Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

quote:

---

Are you joking me?
I don't need to give you a REASON why.

---

Sure you do.

quote:

---

I like TV, and so do my kids, it is just as much a right for us to watch it as the next person.

---

Right.What you don't have the right to do is limit what is shown on TV to what you think should be on it.That would be limiting what is shown on TV based upon your personal standards.TV does not exist for you and you alone, rat.

quote:

---

All my kids friends watch TV, am I supposed to isolate them from the world?

---

"Everybody else does it" is the oldest excuse in the book.If you don't like what is on TV, and you don't care to or cannot control what your children watch, then your only other option is to turn it off or get rid of it.Tell me, let's say there was an exhibit at the local art museum of and artist who painted nudes. Somebody in town didn't like it because they felt it was inappropriate for children, even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit. That person decides to lobby the government to never allow nude paintings to be displayed in that museum ever again.How is that reasonable? Isn't it more reasonable to simply allow parents to decide if an exhibit is appropriate for their children or not rather than make the exhibit unavailable for everyone?Why does this person think they have the right to decide for everybody else?

quote:

---

Well last Sunday, during a game, I mentioned that desperate housewives commercial, where a "desperate housewife" gets her clothes torn off by a man down to her lingere. I don't know what rating that falls under, but it sure ain't G.

---

So, what about regular beer commercials during sports broadcasts? They often show a lot of female skin, and they ARE selling beer. Should those be allowed in case a kid might watch them?What about ads for serious news programs that might contain scary stuff about guns and war? Should those be allowed?What about the cheerleaders in skimpy outfits that they show during the sports events? Should cheerleaders be banned becasue a kid might see them?And sometimes the basketball players take their shirts off. Should we ban basketball games because a child might see an almost naked man?

If you don't like what is on TV, and you don't care to or cannot control what your children watch, then your only other option is to turn it off or get rid of it.Let's say there was an exhibit at the local art museum of an artist who painted nudes. Somebody in town didn't like it because they felt it was inappropriate for children, even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit. That person decides to lobby the government to never allow nude paintings to be displayed in that museum ever again.How is that reasonable? Isn't it more reasonable to simply allow parents to decide if an exhibit is appropriate for their children or not rather than make the exhibit unavailable for everyone?Why does this person think they have the right to decide for everybody else?

quote:

---

Sorry brenna, freedom of speech doen't give you the right to offend people.

---

No, that is exactly what the US Constitution protects.Speech that doesn't offend people doesn't need protecting. I am not sure why you posted your wiki link, but it doesn't support your statment.Please answer the questions at the end of the following example:If you don't like what is on TV, and you don't care to or cannot control what your children watch, then your only other option is to turn it off or get rid of it.Let's say there was an exhibit at the local art museum of an artist who painted nudes. Somebody in town didn't like it because they felt it was inappropriate for children, even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit. That person decides to lobby the government to never allow nude paintings to be displayed in that museum ever again.How is that reasonable? Isn't it more reasonable to simply allow parents to decide if an exhibit is appropriate for their children or not rather than make the exhibit unavailable for everyone?Why does this person think they have the right to decide for everybody else?

quote:

---

Before Desparate Housewives there was the Sears catalogue.

---

...and National Geographic.

quote:

---

All I said was that freedom of speech does not give you the right to offend people. Am I wrong in saying this?

---

YES!(as I've already said on this thread)Speech that doesn't offend anyone doesn't need protecting. Why would it ever need protecting if nobody objects to it in the first place?The first amendment exists to protect unpopular and offensive speech, no matter the subject. There are very few restrictions and they are very specific.

quote:

---

Maybe if TV was 100% public than I might agree with that, but it's not, and it is controled by the governement, and paid for by advertisers, and cable and dish subscribers.

---

Where is it written that all TV must be inoffensive to Riverrat's sensibilities?

quote:

---

The key in that statement, which makes in non-relative to what I saying is "even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit"

​

In my example there was no warning, and there continues to be no waring to things I find offesive for my kids on TV.

---

Are the ads running during prime time? If so, then you have warning.Are they running during a show that many adults watch? Then you have warning.I will also point out that it is not just ads that you have been referring to in this thread, but programming.If you wish to protect your children from any possibility of seeing anything that you may not want them to see, then you are completely free to turn the television off or not have one. It is all in what you think is more important for the wellbeing of your children. If you think that having the ability to watch basketball games in your home is more important than shielding your children from Desperate Housewives commercials, (or vice versa) then you make your choice.And part of the consequences of living in a free (and capitalist) country, rat, is that you may come into contact with things that will offend you.Your response is to try to silence or eliminate those things, seemingly oblivious to the fact that you have no right to make that descision for everybody else.TV does not exist for riverrat and riverrat alone.

quote:

---

It is not legal to offend people

---

If this is true, why is Ann Coulter not in jail?

If it is illegal to offend people, why isn't Ann Coulter in jail?

quote:

---

I know everyone else here thinks I don't get that, but I do.

---

Maybe you get it now, but you sure didn't before.Otherwise, you wouldn't have thought is was illegal to offend others.

This is just another instance of the rat's inability to admit that he was mistaken about something.In this case, he tries to cover it up by implying that he's really understood that offensive speech is protected all along.Of coourse, he's hoping we all forget that he repeatedly claimed that offending people is illegal...

Rat, you may think that everyone is piling on here and being unneccessarily harsh with you.In this thread, you have repeatedly claimed one thing (offending people is illegal), and everybody has told you over and over that you are wrong (offensive speech is exactly what is protected).Now, you imply that what you have been claiming is actually the opposite to what you really know; that offensive speech is protected. You then give some kind of garbled response to my post conflating "obscene" with "offensive", even though you know perfectly well that "obscene" has a specific legal definition that is different from "offensive".The reason we are shoving all of this in your face is because you do this all the time.In fact, just about every discussion with you becomes an exercise in repeating to you what you claimed when you deny you ever said it, and you twisting and contorting in order to not have to admit that you were really wrong about something.THAT is why your threads are not focused. YOU keep going off on tangents to avoid admitting you've made an error.I don't know if you are doing it consciously, but that is what you are doing, nonetheless.

quote:

---

There is a huge difference between someone purposely offending people, i.e. shock radio/TV, and someone who says something out of their right to free speech, that just happens to offend someone.

---

There is absolutely ZERO difference between these two things from a constitutional standpoint.That's why Ann Coulter isn't in jail for calling John Edwards a faggot.You are wrong, rat. Are you completely incapable of admitting to having made an error?

quote:

---

Imus offended those people, and now he is suffering the repercussions of the law.

---

Really? What crime has he been charged with?

quote:

---

I know that, who cares? If it was really an issue with me, I would pursue it, and you could wind up with a restraining order.

---

No kidding?Is Dan threatening you in order to force you to read his posts on EvC?I find that people who refuse to admit when they are wrong are offensive to me.Prepare to get a visit from the sherrif, rat.

quote:

---

and in the interest of national security, certain things should be censored?

---

Yes, and Desperate Housewives commercials during prime time is a true weakness in our national security.Gimme an effing break.