Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

nor should it.we have the right to speech. presumably, we have a right not to listen, but we don't have the right to not be offended. it doesn't exist. and don't give me pursuit of happiness crap. that's not in the constitution.

i had to do a project for class on breast cancer senior year of high school. i got in trouble for searching "breast" on the library computers.

U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute first, stop saying we live in a democracy. that's bullshit. we live in a republic enlightened by the ideas of democracy. in that, we protect the rights of the few instead of enforcing the desires of the many. however, this translates into we restrict no rights that the few desire except when it very clearly presents a real and present danger. being exposed to violent, sexual, or otherwise explicit or objectionable material has consistently failed to demonstrate a real and present danger to humanity. rome failed because of lead pipes and arrogance, not the exposure of their children to the buttseks. we have the right to express ourselves however we choose in any public or private forum whether supported or funded or not by the government or private interest. the censorship part of the fcc is unconstitutional. however, very few go up against them and win. it is the government. this should worry us. a lot. this should terrify us. this shouldn't make us feel safe in our sex and violence free homes.likewise, no one should be capable of knowing or viewing what media you decide to view in your home without your express permission, excepting when there is suspicion of real criminal activity. this is entirely off-topic here, but i'm still not sure why this isn't a sufficient right of privacy. at any rate. i was going somewhere with this, and i've now forgotten. these appear to cause difficulty. but. they guarantee the right of the people to do as they please, not the right of the people to restrict the rights of other people. basically, 9 means "just because we didn't explicitly say 'people can have buttseks' doesn't mean they can't", not "just because we didn't say that 'people have the right to lynch people for having buttseks' doesn't mean they can't."i'm disturbed by your need to censor fiction. fiction isn't real. it should be the most safe of mediums. i'm more disturbed by news mediums displaying real gore than by all the touristas movies combined.frankly, i think basketball (and other sports), which glamorizes the absence of education and academia should be rated higher. i think it's dangerous propaganda which proclaims the importance of physical prowess over intellectual capability. i think sports events should be reserved for late night television when impressionable children should be in bed.there are a few fiction books on censorship that you should probably read, and maybe you will come to at least comprehend (if not agree) why i view censorship as the only true evil. because if we cannot speak of something, then we cannot understand why or why not it may be acceptable. this is why the founding fathers put it in that first amendment. religion is a kind of free speech. they were merely clarifying its inclusion. also, standing with those who you agree with is another kind of free expression. again, they were clarifying its inclusion, not giving a separate right.

haha. (i was referring to our horrible filth infringing on their pursuit of happiness. of course, why they're watching tv instead of being at church, i'll never know. [i'm probably going to get suspended for this.])

what the hell are you talking about? have you no idea what country we live in? you're insane. blatantly insane. we need some kind of revolution, but not one lead by the politically illiterate. prove it. show me all the literature from the 1940s to the 1970s and prove it has nothing in it like what we have now. we didn't invent this shit. and maybe your mouth was different, but i promise you it's not new. because i believe that the loss of real human life is different than the loss of a false character through cg in a movie. further, i believe real death deserves some privacy and should not be used for ratings. btw, this adds to my distaste for anti-abortion protester's posters. have some fucking decency. anyways. off-topic. if parents fail to monitor their own children, that should not force me to be monitored. we're not discussing lies. we're discussing the free expression of thought and idea. should pilgrim's progress or the bible be censored? the first is definitely fiction and the second has a rather weak footing on reality. are you aware of the role that fiction played in founding our country? oh no, you probably aren't, since you can't even figure out what kind of government we have.people who can't spell censorship shouldn't be able to practice it. i'm discussing the reality of the constitution. there is no blending. there is only reality. if you choose to be ignorant of the government and the nation we live in, then that's not my problem.

clearly you're just not discussing anything with anyone. you're just ranting about basketball and bad commercials. get over it.i'm so done with this.

if it's such a problem, turn it off. you don't have the right to restrict the viewing of the rest of us. period. ever. the fcc's current censorship is unconstitutional. the first amendment doesn't say "true speech" it says "speech". all speech, all expression is protected. period. that's it. if you don't like it, then you don't understand why it's there.

between your wiki, and my government and constitutional law classes... who do you really think has a better idea of what the law says?

you turn the tv off. not just then, all the time. it works for me. i control what i expose myself to and when. i watch dvds sometimes and i rarely go to the movies. i read, i listen to music, i don't expose myself to commercials. there's these amazing things called books... except you'd probably want to censor those too, in case the kids aren't supervised at the library...

it's just a waste of time and a way for them to sell you stuff.

no, it says grossly offensive to the point at which it becomes a nuisance. so, this means repetitive, irritating, language that a normal person used to the culture (the offensive culture in this nation) would be bothered by. and this is language. this is words. like FUCK, and SHIT, and CUM, and CUNTWAD, and BLEEDING SNATCH ROT. it doesn't say anything about a woman not wearing a turtleneck once a month during a commercial for a show during primetime watched by adults.anyways. i'm so not even going to go into the discussion i want to have about the unconstitutionality of the fcc. it tends to work despite it's unconcstitutionality and most people don't seem to know enough to have a problem with it. just like almost all children stand up for the pledge in school even though they don't have to and it's unconstitutional to demand it. most people don't make a fuss. cause most people don't give a fuck. and that is not a demonstration of how great the program is, but how dangerously complacent american citizens are.

really?mr OMGWTFBBQ DemOCraCY!!@!!!!!1111!@@!!! doesn't think we need to question laws? just a minute ago you were screaming about how we should be able to make the fcc further restrict things, but wondering why the fcc has a right to restrict things is anathema? what the hell is wrong with your brain?

who gets to decide what corruption is? you? why you?

nope. not really. well. you're more likely to be offended by some things than i am and i'm more likely to be offended by others, but i don't think it's relative by any set variable. i think you're right about the 3 year old though. 3 year olds tend to forget things more easily. like goldfish. when asked why the fcc is allowed to restrict freedom of speech, you said that sounds to me like not questioning the laws. because i don't think that allowing children to see sex is corrupting. because i don't think that children knowing that people cheat is corrupting. because i don't think that FUCK has the power to destroy young minds. because i don't agree with your ideas of what is inapproprite material, and i'm not the only one who disagrees with you. if we all get a say in who doesn't get to say stuff, then no one will get to say anything. that's why everyone gets to say what they like (or produce what they like) as long as it doesn't constitute a clear and present danger (like yelling bomb in an airport).and i don't condense my posts because it makes it easier for me to keep track of what i'm responding to, and i bet the lurking readers feel the same. and i like to hear you whine about how people are harrassing you. cause it's fun.

as to being relative, you were inferring that i should agree with you that offensive is relative by age. it isn't. offensive is relative to being raised to be offended by things. like goldfish was referring to the fact that children, like goldfish, forget things very easily. the fcc is the body that censors the airwaves. therefore a discussion of whether the airwaves should be more or less censored involves a discussion of why the fcc claims the right to censor in the first place. logic, nutjob. no. harrassment is uninvited. you continue to post, therefore you invite comment. if you don't like it. sucks.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.