of principles by them.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I apologize for underestimating you.
And I you. But you didn't quite get it all right--I wasn't raised a Christian. I was a damned good atheist for a while.
I hope you see the pun, other wise that comment will sound extremely conceited. :)
You've been condemned to my friend's list.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
You've been condemned to my friend's list.
As long as you don't ask me what the third step is...
A lot of people who want to watch porn themselves still wouldn't want their kids to see it. Just like having an internet account, daddy wouldn't want little Johnny looking at naughty pictures, but I doubt he minds doing so himself.
See This quote from bash.org:
<LordChewy> so my dad found my porn folder
<LordChewy> and he was getting all pissed
<LordChewy> so its all like "does this surprise you? i'm not stupid you know"
<LordChewy> "i know dad"
<LordChewy> "what do you have to say for yourself?"
<LordChewy> at this point i stare at him straight in the eyes and say "C:Documents and SettingsRickyMy Documentsfaxessent faxes"
<LordChewy> and he just shut up
<kingKahn> what is it?
<LordChewy> its his porn folder
What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me
You can say this, but it doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you. Especially when you try to impose your standards on them against their wishes.
deus does not exist but if he does
And what would your solution be? Have the government regulate parenting?
I don't even agree that there is a problem to be solved!
I'm glad I was raised by people who live in the real world, not some crazy wacked out religious world.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
When you do that kind of crap its called child abuse and its why so many adults are in therapy.
If that's not a problem I don't know what is. Nevertheless, this is a non-issue now. We both seem to agree that censorship is wrong, and how parents choose to raise their children is their business.
I'm glad I was raised by people who live in the real world, not some crazy wacked out religious world.
I wasn't either.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
At first I thought it was strange that so many would attack your position with their own exclamations about how censorship is unacceptable.
Ah, the joys of Slashdot and readers who don't read for comprehension.
If only there were more people who held themselves to higher standards while not attempting to force others to hold the same (especially since people are not perfect, and can be prone to slipping).
I, for one, welcome our new 'decency standards' overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
thing a kid sees.
Lets just leave it there,huh?
I have a religious view of gov? I didn't follow that one.
The point I was making is that publicizing the gap in reasoning while making another decent argument sacks your credibility as an arguer.
You could make a fantastic argument and have me head over heels, but if you tell me little green men told you the argument... I'd have to try and seperate it, but know that any leeway I gave you in hope you adhered to some scientific method in your research would be gone, and I'd double check everything, dismiss the green men, and move on.
The mind is facnating in how it believes things, its been my major focus of study for a dozen or so years. Reading something like 'Demon Haunted World' (thats where the quote was from) is like a user manual to your brain, and you get to run a self diagnosis like a droid, and its always interesting to see if the system is already to corrupted to start repairing itself.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss religious people as never having good arguments, but I have found that 100% of their good arguments aren't religious. The confounding thing for me is that they will argue a point using all the tenets of reason, and then go be religious. It's such a dichotomy I can't fathom it, although I have a good understanding of it (figure that one out).
I happen to be spiritual myself, but not in the sense that an invisible man is pressing all the buttons of life, but I draw strength from the fact i know I can do things, i have confidence because of past performance, and I know what makes me happy. I need no myth for that, and i think that's where we will eventually evolve.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
[Demonstrating a "V-Chip" planted into Cartman]
Dr. Vosknocker: Now, I want you to say "doggy".
Cartman: Doggy.
Dr. Vosknocker: [to audience] Notice, that nothing happens. [to Cartman] Now, say "montana".
Cartman: Montana.
Dr. Vosknocker: Good. Now, "pillow".
Cartman: Pillow.
Dr. Vosknocker: Alright. Now I want you to say "horse fucker".
Mrs. Cartman: Go on, honey. It's alright.
Cartman: Horse fu-- [gets shocked by the V-chip] That hurts, god damn it!
[gets shocked again]
Dr. Vosknocker: Now I want you to say "big floppy donkey dick".
Cartman: No!
Dr. Vosknocker: [to audience] Success! The child doesn't want to swear!
Cartman: This isn't fair, you sons of bi--
[gets shocked repeatedly]
i like your phrase 'Stalling point' GreyWolf, a very diplomatic awy of putting it..
The problem with decency is that everyone has a different definition of what is or isn't decent.
Decency is not maintained, but defined, by censorship.
This is quote-worthy material! It sums your whole post up nicely. Did you just make that up, or was that from another source? If it is from another source, I'd love to find out where that is. If you made it up: Bravo!
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
pr0n!
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Carry on.
I have to smile when I see a Republican senator sponsoring government legislation to mandate decency in the media.
Usually, the GOP supports the action of the free marketplace to sort things out in preference to heavy handed government regulation. If people don't like indecency, then they won't pay for it and it should wither away by itself.
Normally, a dictate on decent behavior would be the function of the church, but with a blurring of distinction in roles between church and state, the state just picks up where church authority leaves off.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I will quote you on this
" What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me, and even if there is no perceptible change in behavior, even change in thought is undesireable"
Eight there you are pushing you standards/moarls/values on other people.
Harry Potter/Porn/evolution/D&D/first person shooters may be very well garbage for you and thats fine, but you have no right to push that on anyone else
I can think that eating meat is bad for the body, and stop eating meat, but not want to make a law telling you that you cannot eat meat. In another case, say child pornography, I can claim that such material is bad for everyone to look at and want it to be banned.
I leave it up to you to determine which position I have taken for this kind of censorship--the position kind of hurts your claim that I am forcing anything down anyone's throat.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
In order to prevent our children from being exposed to the blasphemies of the human body, we slap down broadcasters with fines and imprisonment.
So instead of risking that our children start to think that they shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, we instead show them firsthand that it's okay to hurt people if it gets what you want.
How noble we are.
All Hail the Maggott Show
Start your own services and get all the money from the throngs of folks starving for quality entertainment. Sounds like the conservative response to me. After all, isn't that how PAX-TV got to be the most-watched channel in the country?
That's a diction nitpick. His grammar and spelling were impeccable.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Never let the ACs get you down. Or the logged in posters. At least your posts were worth reading and some of the responses were thought provoking so I say kudos for making /. worth it today.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Sounds like a confession of weak-mindedness to me.
Your co-religionists who, like their Taliban counterparts, advocate state censorship are a reason why the only reason "Christian perspectives" are taken seriouly by the informed is for purposes of opposition research.
We can have a free country, or we can have a country run by religious crazies. We can't have both.
Tech Public Policy stuff
IMHO, the cable industry is making the same bet, and that's why they aren't already running a massive PR campaign against the not-introduced-yet bill.
If SCOTUS throws us a curve ball and affirms the law, the legislators will think they got tossed a live grenade.
Who is going to pay for Pay-per-view or premium channels with content edited for pre-teens?
There will be suddenly no reason for anybody to buy cable service above the basic level.
At that point, the cable and satellite industries will go nuclear. The CEOs are not going to be pleased to see their personal net worths cut in half because a bunch of tards voted for a very bad law. They are going to know exactly where to go for revenge, and they are going to have the full support of just about every single American to get it.
Remember the court case in Salt Lake City where the defendants proved that community standards obviously included pr0n based on the number of people renting local adult videos? If people are told that they can't watch not only adult movies, but movies made for adults as well in their private homes without being their dumbed down to kiddle standards, they are going to be looking for somebody to fuck up. I'm sure the cable industry and the Democrats who had sense enough not to vote for it will be very, very happy to provide target ID.
This is not a complex issue, it can be explained in a 30 second attack ad.
I'm inclined to hope Stevens gets what he asked for and that SCOTUS affirms it. Congress badly needs cleaning out, and the outcome of this should hit that bunch like a lead enema.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Thanks, I made it up.