M
Mainframe
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
i hear ya.... and i agree with a lot of what you said.
ive just noticed that since the "incident", things have seemed to get a bit more... picky i guess is the word.. as if the janet "incident" sparked something. is it fair to assume that?
who regulates magazines? FCC? you know a kid can buy Maxim no problem, its not 18+.
i guess it seems like some things are highly enforced and some are not. it seems to me that when a special interest group bitches about a certain event, that event or program feels the wrath.
i understand your logic about the many avenues tv can open up and i certainly agree with that. i guess it really does fall on your particular morals as to what you think is decent and indecent.
as far as commenting on children, i suppose i should have some before i assume whats decent or not for them, so ill concede that point. YOU would know better than I on this. i think that everything should be enforced tho, not picking and choosing what is decent and what is not. would you agree on a set of guidelines that are nonprejudicial?
example: the hated howard stern has a "raunchy" show, but its his right to air it. i remember him getting fined for the exact same thing that oprah said, but she didnt get a fine and the reason was this.. she didnt receive a fine because she's "decent and wholesome". now, we can easily take the "well howard stern is meaning to be raunchy and oprah was just describing something.." BTW they were talking about "salad tossing" if you know what that is.. not a very oprah-esque topic... anyways, she wasn't fined because they said the public views her in that sense.
now is that discrimination with the censorship law? technically, id say it is.. do laws have exceptions for "decent" people? it just doesnt seem fair. i feel like if your going to have a law, you have to enforce it for everyone and there should be no exemption.
its like someone robbing a store for the pleasure of it.. then someone robbing a store because they are dead broke and are starving. they are both going to jail for committing that crime. is that a safe assumption?
BTW, im not advocating howard stern, i just thought that was a good example.
ive just noticed that since the "incident", things have seemed to get a bit more... picky i guess is the word.. as if the janet "incident" sparked something. is it fair to assume that?
who regulates magazines? FCC? you know a kid can buy Maxim no problem, its not 18+.
i guess it seems like some things are highly enforced and some are not. it seems to me that when a special interest group bitches about a certain event, that event or program feels the wrath.
i understand your logic about the many avenues tv can open up and i certainly agree with that. i guess it really does fall on your particular morals as to what you think is decent and indecent.
as far as commenting on children, i suppose i should have some before i assume whats decent or not for them, so ill concede that point. YOU would know better than I on this. i think that everything should be enforced tho, not picking and choosing what is decent and what is not. would you agree on a set of guidelines that are nonprejudicial?
example: the hated howard stern has a "raunchy" show, but its his right to air it. i remember him getting fined for the exact same thing that oprah said, but she didnt get a fine and the reason was this.. she didnt receive a fine because she's "decent and wholesome". now, we can easily take the "well howard stern is meaning to be raunchy and oprah was just describing something.." BTW they were talking about "salad tossing" if you know what that is.. not a very oprah-esque topic... anyways, she wasn't fined because they said the public views her in that sense.
now is that discrimination with the censorship law? technically, id say it is.. do laws have exceptions for "decent" people? it just doesnt seem fair. i feel like if your going to have a law, you have to enforce it for everyone and there should be no exemption.
its like someone robbing a store for the pleasure of it.. then someone robbing a store because they are dead broke and are starving. they are both going to jail for committing that crime. is that a safe assumption?
BTW, im not advocating howard stern, i just thought that was a good example.
