anti-censorship groups - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

JohnnyRock · 02-24-2004, 02:41 PM

I have always been a proponent of free speech and thought...but as I see the government debate over a tit on TV and listen to radio stations bleep words such as "smoke" and "whore" I am increasingly fearful that our ability to express ourselves is going to be squashed.

Does anyone know of any anti-censorships groups that are doing good work fighting the government and the PC police since media "moguls' such as Mel Karmazin at Viacom are buckling to the pressure without a fight?

Thanks!

pan6467 · 02-26-2004, 12:03 PM

Clear Channel according to Mike Trivisanno (#1 radio host in Cleveland) has sent letters to all employees saying that "anything obscene or radical" will be reason for dismissal. He talked how his program director was sitting in to make sure nothing happened and they "dumped" alot yesterday.

Triv also said this was why Stern was probably going to be headed to satelite radio (yet Clear Channel owns XM). It is pathetic that we supposedly live in the "freest" country in history and yet our words are being edited.

Ustwo · 02-26-2004, 12:07 PM

Stern has a guy on who brags about fucking a girl at 15, they pull him, and you wonder about free speech?

Bill O'Rights · 02-26-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Stern has a guy on who brags about fucking a girl at 15

OK...I missed that one. I don't listen to Howard Stern, nor do I really pay much attention to what he says or does, so it's not surprising that I have no idea what you are refering to here. A little clarification would be appreciated.

pan6467 · 02-26-2004, 12:32 PM

See WE have a choice, tho. We don't have to listen to Howard Stern. Then when enough people don't listen, his rating go down, sponsers stop spending money on his show and he goes away.

I would venture to say you have no idea what the true meaning Stern was talking about just what someone told you he said or you read. Stern is in the business of shocking people....... hence "shock jock". While I object to what was talked about, I also realize it is show business and probably untrue. Therefore, there is no reason to CENSOR him.

Once we start to censor then who determines what is right or wrong to say?

pan6467 · 02-26-2004, 12:49 PM

Boggles my mind those who say we have too much government in our lives yet want and need government to censor or tv, radio, movies etc.

Are we so weak minded we cannot CHOOSE for ourselves? Of course some self righteous out there will say, "Well, I AM smart enough to know, BUT those weak minded, not as highly educated, poor little peons NEED to be watched and TOLD what's right and wrong."

Ustwo · 02-26-2004, 01:06 PM

First Clear Channel is about money, period, and they lost a ton of it here...

Quote:

Stern's suspension was the second time in two days that Clear Channel has acted against a disc jockey. The company on Tuesday fired the DJ known as "Bubba the Love Sponge," whose show drew a record fine of $755,000 from the Federal Communications Commission. The program aired in four Florida cities and included graphic discussions about sex and drugs "designed to pander to, titillate and shock listeners," the FCC said.

My contention is where do you draw the line?

One of my favorite Simpson's line goes something like this.

'Fox became a hardcore porn channel so gradually, I hardily noticed'.

So where do you draw said proverbial line? Hard core sex? Talking about hard core sex? Racism? Should there even be a line?

Mind you I am as worried about free speech as anyone, I know Liberals hate free speech unless it agrees with them, I've seen their reactions to it, and they have already tried to take down Limbaugh, Hannity and the like under the guise of 'fairness' in the media. But saying 'Howard Stern is a shock jock, his job is to shock, so shocking is ok' doesn't cut it.

The airwaves are 'publicly' owned and hence we have this issue. Perhaps there should be no standards at all, I am all for quality porn.

sixate · 02-26-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
OK...I missed that one. I don't listen to Howard Stern, nor do I really pay much attention to what he says or does, so it's not surprising that I have no idea what you are refering to here. A little clarification would be appreciated.

Actually, that wasn't what it was. Check out the link.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040226/D80V0L480.html

Honestly, it has a lot to do with the government, and if the government gets away with trying to control the air waves I'll never, and I do mean never fucking vote for another republican in my god damn life. It basically the fucking FCC/government trying to get rid of freedom of speech, and for some stupid ass reason these right wing fascist assholes think that sex talk is destroying America.

pan6467 · 02-26-2004, 01:23 PM

Who cares what someone says? There are freaking buttons on the radio and television and you can change.

It's self-righteous to say that what Stern and Bubba do is wrong and should be taken off the air. Do what OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP TO DO AND TURN OFF WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU.

To you it's ok for a radio show host to say he named his gun targets after a SITTING president and his wife. Or to have right winged hosts spew hatred, racism, bigotry and incite total apathy towards another group of citizens but wrong to talk of sex and drugs.

When G. Gordon Liddy said he named his targets Bill and Hilary (and he was a SITTING PRESIDENT FOR GOD'S SAKE), I didn't hear any of these great moralists claiming how wrong that was. IT WAS FOR SHOCK. I DISAGREED AND FELT SORRY SOMEONE WOULD SAY THAT BUT IN MY VIEWS THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.

Of course if anyone said that about Bush on the air they'd be arrested and disappear, because they just threatened the president's life. All hail the Homeland Security Act and those that want to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong to say.

Ustwo · 02-26-2004, 02:54 PM

You know it took me a bit to find this since most print media doesn't put this kind of thing in their articles (and no they are not regulated on the internet).

Quote:

The group took Stern, one of the nation's most popular radio personalities and the man who practically invented the shock-jock genre, off its radio stations after an interview with Rick Solomon on Tuesday morning. Solomon gained his 15 minutes of fame as the sex partner of Paris Hilton in a video that was streamed over the Internet. Hilton, one of the heirs to the hotel fortune, also was the star of the Fox reality series "The Simple Life."

In the interview, Stern and Solomon discussed how Solomon "banged" Hilton and a 15-year-old Drew Barrymore; at one point, a caller asked Solomon if he had "ever bang(ed) a famous nigger chick? What do they smell like? Watermelons?"

I don't have time to go into more right now, but lets think about this rationally instead of crying censorship.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000444731

ubertuber · 02-26-2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
Honestly, it has a lot to do with the government, and if the government gets away with trying to control the air waves I'll never, and I do mean never fucking vote for another republican in my god damn life. It basically the fucking FCC/government trying to get rid of freedom of speech, and for some stupid ass reason these right wing fascist assholes think that sex talk is destroying America.

Strongly worded as usual, Sixate, but AMEN! On the other had, Clear Channel should be able to cut things for any reason they want - if people mind, Clear Channel will find out about it in the market place. The difference? The government shouldn't be regulating the content of any medium. The current rationalization that content can be regulated according to "community standards" is BS. If something violated a community standard that strongly, then there would be a prohibitive reaction from the community. Let Clear Channel or MTV or whoever find that out or not on their own, not from government decency standards. I am sure that this is born out of some sort of well-intentioned desire to protect me from harm, but I desire no such protection!

Ustwo · 02-26-2004, 07:25 PM

The problem is the PUBLIC owns the airwaves.

Amazing but true, so as such it does come under 'coummunity standards' the same way walking around nude would.

Personally I like walking around nude, its the only way to spend time at the beach, but I only do it in Hawaii where it is technically illegal

pan6467 · 02-26-2004, 07:57 PM

As part of the PUBLIC and the GOP wants us to believe the MAJORITY shoul rule. Then I think the FCC should set up a hotline to see how many would like to see Ms. Jackson's breast, I'm sure there would be more than double the number of complaints. But they shall instead cater to the 200,000 out of 99+ million viewers that called and complained about Ms. Jackson's breast.

I would go so far as to say in any given month the FCC gets more complaints about what Limbaugh or other right winged nuts say on the radio.

Again I reiterate, IF this is truly a free market and society (as the GOP try hard to proclaim) then let the market decide what gets heard and seen and what doesn't. YOU, who claim to want less government, who claim that the DEMS have taken away all your rights ARE taking away my right to choose what I want to hear on my radio.

Thank God for cable I can watch MTV at 3:30-5 and see my lesbian sex on Real World. Wait, MTV caters to teens and 3:30- 5 the kids are getting home from school..... hmmmmmm. While Howard Stern, Bubba and so on are on the radio and usually kids don't have radios on the buses or in the classrooms listening to those men.

This is all about power and who's morals and who's thoughts of decency are right. Sad thing is because the politicians only care about votes and the whiny religious right wants to make this an issue, the MAJORITY of the people's voices go unheard.To censor ANYTHING is to tell a group that they are too stupid to choose what is "right" for them.

BY THE WAY USTWO, YOU NEVER REPLIED WHY WHAT STERN SAID IS WORSE AND NEEDS PUNISHED MORE SO THAN WHAT LIDDY SAID ABOUT A SITTING PRESIDENT! So basically you are sying it is ok to talk about shooting a president (so long as he is a DEM. because IF someone had said that about your GOD FEARING, ALL RIGHTEOUS, SO MORALISTIC HIS SHIT DON'T STINK, PRESIDENT, you'd have that person behind bars for inciting hatred and fear for the president's life). But it is evilly wrong to talk about someone's sex conquest that happened .... what 10-15 years ago and is probably made up anyway?

So don't play Mr. Righteous on my right to choose what I want to listen to on my radio, Because, kind sir, I will find a group and go to the FCC and the Press and then we will complain about what you want to hear and demand the FCC fine and take them off. Because they go against our community standards, they promote hatred and fear.

Bill O'Rights · 02-27-2004, 06:00 AM

Three points real quick, then I have to do some real work.

1. How old was Rick Soloman when he "banged" Drew Barrymore, when she was 15. If he was of the age of majority, then why is he not in prison for statutory rape? They obviously have a taped confession. Something to look into.

2. I agree that Clear Channel should be able to air what they want, when they want. And, conversely, pull what they want, when they want. The public will quickly tell them if they're making the right decisions, with dollars.

3. The government needs to stay out of it. I don't need to have someone else's morals shoved down my throat...again! I am reasonably intelligent. I am quite capable of deciding for myself what programs are fit for my family, and myself, to watch, or listen to. I have a little gizmo, called a remote control, that I use frequently, to change the channels on my TV. And, for that matter, I have even been known to *gasp* turn it off...and grab a book. I do not want or need the government, pandering to special interest groups, to do my thinking for me.

Ustwo · 02-27-2004, 07:08 AM

I think you come to an interesting point, and that point is you can not protect your children, without taking extreme measures, from questionable content.
Changing the channel just doesn't work anymore.

The FCC rules are outdated. They are from a time when the only mass media was movies, then radio, then TV. It was easy to regulate and I think there was value in doing so. I can recall a few instances as a child where I saw movies/books I should not have and they DID bother me, and amazingly it had nothing to do with pornography. I had nightmares from some of it, and one picture disturbed me to the point I can still recall it in rather vivid detail considering I must have been 7 years old. Such images mean nothing to an adult but to children they can be very upsetting.

The problem now is with the Internet and satellite/cable tv, you can not protect your children from any such content without taking Draconian measures. Sure you could keep your computer under-lock and key, and the same with the TV, but then you have to keep them from friends homes, as their friends parents may not be taking such precautions, and we all know how weak the porn filters are at schools/libraries. So basically unless you home school and screen all their friends parents, they will be exposed to material you may not want them to see.

There will be those who will want to say scrap all the rules, those who will want to keep the status quo, and those who want to regulate the new media. For now I'd say the end result will be the status quo, the 'free' media will be regulated as it always has been and rules that have been ignored the last few years will be enforced. Sterns show won't be able to talk about if nigger chicks smell like watermelon, but I think we will manage.

Cable/Internet/satalite will remain unregulated as 'pay' services, and as more people move to such media as their prime source of entertainment and news, the regulations will be meaningless.

filtherton · 02-27-2004, 07:53 AM

Why can't we just let the market handle it? I thought that was the conservative answer to everything? Goverment interference in the practices of business is wrong.

JohnnyRock · 02-27-2004, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
You know it took me a bit to find this since most print media doesn't put this kind of thing in their articles (and no they are not regulated on the internet).

I don't have time to go into more right now, but lets think about this rationally instead of crying censorship.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000444731

Sounds like censorship to me. And BTW, who decideds community standards, a bunch of right wing religious freaks in Washington? Doesn't sound like my community!

Bill O'Rights · 02-27-2004, 08:20 AM

Ustwo, that's a parent's job! Is it easy? Hell, no! In fact, it's godamn hard. But, I don't need, or want, help from the government in deciding what is appropriate or inappropriate for my children to watch. I will make that determination. I do not expect to be able to filter out everything that is objectionable. Just as the best water filter cannot take all of the impurities out of your drinking water (after all, some impurities actually help raise your immunity.) Neither can a "media" filter (me) filter out all the objectionable crap that's out there. But, I can, and do, filter out the worst of it.

MSD · 02-27-2004, 02:33 PM

Here's my thoughts. The v-chip is good. Making sure people have parents with them when seeing violent or graphic movies is good.

What we really need to do is to make sure our kids are inundated with good values and shown a clear distinction between right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, and fiction and reality before they are exposed to the bad stuff. letting them run fre isn't the answer, locking them in a box isn't, either.

This is why an elementary school bus driver who drove my bus was fired for listening to Howard Stern. It's unacceptable to not give parents the choice to shield their kids from that kind of stuff until they're more mature.

pan6467 · 03-01-2004, 07:57 AM

I am still waiting for anyone pro-censorship to tell me why it is ok that NOTHING HAPPENED when G Gordon Liddy told his listeners he named his targets after a sitting president and his wife. Yet, Howard Stern and others are evil, corrupting society and so on by talking about sex.

By the way Liddy said what he said in the afternoon when kids were home from school and could listen, while Howard is on mainly while kids are at school.

You are so transparent you censorship, fascist pigs. What it boils down to is if someone agrees with your views it's ok, otherwise get them off the air. Then you have the gall to say "you are protecting the children"? BULL FUCKING SHIT you are destroying freedom of speech. Let the market determine who should be on or not.

It's just like the ACLU and Limbaugh for 15 years he did all he could to tear them apart, now when he needs them he won't say a bad word against them. Laughable hypocrites you all are.

Also, Howard did point out today an interesting tidbit I didn't know, (since i hadn't listened to him for awhile, and just started to again because of this). He said, "There is some credence to the theory out there that after I stopped supporting Bush, Clear Channel dropped me."

Howard vs. Clear Channel................ hmmmmmmmmm think Howard will win.

02-24-2004, 02:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
JohnnyRock Addict Location: Taxachussetts	anti-censorship groups I have always been a proponent of free speech and thought...but as I see the government debate over a tit on TV and listen to radio stations bleep words such as "smoke" and "whore" I am increasingly fearful that our ability to express ourselves is going to be squashed. Does anyone know of any anti-censorships groups that are doing good work fighting the government and the PC police since media "moguls' such as Mel Karmazin at Viacom are buckling to the pressure without a fight? Thanks! __________________ Not only do I not know the answer...I don't even know what the question is!!!

02-26-2004, 12:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Clear Channel according to Mike Trivisanno (#1 radio host in Cleveland) has sent letters to all employees saying that "anything obscene or radical" will be reason for dismissal. He talked how his program director was sitting in to make sure nothing happened and they "dumped" alot yesterday. Triv also said this was why Stern was probably going to be headed to satelite radio (yet Clear Channel owns XM). It is pathetic that we supposedly live in the "freest" country in history and yet our words are being edited. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-26-2004, 12:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Stern has a guy on who brags about fucking a girl at 15, they pull him, and you wonder about free speech? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-26-2004, 12:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	See WE have a choice, tho. We don't have to listen to Howard Stern. Then when enough people don't listen, his rating go down, sponsers stop spending money on his show and he goes away. I would venture to say you have no idea what the true meaning Stern was talking about just what someone told you he said or you read. Stern is in the business of shocking people....... hence "shock jock". While I object to what was talked about, I also realize it is show business and probably untrue. Therefore, there is no reason to CENSOR him. Once we start to censor then who determines what is right or wrong to say? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-26-2004, 12:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Boggles my mind those who say we have too much government in our lives yet want and need government to censor or tv, radio, movies etc. Are we so weak minded we cannot CHOOSE for ourselves? Of course some self righteous out there will say, "Well, I AM smart enough to know, BUT those weak minded, not as highly educated, poor little peons NEED to be watched and TOLD what's right and wrong." __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-26-2004, 01:23 PM	#9 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Who cares what someone says? There are freaking buttons on the radio and television and you can change. It's self-righteous to say that what Stern and Bubba do is wrong and should be taken off the air. Do what OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP TO DO AND TURN OFF WHAT IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU. To you it's ok for a radio show host to say he named his gun targets after a SITTING president and his wife. Or to have right winged hosts spew hatred, racism, bigotry and incite total apathy towards another group of citizens but wrong to talk of sex and drugs. When G. Gordon Liddy said he named his targets Bill and Hilary (and he was a SITTING PRESIDENT FOR GOD'S SAKE), I didn't hear any of these great moralists claiming how wrong that was. IT WAS FOR SHOCK. I DISAGREED AND FELT SORRY SOMEONE WOULD SAY THAT BUT IN MY VIEWS THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. Of course if anyone said that about Bush on the air they'd be arrested and disappear, because they just threatened the president's life. All hail the Homeland Security Act and those that want to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong to say. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-26-2004, 07:25 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The problem is the PUBLIC owns the airwaves. Amazing but true, so as such it does come under 'coummunity standards' the same way walking around nude would. Personally I like walking around nude, its the only way to spend time at the beach, but I only do it in Hawaii where it is technically illegal __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-26-2004, 07:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	As part of the PUBLIC and the GOP wants us to believe the MAJORITY shoul rule. Then I think the FCC should set up a hotline to see how many would like to see Ms. Jackson's breast, I'm sure there would be more than double the number of complaints. But they shall instead cater to the 200,000 out of 99+ million viewers that called and complained about Ms. Jackson's breast. I would go so far as to say in any given month the FCC gets more complaints about what Limbaugh or other right winged nuts say on the radio. Again I reiterate, IF this is truly a free market and society (as the GOP try hard to proclaim) then let the market decide what gets heard and seen and what doesn't. YOU, who claim to want less government, who claim that the DEMS have taken away all your rights ARE taking away my right to choose what I want to hear on my radio. Thank God for cable I can watch MTV at 3:30-5 and see my lesbian sex on Real World. Wait, MTV caters to teens and 3:30- 5 the kids are getting home from school..... hmmmmmm. While Howard Stern, Bubba and so on are on the radio and usually kids don't have radios on the buses or in the classrooms listening to those men. This is all about power and who's morals and who's thoughts of decency are right. Sad thing is because the politicians only care about votes and the whiny religious right wants to make this an issue, the MAJORITY of the people's voices go unheard.To censor ANYTHING is to tell a group that they are too stupid to choose what is "right" for them. BY THE WAY USTWO, YOU NEVER REPLIED WHY WHAT STERN SAID IS WORSE AND NEEDS PUNISHED MORE SO THAN WHAT LIDDY SAID ABOUT A SITTING PRESIDENT! So basically you are sying it is ok to talk about shooting a president (so long as he is a DEM. because IF someone had said that about your GOD FEARING, ALL RIGHTEOUS, SO MORALISTIC HIS SHIT DON'T STINK, PRESIDENT, you'd have that person behind bars for inciting hatred and fear for the president's life). But it is evilly wrong to talk about someone's sex conquest that happened .... what 10-15 years ago and is probably made up anyway? So don't play Mr. Righteous on my right to choose what I want to listen to on my radio, Because, kind sir, I will find a group and go to the FCC and the Press and then we will complain about what you want to hear and demand the FCC fine and take them off. Because they go against our community standards, they promote hatred and fear. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-27-2004, 06:00 AM	#14 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Three points real quick, then I have to do some real work. 1. How old was Rick Soloman when he "banged" Drew Barrymore, when she was 15. If he was of the age of majority, then why is he not in prison for statutory rape? They obviously have a taped confession. Something to look into. 2. I agree that Clear Channel should be able to air what they want, when they want. And, conversely, pull what they want, when they want. The public will quickly tell them if they're making the right decisions, with dollars. 3. The government needs to stay out of it. I don't need to have someone else's morals shoved down my throat...again! I am reasonably intelligent. I am quite capable of deciding for myself what programs are fit for my family, and myself, to watch, or listen to. I have a little gizmo, called a remote control, that I use frequently, to change the channels on my TV. And, for that matter, I have even been known to gasp turn it off...and grab a book. I do not want or need the government, pandering to special interest groups, to do my thinking for me. __________________ "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.

02-27-2004, 07:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think you come to an interesting point, and that point is you can not protect your children, without taking extreme measures, from questionable content. Changing the channel just doesn't work anymore. The FCC rules are outdated. They are from a time when the only mass media was movies, then radio, then TV. It was easy to regulate and I think there was value in doing so. I can recall a few instances as a child where I saw movies/books I should not have and they DID bother me, and amazingly it had nothing to do with pornography. I had nightmares from some of it, and one picture disturbed me to the point I can still recall it in rather vivid detail considering I must have been 7 years old. Such images mean nothing to an adult but to children they can be very upsetting. The problem now is with the Internet and satellite/cable tv, you can not protect your children from any such content without taking Draconian measures. Sure you could keep your computer under-lock and key, and the same with the TV, but then you have to keep them from friends homes, as their friends parents may not be taking such precautions, and we all know how weak the porn filters are at schools/libraries. So basically unless you home school and screen all their friends parents, they will be exposed to material you may not want them to see. There will be those who will want to say scrap all the rules, those who will want to keep the status quo, and those who want to regulate the new media. For now I'd say the end result will be the status quo, the 'free' media will be regulated as it always has been and rules that have been ignored the last few years will be enforced. Sterns show won't be able to talk about if nigger chicks smell like watermelon, but I think we will manage. Cable/Internet/satalite will remain unregulated as 'pay' services, and as more people move to such media as their prime source of entertainment and news, the regulations will be meaningless. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-27-2004, 07:53 AM	#16 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Why can't we just let the market handle it? I thought that was the conservative answer to everything? Goverment interference in the practices of business is wrong.

02-27-2004, 08:20 AM	#18 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Ustwo, that's a parent's job! Is it easy? Hell, no! In fact, it's godamn hard. But, I don't need, or want, help from the government in deciding what is appropriate or inappropriate for my children to watch. I will make that determination. I do not expect to be able to filter out everything that is objectionable. Just as the best water filter cannot take all of the impurities out of your drinking water (after all, some impurities actually help raise your immunity.) Neither can a "media" filter (me) filter out all the objectionable crap that's out there. But, I can, and do, filter out the worst of it. __________________ "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. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 02-27-2004 at 08:25 AM..

02-27-2004, 02:33 PM	#19 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Here's my thoughts. The v-chip is good. Making sure people have parents with them when seeing violent or graphic movies is good. What we really need to do is to make sure our kids are inundated with good values and shown a clear distinction between right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, and fiction and reality before they are exposed to the bad stuff. letting them run fre isn't the answer, locking them in a box isn't, either. This is why an elementary school bus driver who drove my bus was fired for listening to Howard Stern. It's unacceptable to not give parents the choice to shield their kids from that kind of stuff until they're more mature.

03-01-2004, 07:57 AM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I am still waiting for anyone pro-censorship to tell me why it is ok that NOTHING HAPPENED when G Gordon Liddy told his listeners he named his targets after a sitting president and his wife. Yet, Howard Stern and others are evil, corrupting society and so on by talking about sex. By the way Liddy said what he said in the afternoon when kids were home from school and could listen, while Howard is on mainly while kids are at school. You are so transparent you censorship, fascist pigs. What it boils down to is if someone agrees with your views it's ok, otherwise get them off the air. Then you have the gall to say "you are protecting the children"? BULL FUCKING SHIT you are destroying freedom of speech. Let the market determine who should be on or not. It's just like the ACLU and Limbaugh for 15 years he did all he could to tear them apart, now when he needs them he won't say a bad word against them. Laughable hypocrites you all are. Also, Howard did point out today an interesting tidbit I didn't know, (since i hadn't listened to him for awhile, and just started to again because of this). He said, "There is some credence to the theory out there that after I stopped supporting Bush, Clear Channel dropped me." Howard vs. Clear Channel................ hmmmmmmmmm think Howard will win. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"