Discussion in 'Politics' started by ScreamingEagle, Jun 7, 2006.
Some good news for a change:
What a bunch of crap. If you don't like what's on, change the (censored by FCC) channel.
Indecency isnt protected by the First Amendment so there is no censorship involved.
Who defines indecency?
This is crap. Just another area where the government can grab some money that they have no claim too and the people will pat them on the back for it because they are "doing it for the kids."
Change the FUCKING channel all you lazy MOTHERFUCKERS if you dont like what you hear. I always do. Or i turn the damn thing off.
No. OBSCENITY isn't protected by the First Amendment. With "indecency", you're on your own.
Don't like what's on, listen to what appeals to you. I don't need government imposing someone else's moral standards on everyone else.
Government can't do the things right that it's doing already. You trust them to shape morals? Who asked them to? It's
So much for "small government", huh?
Indecency standards depend upon the standards of the community...meaning us the voters. Enforcement of those standards is another matter and most Americans think the FCC is doing a pretty poor job of it.
Ho boy! Poll numbers! I'm convinced!
If people didn't want what is aired, they wouldn't tune in and the ratings would fall. Guess the free market doesn't apply to the thought police, huh?
I hate when I agree with the libs, but in this case I do. Change the station, channel, put blocks up on your computer if you have kids.
I think the states should decide who should marry or not. I think the states should decide abortion. I know, off topic, sorta.
The problem is that the "public" airwaves are not part of the community. You have the right to block any material that you dont want to be seen or heard by your kids 100% of the time within your home or car. What public indecency laws are meant to do is keep people from enforcing indecent acts that are contrary to the views of the public IN PUBLIC. I.E. A person placing a sculpture of 2 people having sex on his front lawn might go against the decency of the community and therefore be banned. A guy who likes to have anal sex with his wife is perfectly allowed to in the privacy of his own home. If he has anal sex with her on his front lawn, then there is a problem. People can't turn him off or simple look away when its right in plain view. If people walk down the street naked, then most communities will ban this as part of the common decency of the community. Just like in nudist colonies that is not part of their law because it doesnt effect their sense of public decency.
When people on the radio, for example Stern, begin talking about inappropriate material and you have your kid in the car, it's your responsibility as a parent to choose whether or not you want your kid to listen to that stuff. You are not held hostage and have no where to go in order to escape the material in question. You have the simplest of tasks of turning the dial. Don't blame the government or the radio station for allowing it to air. Change the channel and move on with life. The more we allow the government to creep into these unneccassary areas and take money that isnt theres with the people backing them, the more areas open up to their ability to steal. You think they give a damn about public decency? If it made them more money to fine those NOT walking around naked (and they could get away with it) they wouldnt hesitate to pass a law prohibiting clothing with a fine of $200 for all offenders not found naked. The point im trying to make is that government will not rest with these issues. They will keep pushing till they actually get to something that does affect you and then it will be too late to stop it.
Separate names with a comma.