Slashdot Mirror
FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated
tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?
that's rubbish. tv violence has nothing to do with real life violence. the source of violence is bad parenting. instead of wasting all this money they should've given it to someone who could use it to really solve this problem, like social service or schools.
I'd like to see more generosity toward what can be shown now. I hate the idea of living in a culture where things slowly move toward everything being made appropriate for children. It's little wonder when people are given a choice they move away from broadcast TV. All entertainment shouldn't be reduced to the lowest common denominator, but there will always be pressure for it to do so.
Not everyone has cable, oh no.
If it's unregulated there is absolutely no reason why they could not show a snuff film in the middle of the playschool kids TV hour.
Regulation if done correctly is a good thing, if done badly is it a horrible thing.
I like muppets.
Well that's one way to get the Iraq war out of the media before the next election, ban TV coverage under a "think of the children" violence clause.
Fuck the children [not literally], I pay for cable not them. If cable/tv/whatever is bad for them, then make a law banning them from watching TV.
Why should I be left with shite "family oriented" programming when I'm the one paying the damn bill?
When 6 yr olds start paying for cable maybe then we should consider what's in their best interests.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I second this. This is the reason that soldiers train shooting at human shaped silhouettes. This habituates soldiers to fire at human shaped things rather than at abstract bullseye. This way there is less hesitation when the time comes to do it for real.
Not true. Sweden had 10K volunteers to Finland when it was invaded. But, even given that, I'm not so sure it's a great selling point to proudly point out that Sweden stood still and allowed the German's roll over the rest of Europe.
You know, the ones who talk about Fox News' sacred right to broadcast propaganda and call it news?
You know, the sacred right they've had since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the last decade or so?
When you talk about government regulating what they say on TV, some Republicans trot out the constitution like a prayer rug and wave it all around in the air. Their Speech Is Free. How dare the government regulate the media.
(I mean, the government has to decide who can broadcast. And it can only pick a few lucky people, and everyone else can't broadcast on pain of huge penalties.)
(But aside from that, those lucky few should be able to say whatever they want on TV. If you don't like it, print a newspaper.)
The Republicans said, Americans are smart. Americans are free. Americans can handle their own media without getting confused. They don't need anyone to look out for them. They choose what media to watch and what not to watch, and if they happen to see something not so cool when switching channels, oh, they can handle it.
And they are lying through their teeth. They don't really believe a word of that.
Their coming out to censor the media like this is how you can tell.
You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.
Megalomaniacal hypocrites.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?
No offense, but I think that betrays a very eurocentric viewpoint.
What I've found is in most cases where someone categorizes the U.S. as unique, especially in a somewhat negative way, they're ascribing qualities that are actually quite common--just not in Europe.
There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.
Sexual content and violence should be regulated by the government exactly the same, which is no regulation at all. I'll admit there are a couple of extremes which obviously need to be regulated, but in general this isn't something the government should concern itself with.
This however is an excellent idea, let the users regulate themselves by adding an age flag in the transmission. Regulation such as that suggested by the report only adds another annoyance factor to a medium which is already plagued by them.
Perfect is the enemy of done.
I do agree, though, that a set of flags in digital broadcast would be good. On the back of DVD and video boxes, you have the amount of violence, sex, and strong language listed. It would be possible to add corresponding flags to the digital TV stream and allow people to install their own filters. If you have it set with a sufficiently fine granularity (maybe put it in the frame header) then something like a TiVo could even re-edit the stream for you. It made me laugh when I was last in America how the sound track on films would suddenly cut out for a second when someone swore, but this kind of thing would be possible on the client side with sensible metadata. If you're not watching something live, then it could even cut scenes where the sex or violence flags hit a certain threshold.
Interestingly, the DVD spec actually has a way of doing this already; you can create multiple paths through the same video footage. I believe it was designed for showing films with and without deleted scenes, but it could also be used to show a lower-rated edit of the same footage. To my knowledge, however, no DVDs have been produced that implement this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
None taken
I only spoke about Europe and U.S. because I live for a long time in both of those parts of the world. I didn't not try to be 'eurocentric', I don't think Europe is 'better' and 'U.S.' is worse. If I did, I would be living where it's 'better', trust me. I was just comparing attitudes and values. That's all. I cannot claim anything about Asia and Middle East, as I have not been there and did not extensively study their societies and cultures.
That is exactly correct. All such regulation is illegitimate; the 1st amendment to the constitution says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" It doesn't say "except for violent or sexual expression", nor are there any constitutional amendments that say anything of the kind. The 1st amendment is directed at the federal government (which covers the FCC quite nicely) but also keep in mind that the 14th amendment is directly interpreted by the federal government, via the courts to mean that the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) applies to the states as well.
At the time, speech and print was all they had; generalizing to video is a no-brainer, if they'd thought you could send pictures from here to there without being burned at the stake. The idea translates exactly.
This is just one example of many where the US government has stepped far outside the hard boundaries that its constituting authority (the constitution itself) set. Keep in mind that any censorship law the government makes is completely illegitimate. There is no possible legitimacy for laws that directly violate the constitution's prohibitions without proper revision of the constitution, meaning, a constitutional convention covering the appropriate changes, and ratification of those changes.
Remember that a government that steps outside its constituting authority has only one authority left, that of force and coercion. That's not even similar to the claimed authority of a king; that is what forms the basis for a dictatorship.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I disagree with an age tag. Who's to say what's appropriate for a 12 year old or a 17 year old?
What I'd like to see is something similar to PICS. There are different categories. For example (from ICRA):
languagesexual, languageprofanity, languagemildexpletives, nuditygraphic, nuditymalegraphic, nudityfemalegraphic, nuditytopless, nuditybottoms, nuditysexualacts, nudityobscuredsexualacts, nuditysexualtouching, nuditykissing, nudityartistic, nudityeducational, nuditymedical, drugstobacco, drugsalcohol, drugsuse, gambling, weaponuse, intolerance, badexample, pgmaterial, violencerape, violencetohumans, violencetoanimals, violencetofantasy, violencekillinghumans, violencekillinganimals, violencekillingfantasy, violenceinjuryhumans, violenceinjuryanimals, violenceinjuryfantasy, violenceartisitic, violenceeducational, violencemedical, violencesports, violenceobjects
What could then be done is have the client (ie, the TV) have preconfigured settings based on the above ratings. Similar to G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, etc. However, the user would also be able to customize the settings to however they wish. That's the important difference. Ie, if they believe that "nuditysexualacts" and is fine for their 13 year old but not "violencerape", they could configure it that way.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
I like that 'badexample' tag, and would use it. I'd like to see it expanded actually, as there are many different types of bad example being presented for consumption. The running insults that are present on SO many of today's kids shows really piss me off. These kids are seeing role-models engage in completely sociopathic behavior and it's presented at the preferred behavior... You know, "cool".
My kids watch exactly NO cartoon network, NO Disney, and not too much of anything besides PBS. Hell, not everything on PBS meets my standard, so it gets no play. I take my job raising my kids seriously, like I said before.
That being said, I've always thought that television censorship on the national level is degrading. I, unlike my children, am a full formed and functional adult, perfectly capable of making my own decisions. If someone else feels the need for censorship, perhaps because they do not feel capable of making their own decisions, well, they should probably just have someone make a program schedule for them and lock out all the other options. And for those who don't feel the need to take enough of an active part in their kid's lives to regulate their television watching habits, tough. You've had the orgasm, now take some responsibility for what you've done.
Sorry "Shawn is an Asshole" for turning my reply to you into a general rant, but hey, it happens.
This post is tagged: languagemildexpletives, pgmaterial
This post's production was tagged: languageprofanity, drugstobacco, intolerance, pgmaterial, nuditybottoms
You would do well to follow your own advice, and to take this additional advice: read up some basic theology. It was not curiosity that was the reason for the Fall. Knowledge of Good and Evil implies the capability to act on either of them. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise because they had gained the capability to do Evil, which is something that does not belong in Paradise, which is a realm of absolute Good.
God forbade the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge because it would disturb the balance of Paradise by introducing the knowledge of Evil. The reason for the prohibition was promptly validated by the fact that Adam and Eve started by lying about their act, denying that they had taken from the Tree and trying to place blame on others.
Apart from whether or not you believe this, only a deliberate misreading of the text and the exegesis done on it over the centuries could lead someone to state that mere curiosity led to the Fall. It didn't. Neither did mere disobience.
As for the resolution of this, this is why Christians believe Jesus' death leads to forgiveness for Original Sin: Jesus shows the ultimate Good, sacrificing yourself for others. The core tenet of Christianity is that by following his teachings and if need be his sacrifice, we renounce Evil and commit to Good. I see no refutation of the validity of independent thought in this. In fact, the demand that we consciously choose to do Good over Evil is in fact a validation of the worth of independent thought. One does not get saved by rote regurgitation of dogma; Jesus' attacks on the Farisees and the Judeans make this abundantly clear.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?