This whole censorship deal..
 

First, I wanna form this thread into a discussion... not about tolerance or equality, but about PROGRESSION. I'm willing to step out and say that while I am accepting of others and their viewpoints, I in no way consider many others who think differently to be logical and that is why I make statements along the lines of "advocates of censorship are FUCKED in the HEAD!"

You may reply, "Hal, considering others to be fucked in the head is not accepting of them." SURE it is! If my best friend can be gay, if my last girlfriend could be mormon, and if I go and hang out with a girl from the ghetto, then I think this shows the very possibility that I can be accepting of people who are fucked in the head one way or another, by anyone's standards.

Moving on, it's news that Clear Channel has now 'permanently' dropped Howard Stern from all of their channels. CC may not be the one to blame, as their hand was forced by a large fine threatened by the FCC. This goes to show that our FEDERAL government is forcing their religious morals upon us.

Many of you may not like Howard Stern. I personally find him boring because my life is filled with enough debauchery to satisfy the Marquis De Sade. However, Howard Stern is an important figure in my views when it comes to liberating this country's fucking deathgrip on the Freethinker's livelyhood. He may be needlessly vulgar at times, but it's his fucking right to be so. It's also everyone else's fucking right to listen to it too.

Knowing Stern, he's not gonna back down from this, and he's probably gonna cause a big stir, and I'm waiting for it - I really am.

Moving on, regarding a recent post where some DVD players are being made with self-censoring software. Yeah, it may be someone's right to watch a movie without all the sex and violence, but we're being progressive in this thread, so I'm not OK with it. It's the very mentality that sex is bad and immoral that is infecting this damn country.

Don't like my view?
So call it hypocritical. Call it self-serving. All I see is a population stuck on morals as if they were.. *gasp* divine law. I could go on about how that's all crap, but this rant would make you miss your next doctor's appointment. The reigning line of logic I see to combat these unbearable morals is simply... look east! Many millions of people in Europe live without such restrictions and they lead happy, healthy lives. Divine law is not crushing them to smithereens because they have billboards that display nipples, or even hardcore sex on daytime television. Get over your stupid fucking divine law and morals.

This is the 21st century! My mind and my body have caught up with the times. Have yours?

Can't add anything to what you said. I doubt I could agree more.
I could also go into a rant and cuss and swear about the shit that bothers me, but nobody wants to hear it anyway because somehow what I have to say has less meaning because I choose to be more vulgar than you.

Excellent, Hal! But I believe that you are preaching to the choir, here.

The entire over-reaction by the FCC since Janet Jackson's Super Bowl extravaganza is quite disappointing. And while Howard Stern is a boring one-note non-entertainer, his employers and affiliates should be raising unholy hell concerning the first ammendment, equal protection, and several other issues.

Clear Channel is gutless, and the FCC is clearly out of line.

I say; stop trying to be perfect. Let's evolve, let the chips fall where they may.

Good rant, Hal.

yah i found it lame that clear channel is dropping stern due to pressure from the fcc...

all the censorship is really lame... you dont like it... change the channel, turn off the radio... but dont make it impossible for me to view it...

I agree that censorship is ridiculous. However, regarding the DVD players, I think they could be great. If people don't want to see or hear such trivial things, more power to them. It doesn't hurt me. I even think more tools for censorship should be implemented as long as they are by CHOICE. Then one day I may be able to watch what I want without someone taking it away because they dont want their kids to see it. Then we wouldn't need to discuss this Howard Stern ordeal.

Zello, that's one way to think about it.. but in actuality, humans are always going to feel the need to impose their will upon others. One side has to win out and that's why we gotta stand up and take action for what we believe in.

Ah, the reason for so many of the worlds problems. If people would just mind their own business...
Does anyone feel like they want to move to some deserted island, somewhere big brother isn't watching? Or perhaps you feel like standing up to the oppresors by making your voice heard? I lean towards the island, but first I really have something to say.

Who was it that said, just because politics is dominated by majority voting, that doesn't mean that the majority have the right to dictate their views to the minorities.

I blame baby boomers. The sooner these '45 to '60 born arseholes - and their parents - shuffle off this mortal coil, the better.

Yes, these are our parents and grandparents, we love them, but the way they think and behave _en-masse_ is fucked up - and there's too many of the fuckers for them to be outvoted anytime soon. Maybe, just maybe, by the time I hit 45 (if i/we make it that far) enough of them will be gone such that those who are left can start pushing society towards a path of evolutionary thought, instead of trying to hark back to the good old days before anyone knew what to do with their gonads, or that drugs other than tobacco and alcohol could be taken to expand your awareness - should you choose.

I'l stop my rant here.

Well you either chose to a) get out of Dodge, b) succumb to the will of your leader, c) find a new leader.

It's as simple as that. Except here.. you don't get option c on the TFP :)

This trend towards censorship is very disturbing. There are numerous fronts on which the freedom squelchers are moving in.

I am absolutely disgusted by the way that presidential protestors are herded into chain link "mini-prisons" for the duration of their protests.

http://www.aclu.org/images/client/bush_rally1.jpg


All done protesting? We'll let you back into society... Wouldn't want you to harm anybody with that free speech.

My concern with the invention of such devices is that quite possibly, somewhere down the road, with things "progressing" as they are, these said devices could be the only ones of their kind that you can buy.

Extreme? Maybe. But it bothers me that I have to go out of my way in some cases to buy European audio CDs just so I can listen to unedited original versions of some songs. I mean, seriously. Don't want to hear about "fuck" and "bitch"? Then put the 2pac away and stick to your Michael Bolton, and leave me with the right to CHOOSE.

Ghaaogihioeghioeghihadvihecgkleguiwrliquegtityv786y37894

Fuck. I agree with you completely, Hal.

But just reading about this shit, and thinking about what's going on in the United States (I'm a citizen, going to school in Canada) makes me just ricidulously angry. And scared. Very, very scared. Censorship is making great leaps and bounds while freedom of expression is falling by the wayside. Sorry, I'm inarticulate and sort of frothing at the mouth right now.

I don't want to make this political, but...

When you have a conservative in power, who is a 'devout' Christian, and believes in conservative morals, we're going to get censorship.

To make this post a-political I should say that it would be the same way if Lieberman was in power.

Anyway, if you don't want censorship, and for me this is a bigger issue than gay marriage or anything... then vote for someone who doesn't believe in it.

The DVD players are fine in my opinion,but like Hal said, it's the principle they stand for that's bullshit. The players are tackling what censor-supporters perceive to be the problem in completely the wrong way. Stop trying to change the content of movies, tv shows, billboards, and music. It can't be done. The choice is always there to change the channel. Frankly, it's stupid to try to change the music and the culture of a society. Exercise the choice to watch a different movie, or listen to a different song. Don't tell the artist that their art is "wrong".

The argument that turning a blind eye will cause more problems leading to the corruption of our youth is also bogus. A bunch of 20 year old U2 fans watching Bono say "fucking brilliant" on TV in elation will not lead to the downfall of our civilization.

I agree with the replies so far on this thread, and would like to add that I also hate when the pro cencorship people claim that 'oh the children could be watching it'. Well when would you like them to learn what goes on in the read world? Or perhaps you would like to shelter your children forever.

It's strange that you feel that way but you have created these forums which are more heavily and politically moderated than any I have ever known.

It's not strange at all. My post should give you the idea that I like being in control of myself and my surroundings. That very notion should clear up any 'strangeness' detected in this situation.

Refer to my previous post.

I totally agree. In my part of the world there are no restrictions on the use of curse words. On the old folks channels you don't hear the hosts cursing although guests and interview objects can say whatever they like. On the channels aimed at a younger audience you can hear words as ass, dick, fuck cunt etc. and no one ever gives a shit, even though our government is from the christian party.

We do have a restriction on hardcore porn though, although it's loosening up a bit there too.

What I really don't understand is how you guys can ban cursing and sex from broadcasts, but show anything you like in movies. Aren't movies public just as radio or television? Whether you rent a movie or watch a tv show, it's your choice right?

First of all, this makes me sick. I can't believe this could happen.

Second, I disagree that it could be a person's "right" to watch a movie without "all the sex and violence". Either watch the movie as it was created, or don't fucking watch it at all.

I think censorship is a terrible thing. People need to grow the fuck up and teach their kids properly, rather than depending on the TV to babysit them.

i think that the thing that EVERYONE including Halx is missing is that the FCC is fining ONLY the Clear Channel stations.

Howard Stern is also on Infinity stations as well. Clear Channel is only six markets.

Six. There are still many others, and yet the FCC has only chosen to fine THOSE markets. Why? Why is it not EVEN across the board? Where is the FEDERAL in FCC?

I'm not for censorship either, but, I'm more interested in FAIRNESS before censorship.

Does that mean only certain markets are protected and others are not? Does it mean that I can be cited and you not?

There's a difference between being inflammatory and trolling than just being able to present facts and allow people to make a decision for themselves.

Hell yeah.

I think CC should have ejected Howard Stern because he sucks, so I'm a lot less broken up about that than I probably ought to be, but in principle, you got it , Hal.

I am a little with SF on the irony thing. Amused, not aggravated, though.

"advocates of censorship are FUCKED in the HEAD!"


I call them "ass-hats"....otherwise I agree with everything you've said.....I often wonder how far this will go before the supporters wake up one day and realize that they've fucked themselves. With something like censorship…the odds are good that a grand idea will come back to bite you in the ass.

I'm against censorship, but I don't know much about the pro-censor platform. Can someone clarify a few things? Do most censor-happy people want censorship to protect THEMSELVES from violence/sex, or do they want it to protect their children from these images? Because if it's to protect the children, then I think I'm even more pissed. This culture has a child fetish, and it's sick. We put helmets on them, and shuffle them off to soccer, and keep them in a sterile, safe environment...I don't know, but does that sound like the makings of a very neurotic adult to anyone else? Granted, people can overcome how they were raised, but I think it's very important.

I dated a guy whose mom had a device on her TV to filter out the swear words. Thank GOD I never met her....just had sex on her living room floor...and her son's bedroom...and the bathroom...yeah, I'm bad.

So my point is...censorship is bad. Good post, Hal.

This administration, and the christian morals agenda are totally (censored) . I wish I had the same (censored) rights I had when I was 18. These guys can kiss my (censored) .

First of all, let me say that I personally cannot stand Howard Stern. The fact that Clear Channel has taken him off of the air only means that I won't accidentally trip over his show. However, I do NOT want the decision to remove his annoying ass from the air waves to come from any governmental agency or body. I want him removed only because his ratings suck, and no sponsers can be found to support his show. I do not need the government deciding what is best for me, or for my family. I am perfectly capable of doing that for myself.

As Prince pointed out; "Don't want to hear about "fuck" and "bitch"? Then put the 2pac away and stick to your Michael Bolton, and leave me with the right to CHOOSE." I agree...to a point. If you want to listen to vulgar lyrics, that is your choice, and I most certainly do respect and support that. The only problem that I have is when it washes over into my "Michael Bolton" world. (Couldn't you have picked a better example? sheesh.) When I'm out with my family, do I not have the right to not be subjected to a barrage of vulgarity from someone's "Boom Car"? Or from just a boombox, in general, for that matter? I believe that it is a matter of time and place. I see too much crap out there that is only put out for the sheer shock value. But, to be fair, perhaps it is with good cause. If the religious right would ease up on the controls a bit, then a balance could be found. But that's not going to happen so long as you have two polar extemes shouting accross a void at one another. When they should be looking for some common ground...somewhere in between.

I should also stress that when it comes to censoring Media that people find distasteful -it is not just the religious right. There are other "leftest" groups who have been challenging the right to free speech on political correctness grounds. Just look to the interesting case of Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho or read the result of the rants by Catharine A. MacKinnon for further details.

This is not intended to make this about politics, but the reality is that the government plays a huge role in choosing to censor the airwaves. What follows is a HUGE oversimplification, but shows the limited options we have when it comes to choosing those who will decide what is decent.

I have always found it strange that one of the parties makes such a point about less governement and staying out of my wallet.....but then rushes headlong into my bedroom and other "private" matters and interactions.

The other party dives into my wallet to pay for more government, but is happy to stay out of my personal matters.

At the end of the day, I would gladly pay more taxes to get the government out of my private life. I can always make more money, but once my choices are limited and my freedoms infringed upon, it is not so easy to get them back.

If I am offended by the radio or TV, I'll turn it off, thank you. And if what I do in my private life offends, I'd ask you to kindly stay out of my private life. Seems so simple........

Many good people would like to see a way that the distribution of some extreme content can be managed to be adults-only. That seems reasonable.

YES! pay for play radio!!! XM and Siruis.

Cynthetiq, exactly. Very few folks care about what adults can access.

The issue of how to manage what is accessible by children is a real one. It would seem that a response to refashioning notions of how content is made available would need to have some political viability if anything is to actually change for the betterment of everyone.

this is about politics

The issue of accessibility to children is directly parallel to computer security ala Kevin Mitnick. The weakest link is always going to be those who hold the means to receive media and who do not accurately secure adult materials-the parents. Children cannot be blamed for their curiosity; it's the parent's job to control the flow of information their child is allowed to see. Just as Mitnick exploited people in control of systems to do most of his hacking, children get ahold of content from usecured systems (radio, tv) and get ahold of unsecured media (the Playboys under your dad's mattress) because parents do not take proper precautions to keep these things away from kids.

I agree with the self-censoring DVDs/TVs for those who wish to use it. Their freedom to protect their kids is as important as our right to be free to view those materials. Parental controls are stupid to us, but very useful for parents who don't want a weak link in the system to be exploited by their kids or their friends. Helping parents to keep adult content out of their kid's hands is a very good thing.


The religious "right" use the children to justify censorship, since they know they can't attack adults for making choices of free will without looking dumber than they already are. They know the parents are largely responsible for what their children see, hear, and read. The don't attack the parents when they can just use children as a scapegoat for censorship, sidestepping the real issue of home media security.


Simply put, if you don't want your children to see adult shit, then become a little more proactive in what your child is allowed to view. Put locks on the entertainment center. Use parental controls on your PC and standalone equipment. Log all internet traffic in case your kid knows how to delete the history and cookies. Install a keylogger on your PC if you want. Use Netnanny or a similar program. Ask the parents of your child's friends with if they use similar measures to censor content, and don't allow your child to go to their home if they don't. Don't allow your kids to see any films not rated G.

You *can* keep your children from viewing or listening to adult material in your home. It just depends on how much effort you want to put into it. You can say it's too hardcore, but these things are good for us as adults, since we can point the finger right back at the censors and say "we choose to see these things. It's YOUR job to help us to keep it out of our kid's hands, and ours to use the methods given."

In closing, I realize our culture is saturated with sexual messages and innuendo, and you can't 100% keep you child from being exposed to it. But you CAN keep them from a lot of things and take the power away from the religious "right" by taking action in your own home.

Yes, thanks for the personal viewpoint, Holo.

I used the term "political viability" in order to discuss the way these things get implemented as matters of public policy.

I read your view to be that there should be no public policy matter at issue here. Political realities do seem to indicate that some public pollicy will always exist as regards a society in which both minors and adults can inhabit the same community spaces.

There should be a moral policy that is decided upon by the individual parents, not a political one. The government doesn't need to be doing our job as parents, and certainly doesn't need to be policing consenting, informed adults. Perhaps the public policy should be to prosecute those who expose children to content deemed unacceptable to their parents similar to the statutory rape laws. If the parents don't turn your daughter's bf in for fucking her at 16 when they catch them in flagrante delicto and they aren't found by an LEA officer, then he doesn't get charged with SR. Same with content offenses. If a parent find out Janie went over to and watched The Crow at Kristi's house and they informed the parent's that R rated films were unacceptable content then they can use the public policy to bring action again those parents. Otherwise, it's all good.

i understood this fully.. it's still censorship

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Very well said!!

I strongly disagree. No one has the right to edit my intellectual property- that's a violation of MY rights, and MY artistic content. If the movie has inappropriate parts in it, you do not have to show them that movie. It is not their right to see it, if seeing it is inappropriate. That's why you have to be 17 or with an adult to see an R-rated film. That's why pornography is restricted to 18 and up.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that if you teach them right from wrong with respect to foul language and adult content, then you empower them to make informed decisions about what they're seeing.

If your kid hears "fuck" in a movie and then starts using it, it's your fault for not being there to teach him why it's a bad word. Those are values that are instilled as SMALL children. Right and wrong - good and bad.

I find it ironic that most people on this site who are against censorship cannot write a post without swearing. Is that meant as an example of what they would do without censorship?

But I suppose I cannot ask somebody to not swear when discussing something because I will be asking them to censor themselves.

It is all about respect. Does Howard Stern show respect? Do I show respect by asking somebody to not swear while talking to me? Is the person showing me respect if he/she continues to swear?

This whole censorship issue has become overly complicated. The truth is that most of the concern lies with parents and parental control/concern for children's wellbeing. There is no substitute for a concerned and loving parent, certainly not the U.S. government. I resent my government taking away the personal responsibility I have to change the channel. It is that simple. Just because I don't care for Howard Stern doesn't mean I'm so high and mighty as to take the option of listening to him away from others.

I am more offended by spam in my e-mailbox - it is unsolicited and oftentimes offensive. Why isn't my government doing something about that instead of the things over which I have control? Over-regulation and censorship lead to nothing but the retraction of the fundamental rights we Americans hold so dear... ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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

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.