Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

I am not the only one who has said it, you should be harrassing the FCC as well. That is not what I said at all. It's not the topic Dan, read the topic. I have not said that either.If your going to attack me, at least be truthful Oh. So your reason is that speech should only be free if nobody can hear it. If you are indeed handling them, then that is fine. I guess we can get rid of child services now too.

Keep thinking that way Dan, and btw, stop making everything I say into a black and white issue, because it is not.Oh, and yes, I do have a fucking clue what I am talking about.Take a look at this sticky post in another forum.
Do not make threats against the President of the US - RC GroupsYou may be able to freely offend people, but there is a line alwys that can be drawn. Like I said, it dosn't give you the right to do it.
If we were so free to offend people whenever and however we want, then all these other rules that stem from offending people, wouldn't be in place.I would also say that 80-100% of all pIn the case of the bullhorn, he's not leaving anyone that choice.[/qs]Bullshit, you can always go buy yourself some noise cancelling headphones. IT's my right to freedom of speech, and it doesn't matter what means I use to get my speech out there, and it doesn't matter what time.Why have all these stipulations all of sudden? What makes your stipulations any better or worse than mine?I think we have a new hypocrite in town. No leap there, and I did not say that, just you missing the point again, what a fucking joke, what are you selectively smart?Go read it again, until you figure out exactly what I meant.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Yes Ringo, I have agreed to that line of thought already in this thread. And I must thank you for your rational behaivor in this thread.But what about the time your not with your kids, and they happen to catch something?
What about when they are in school?
What about the children that aren't being supervised?That is what I meant about child services. We obviously have those to protect our children, because htere are parents out there who are not doing their job, and then someday we have to pay for it, when we have a run-in with one of these people.Yes, I know it's your right to be an idiot(not you), but is it fair to a child if theyt aren't getting the supervision they need?TV is a part of life. Turning it off, or being able to turn it off is not the answer.

Ok yes, I completely agree with that, but age is a factor, as you see more things, then more things become less offensive to you. Or even the opposite could happen. Oh, ok, I missed that one. But my point is stilla good reply, because as I pointed out in my own life, it was those traumatic events that I remember more than any other thing. WEll I don't see it as that way. I think that is a totally different topic. That is why I feel I do not have to justify what is already in place, and allowed by the people of the USA.If you were that concerned about it, you and Dan could start a revolution or something.

No, the post doesn't say threats against his life, it only says threats, and pointless offending the president could be consider threatening.I know, I have seen it first hand, so yes I have a fucking clue. That is only one example.Look, I am done with you.If you can't get what I am saying, and have been saying all along, and that is, I find it wrong to have a R rated commercial during a G rated basketball game, then there is nothing more to say.It is beyond me how you could possibly find that unreasonable.They should have a law against being irrational.

You don't see a difference in "information" and things that could possibly hurt your childrens minds?

Well thanks for looking out. I can't, officially, I would only be guessing. And frankly I don't have the time to research it. But I don't really care, because it seems fair enough to me, the whole ratings system, and what the FCC does. It is more fair than unfair, and it is way to complicated to be left to the average American to decided what should, and should not go on the airwaves.I'm not the one with the problem against the FCC, even though they have pissed me off more than once. I'll live with it, for the benifits. Is scientific evidence really necessary?
But thats not even the point. The point is that it didn't match the ratings of the show I was watching, and things like this seem to happen way to often. Maybe, maybe not. I have already seen examples on ebay that don't follow that line of thinking. Or do they even care.
Yes, Bush is a tool.

I actually admire that. I think about doing that often, but it never seems to happen. Well, it's just part of life. It's like anything else.

I just want to apologize to anyone who thinks that I want to restrain peoples right to free speech, that's not my intention.Freedom of speech has it's purpose, and just maybe that purpose is greater than regulating TV. But I am not happy with what I see on Tv sometimes. That doesn't mean that TV shouldn't have every kind of programing, only that it should be structered correctly.And I still don't think that you should have a right to offend people, ON PURPOSE. If your speech should offend, then that is a different story. It's about intention.

Childrens shows have women in bathing suits, I find nothing wrong with that. Not sure exactly. It may even be unrated. But that's only one example.

I don't think I was the one who equivicated it to freedom of speech. Well in the case of this thread, Dan admits it.
I am sure there are many more ways of being able to tell.I mean if your running a commercial for a 2 hour long movie, and you decide to air the worst part of it, isn't it obvious you are trying to shock people, and possibly offend them?I am not sure how that would all work, and maybe just by the honor system alone it could stop many things that are just unnecessary.

Well just for clarity, I do not intend to "sheild" children from life, but make life relative to their age.I mean if we can start showing pornos to a 5 year old, we might as well hand them the keys to the car, and say "have a fun time at the bar".
(grossly exaggerated to show a point)

Are you 100% sure about that statement?

I guess you haven't been reading, but I stated that it happened on a Sunday afternoon. If it was prime time, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem, but I still think the rating of the commercial should match the rating of the program, and yes, commercials do have ratings. No, just be fair. TV has changed much over the years, and it keeps inching in a direction that IMO is not favorable to children. I would love to know the justification, besides freedom of speech.It is obvious that offending people is not a good thing, just look at what Don Imus is going through right now.(and he deserves it) It is really not that far fetched of an idea, as most private institutions will punish you for offending people.
Bad mannors and offending people on purpose are two different things, I don't know why you would describe it that way. When did I ever say I support the beer commercials?

Yes, I am incapable. What about cheerleaders?
Male or female? Living in America is only part of my life if I choose it to be. IMO, that has nothing to do with it.
TV is very much a part of life. That will never change. Also, since so many people do watch, and let what they see dictated how and why they think about things, you should be concerned. They even have TV's on line in the store now, and while they may not be doing anything more than marketing to you, it just shows how intergrated we are with the concept of TV.If there was an emergency, you would turn on the TV, or radio to see what is going on, so it is very much a neccessity.It would be so cool, if during a tornado warning, they could show a blow job or two, don't ya think? Sort of pass the time away better, I mean wtf, we are going to die anyway.