Idaho Republicans want to ban TV with Premarital Sex

[Oldguy]

Because books are something you purchase or borrow and are a matter of personal choice. They require thought, They are not on the public airwaves.

You do know that advocating one-size-fits-all standards for the entire country makes YOU look like a flaming liberal, right?

We do need a viable way to block pornography on the net. Any ideas?

...or are you just fine with kids watching it?

The only "one size fits all" I support is the freedom to read, watch or listen to any damn thing you like.

If you want to block pornography it's pretty easy: Just turn off the TV and the computer.

As I said, no one gives a shit what you watch or don't watch. No one gives a shit what you read. No one gives a shit who you screw.

People do give a shit what their children are subjected to.

I just pissed in your drinking water., If you don't like it, you can always go thirsty, right?

If you don't like the crap being broadcast into your home on public utilities, you can always become a hermit, right?

You don't give a shit what kind of crap kids are subjected to as long as it doesn't affect your freedom to watch the shit, right?

Good for you.

Here's a suggestion: Why don't you worry about YOUR kids and let the rest of us worry about ours. That's the American way.

 

[FA_Q2]

There's really no need to reply to this post, its irrationality speaks for itself; however, I'll proceed for my amusement and your edification.

But you did, and it is not irrational. It is exactly what is happening around you. The things I mention ARE happening. That is not irrational.

People most assuredly have the right not to have their property, public property and the airwaves polluted.

Who determines morality? Individuals do; no, you can't legislate that. Who determines ethical conduct? Societies do, and that kind of legislation is passed every single day.

Sure, they can but they should not when there is no clear violation on others. IOW, you are not ‘polluting’ anything. Such broadcasts have zero impact on you. You can make the claim that it affects those that choose to watch and indirectly affects you through them but that is what freedom is. That is the essence of freedom itself. What you are advocating for is removing said freedom because you don’t like it. That is asinine and downright wrong.

Ethical conduct has nothing to do with it. You should not be legislating what is ‘ethical’ in anothers home and their privacy. You CAN make an argument for public places. Places of public business, government buildings and other places like that but that is not the argument that you are presenting. You are attempting to justify the blocking of content delivered to the privacy of my home. My behavior, no matter what it is, in my own home is mine. You should not have any say (outside of safety concerns and things like that) in what I do in my own home. Why is it that you seem to think that television is different? Why do you have the sudden right to restrict what I can and cannot be exposed to because it is on a television? I can rent a movie if I want, right? Why is that different when it is broadcast? Where do you draw the lines?

If I can say that it is immoral to display premarital sex (a wildly insane claim btw) the can I make the same claim that cigarettes, fast food or anything for that matter is immoral? Fast food has already been under fire, perhaps we should make eating that ‘indecent’ so that we are not exposed. This is not a ‘moral’ equivalency. It is a case of why is sex the ONE place that such a concept is all right? What do you think that the liberals here would do with such an idea?

Personally, I want the government just to stay the **** out of it. As consumers, we have the ultimate power over what is displayed. I find it rather sad that when consumers fail to regulate, the minority demands that legislation fix their woes.

Communities set standards. There is no getting around it.

Falling back on stupid moral equivalence arguments won't change that.

Religious people should have no say in public discussion. Is that the ideal?

Last I heard, everyone has the right to petition congress for redress of his grievances.

All but the religious, I guess.

Why should religious people have no say? What are you prattling on about?

All that, I have given thoughtful responses to this subject and you are calling my replies worthless while responding with tripe like this.

Everyone has a say. What I am against is using the legislative process to restrict the actions of others when those actions have no impact on you. That is wrong. Simple as that. Every case I brought up (such as the religious ones that you alluded to) were instances where peoples actions HAVE been unjustly limited because of the exact reasoning that you are using. It is just as wrong here as it was in those instances. It is not moral equivalency, it is real world examples of the exact reasoning that you are using, just not things that you are likely to agree with (at least all of them).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Must be a slow day in Idaho.

 

[there4eyeM]

Because children whose parents are not watching them run out into the street and get run over, I can't drive a car?

 

[Oldguy]

Communities set standards. There is no getting around it.

Are you suggesting Hillary was right? It DOES take a village to raise a child?

How "conservative" of you.

 

[Seawytch]

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why would any statist(Republican or Democrat) have a problem with governement dictating to it's citizens. Of course they could demostrate some personal responsibilty and just turn off the idiot box.

Or they could demonstrate some grit and stop that shit from being piped into their homes. That ignorant, turn off the TV mentality just doesn't cut it. The state, via the media, IS dictating to its citizens. Evidently, as long as it fits with what you deem acceptable, it's alright with you.

As I said, they have every right to address the legislature. Would you take that away, too?

Wow...you are quite the slave to the TV aren't you?

Let me guess...you're a "small government" conservative too, right?

 

[BlindBoo]

Being against the promotion of immoraity isn't being against free speech.

Promoting licentiousness is not protected free speech.

Libertarians are not libertines.

Libertarinans most certainly can be libertines. Not the fake Republican off shoot teabag-libertarians mind you......

If you had a brain in your head, and you've demonstrated that you do not, you'd know that libertarianism has nothing to do with libertines. The fact that a few reprobates attach themselves to the Libertarian Party in the wan hope that their excesses will be tolerated really has nothing to do with this discussion.

Thank you for your input.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

You must be one of them Teabag Republicans, huh?

 

[Esmeralda]

Who said it was against the law?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

If people do not want that crap in their homes, they can change the channel. I

.
.

"Who said it was against the law?" You asked why pre-marital sex wasn't licentious. The definition of licentious includes behavior that is against the law. Read the definition.

"If people don't want that crap in their homes, they have every right not to have it." Change the channel. If people want that kind of thing in their homes, they have a perfect right to have it. If you don't like it, put controls on your television to keep it out of you programming. But you cannot legally keep it out of the homes of others.

 

[Agit8r]

they must be acting on behalf of furniture retailers who want to sell more twin beds.

and yes Idaho really does have that corrupt of a state government.

 

[Noomi]

Does that mean that The Bold And The Beautiful will get boring now that no one can have sex?

 

[Agit8r]

Does that mean that The Bold And The Beautiful will get boring now that no one can have sex?

I would say that they can still have violence, but Wayne LaPierre and company want to scrub that from all entertainment too

 

[auditor0007]

Republicans are for freedom, but only if it fits their ideology.



BOISE -- Legislators in Idaho's Republican-dominated House want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on television programs that portray premarital sex.

The measure approved 57-13 Tuesday urges the FCC to enforce "standards of decency" in TV programming some proponents equate to immoral behavior.

Republican Rep. Darrell Bolz of Caldwell said the resolution doesn't request any new FCC regulations. But he says it simply asks the agency to get back to promoting standards already spelled out in law.

Boise Democrat Grant Burgoyne argued against the measure, saying he thinks current FCC standards already serve as a hindrance to free speech.

He argued that efforts to limit broadcasters from portraying unwed individuals engaging in sexual activity could amount to censorship.

The resolution now moves to the Senate.

Idaho lawmakers want feds to curb 'indecent' TV programs | KTVB.COM Boise

But Republicans believe in freedom, lol. I guess when they say they are the party that supports freedom, they mean any freedom that they approve of.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Republicans are for freedom, but only if it fits their ideology.



BOISE -- Legislators in Idaho's Republican-dominated House want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on television programs that portray premarital sex.

The measure approved 57-13 Tuesday urges the FCC to enforce "standards of decency" in TV programming some proponents equate to immoral behavior.

Republican Rep. Darrell Bolz of Caldwell said the resolution doesn't request any new FCC regulations. But he says it simply asks the agency to get back to promoting standards already spelled out in law.

Boise Democrat Grant Burgoyne argued against the measure, saying he thinks current FCC standards already serve as a hindrance to free speech.

He argued that efforts to limit broadcasters from portraying unwed individuals engaging in sexual activity could amount to censorship.

The resolution now moves to the Senate.

Idaho lawmakers want feds to curb 'indecent' TV programs | KTVB.COM Boise

But Republicans believe in freedom, lol. I guess when they say they are the party that supports freedom, they mean any freedom that they approve of.

Yep

In Konservatopia, you can have all the freedom you want. As long as the fundies approve of it first.

 

[FA_Q2]

Republicans are for freedom, but only if it fits their ideology.



BOISE -- Legislators in Idaho's Republican-dominated House want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on television programs that portray premarital sex.

The measure approved 57-13 Tuesday urges the FCC to enforce "standards of decency" in TV programming some proponents equate to immoral behavior.

Republican Rep. Darrell Bolz of Caldwell said the resolution doesn't request any new FCC regulations. But he says it simply asks the agency to get back to promoting standards already spelled out in law.

Boise Democrat Grant Burgoyne argued against the measure, saying he thinks current FCC standards already serve as a hindrance to free speech.

He argued that efforts to limit broadcasters from portraying unwed individuals engaging in sexual activity could amount to censorship.

The resolution now moves to the Senate.

Idaho lawmakers want feds to curb 'indecent' TV programs | KTVB.COM Boise

But Republicans believe in freedom, lol. I guess when they say they are the party that supports freedom, they mean any freedom that they approve of.

Yep

In Konservatopia, you can have all the freedom you want. As long as the fundies approve of it first.

And that’s different from demotopia how?

Or is it okay if one side is pulling that bullshit as long as you agree with it?