Quote:
|
Originally Posted by liquidlight
I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.
Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.
What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs? The FCC regulations are setup by a series of committees to reflect the majority, it would be nice if censorship wasn't necessary but sadly in this day and age people aren't capable of being mature enough about the content that if they disapprove of it to simply not partake.
As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases? And why is it that we insist on blaming something in the persons environment rather than holding that person responsible for their own actions?
|
Becuase three are regulated and considered harmfull, while one is not. that is the question presented. Why are three worthy of tight regulation when one is not?
I don't disagree that Stern should be kept to pay-access venues, or that the superbowl incident was uncalled for (Though I don't have problem with breast on TV for both genders) as it was not part of the plan.
But if stern cannot be shown on
public airwaves, and has been censored heavily for sexual content, why is religion which I do not want OKay on the publics airwaves?
If religion is okay, so is a breast. You cannot say one is acceptable for public consumption but not another without making a moral judgement. And who has that right?
As for regulating cable, that is bullshit. failed parents with no personal responsability have no right to bitch about what cable shows, as they are aware of it when the ordered it, and are still willing invite it into their house. Cable is not a basic right, nor a neccesity, and one must willingly pay to have it pumped into their brain. And yet they don't like what cable shows? Then they can cancel it. Anything less is avoiding taking responsability.