Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

He is replying to me, and admitting that he is harrassing me, do need to explain it anymore? Awwww

So, shouldn't we be concerned with making it more free instead of less? If we let them ban trivial things like a desparate housewife's lingerie, what's next?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ut... I am forced to say, "you are right, and I am wrong." (See how easy that is?)So, if it will make you happy, I will rephrase. You have avoided the question for 122 posts.Wow. That sounds much worse. It's called a discussion board. If you want a place where you can sound off at length without anyone ever being able to say anything in return, the good people at geocities or angelfire will be happy to provide. I don't know how many times I can ask why the government is allowed to regulate content. At a certain point, I might just have to start mentally translating your posts into monkey noises. They'll be more entertaining as monkey noises. Then why bring him up to support your point? When you do it, sure. Little hint... proudly proclaiming the validity of ignorance is far more likely to make you lose credibility. Yup. So... once again... WHY IS THE FCC ALLOWED TO DO SO?I'm not asking you to repeat, over and over again, that they do. I am asking WHAT IS THE REASON.If you don't know, then you can see no valid reason why it should be the case. So bringing them up to support your point is dishonest. From the statement "They did not think about being able to say something and the whole world being able to hear it in an instance?" No, I can honestly say that I can't make leaps that wild.However, if your issue is how many people can hear, then it certainly seems that your point is that speech should only be free if no one can hear it... no leap required. See above. Already answered. Bush is a prick. I heard he rapes kittens.*braces self, looks around*Gosh, I seem to be fine. Your children? None whatsoever. If you're that concerned, don't invite TV into your house.Other children? None of your business. See, I'm cutting you off right there, because that is the point where you have chosen to invite the TV into your home. Don't like what's on? Stop allowing it in. That's one advanced TV you got there. How do you tell it that you only want to watch basketball? How does it manage to block out the news, and family-friendly sitcoms, and documentaries on duck-billed-platypi, and any of the other non-basketball shows on television? How do you make it show nothing but static when basketball's not on?No don't bother answering... we both know it doesn't. Because you're not only giving them permission to show you basketball. You're giving them permission to broadcast whatever they happen to be broadcasting into your home. One of those things happens to be basketball. Sure. But if you walk up to a man with a bullhorn, and say, "Excuse me, sir! Please put your bullhorn right in my face and scream your opinions!", then you have no right to complain when he does so. If you do that, you have decided, "this is the time and place; lay it on me."Similarly, if you purchase a TV, put it in your home, and turn it on, you have no right to complain that the TV is unfairly intruding on your home.Don't like it? Don't have it.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

But I am not looking to ban it.

You have been advocating restrictions on broadcasting of commercials. You did suggest that Desparate Housewives ads should not be shown and that casual beheadings should not be shown.Where do you draw the line between "reasonable" restrictions and an outright ban?How do you decide how much erosion of freedom is justifiable?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If there is one thing I hate, it's people who post their opinions and do not allow people to respond. I mean it's their right to do so, but what is the point?I come here, so that I may try to learn something, and also try to share whatever it is I know, especially about my experiences with God.
I welcome your replies, but I do not welcome the purposeful offensiveness, and the harrassment. It's uncalled for. It's even against forum rules, but this is a normal story, everyone can break forum rules when it comes to me, yet I seem to always be reminded of rules, when I am breaking them. That alone is testimony in itself.You have admitted to harrassing me, and I am sure if I wanted to make a big deal of it, I just might be able to. I don't have a definate clear cut answer, but I can see some reasons why, I've posted a few. I have even been the subject of some of those reasons. Freedom, and freedom of speech comes at a price I guess.Maybe if people had more respect for each other, and didn't do stupid things like purposfully offend each other, our freedom would be much more free. It wasn't him I was bringing up, it was his actions, again another missed point. Unfounded comments like those make you lose credibility. Even if you are just purposefully trying to offend me.I have heard of a few examples of people being offended in ebay's feedback forum, and have had court orders to remove the feedback. Let me go all the way back to my first post, so that you can understand the spirit in which I have ventured into this discussion
Message 2"You also may be right, I amy not be aware of what I am advocating, but I am sure I will learn here, and sort it out."Doesn't sound like the comments of someone proudly proclaiming anything. One doesn't have to know the reasons why. It is the law. How is that a leap? It's a fact. And probably a contributing factor as to why the FCC does have control. Your starting to wine. So then, why is it that you will get a ticket? I mean your wrong, just admit it. That is also against the rules of this forum. Keep doing it, and you will see, the secret service will contact you, without my help.I witnessed them contact a person who was blabbing on the CB all night about Carter, they visited him personally. Here I disagree. I may or moay not have a legal reason to stand on, but all I can say is, that we have to share this world together. You would rather have me isolate myself, and my children. That's what Jim Jones did. I have a concern for children who are unsupervised watching content, that is not appropiate for there age. If you can't understand that, then this conversation is over, we can agree to disagree. By turning it on.
And we are not talking about just basketball, but we are talking about the rating associated with basketball, but of course you missed that point too. According to the rules set forth by the FCC. Well, when if I ever do that, I'll remember what you said. Yes I do when it is my government that is the ones regulating it.

Well desperate housewive's ad's can be shown, but the content within that ad should match the rating of the program your watching. That's a tricky question isn't it?
Again it's all about ratings. When it comes down to it, I don't see it as an erosion of freedom. Corupting the minds of our youth is, to me, an erosion of freedom, and much more dangerous for us, than just controlling content within time periods, and shows that are rated for children.

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?

Why don't you just condense your replies? Sounds a little like harrassment. None the less, it is offensiveness. Things like the hicklin test showed that being offended is relative.Surely you don't think it is the same thing if you say the word fuck to a 3 year old, as if you say it to a 40 year old?can we at least agree that being offended is relative? Complacent, or we all get it, and you don't. When did I say we shouldn't question the laws? Isn't that exactly what I have been doing this whole thread? I only said it IS the law, and it is, why would you debate such a simple fact? Please, please explain to me, why you think that I singularly want to control what corruption is. I have never eluded to that fact, not a once. yet, all of you have been arguing the "me" stand point.I say us, you say me, something wrong here.

They're all tricky if you stop and think about them instead of just knee-jerk reacting. I'm not so worried about my children having "corrupted" minds. I'd be much more worried about them having empty minds.You can't test a filter by running distilled water through it. If we want our children to learn to distinguish the good from the bad, they have to be exposed to real life, not just the sanitized version.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

Every time you say it's illegal to offend someone, it becomes entirely called-for to offend you, just so you can see how legal it is.But wait, I forgot... you can have the cops slap a restraining order on me at any second. Boy, I hope you don't do that. The only reason you've given so far is that you don't want your children to see the TV shows you choose to bring into your home. Got it. If the people didn't want to exercise their freedoms, maybe we could have those freedoms. I'll go ahead and risk it. And yet, in... wow, 133 posts now, you have still failed to answer a simple question about the validity of the FCC's ability to censor content, while still pointing to it as a reason why censorship is okay. So the things you say about learning, and sorting out, are at best disengenuous. Brenna sums up the only possible reaction to this statement way better than I ever could. Oh. So your reason is that speech should only be free if nobody can hear it. After reading your posts, I could certainly use a glass. See above. Already answered. The man with a bulllhorn is infringing on others without their permission. They didn't bring him into their home, and ask him to scream. You, on the other hand, bought a TV, put it in your home, and turned it on. Bush continues to be a prick. And is probably raping kittens right now.I expect the Secret Service to show up any time now.Seriously, any second. You don't. That should be... damn, just blindingly obvious at this point. Actually, I would rather have you not try to be my children's parents. You go ahead and make decisions for your children, and I'll handle mine.And no, there's really no room for agreeing to disagree on whether a man like you gets to make parenting decisions for my children. Aaaaand... there goes your ability to ever complain about anyone else's ridiculous leaps. After all, I know you don't like being called a hypocrite. Be as concerned as you please. But if they're not your kids, it's not your decision. And, of course, this is the same FCC/government/what-have-you regulation for which you have failed to present a single legal justification.So basically, you've got nothing, but continue to insist on your point of view. Oh, and you're here to learn, apparently.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Yes, I don't want my childrens minds to be empty either. So I don't understand how not letting them see a head be blown off until they are at least 13 has anything to do with having an empty mind. Yes, real life, as I have been saying all along, not the fictitous version, before there time.