Slashdot Mirror
FCC Levies Record Indecency Fine
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "The FCC proposed a record $3.6 million fine against a single TV show, penalizing CBS and its affiliates for an episode of 'Without a Trace' that suggested a teenage sexual orgy, in the first batch of indecency fines proposed in more than a year, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Overall, the FCC's action didn't provide a broad sweeping vision for broadcasters about what is appropriate for television,' the WSJ says. 'Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint.'"
Um, they're getting fined 3.6 million for "suggesting" a "teenage orgy"?
What about shows like Family Guy which have untold amounts of adult-oriented innuendo and jokes??! I can't see this as a legitimate endeavour whatsoever...
Can the USA still be regarded as the land of the free, where any citizen san say whatever they like?
Talking of indecency, why don't the authorities shut down the Jerry Springer Show? I have seen a level of indecency I'd never imagined! Can anyone figure how a mother could compete with a daughter for a man? I watched on such episode on Jerry Springer. To say the truth, I almost fell sick!
I guess it's all about the money.
Take Law and Order. Remove all credibility, depth, and attempts at grounding in real-world accuracy.
You now have CSI.
Now take CSI, and remove all credibility, depth, and attempts at grounding in real-world accuracy that's still left.
You now have Without a Trace.
This already tame and formulaic show will, I'm quite certain, become even more tame and formulaic in the wake of this fine; its one positive feature, it's occasional tendency to take some kind of sensitive or topical issue and attempt to tackle it, even if ineptly, will now disappear in fear that they'll cross the line and get fined again.
Remember back in the good 'ol 1950s, when cop shows were like Dragnet, and criminals and druggies and whatnot never showed up unless they were cartoonish, blue-faced mockeries? Now that's the kind of television the Bush executive wants to see more of!
But in America, marriage IS already worthless!
Oh, you mean the people at the FCC?
The person to write to is Michael Copps, since he's been leading the charge, since the Janet Jackson "malfunction".
anon
PS. He's a Democrat. Hope that dose of reality doesn't taint your world view.
Since when is an orgy worse than rape or murder?
Because there was no nudity in the show, no sex in the show, no foul language in the show, and nothing that anyone could have pointed to in advance and said "this is obscene content".
We're sitting in a country where people try laws like this over and over, against the internet, against computer games, against music, against movies... so this is a taste of what our future rights online hold for us should the government succeed in having a post-facto Miller Test type law regarding content on the internet.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Good thing they put that on the interweb where there are no kids that can be offended by it!
Isn't this why we have the damned V-chip?
So that should cover the "somebody think of the children" crowd. Beyond that, if you don't like what they are showing, don't watch their show/network. Last I checked, "having what you want on T.V" wasn't one of those inalienable rights from the constitution.
This isn't really a free speech issue. It's a "why is America so full of whiny-ass bitches who thing the whole world ought to cater exclusively to them" issue.
I guess they didn't object to primte time TV footage of American troops leading naked Iraqi prisoners leashed through the prison catacombs... now that is really indecent.
Makes me wonder... why are the Americans thinking of invading Iran? The two countries are equally fucked up in my humble mind, about the same attitudes toward "indecency".
Ayatollah Bush of the Intelligent Design priesthood, the leader of the world, mwahhahhahha!
Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that the v-chip was invented for?
It seems to me that there is an inordinate amount of "for your own good" pretection going on here. I believe that the networks should finally grab their b@lls up off the shelves and simply refuse to pay the fines, en-mass.
Maybe we should all start filing indecency complaints against tampon commercials.
It's not the amount they are fined that matters, it is the fact that they are being fined. They "suggested" an orgy. It's not even as if one occurred where no nudity was shown, it was merely "suggested".
This is ridiculous.
I remember a few years ago, a story about an odd occurrence in an upper-class neighborhood. For some unexplained reason, a significant number of teens (some kind of young) started showing up at doctors' offices to report symptoms characteristic of at least one STD- mostly the same one. They thought it was kind of strange that it would not only happen to so many within a small geographic area, but within such a short period of time. After somes investigation, it was dicovered that these kids were doing exactly what the show suggested - having sex parties/orgies while parents weren't around to supervise. Oh, the horror. I'm not sure what value the FCC sees in burying these kinds of issues by sweeping them under a carpet of fines. Oh that's right...if people don't hear about it, that must mean that it's simply not happening.
When the FCC enforces standards of decency they're just thinking of the chilren ... yeah, that's it.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Sounds like "advertising" dollars well spent. But seriously how is it ok to show people being blown up/slaughtered, but not ok to show some skin, or a hint at some questionable activities?
Since the USA already has a violence problem, should we continue to show people being blown up/shot at, or participating in an orgy? I vote for the later, since I'd rather be invited to an orgy, than be shot.
..........FULL STOP.
Gee, isn't that also copyright infringement? To post a clip on their site?
Go slashdot hoard!
The clip (illegally?) hosted by them
:x
Did you see the video? "Implying" is treating it lightly. It's not like someone said "hey let's have a teenage orgy" It was a little more graphic than that. I'm not saying it was bad or imoral, but it was a little graphic for the time and channel.
So turn the channel. Or monitor your kids' viewing habits more closely. Or, better yet, trash the TV.
These types of fines are just a way for the FCC Morality Police to justify their existence.
Trolling is a art,
I always forget that we're not allowed to discuss how stupid the rules are except when contacting the appropriate representative.
Give me a break.
Beauty is just a light switch away.
The FCC only regulates broadcast (air).
You forgot to add the all important part--"at the moment."
This guy's the limit!
You can discuss it all you want. But it's been done so many times on slashdot what's the point? Thousands of bible thumpers complained about Howard Stern and it led to him quitting. Why? Because they acted. While others were complaining amongst themselves, free speech got trampled on and laws like this got enacted. So the point I was trying to make was complain all you want here, but back it up with action so the people elected to power hear it.
From here:
On Wednesday, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Deborah Taylor Tate and Michael Joseph Copps to serve as commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission.
So yes, we can actually thank Bush personally.
I don't know if I'd really want my kids to see this, but if I was forced to choose between this and "CSI", I'd choose this, every time. As I'm sure most of you know, "CSI" is on the same network as "Without a Trace", they show all kinds of violence, and it's on an hour earlier, yet no one complains.
And they wonder why this country is messed up...
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
Why do religious people insist on ruining OTHER people's fun?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yeah, finding and joining them is the answer. Mmm.... Orgy.
77 HITS
Really Long Off Topic Combo
Let me get this this right. US has gone to war against a nation with no real proof that that nation had any intent of means to harm the US, with the result being thousands of innocent people being killed, including Iraqi children, men, women and patriotic young US men and women. Ok, check.
A portayal of a group of young people having a pleasant and consenting interaction with each other? Bad! Evil! Fine them billions! Riiiiiigh-T.
So violence on TV? Good. War based on lies? Good. Innocent lives being killed for Bush and his rich friends? Really good. Consenting sex? BAD.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Fundamentalists of any stripe are a problem in society.
Fundamentalists with power are the root of dictatorships, police states, and government control.
Fundamentalists are people who made a decision a long time ago and stopped thinking about the possibility that they could be wrong.
The decisions made so long ago are rarely based on a thorough education or understanding of the material. Most of the time it's rote and ritual, and damnation for those who question "the way" -- the same as any cult.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If you're living in a free society, that society does not restrict 'offensive' or 'indecent' speech. This is Christian fundamentalism, right-wing Republican bullshit, and is actually one of the telling signs of Fascism, not Democracy. By the way, there is no such thing as 'indecent' speech. This was an FCC fabrication to suit their purposes.
By the way, the FCC was established to govern the FREQUENCIES that over-the-air broadcasts and electrical devices use. In today's age of cable and satellite, the FCC should be little more than a VERY small government organization that tries to make sure that your cell phone doesn't interfere with your TV set, and that the government can jam any consumer electronic device they choose. They should not be involved, in any way, in censorship, broadcast licensing blackmail or fining anyone for content.
I am an American, and I'm ashamed at what our society and government have become.
Yep. Let's also not forget that Lieberman, Tipper Gore, and Hillary Clinton are all democrats too, and love to take dumps on first amendment rights when it suits their own "morality". When it comes to politics, no one's guiltless for trampling on our rights. Though I guess others are worse.
Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
Actually, the first thought in my head after watching this clip was a particular Onion article.
You act like there was no way for the witter to write a underage sexual orgy without resorting in softcore pornography. The truth is, the witter made the choice to illustrate it that way. There are also many places for softcore porn writers to do their thing, like Cinemax pretty much all the time.
This is simply another producer setting aside standards to increase viewership. They wanted to push the bar; they should take the personal responsibility for doing so.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
... it's the sound of another nail being driven in the values of the Founding Fathers. Hell, the FCC (like all the Nanny State agencies) is so far outside the original scope of the Federal Government it's not funny.
The complaint form should include a box that asks, "Are you aware of the V-Chip parental access controls and it's operation?" or something to that effect. If the answer is "no" the complaint should get tossed and if the answer is "yes" then an automated reply should be sent to the effect that the viewer should tailor the V-Chip controls to suit their particular tastes.
No one ever mentions the V-Chip anymore because it's not their own viewing habits that concern them, but their neighbor's.
Actually, they do have the right not to be offended. I mean, it's not like we're forcing them to be offended. There's plenty of people who could care less.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
It appears to me that the folks who are upset about this so called indecency have issues. I saw the program, and as so often is the case in "Without a Trace" when the subject is a young person or child, the "message" is along the lines of 'Do you know where your children are, or what your children are doing?' I can only assume that these folks are really upset because they they don't know what thier children are doing, and this program showed them up.
Give it time, my friend. Give it time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Particularly if you happen to be a male who failed to plan ahead and insist on a prenuptual agreement. If you are such a person, you have little to gain and much to lose by entering into such a contract as marriage. Especially when you consider that women rarely marry a man who earns less money than they do, (that need for "security") and when you consider that the courts tend to be heavily biased against men in the case of divorce (child custody and most especially, alimony). This bias, by the way, originates from a time when women were second-class citizens who would have had a very difficult time earning their own living alone. Apparently I am unique in believing that equality does not mean you get to retain special privileges. Either way, consider the divorce rate and ask yourself how lucky you feel.
Please forgive me for the off-topic post. The subject came up via the A.C. and I honestly feel that few men consider the implications of choices like this. Thankfully I have not had to learn any of the above the hard way; I was fortunate enough to be able to learn this by simple observation. Remember guys, if she really loves you and it really is "always and forever," she will have no problem signing that prenup.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Teenagers being murdered isn't right either. Yet, showing it in a movie (or TV show) never caused any problem (as long as it's rated 13 or so).
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
"that suggested a teenage sexual orgy"
Most teenagers can't get past their own feelings of inadequacy, much less participate in an orgy.
And, if it was supposed to depict Gen-Y and beyond - I doubt it would have gotten past the "selfish whining" stage if it had been scripted true to life.
Personally, I don't envy them: They may be young, but, they've been abused by the public indoctrination system here in the US.
They don't think, and actually cannot: They've not been taught how to do so, by either their parents, nor the public education system that ostensibly is supposed to create knowledgeable, aware citizens.
They can't think, can't reason - Hell, they're semi-literate, at best - you've read their posts here: The best of them are clueless - the rest are embarassing.
But, they sure can point and click, which is a good thing - that means that they are equipped to handle Windows, Linux and OS X - they're all basically the same at the level at which they can manipulate them anyway.
Even a PBS station was fined by the FCC today.
KCSM-TV, a San Mateo, CA Community College District noncommercial station was fined $15,000 for airing an episode of the Emmy-award-winning Martin Scorsese-produced documentary "The Blues." In it, a hip-hop musician says "I'll buy some [expletive].. This is the kind of [expletive] I buy!"
For a station their size, $15,000 is a major hit!
We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.
We already have that! It's called the internet.
Or cable television if you actually pay for content.
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
The terms "son" and "daughter" apply to everyone last time I checked my biology textbook. While I understand that parents (rightly) have a strong emotional bond with their children, using those terms in this context simply serves to have emotional response override reason in a debate of ideas.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
The scene was basically a teen-age orgy - and while "the naughty bits" weren't shown, there were plenty of bare backs (both male and female), side shots, and groping. Add in the girls clad only in bras and panties grinding their hips on the guys, and well...
So basically they showed the inside of a club?
Do not judge everyone by the same standards. I had a healthy interest in sex from a very young age. I was lucky enough to live in a very liberal city with a well stocked public library. When I was 11 and my curiostiy began getting too strong to control, I went there and began researching sex in a very serious way. I learned the mechanics of sex, the structure of the genitalia, the biological purpose of sex, the psychological effects of sex and the various positions and techniques. I spent about four years constantly studying this because I wanted to know what I was doing should I get an opportunity. When I was 16, I got that opportunity with a very nice 15 year old. We had a two and a half year relationship which was broken up mostly because of personality differences and going off to college. Thank goodness when her mother caught us, she was cool enough to take my girlfriend to Planned Parenthood so she could get on the pill. We'd been using rubbers until that point and actually planned on going to PP ourselves. The pills at the time ran $45 for a three month supply. I split the cost with her since I knew it was my responsibility as much as hers to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. After all, as so many people forget, sex ISN'T just for procreation.
I know I'm not typical, but I'm also not alone in the way of being responsible and prepared for sex at a young age. (NOTE: I'm NOT advocating paedophilia. I believe that sexual relationships before the age of consent should be between individuals within two years of each other in order to prevent paedohiles from having an excuse for their perversion.) There are plenty of young people who ARE ready to handle sex in a mature fashion. Our arbitrary "moral" codes do them a disservice because they either fear that they will be punished for what they are doing and go about it without the proper precautions, or they don't want to talk to anyone about what they are feeling because they don't want to be labelled "immoral". I think people who think that ALL teens are unprepared for sex aren't firing on all cylinders. I think people who think that keeping kids from seeing ANY kind of sexual material is helpful are just stupid.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
If you don't get a prenump, you're a...well you know what I mean. These people who got married thought they met their lifetime partner, just like you. You just got lucky.
Assuming you're someone else here, when your wife cleans you out of half of the stuff you own, plus a car and the summer house, you'd be asking yourself how you could be so stupid.
We all want the dream, but that doesn't mean you can't take a little dose of reality along with it.
'Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint.'
And therein lies the problem. In its only decision involving broadcast indecency, FCC v. Pacifica, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 1978 that the "normal definition of 'indecent' merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality."
When ruling on obscenity in 1973 in Miller vs. California, the Supreme Court established the "three-pronged test" for obscenity:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
Note that the first test mentions "community standards." That's a recognition by the Court that something that is "obscene" in one community might not be in another. It's not much of a stretch to argue that standards for indecency vary by community also.
The FCC, by going after individual affiliates, might be called upon to present evidence that the community standards in each and every market with a targeted affiliate are such that the program would be considered indecent. If that happens, the FCC's ability to impose such fines might be seriously curtailed by the Court's decision.
all about love? there are times when a husband and wife don't love each other much. be married long enough, you'll see. Hopefully, you'll be able to communicate and work things out and rekindle love again, and a marriage is always worth saving. There's also the case where sometimes "love just ain't enough".
Sort of... But that's why it's KEY that you have the trial marriage before you do the real thing. My first relationship in high school lasted 2.5 years. My second in college lasted 4 years and almost made it to marriage except neither of us got the timing right (wanted to get married at a time when the other wasn't sure). And the woman who I married, I dated for ten years before we actually got married. THAT was the "trial marriage". By the time we decided to get married we weren't really doing it for us, we did it so that everyone else would take it seriously. We were already dead serious before. And our realtionship survived some damn rocky times involving other people and major relationship disagreements. So it's not like we're in a "honeymoon phase" either. We are admittedly quite unconventional, but that's what makes relationships really work.
;) ). Affairs wouldn't affect us, we were through that before we got married and learned how to survive (and even integrate) it. It's not a big deal to us. To put it plainly, if I were Bill Clinton, I would have simply said, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Hillary knew about it. Next question"?
As a sidenote, I really don't care much about money. If the marriage did fall apart and I had to pay out for the kid and split belonings, it would be painful but not because of the money. Simply because of the emotional toll. NO money in the world can soothe a broken heart. The only thing that can break my heart is the loss of my family. The impact on any future relationships would be annoying, certainly. But I think that would be overcome if the new partner really loved me as I love someone: completely and without limit or fear. To actually get to that point, we'd have to seriously change in different directions. My wife would have to become a raving Republican (can't ever see that happening) and I'd have to do the same (no chance of that without severe brain damage
For me a pre-nup is kind of a vulgar thing. You are counting on getting a divorce at some point. It's like the arms race between Russia and the US in the Cold War Era. You'd never sleep well at night. Unless... you really don't have a stronger emotional attachment to your spouse than to your money. I guess I should also say, that if a pre-nup works for two people and neither is offended by it, then I guess it's OK for them. But I really can't understand the kind of mind that actually feels good about that sort of thing.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I'd rather see people writhing against each other like a bad Britney video than seeing a bunch of bloodied bodies and violence.
And yet like most Slashdot posters parroting this sentiment, you probably stood in line for hours to see Anakin get his limbs graphically sliced off and dunked in lava.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
So it had no nudity and no foul language (or none that bothered me). It did show sex, I believe one girl and two guys, several times. I'm not really sure anyone could make an argument that it was appropriate for prime time. It wasn't the healthy, happy kind of sex everyone needs twice daily, either.
I guess I don't see any reason this belonged on prime time TV. It really had no value and nothing redeeming. It seemed like a desperate plea for ratings and backfired. Put the show on 2 hours later, and I'd agree with you.
No problem, we'll just establish a separate entity called the Federal Communications Commission to do our dirty work!
No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
No problem, we'll just make it an administrative fine -- no trial necessary!
If the Bill of Rights were proposed on the floor of Congress today, it would be: 1) excoriated as too liberal, 2) vetoed by the President (if, by some miracle, it passed both Houses of Congress), and 3) ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court as insufficiently respectful of the government's right to secrecy and duty of national security.
So much for "protecting and defending the Constitution".
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
You dumb fuck.
> I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other.
Correction. You lucky dumb fucks.
Assume you've fallen in love with Miss Right. Your brain's so clouded with oxytocin and other junk that you can't think straight -- so when she says it's about love, not money, you believe her.
Assume 5% of females are lying when they say this. (My data set [myself, friends, co-workers male and two females] is limited, but strongly suggests that the real number is bigger than 5% with a probability of over 30%).
But let's go with 5%. Would you play Russian Roulette? Even with only one bullet and 20 chambers?
Your mileage may vary, but I choose to heed the Wisdom of the Bastard Son of Admiral Ackbar and Eddie Murphy:
"I know a muthafukkin' trap when I see one!"
I've been offered sex. I've been offered sex with women I trust. I turned it the fuck down. Better things to do with my time and money.
Ahhh... a response from someone who doesn't "get" (as in; understand) women. There ARE a lot of screwed up women out there. I was back in the dating scene for a while a few years ago and I met nothing but screwed up women. Mostly they wanted to play head games. But not every woman is like that. I also think that a lot of guys are to blame due to their expectations and lack of patience. It takes a while to actually understand women, but it's not impossible. I takes even more time to sift through them and find the less crazy ones. One hint, if she's "one of the guys" then she's probably gold. My wife can say some things that would get a guy slapped if he said it to a woman. Like when she points out tall, super thing fake blondes with huge breast implants and calls them "tits on a stick". Don't go looking for the demure, quiet type. They're nothing but trouble.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.
While I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the economical and statistical realities of marriage and divorce, and that men in particular should think long and hard about financial consequences before tying the knot, from a relationship perspective, if you think you need a pre-nup then you shouldn't be getting married.
Unless, of course, you're getting married for reasons independent of an emotional relationship, in which case a pre-nup is simply another aspect of the paperwork.
Let's organize a loosely coordinated network that would, for every given TV programme, send, say, some 120 complaints or so. Each sender sould not sent more than 1 complaint per week, in order to sufficiently randomize the sample; the idea is that the onslaught of complaints coming from all over the place will overwhelm the FCC complaint-reception system, thus diluting the whole effot by those right wingnuts.
Kids shouldn't be stumbling across it anyway. I their parents were all that concerned, they have the V-Chip (which was discussed earlier). And to move it to a later timeslot would have moved it out of primetime, which ends at 10pm in the Central and Mountain time zones (great for me... I can watch Conan an hour earlier).Kids to young to view it should probably be in bed by that time anyway.
Dude, I almost remember Twisted Sister, and I'm like, old.
Let's see, Tipper Gore did some stuff as a private citizen, and years later when her husband ran for President, it was definitely an issue that gave people concern about his position on censorship.
Now members of the Bush administration, appointed by Bush, are doing stuff in their official capacities, and you object if we blame "the Bush administration"?
I mean, if people are brining this up in an irrelevant attempt to defend a poitical opponent of Laura Bush 20 years from now, feel free to tell them what I will now tell you:
The last time I heard something that moronicly weak, it was a Twisted Sister album.
They're all crazy, it's just a question of the degree of their insanity. Some are saner than others. You seem to have found one at the saner end of the spectrum. I had a girlfriend from the other end of the spectrum who would freak because I wouldn't hit her if we argued. Apparently if I'd really loved her I'd have got more upset. Troubled childhood methinks. My wife, after extensive efforts, is only slightly crazy.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
Libertarians are free-market fundamentalists who want everyone to be slave to the rich rather than the government. In a libertarian utopia, nothing will stop those with money from trampling your rights as much as they want, only the government (which at least in theory has some obligations to you) is not allowed to do so.
Trying to solve every problem with the same tool - free market - is the mark of a fundamentalist. Do you honestly think that free-market fundamentalism is any different from christian fundamentalism or islamist fundamentalism or communist fundamentalism ? It isn't.
In a libertarian utopia, the poor will starve in the streets since there is no social security to feed them. The companies will happily form cartels since the government doesn't have the power to stop them. Your employment contract will force you to spend your "free" time by guarding your place of employment - and no, you cannot simply refuse to sign, since nothing stops the cartel from agreeing that every potential employer will require such conditions. Public libraries will cease to function, since they are funded by the state - if you can't pay for all the information you want or need, too bad.
Libertarian utopia is a heaven for the rich, since nothing limits their ability to exercise power over everyone else anymore. It is a hell to everyone else, since nothing limits the ability of the rich to trample on them anymore.
There's a reason why communism was born. That reason is that life for a worker during the unfettered capitalism of industrial revolution was a living hell, with 16-hour work days, child labor, and the absolute lack of any kind of safety regulations leading to regular mutilation of machine operators, after which they would simply be thrown out to starve and replaced with new victims. Compared to that, the Soviet Union really was a workers paradise, where you at least had to be sent to Siberia before the hell would begin. By trying to repeal all labor laws (since they interfere with their free market utopia), the libertarians are working for the return of those conditions.
Don't vote libertarian, unless you are filthy rich. You are going to hate to live under them otherwise.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Alright, this looks like an orgy; however, its not explicit in any way, and the people in it sure don't look like teens, I'd say they're in their early twenties.
But: What kind of crack does your government smoke to put up a law against "indecency" and regulators who think this is "indecent"?
Grow up. Overthrow your government.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Which part are you calling BS: his description of how things were before labor laws and anti-trust legislation, or his assertion that if we remove these things it will be that way again? The former is widely documented and can be read about in virtually any history of the industrial revolution. The latter is pretty much just common sense.
The libertarian abolishment of welfare is stated on the partys website (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml) - the poor starving on the streets follows logically from this. The same page talks about "economic freedom" and "slashing bureaucratic regulation of business", and without such regulations, what is stopping cartels from forming ? And nasty employment contracts are also the natural result of lack of such regulation.
Various Slashdot posters also keep on touting abolishment of taxes (and, logically, all tax-funded functions) and any kind of government control of economy in the name of libertarianism.
The part of how and why communism was born you can check yourself from history books.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
And what is worse is that, after the relationship has fallen apart, these women start shrieking that men are scum and there are no good men anywhere.
Similar to the upcoming US election results