Halx

Well, that was cheap. Perhaps you missed the point. The real world is filled with 'bad' words and pornography. It's absurd that anyone gets offended by it at all.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Bill O'Rights

No, not really. I think I see where forecheck is going with this. The "real world" is also filled with death, destruction, deprivation and starvation. That does not mean that I don't get offended by it. Nor do I wish to surround myself with it. Forecheck is talking about respect. It's about the way that you treat those in society around you. It's like the "Boom Cars" that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Why should I be forced to listen to the vulgarity that is spewed forth from these annoyances. These things are designed to be offensive, and are. I am not calling for "censorship" of so-called "hard rap" music, but be a little more respectful of those around you, play it a moderate level, and quit being a jerk.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Halx

Well, in context, you should know what to expect when you come to a message board on the internet. People using shit, fuck, damn, ass.. all over the place. There should be nothing on the internet that offends you because you know damn well what's out there when you turn on your computer, and you know damn well that it's going to find it's way onto your monitor one way or another. That's just the internet.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Prince

This is a bit off the subject, but I thought I could throw it in anyway. It's something I've been thinking about as of late.

Let's say there's a man enjoying his beer on his porch, and a young dude in a car drives by, music playing semi-loud. The man on the porch says "I am offended by that ruckus. Take your car elsewhere. I have the right to sit here on my porch and enjoy this cold beer without being offended with being subjected to that noise". The young man in the car replies, "This is America. You don't own this road. I have every right to drive here and listen to whatever music I like. Your attempt at oppressing that right of mine offends me".

Obviously, this is over-simplifying the situation a bit. But my question is, who decides who is being offended more? Sure the man has the right to sit there and enjoy the peace and quiet, but the young man has the right to drive on the road and listen to his music. Who gets to decide whether he's playing it too loud? Is there a legal definition of what is too loud?

The whole concept of being offended is unfamiliar to me. I guess because of the culture I am from - I am used to the mentality, "do what you like, and if others don't want to see it or hear it they can go somewhere else". And they would, too.

Living here in the States, I've come across two words particularly - "offend" and "right". People are very quick to argue in favour of their rights - but mostly just their own rights. This gay marriage thing being a fine example... I believe, without statistics to back me up, that the majority of people who are opposed to improving gay rights aren't gay themselves. Stepping on the rights of others is easier than the rights of your own.

Which brings me to the question, what is really "being offended". If someone can say that gay people should not be allowed to marry because it offends them, then where is my right to not have to deal with Christians or JW's knocking on my door, selling me Jesus? Christianity offends me, what about my rights? Changing "yippee-ki-yea, motherfucker" into "yippee-ki-yea, friend" offends me as well. A lot of things offend me, if we go down the road of trying to put an end to everything we do not happen to agree with.

I didn't understand why people were offended by seeing Janet Jackson's nipple. Seriously, it's a nipple. Of all things, why does that offend you? People who were offended by that, offended me by being offended. So what? My right to not be offended by morons is not as important as said morons' right to not be offended by a nipple?

People don't need pampering, they don't need the government to think for them and tell them what they can and can't watch or listen to. All they need is to get over themselves.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

Halx

Prince, the driver of the car can be cited for noise pollution. It's not the content of his music, but the volume that is cited.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Strange Famous

I would have to agree with both you and Hal, irony is a better word than strange

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Prince

I know that, but what is considered noise pollution? Is there a decibel limit? Some people are "offended" simply by being able to hear it, and can suggest that it is too loud for them? The content of the music in the face of the law is irrelevant, but in my experience it's not irrelevant when people decide whether it is too loud or not.

Meh, I'm just uneducated in this matter.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

Macheath

To give just one jurisdiction as an example, in Chicago, boom cars that can be heard from 75 feet are subject to seizure and their owners may be fined $615. Noise pollution certainly is measurable in distance and decibels. Human pain threshold is 120 dB, standing next to a 747 engine would be 150dB. The loudest boombox was 48000 watts installed a few years ago in a Ford Bronco - max of 175 dB. If the car's owner cranked it up, he would die. Sound loud enough or deep enough is literally a weapon capable of liquefying internal organs.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat3.pdf

I enjoyed this tangent because frankly the whole Howard Stern thing is creepy. A few jumps back, Stern supported Bush and he miraculously stayed on air. Now he's opposed - and also mysteriously a legal liability, despite the fact that his actual act has barely changed.

ON top of that, we have a Clear Channel (36 stations in 1996 - 1200 today) vice chairman who bought the texas rangers from George W Bush, a Attorney General Joe Ashcroft who thinks dancing is sinful and a House Majority Leader who believes in the rapture.

These are strange times...

aarchaon

Instill values in people, don't censor every aspect of their lives. Let people make decisions based on what they want and believe, not what the government or whoever wants you to do. Its pretty simple IMO, but religion is a big part of this problem, and I cant see it going away within my lifetime at least.

__________________
Green. Yellow. Blue.

Halx

So.. who wants to do something about it all?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

forecheck

You said this very well. Thank you.

I am not expecting the people of the world to do things my way. Just to show a little respect. I can respect a person's right to swear. I just hope that they can respect that I don't like to hear it all the time. So only swear every second time that you normally would. Seriously

Halx

Forecheck, honestly, I can't see you as coming from anywhere besides the point of view that preceeds you. You are picking out something about my post that you don't like and are pointing it back at me. Go ahead. Call me a hypocrit. I don't need your underhanded spin to realize I post in an excessively vulgar manner. Thankfully, my right to do so is protected by the first amendment, the fact that I know the root password to the servers and the fact that I can submit 'DELETE FROM user WHERE userid = 12459' to the database. In other words: Dont tempt me.

So, let's get this thread back on topic. It's the very sensitivity to such subjects (sex, violence, swearing) that I am fighting here. I think it's evident to many that when you bar or hinder something, it seems to want to shove itself in your face tenfold, as instanced by forecheck. For every intiative, there is a resistance and an underground. This is quite apparent in the FACT that the most prosperous area for the 900# industry is the bible belt.

If there is no intiative, then the signifigance of the offense is lost. and everyone wins.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

tecoyah

Back on topic for a sec.....lets look at the resoning behind censorship. Unlike a law, censorship is not an attempt to physically protect someone. It is an attempt to prevent someone from having to hear or see some form of media. I would place censorship in the same category as propoganda. One is forcing information on an unwary population, and the other is removing information from the same. Neither is acceptable to me.
If people are ignorant enough to believe propoganda, then its use is a powerful tool in the manipulation of the masses. If people are incapable of deciding for them selves what to watch/hear, and have a difficult time tuning it all out, that is a personal weakness, and I should not have to pay for it with the loss of information.
It upsets me that the government has the power to decide what media I am "allowed" to ingest, and seems to be nothing less than the loss of another freedom in this society.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

flamingdog

Slightly off-topic, but that world is moving into our hands now, and do you like what is happening to it? Corporate rule, massive apathy, a culture based on fame and notoriety and precious little else and a dangerous reluctance to self-critique and strive for improvement. We have crafted our own prison, and left ourselves open to be censored in this way, just as our other freedoms become gradually lessened.

I think, if anything, the relatively harmonious existence of the TFP is proof, were it needed, that somewhat benign liberal dictatorship is a very good way to live. All men are not created equal, we say, yet we elect leaders as if to prove ourselves wrong, then continually countermand what they say. At least here, dissenting views are mostly tolerated, and freedom of speech lives, as long as the proper protocols of respect are followed. It is a theme that runs through the entire board.

It isn't just a philosophy that you sign up to, it genuinely happens. It proves that society can work for the good.

shakran

Well here's the thing. ClearChannel decided to drop Stern. That's a programming decision made by a company, not a censorship decision made by the government. I think what you should be ranting at is the FCC fining Stern when they don't fine Oprah for talking about the same stuff. THAT'S censorship. ClearChannel made a business decision that "dude, we can't afford to be paying half a million or more per day in fines just so Stern can talk dirty."

Furthermore, I don't think Stern should be the focal point of the censorship debate, since he doesnt' believe half the crap he says anyway. Hell his own autobiographical movie showed that he's only a shock jock because he figured out he could make money off of it. In other words, he's not being repressed for saying what he believes in because he doesn't actually believe in what he's saying.

Where we should be focusing is on things such as book banning (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got banned because gee, fat kids might get offended, etc), and Ashcroft's neverending puritanical war on all things remotely sexual (ordering $10,000 drapes to cover the statue of Justice because a breast is exposed? I think this guy has some repressed sexual issues).

What I think we need to realize is that this country is descended largely from the puritanical Pilgrims who, as Robin Williams so insightfully put it, were so uptight that the British told them to get the fuck out. As such, while we may hear our officials scream liberty and freedom at the top of their voices, what they really mean is liberty and freedom as long as you don't say anything they don't like.

I find it interesting that most government officials use KKK rallies to "prove" they're proponents of freedom of speech. They always say that while they hate what the KKK has to say, the KKK has the right to say it. Fine, that's great, and in fact that's true, but it'd be nice if those same officials would then support other areas involving freedom of speech, such as radio and television broadcasts, books, and even lurid materials.

What I've never understood is why anti-porn people are so anti-porn. If you don't want to look at porn, that's great. What the hell do you care if others do it? I don't like to eat asparagus. That doesn't mean I get angry when I see others eating it.

Halx

shakran, you are right on the money, but if I may nitpick, I thought the information in your first paragraph has been addressed all ready.

As to your last paragraph, I refer to an earlier post of mine. Human beings will always try to enforce their will upon others. This is how we establish the pecking order and how inferior men seek to gain respect.

Anti-porn advocates are mostly religious. I won't specify left or right because that's just absurd. The bottom line about them all is that they are the most enthusiastic about pressing their views upon you. On a personal note, I find it hypocritical that they consider any amount of humility as part of their worship.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

shakran

Agreed, but especially in today's sound bite society, some things bear repeating. After all it was only after the repeated images of Viet Nam that the public rose up and put a stop to it.

Agree with all of that. It's truly amazing how many people proclaim to be for the freedom of speech, and will howl when they perceive theirs as being violated (note all the 10 commandments-in-government-buildings cases lately) yet they so enthusiastically try to inhibit speech that they don't find palatable. It's even more amazing that these people can't even see the hypocracy here.

Cynthetiq

shakran

you have to take it further than they are willing too.... the KKK argument is great, but then you push the limits even further... such as Nazi Skin heads... everyone has to remember that there's something that they don't find palatable somewhere.

not many people are willing to admit that they have a bias, espeically those that proclaim that they don't, often do somewhere.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

bigbad

I'd have to agree as well, the first thing I thought of after reading the first post was the irony involved.

I think an important part of this is the fact that Stern himself actually desires to be censored. He wants to see how far he can take things before the people in charge will react to what he's doing, as playing the the part of martyr will only improve his ratings when people hear about the controversy and listen in to see what all the hype is about.

Also, there are rules about what you can and cannot say, and there are people mandated to uphold those rules. For example, the right to free speech does not include shouting fire in a theatre, or attempting to incite violence. Just as the moderators here overlook the boards, the FCC is the organization that overlooks the airwaves, and just as the moderators here have the right to determine what can and can't be said, so too can the FCC determine what can and can't be said under their jurisdiction.

ARTelevision

bigbad, you are correct.
That's how responsible societies operate.
The goal is to truly reflect community standards when the material is everywhere available.
Personally, I believe the current enforcement is long overdue.

Many individuals may not agree with what constitutes community standards.
That's what the courts are for.

The main issues are about distribution.
Adult-oriented material available via adult channels of distribution is not a problem.

__________________
create evolution

jwoody

Why not send e-mails to register your lack of offense with the authorities?

__________________
.

gnl3434

I agree with most of the posts here, censorship in any form is just wrong. I as a parent have the right to decide what is acceptable for my kids to view,listen to ect. I take great offence at anyone (government) telling me what I can or can't do. As has been said if you don't like it don't watch or listen. As for adult content any child over the age of 5 that goes to school knows all swear words and how to use them. Hard core porn should be restricted to adults only but most kids are smart enough to make their own choices on what they want to watch. It is the parents responcibility to teach the kids right form wrong.

As far as the DVD players if you don't like the movie the way it was orginally made don't watch it.

The only way we are going to change things is to start electing younger people with a more up to date way of thinking, and get rid of the old relics who have been in charge for way to long.

I have to say this is a good rant I could go ono for a long time about this as it really pisses me off when other people try to force there morals on me.