Slashdot Mirror
FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for profanity or nudity shown on live television. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities. Here in the UK we have the BBC and thus their two fantastic advert, nudity, profanity free childrens channels. And on the home computers I've stuck K9, which seems to do a pretty good job without spoiling their use of the computer. Recently they went to a relatives house and log onto their PC. The eldest searched for "horses", as this is something she is interested in, and got links to, amongst what you would expect, "horses mating with humans". There must be a balance, of course, but I do not feel that I can let broadcasters, in the loosest definition, decide what is and what is not suitable for my children. I do not want them to grow up thinking profanity, nudity, violence or whatever is normal behaviour. Similarly, I do not want them subject to some of the adverts that appear on some childrens channels (e.g. give money to help save some poor kid's life... I feel there're more appropriate ways of teaching kids about these issues). So we need something in place, whether that is common sense or an impartial body. Unfortunately I don't think common sense is an abundant commodity and so the US would probably benefit from keeping the FCC's indecency policy in place. There's no K9 for live TV, alas.
and I know a lot of social conservatives who aren't happy with nudity and profanity on TV and radio when kids are awake. In fact, based on the ones I know, I'd say they'd far rather their child see some boobies than another child or a family get blown up.
Of course, war is different for children, especially boys. There is a big difference between seeing soldiers fight one another and seeing senseless crime and atrocities. You can claim there isn't, but that doesn't make it so, and for millennia, civilizations have understood the difference between glorifying the warrior ethos and senseless violence. The former, is not inherently harmful to children, and is actually good for a society that wants its boys to grow up to be **men** and not overgrown boys who act like pansies in the face of a violent world. The US has lost sight of the value of that since unlike the rest of the modern world, no country has tried to invade us in almost 200 years come ~2013 (when the British invaded the US in the War of 1812).
I was at the hospital ER a while back and it was the middle of the night. The waiting room had a mother with her two kids (one a baby, the other ~ 2) and me with my daughter. Our SOs were the ones there for treatment.
Her baby was hungry and she asked me if it was OK if she fed her child.
I told her I didn't see how it was my choice, but since she asked I was fine with it.
One of the nurses (WTF? shouldn't they be the most understanding?) came out from behind their counter and told her not to feed her child there and suggested the rest room. I kindly replied to the nurse that this woman and I were the only two in the waiting room, that I didn't mind at all, and how would she like her next meal to be served while she was on the can? I think she considered kicking me out then thought better of it and let the poor embarrassed woman be.
I mean, had they offered an exam room that might have been fine, I'd see it as the nurse offering up some privacy, rather than shunning this person. Later the mom thanked me, and I told her about all the fun my wife and I had along those same lines. It really bugs me. Thing is, this woman even had some nifty shawl thing that covers everything up (wish we had that when my kids were that young).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Yeah - I actually find America is backwater in some ways. Nobody gives a rats ass about nudity in Europe, and while people do binge drink, it is nowhere near the problem it is in America (or Russia, but Russia has cultural issues as well - it is considered rude to leave before the vodka bottle is finished, for instance).
Neither of which killed people in the name of atheism.
It's a false comparison.
People murder in the name of their god, still do. Billy Graham sponsered and creted 10,000 church along the 10th parallel.
Church where the parishioners will circle Muslim towns and kill every man, woman and child in the town.
Muslims are doing the same thing to Christian towns. This is happening right the fuck now.
In BOTH CASES it's because of their belief in God. The do it in the name of their God.
The belief in a power that takes them above the law of man. by it's very nature, means people will feel anything they do in their gods name is good and morally correct thing to do.
Belief in a higher power is bad, horrible and destructive. Whether the higher power is a God, or an unquestioning faith in the government.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You are right, it doesn't make much sense. Here is a part that does...
Imagine you are a major chemical company owned by an old money family with payed political lackeys at every level of government. Lets make up a name for them and call them Dupont.
Now imagine that you invent an amazing new product with tough weather resistant fibers that are suitable for use in any kind of rope. This is patented and you have the exclusive right to create this material. Lets make up a name for this and call it nylon.
There is a problem though, there is a cheap widespread naturally occurring fiber that is just as good as your artificial fiber. This means that breaking into the market will be virtually impossible. lets make up a name for this and call it hemp.
Fortunately there is already racially motivated and puritan dislike of the natural materials source. All you have to do is produce some propaganda to sway the opinions of moderates and maybe buy a few more votes and you can remove the competition completely.
This not only lets you move into the market, but to completely replace the market for durable weather resistant rope (because hemp was the only affordable alternative with those qualities).
Dupont is not solely responsible, but they sure as hell were instrumental in the final push that got it banned.
Everyone is forgetting the oil industry backing as well. You see people always think of oil in cars. What they forget is all the oil that goes into the production of plastics.
Plastics can be made from plant oils, unfortunately they aren't very strong. Ford demonstrated the solution in the body of an old automobile prototype. If you reinforce the plant plastics with the strong fibers from the hemp plant you have a dirt cheap and very strong versatile plastic... patent free.
That's the problem with the hemp plant it is extremely versatile and yes there is money to be made with it, but there are no patents. Why make lots of money on a product when any farmer can compete with a patch of dirt when you can outlaw the cheap and freely available competition and flood the market with patented solutions? Its the same reason the drug industry hates marijuana and continues to release minor modifications of their drugs with new names and fresh new patents.