Censorship

[Mainframe]

Its getting more and more strict.. I think thats something everyone can agree on.


How do you all feel on the issue?

 

[dmp]

Its getting more and more strict.. I think thats something everyone can agree on.


How do you all feel on the issue?

...in what aspect? Watching TV, and today's scripts would counter your statement pretty well.

 

[Mainframe]

Just in general.. I should've noted that.


TV, Radio, Music, etc..


TV scripts? Im sorry I dont understand. But I can say the FCC just fined Fox 1.2 million for "indecency".

 

[dmp]

Indecency was related to images - based on current laws of what's acceptable at certain time slots.

No - today's press has more license to say whatever they want, than at any point in recorded history.

 

[Mainframe]

Fair enough.. but I think decency is something that should be left for yourself to decide and not the government. now before that gets taken out of context, cussing (using fuck, shit, etc) and straight nudity, of course shouldn't be shown on public airwaves. but pixilated images? see: the news everyday. licking whipcream off your body? sounds pretty prudish to me to get offended over that.


I'd also like to know where these fines go.

I'll have to disagree tho on what was fined. It's ludacris.

"Even with Fox's editing, the episode includes scenes in which partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner," the FCC said. "Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable."


wow. thats real indecent. /sarcasm.

i think the worst part of it is.. only 159 people complained. 159 is not even a half percent of people in our country. its not even a tenth of a percent, so why should we cater to these people because they dont 'like what they see'?

"Although the nudity was pixilated, even a child would have known that the strippers were topless and that sexual activity was being shown," the FCC said.

in court, they would call that "heresy". its pure opinion.

 

[dmp]

Fair enough.. but I think decency is something that should be left for yourself to decide and not the government.

The government enacts laws which are prompted by society...the public elects those who support the majority's views on things like 'decency'. The laws aren't made up arbitrarily.

now before that gets taken out of context, cussing (using fuck, shit, etc) and straight nudity, of course shouldn't be shown on public airwaves. but pixilated images? see: the news everyday. licking whipcream off your body? sounds pretty prudish to me to get offended over that.

I agree.

I'd also like to know where these fines go.

Me too.

I'll have to disagree tho on what was fined. It's ludacris.

"Even with Fox's editing, the episode includes scenes in which partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner," the FCC said. "Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable."


wow. thats real indecent. /sarcasm.

Would you want your 5 year old to see that? If the show was otherwise, okay, then this scene came on, how would you explain it?

"Although the nudity was pixilated, even a child would have known that the strippers were topless and that sexual activity was being shown," the FCC said.

in court, they would call that "heresy". its pure opinion.

Hersey is not opinion - it's when somebody says "Hey! I saw Joe kill Mike!" then you tell the cops "A guy told me Joe killed Mike".

I bet it could be proven, however. Find a child who knows what 'sex' is or involves, and show them images; asking them to point out which behaviours are sexual.

 

[Mainframe]

The government enacts laws which are prompted by society...the public elects those who support the majority's views on things like 'decency'. The laws aren't made up arbitrarily.

Now, I could be wrong, but who appointed Colin Powell's son? I don't think the public elected him.

Would you want your 5 year old to see that? If the show was otherwise, okay, then this scene came on, how would you explain it?

To be honest and realistic.. my 5 year old wouldn't be watching the show in question. They do put up parental guidance suggestions before every show (and I think its in the TV Guide too) so unless your naive or can't read, Id say that responsibility falls back on the parent.

I wont dodge your question tho.. how would I explain it? Id have to think about it. But then again, as a parent, I would have thought about all of this stuff before I allowed my child to watch the program in the first place. It really is the parent's responsibility to raise their child, not the government. I think that's a big problem these days (parenting).

Hersey is not opinion - it's when somebody says "Hey! I saw Joe kill Mike!" then you tell the cops "A guy told me Joe killed Mike".

See, I wasn't 100% sure on the term, but I looked it up to be sure and it seemed to be valid.

"A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science."

If Im wrong, which I dont doubt haha, what term would describe that then?

I bet it could be proven, however. Find a child who knows what 'sex' is or involves, and show them images; asking them to point out which behaviours are sexual.

Im sure you could, but wouldn't that have to be the general consensus? Not every kid can identify such things, only the ones that are allowed to view such things in the first place, which again falls on the parent. Sure, some things can slip by and the kids can see it, but is it really worth all the fuss?

I think this honestly caters to small/special interest groups that dont agree, and to me, that sounds quite liberal on one hand.. or quite prudish on the other. Like I noted before, 159 people out of the entire U.S. population had a problem with it, so a 1.2 MILLION dollar fine was assessed. Thats ludacris. I dont have the facts, but judging from past cases, a lot of these complaints are in an e-mail fashion. Its not hard to get people to email.. or a special interest group to band together and send mass emails or phone calls.


Seriously tho.. I can NOT find any kind of information on where these monies go to. Millions of dollars in fines are being handed out and I really want to know where thats going.

 

[dmp]

To be honest and realistic.. my 5 year old wouldn't be watching the show in question. They do put up parental guidance suggestions before every show (and I think its in the TV Guide too) so unless your naive or can't read, Id say that responsibility falls back on the parent.

If you can control exactly when a Five year old decides to walk into a room, teach me

 

[Mainframe]

ohhhhh stop you know thats reaching hahaha

 

[dmp]

ohhhhh stop you know thats reaching hahaha

I'm quite serious. There have been times when I've been watching what I thought was 'okay' TV, only to have my kid walk in during the most risque portion of the show. It's like they have radar for that sorta thing.

Keep in mind, however, a large portion of the US still feels breasts, even when not displayed in a sexual situation, are inherently 'dirty'...

 

[Mainframe]

**edited to say: you had boobs on your avatar.... dirty bird haha **

haha you are right they do.. but still.. that could be anything if you want to use that situation. you could be watching a video you rented and have that happen.

Even if this large portion feels that way; which of course would take an official poll (well doesnt seem like it these days! haha) to determine exactly how the general public does feel, is that so bad that it should levy a fine of such a substantial amount? I guess its a moral dilemma.

I understand the logic in heavy fining so you wont do it again, but I dont understand the logic of a small panel of people deciding what is and what's not decent for the american public, kids or not. The 5 year old kid analogy is a small percentage of actual instances tho. I just believe that we should be able to police ourselves, maybe Im a Libertarian in that sense. Your right tho, there is more allowed these days, but then again, nearly the whole nation's attitudes have softened. Where do you draw the line between vulgarity and being a total prude? That particular instance I brought up above, sounds very prudish. The Janet Jackson incident (DAMN YOU JANET) was worth fining. I thought I saw her nipple, even tho it was a shield, but that was blatant. Blurring and licking whip cream is petty. Really.

Interesting topic tho.. how do YOU feel about it tho? Do you agree with all the laws of censorship?

 

[William Joyce]

I don't think fining stations that flash Janet Jackson's rubber boob is "censorship." That's just common sense. The censorship that most concerns me is political censorship. The Internet has been pretty safe, but there is pressure on space providers to take down "racist" and "anti-Semitic" websites, and in Europe, they stick people in jail for politically incorrect utterances. A man in Scotland was JAILED for four months because he passed out fliers warning of Muslims. He was pursued under the "anti-hate" laws.

 

[Mainframe]

I don't think fining stations that flash Janet Jackson's rubber boob is "censorship."

Well, technically it is. Whether its "common sense" or not, its a form of censorship.

 

[Mainframe]

BTW, I agree on the rest

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A fine is not censorship. Upholding basic standards of decency is not censorship. Kicking Rush off armed forces radio is censorship.

 

[dilloduck]

Well, technically it is. Whether its "common sense" or not, its a form of censorship.

Well lets all have live sex 24/7 on our TVs all the time and approve public nudity in all the towns of America. How would that sit with ya Merlin ?

 

[5stringJeff]

**edited to say: you had boobs on your avatar.... dirty bird haha **

haha you are right they do.. but still.. that could be anything if you want to use that situation. you could be watching a video you rented and have that happen.

Even if this large portion feels that way; which of course would take an official poll (well doesnt seem like it these days! haha) to determine exactly how the general public does feel, is that so bad that it should levy a fine of such a substantial amount? I guess its a moral dilemma.

I understand the logic in heavy fining so you wont do it again, but I dont understand the logic of a small panel of people deciding what is and what's not decent for the american public, kids or not. The 5 year old kid analogy is a small percentage of actual instances tho. I just believe that we should be able to police ourselves, maybe Im a Libertarian in that sense. Your right tho, there is more allowed these days, but then again, nearly the whole nation's attitudes have softened. Where do you draw the line between vulgarity and being a total prude? That particular instance I brought up above, sounds very prudish. The Janet Jackson incident (DAMN YOU JANET) was worth fining. I thought I saw her nipple, even tho it was a shield, but that was blatant. Blurring and licking whip cream is petty. Really.

Interesting topic tho.. how do YOU feel about it tho? Do you agree with all the laws of censorship?

Mainframe, I'm pretty libertarian (small L) in my thinking also. However, in this case, I have to side with the FCC. Frankly, I don't want my child (10) to watch strippers licking off whipped cream and spanking some guy on TV. As adults, we are probably OK with the content (or may have participated in such activities); that doesn't make it all right for children to watch. And the FCC has determined that between 6 AM and 10 PM, when most kids are awake and/or watching TV, that kind of explicit stuff should not be aired. I have no issues with this. Frankly, there are shows on TV during regular hours that I don't let my 10-year-old girl watch due to sexual content, because I don't want her thinking that the whole world revolves around sex.

 

[Mainframe]

Well lets all have live sex 24/7 on our TVs all the time and approve public nudity in all the towns of America. How would that sit with ya Merlin ?

..what's with the insult? couldn't get your point across without slinging something eh?

besides, how does that even remotely resemble my remarks? you took that to the very extreme.

its still censorship. thats what i said. and see that "technically"? yeah. technically, thats what it is. i never said anything or even HINTED towards your remark.
but thanks for the random insult. im sure it made your day.

 

[Mainframe]

Mainframe, I'm pretty libertarian (small L) in my thinking also. However, in this case, I have to side with the FCC. Frankly, I don't want my child (10) to watch strippers licking off whipped cream and spanking some guy on TV. As adults, we are probably OK with the content (or may have participated in such activities); that doesn't make it all right for children to watch. And the FCC has determined that between 6 AM and 10 PM, when most kids are awake and/or watching TV, that kind of explicit stuff should not be aired. I have no issues with this. Frankly, there are shows on TV during regular hours that I don't let my 10-year-old girl watch due to sexual content, because I don't want her thinking that the whole world revolves around sex.

Excellent point. ... and may I say that you are doing what you should be doing.. policing your children's activities. So many people blame everything else for their problems, when most of the time, the problem is at home.



However, we have all focused on this one story I only brought up as an example..


Do you all really support the current censorship laws for each area? example: tv, radio, magazines, etc..

 

[5stringJeff]

Excellent point. ... and may I say that you are doing what you should be doing.. policing your children's activities. So many people blame everything else for their problems, when most of the time, the problem is at home.

However, we have all focused on this one story I only brought up as an example..

Do you all really support the current censorship laws for each area? example: tv, radio, magazines, etc..

I really don't think we have that many censorship laws in America, to be honest. I mean, just about every magazine out there puts bad language on its pages from time to time.
Newspapers are a bit more tightly regulated on language, but no one tells them what they can and can't print; otherwise, it would be an above-the-fold story. No one guards the freeodm of the press more than the press themselves. You can bet that they would howl if they sensed a real attempt on the part of the US government to censor them.
TV and radio are a little bit different, in that you can turn on a TV and get dozens of channels, or turn on a radio and get dozens of stations. So because of the ease of viewing them all, and the fact that they are available at no cost (i.e. only the cost of a radio or TV) there should be an additional safeguard or two. Again, from 10 PM - 6 AM, TV and radio have much fewer restrictions because it is an adult audience during those hours. IMO, if they want to put nudity on the airwaves then, more power to them. But when kids are likely to be watching, then I have no problems with the FCC putting down minimal standards of decency (and they are minimal).
So if by censorship you mean people can't swear and/or show sexual acts at will, I'm OK with that, especially if there's a good chance that kids are watching.