Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1 of 310 (392723)
04-01-2007 10:31 PM


In the thread Message 56 there is a subtopic concerning the appropriate amount of censorship regarding the public airwaves. In short, I am arguing that the public airwaves, including television and radio are too censored while riVeRat is arguing that their content, particularly in regard to television, is not subject to enough restrictions.

As this line of discussion is veering off the main topic, as I would like to provide riVerRat and those who may agree an appropriate venue in which to elaborate their intentions, and because Minnemooseus strongly suggested that a new thread be created, I would like to propose this new thread.

The question is, are the public airwaves, including radio and television, censored too little, too much, or just about right in the US, UK, CA or any other nation that brevity precludes mentioning.

{As an aside, I still would like to know why they replaced the word 'cancer' with 'gangrene' on the Monty Python skit, it's even on the DVD!}

I guess coffeehouse, from which it was spawned.

Edited by anglagard, : Improve title


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM anglagard has responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2007 8:05 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 2 of 310 (392734)
04-02-2007 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
04-01-2007 10:31 PM


I'll sum up my position, and we can go from there.

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.

But I do know one thing, and that is, it is not appropiate to show someones head being blown off, in full detail on a Sunday afternoon during a basketball game commercial break.

I also saw another commercial today that I wasn't to happy about, and that is for desperate housewifes, a show that glamorizes women cheating on their husbands, and the commercial contained sexual content, that I feel is not appropiate for my youngest one yet. Again during a basketball game.

I also do not wish to apply restrictions concerning real material. As a matter of fact, I think it is a shear joke that the news will not show real people getting killed, yet in fiction we can watch it over and over.

I only feel that it is fiction that needs the censorship, not real stuff.

I also included things like televangelist who scam, and news programs that put together stories to make them appear to be something different than the truth.

Since it is our elected government (FCC) that makes the rules concerning this, I feel we all have a say it what it should be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 04-01-2007 10:31 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by DrJones*, posted 04-02-2007 12:07 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 04-02-2007 12:14 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 9:44 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-02-2007 10:59 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 17 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2007 11:48 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2007 8:02 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 29 by nator, posted 04-02-2007 8:26 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 73 by anglagard, posted 04-05-2007 9:18 PM riVeRraT has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1953
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 310 (392736)
04-02-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


and the commercial contained sexual content

Then don't watch the commercials, seriously who doen't change the channel when commercials are on? Or mute it.

Since it is our elected government (FCC) that makes the rules concerning this, I feel we all have a say it what it should be

Why? Sometimes the government just can't let "the people" have their way because "the people" are dumb.

You're free to limit what your children watch, what gives you the right to limit what my (hypothetical) children watch?


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:08 AM DrJones* has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 310 (392738)
04-02-2007 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


riverrat writes:

I also saw another commercial today that I wasn't to happy about, and that is for desperate housewifes, a show that glamorizes women cheating on their husbands, and the commercial contained sexual content, that I feel is not appropiate for my youngest one yet. Again during a basketball game.


Hehe, I thought you'd be happy about this. After all, don't you want your children to be straight? What more could you want besides a commercial about straight people doing straight stuff?

{I've given TD a 1 hr. suspension because of this message. I got soft, originally it was going to be 2 hrs. I see this type of message to be just what's needed to turn a serious subject topic into a pile of garbage. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. TD given 1 hr. suspension.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 310 (392742)
04-02-2007 1:01 AM


No to Censorship
You already have the absolute ability to decide what you watch. There are two different controls that, if used properly, will give you all the regulation of the airwaves that you ought to have. Change the channel, or turn it off.

You don't like some of the programming, or some of the commercials? I'm sorry that you are subjected to points of view that you disagree with, but that is the price of living in a free society. Of course, living in a free society, you are entitled to state your disagreement with those viewpoints. That, in a nutshell, is the philosophy behind the First Amendment. The answer to speech that we don't like isn't less speech, it's more speech.

You don't like Desperate Housewives, so you want them not to be able to advertise during programs you like. Well, lemme tell you something, I don't like religious programming. And I'm not just talking about scamming televangelists, I mean any of it. If you want the right to say what ads can play, then give me the right to ban all religious programming of any nature whatsoever, and furthermore, give me the right to determine what's religious and what isn't.

Why not let the majority decide, you say? Have you never heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority?" If not, Google it.

The majority already gets to decide, in a backdoor manner. A program has to achieve a certain level of success for it to stay on. If nobody, or very few, watches, it'll go away. That's called the free market, and it never fails to amaze me how repugnantcans, who trumpet the virtue of the free market when discussing economic policy, completely forget about it when it comes to censorship, morality, or any of the other areas of personal conduct where they insist on telling the rest of us how to live.

The airwaves belong to the public, let them decide what should be on by choosing what they wish to watch and what they don't. There's really no principled basis for any other policy.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:13 AM subbie has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 6 of 310 (392771)
04-02-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by DrJones*
04-02-2007 12:07 AM


Then don't watch the commercials, seriously who doen't change the channel when commercials are on? Or mute it.

Dr.Jones, I consider you a smart guy, can't you figure out for yourself why this not a practicle thing to do?

Why? Sometimes the government just can't let "the people" have their way because "the people" are dumb.

In case you haven't noticed, the government is very busy protecting us from ourselves. And since there are way too many irrisposible parnets these days, I think it's not a bad idea. I can still go to the video store, or PPV, and rent whatever content I want.

You're free to limit what your children watch

But that's my whole point, I am not a free as you say. Why are my kids seeing r rated commercials during a g rated basketball game?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DrJones*, posted 04-02-2007 12:07 AM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 04-02-2007 10:30 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 04-02-2007 4:16 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 204 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 7 of 310 (392772)
04-02-2007 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
04-02-2007 1:01 AM


Re: No to Censorship
You don't like Desperate Housewives, so you want them not to be able to advertise during programs you like.

That's not what I said. I am saying that the rating of the commercial should at least equal the program being watched.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 04-02-2007 1:01 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 04-02-2007 9:42 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 04-02-2007 11:49 AM riVeRraT has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 8 of 310 (392775)
04-02-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 9:13 AM


agreed
That's not what I said. I am saying that the rating of the commercial should at least equal the program being watched.

I agree but this is required because the large media organizations fought to subvert the V-chip (and won :( ).

The inventor of the V-chip lives (lived?) close to here. I heard him speak on the topic just as the rules for use were being formulated.

His intention (and the V-chip could support this) was that you be allowed to set independent levels of things like sex, violence and about 4 other categories (that I've forgotten). So one person might allow 3 out of 5 on sex and 1 on violence etc. This allows the parents to rate the content themselves according to what they believe is good for the kids or not.

Content (all of it) would carry the levels of each category and the v-chip would cut out anything not meeting the set criteria.

The content providers, media, etc. wanted to maintain control of the ratings themselves and not allow that level of control. So we continued the stupid G, X, R etc. which offer damm little real information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:13 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 310 (392776)
04-02-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


I only feel that it is fiction that needs the censorship, not real stuff.

I also included things like televangelist who scam, and news programs that put together stories to make them appear to be something different than the truth.

So it's just art, religion, and the media that you feel should be censored. Well, that's awfully big of you.

Since it is our elected government (FCC) that makes the rules concerning this, I feel we all have a say it what it should be.

I'm still unclear (and have been asking for several years while only receiving vague responses) as to how the existence of the FCC is not a violation of the first amendment.


"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2007 9:47 AM Dan Carroll has responded
 Message 30 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2007 11:17 PM Dan Carroll has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 310 (392777)
04-02-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 9:44 AM


I'm still unclear (and have been asking for several years while only receiving vague responses) as to how the existence of the FCC is not a violation of the first amendment.

I would say that their mission to police decency standards is probably a violation of free expression. But their mission to license the use of broadcasting spectrum and regulate how devices radiate radio energy is pretty crucial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 9:44 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 10:00 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 310 (392778)
04-02-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
04-02-2007 9:47 AM


Yeah, I should have been more specific. I get why it's necessary to set up and enforce technical regulations. But the FCC's authority to censor content makes no sense to me whatsoever.


"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2007 9:47 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2007 11:16 AM Dan Carroll has responded
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 04-02-2007 11:45 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 12 of 310 (392783)
04-02-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 9:08 AM


riVeRraT writes:

Then don't watch the commercials, seriously who doen't change the channel when commercials are on? Or mute it.

Dr.Jones, I consider you a smart guy, can't you figure out for yourself why this not a practicle thing to do?

I've had TiVo since September, 1999. There's a 30-second skip feature. I don't watch most commercials. Even the best commercials, after you've seen them a couple or three times, that's plenty.

The two satellite companies (DirecTv and Dish) both offer TiVo-like capability in their DVRs, as do almost all cable companies. DVR's for HDTV are now available, and in fact I bought one just last month. Whichever box you get you can always skip commercials, wither with 30-second skip or fast forward, unless you're watching live TV, something I almost never do. If I catch up to live while watching a program, I pause it and go off and do chores or check my email or something for 15 minutes.

Skipping commercials isn't the answer to your concerns, but I just wanted to point out that there are very easy and very inexpensive ways of not watching commercials that are available.

But that's my whole point, I am not a free as you say. Why are my kids seeing r rated commercials during a g rated basketball game?

Now if true, this is a horse of a different color, but I watch *a lot* of basketball, and I think I know what's out there in the form of commercials during basketball games. I can't think of a commercial that even approaches PG-13, let alone R, so can you give an example of what you're thinking of?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:08 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2007 11:22 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 13 of 310 (392790)
04-02-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


I tried to protect my children from exposure to inappropriate material. Tried for years. And failed.

I first tried to protect them from the Internet. They're 17 and 19 now, but around 10 years ago and we were using AOL, I used the child settings to control their Internet access. Even the lowest setting was so constraining as to be useless. I can't count the number of times I would go out on the Internet on my own computer and find websites I thought they'd be interested in, only to find that AOL wouldn't permit them access. They weren't happy and I wasn't happy. We quickly abandoned AOL's solution to the problem.

So I researched the area and tried a couple other approaches. These didn't work either. In order to be absolutely certain of allowing no PG-13 or worse content through when the level is set to PG, the only sites allowed through are things like www.pbskids.com. CNN, NY Times, etc, were all off-limits, which kind of puts a crimp on your 10-year old's current events research for class.

I quickly abandoned these tools and went with VNC. This is a very simple program that allows you to interactively view the screen of other computers on your home network. With this I could periodically check what my kids were up to. This was not a good thing, either, because it created an environment of distrust.

So I don't know what the answer is for the Internet.

Concerning TV, it's not just the commercials you have to worry about - have you ever watched MTV?

Or how about radio? I forget what age the kids were when they began changing the car radio station to stations they liked, and I was shocked at what I heard. I had no idea that such explicitness was permitted. The snippet of sound that was cut out for certain words was so short as to leave absolutely nothing to the imagination about what the words were. I assume it's the same way today - my kids have their own cars now and so my car radio stays tuned to my stations.

Then there's CDs, which usually have no censoring at all. You can monitor which CD's your children buy, but some kids will have the "good" CD's that fascinate your kids, and they'll loan them and make copies of them. Trying to protect kids from bad language and sexually explicit expression is dumb anyway once they're past 12 or 13, just listen to kids talk among themselves sometime.

What I'm getting at is that in most of America and Canada today, it really isn't practical to protect your kids from exposure to inappropriate material. The only way to do it is either to be with them every second while they're watching TV or using the Internet or listening to CDs, or to not allow them to watch TV, use the Internet or listen to CDs. Those are your choices, and they're both ridiculous.

So the question, "How do I protect my kids from exposure to inappropriate materials?" is actually the wrong question. The right question is, "Given that it is inevitable that my kids will be exposed to inappropriate material, what am I going to tell them to help them make sense of it and place it in a context appropriate for their age?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2007 11:20 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 04-02-2007 4:54 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 14 of 310 (392793)
04-02-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 10:00 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 10:00 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 11:55 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 310 (392794)
04-02-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-02-2007 10:59 AM


So I researched the area and tried a couple other approaches. These didn't work either. In order to be absolutely certain of allowing no PG-13 or worse content through when the level is set to PG, the only sites allowed through are things like www.pbskids.com. CNN, NY Times, etc, were all off-limits, which kind of puts a crimp on your 10-year old's current events research for class.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-02-2007 10:59 AM Percy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019