Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
this kind of censorship does not start: art's arguments would be fine if all that was at issue really was nudity in prime-time broadcast television, i guess (i am not in agreement, but i can respect the position)--but it is not.
witness this latest idiocy.
i pasted it from an email list i am on: it came without a source link beyond being from AP.
edit (was interrupted):
i do not really accept efforts to seperate various types of censorship.
not in this particular climate, which is in general characterized by the protestant fundamentalist right flexing its political muscle after delivering votes for cowboy george in the last debacle of an election.
nor can i tell from the above who would qualify as the "unscrupulous interest"...while i might be generally inclined to see that interest in capital, here i looks a whole lot more like it is whomever is behind this lawsuit.
|
I fail to see the idiocy of a parent who is monitoring what their child is listening being angered when they find obcenity on a CD they purchase, which was not marked as such. Even if it's just one word on one song many parents don't want their child to be exposed to such, or they don't want to be the agent of exposure (by purchasing said material).
Personally I'm growing increasingly more in favor of such actions as the lawsuit and FCC investigation. To me at least, it seems that generally America could use some decency and morals. The enveloping climate of permissiveness has seem to give no real benefit to society so far, and should be halted.