America gone mad
 

Sorry if I sound terse, but what the fuck is wrong with America?!!

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...html?from=top5

I don't know why I'm angry, as this doesn't really affect me that much; not being American or living in America. But I still get hot under the collar when I come across such nonesense as this.

What's next? Banning Greek and Roman sculpture?


Mr Mephisto

PS - No problem showing hundreds of people getting killed on TV shows, but a pregnant woman?! Oh Dear Lord Above, save us...

Yeah, Mephisto, this country is way over the top hung up sexually. Violence is no big deal but nudity is a serious no-no, which I just don't get. This is typical of my country and government. It is a shame we cannot actually focus on the things which are important rather than this sort of BS.

As far as I'm concerned it is the proper responsibility of the FCC to decide whether nudity costumes are appropriate for General Audiences. That's the point - what is appropriate for general entire-family fare. I can imagine nudity suits being done with exquisite and anatomical precision and shoved in our faces at any time of day and on any channel. The FCC is the agency designated to look into issues like this.

I didn't watch the opening so I'm basing my opinion on the pictures you posted. I find nothing inappropriate about those pictures; I would have no problem letting my 3 year old look at them either. Americans are prudes; god forbid you see someones nude body, but if it is getting blown up/sliced up/altered/smacked around, its all for the good of entertainment. A few years ago the statue of David by Michelangelo came to a university here and a lot of people raised a stink about the nudity. It almost made me vomit. Obscene nudity (sexually explicit shown on daytime TV, etc when young kids can see it) is one thing, but being based on classic artwork? I don't get it either.
.

Yeah, but who would it be hurting? You could have an all nudity suit channel, what's the big deal? This is what happens when the neocons cut art funding! This is exactly why America is the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

Well for that you are correct, but call me old fashioned but I still think it is the parents responsibility to decide what their children watch, not the FCC's. I find it ironic that t.v. is used by parents to prop their kids in front of when convenient for them when they want their "quiet time," but when something like this comes up, parental responsibility is abdicated.

Maybe if these parents spent more quality time with their kids rather than bitching about what's on t.v. they might create a more conducive social environment for them and their job as responsible parents might get a liitle easier, at least for the 99% below.

The american people lack basic common sense and are hypocritical. The end.

And whatever country you come from has people stupid enough to make generalizations like that. We are a nation of puritans, but we're not "hypocritical". Slowly and slowly we're getting rid of the old puritan traditions that you see still today (cursing, nudity on tv, etc etc), but it's even more stupid of you to make a generalization like that.

Secondly, the FCC is actually an illegal department. They inforce their morals on the media, and for instance, the time when Janet Jackson's breast was shown on TV, they force the media to pay fines for indecency. However, that all falls under free speech. You will see a pattern of the FCC of dropping complaints if the television company sues them. They do this because any judge at the appeals court level or the supreme court level knows well enough that what the FCC Is doing violates the first amendment, so it simply avoids confrontation with them. In the end, it uses scare tactics to keep television stations in line, if not anything else. It's pretty sad, because in reality I think that the real puritans in america number only in the hundreds of thousands, but the rest of america has to deal with their abnormally loud voices.

Sorry for the incoherent rant, I just woke up.

whats wrong with it???

i don't see a thing wrong with the pregnant lady... plus schools allready allow kids to see art such the nude roman pieces.... i've even seen similar ones on feild trips way back in elementry school


i gotta admit that having the penis showing on those actors like that is a little much... but there not real.. it's just molding thats ontop of the body...


are we going to require people to be over 18 before visiting art musuems?

I think Americans have lost all their brain cells. I cant see why this would be offensive in the slightest. There are thousands of pregnant women accross the nation, and the "nudity suits" are presented as art. Theres nothing aggressively sexual about them and if you're sitting at home and are offended CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL!! This is why we have FREEDOM in the US, but apparently some of us Americans cant seem to handle it. If you're afraid of your children seeing "nudity" cover their eyes... or again, change the damn channel. It would be one thing if they had some naked chick getting boned in the center of the ice rink by some overly hunky adonis...but this was art. This is why everyone is so afraid of their bodies, when there is quality on TV we shun it.. but if someone is getting their ass kicked or some hot stupid teenage couple is making out, getting felt up, and behaving as if they lived in Romper Room...........we're all for it. Ive seen things in PG movies that while I dont find offensive, I could take to the extreme and say theyre at LEAST pg-13 or R. I guess its ok to see women parading around half dressed and sex just rampant on the O.C, Laguna Beach, Nip/Tuck(not that kids watch this, but its on FX which is easily accessable), South Park(its a cartoon, and Ive seen elementary school kids quoting them), and now there's Drawn Together. Yeah, lets see how long "adults only" watch this. I bet these same people werent offended when Blade Trinity came out, or Swordfish because they didnt have to see it.. guess what, you didnt have to see the Olympics either, a simple push of the button and you have a whole new program.

America come to your senses, the idiot box is not a substitute for you as a parent. Get over it, sometimes theres things not meant for all eyes.. and if its something like the Olympics Im SURE a lot of thought was put into it since it takes 7-8 years to plan the Olympics. Kiss my ass dumb parents, really.. you can say no to your child every once in a while. Who cares what Suzi down the block parents let her do.. your kid isnt Suzi, and more importantly you're not those dumb parents.

Puritan roots, deeply planted. Over 400 years and we are still under living under their influence. We start the witch trials next week!

I just can't understand how these people think. Honestly, what is the big deal? It's not like there was hardcore porn shown at the ceremony, it was a pregnant woman and a bunch of guys in bodysuits! Remove the stick from your ass, nudity is not an awful thing. (And in this case it wasn't even nudity to begin with...)

None of our good members have sticks up their ass, so it is not advisable to address opinions in this manner.

The moral values of *some* people in the States is beginning to make me sick. I can't fathom the idea of the representation of ancient Greek history being offensive. Thankgod I live in Canada is all I have to say.

I agree...just basically conservative values showing themselves. Every country has Conservative Media Organizations who like to remind people of their existence every now and then. America also has a multi-billion dollar porn industry, if that'll make you feel any better. :p

Doesn't surprise me, anyone remember Ashcroft covering the nude breast on the statue of lady justice?

Yeah, I really miss paying for pictures of a crucifix in a bottle of piss, and a bullwhip up someone's ass.

I'm sure the rest of the world thought devoting tax dollars to THOSE was a sound idea.

this is certainly very humiliating for America, but in fairness, all the FCC is doing is going through the procedure of investiagting someone's complaint. It would be unthinkable in my opinion that any action be bought in this case.

I think this i just representative of how sexually repressed certain demographics are. Americans do not have the right to not be offended. I'm not sure why so many of us think we do. I wonder how these people feel about nude depictions of adam and eve that exist in the bible?

I wasn't offended in the slightest by the ceremony, but while I find the prudish nature of some people redundant I see no reason why it should be ignored. If people were offended then fine, they have every right to voice their dissaproval and should be allowed to do so, and I see no wrong in the FCC fulfilling its obligation to investigate based on the complaints it receives.

At any rate, I find it highly unlikely that such a triviality will be judged immoral, even by the FCC.

THE FCC was supposed to be guardian to PUBLIC airwwaves, simply put the government felt if you owned a station that broadcast through airwave frequencies you bought then they had jurisdiction. The networks and channels accepted this, and gave the FCC the right to police them in order to "rent" that particular frequency.

Cable/satellite tv and now radio are able to air what they want (although it's just the premiums that allow nudity). The FCC has no jurisdiction however over ANY CABLE/SATELLITE stations yet and therefore they are able to broadcast whatever they like. This is what is killing regular broadcast and why they feel they have to get racier.

Now were these opening games aired on NBC itself or one of their cable outlets. If it's over the outlets then the FCC cannot legally fine anyone. If it's over the "air" they could but I would find it hard to believe that the FCC will garner enough support to claim that as obscene.

IF I were paranoid and believed in conspiracies..... I would say I find it funny that CBS, ABC and now NBC are all under FCC fire for something, yet Fox probably the lustiest and hottest of all is walking away scott free, with not one word about FCC investigations...... It's nice to support the king.

it is diffuclt not to read all this as symptoms of the decay of the american empire: unable to face reality, either in particular or in general, there is a segment odf hte population that retreats into religion, and from there tries to work out external symptoms to blame for their malaise--if only the culture could be purified of retrograde elements, and one of consistent protestant-fundamentalist-style mediocrity set up in its place, then obviously the world would be different.

in this way, the fcc anal probe could be seen as an index of a collective retreat into fantasies of purity and will (so could this last election...)

as for the tangental matter of funding for the arts, the reactionary position on which sob so eloquently summarized with this:

i assume that no actual experience of the images are required for you to be quite opposed to the fact of them, and to use this as a shallow pretext for attacking the idea of state funding for the arts in general.

because of course serrano and mapplethorpe are the only folk to have ever been granted money from the state, and their particular (technically extraordinary--but no matter for conservatives, really--it is all just what they are told it is from the various networks of sanctimoniousness we are plagued with in the states at present....) works are obviously the space to which any such funding leads.

most of the folk i talk to who are not based in the states and who produce artworks understand the states to be a complete nightmare for artists in general. i think they are right in that.

but what i really think drives the conservative opposition to state funding for the arts is their fear of criticism, particularly of criticism that works in registers they cannot collapse back into their fatuous, moralizing understanding of the world.

It doesn't have a lot to do with facing reality, roachboy.
It has to do with "facing" media.

I respect and support people who act against media that offends them, their sense of decorum, or their desire to have content programmed according to some segregation of channel content based on age-appropriateness or other parameters that may be defined by the public will. Agencies that are charged with maintaining and enforcing these complex matters do important and significant work.

I live in Michigan.

It's not a generalization. People in this country ARE, for the most part, stupid and hypocritical. I'm not saying people on this forum are this way, I'm talking about average joe public.

It's pretty self evident, so I don't think I need to give examples, but I will anyway.

Examples of hypocrisy: Illegal to pick up a hooker, but it's legal to pay a porn actress or pick up a gal in a bar for a one night stand. Illegal to smoke marijuana, but okay to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. It's bad to show sex, something natural, on TV, but it's okay to show violence.

Need examples of stupidty? Just watch the news... or if you have a job where you deal with people on a daily basis, I'm sure you already know what I mean. Not *EVERYONE* is stupid, but most are pretty gullible and impressionable and will think whatever you tell them to think.

I'd LOVE to see the average IQ in this country.

I think this is all representative of a difference in culture. Globalization is bringing new ideas into regular contact with Americans, but it seems that only American greed and violence are disseminated into the world. In practice, it's all reflective of a sort of xenophobia, or at least cultures focusing only on the negatives of foreign ideas and information.
Relative to Ashcroft, etc.:
I'm not blaming the Christian Right for being against nudity, because it's a door that swings both ways. Some secularists revile anything religious, and want pornography, etc. allowed in public spaces like public libraries (where children, those who might be offended can easily view it "second-hand" [google "Loudoun County pornography" if you want to find out more]), while some religious conservatives want to stop any kind of nudity or expression of the "natural" (open to interpretation) physical form.

The governments are largely of the people, just as are the consumer markets. Vote in your elections, vote with your currency!

Context, it's all about the context.

While I don't really think it has anything to do with this thread, I'm posting one link that discusses IQ. Here it is:

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

If you don't like the source, try searching yourself or look up the book from which the stats derive:

IQ and the Wealth of Nations

This should not start a digression - as the thread is clearly about other matters. It's just that sometimes, posts require responses. Especially when there is no research done to back up statements that are just typed in here as if anything goes...

You totally dodge the question of why they are facing the media. Are "they" trying to get rid of violence? Or are they concerned that a marblized dick is going to destroy their world?

the few do not own the airwaves. we all do. and if it's broadcast TV, then i would be damn upset if they tried to take away my programming choices. and if it is true that a majority of citizens are at the point at which their reality is threatened by those images, then i want nothing to do with this nation. but i rather strongly suspect that it is simply a matter of a few individuals orchestrating this complaint, and who have no more right to impose their views on the public airwaves than any other crackpots.

I never "dodge" anything. I choose what I respond to.

Actually any reason that a human being would oppose media is something I am predisposed to look at with a predilection toward supporting the human being's voice in opposition to something that is programmed at him or her or the public at large.

questions of "appropriateness" and the politics that attend them rarely interest me.

i do not care about the matter of whether nudity in the form of marble statues somehow offends a constituency out there somewhere, whether and how they mobilize that constituency..nor do i care about the fcc as arbitor of these matters. like others earlier in the thread, perhaps i would find this more intersting if there was an equivalent concern about violence. or about the slide into fascism. but there isnt.

i do not understand the drive toward censorship of nudity. i do not understand or accept the assumptions concerning the "innocence" of childhood, nor about the notion of "family values" that seems to have been made as a grotesque correlate of it. what i see in this is a neurotic obsession with control, one that plays directly into the fantasies of purity and will i mentioned earlier.

as for the public airwaves and the fcc more generally--in general i agree with martinguerre's last post.
the right's abhorrence of the notion of the public seems to figure in this as well...better for them to allow the rise of media empires like clear channel and confuse privatized airwaves with a kind of public holding that the right can accept. nothing to do with the quality of broadcasting, nothing to do with the content--everything to do with perversions particular to conservative ideology, with reducing the possibility of broadcasters being held to account for meaningful conflict they increasingly should encounter with notions of a pluralistic public, a gradual erasure of the space for a politics of broadcast media.

instead, what you get handed to you as "meaningful" poltical questions is pure diversion: trivial, idiotic matters like what mr mephsto cited at the start of this thread.

as for the question of "facing reality" as over against "facing the media" i think maybe there was confusion about the register i was talking on...what i tried to point to operates a a level prior to the actual conflict the thread is considering.

For clarity, I'll repeat the position on this sort of thing that I've taken many times here in this forum. I am in agreement with publically legislated and monitored standards of "appropriateness" as regards what content appears on what channel, medium, and platform. I do not see a discussion of appropriateness to be the same thing as a discussion of censorship as I have no problem with content being available on restricted-access media and channels.

I've indicated this above and I've stated it elsewhere here.

American laws and regulations regarding this topic are completely stupid and outdated in my opinion. Damn I wish we would loosen up a little. Is the naked body really that offensive to some people? I don't get it...

i more or less assumed that was your position, art.
i did not assume you were arging for censorship.

i find this kind of regulation goofy...i guess where our views part ways is that i do not assume that they (these kinds of regulation) can be understood on their own terms--that is why i link them to wider problems/processes/ideologies. it seems a gap in premises that can lead us to talk by each other.

No. The human body when used by those who would exploit people of all ages via the power of unrestricted media broadcasting has the potential to wreak havoc on some members of society - especially people's children. It's not surprising parents, for example, would expect some regulation on unrestricted programming.

i am confused: who are you referring to here?

I'm referring to pornography, for example - and more broadly sexuality as exploited by commercial interests.

There was a rhetorical question regarding nudity and its offensiveness, etc. Actually there are many such comments here.

There is also - besides the understandable statements of opinion - a generalized sense of how incredible it is that anyone would think differently on these subjects. I'm taking a bit of time to state some of the reasons why good people may take various positions on the subjects addressed here.

Nice summation. If programming is allowed with no restrictions on content that offends, what's to prevent the "Anti-Semitic Channel," or the N-word flying around on free cable TV?

As so often happens with assumptions, you have come to an inaccurate conclusion.

Care to back up that inaccurate generalization?

Perhaps you would share your elevated consciousness with us, and explain how so much art has survived for thousands of years without public funding.

Actually this is not entirely true. It turns out that the FCC has just as much control over cable television as it does over network television, it just chooses not to exercise this power as much. Why? Well the FCC only responds to complaints made over specific broadcasts. Most people who have cable understand that if you don’t like a specific program you have 1million other channels to choose from. Technically, however, the FCC could regulate cable television just as much as they do the networks (same goes for Satellite Radio). Scared yet?

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~colleen-oconnor/

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html

Gawd this is getting old. How do you justify trying to define an entire populace based on the actions of a lunatic fringe?

99.8% of the complaints filed with the FCC are from one, miniscule religious organization that most people don't even care about.
LINK

And you want to define an entire nation by these people?

And of course, the obvious aspects to this are being entirely ignored:

1) We have a free enough society that these people can spout whatever they want without fear of retribution. Yet, most everyone here wants to quell the freedoms that don't match their own beliefs.

2) The FCC has to respond to the complaint; it doesn't mean they will find in favor of it. Imagine if the FCC ignored any complaints?

In other words, there is nothing to see here, move along folks. If the FCC finds in favor of the complaint, then we have something to discuss. Should we debate every stupid, lunatic complaint made in this country?

No.

We should be proud in the fact that we live in a place where even the idiots have free speach.

Should we define all Irish people based on their lunatic fringe? Nope.

Should we define all Austrailians based on their lunatic fringe? Nope.

Why are we trying to define Americans by the lunatic fringe(s) that we have?

Or....are we just running out of thread ideas in the Politics Forum?

I see it this way: if you cannot come up with a logical reason why certain things are taboo, then they shouldn't be controlled or censored to begin with.

Why is swearing taboo? Really, it's just a word. What does it matter if you call feces "poop" or "shit"? Why does it matter if you say, "This fucking door won't open"?

Why is sex/nudity so taboo? It's all a part of our biological makeup like breating and eating. Why does naked David need to be censored? As if a 5 year old kid can't pull down his pants and see what's beteen his/her legs and question what it is... if they see a breast, why is that wrong? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a child saw two people having sex. Why do we think it will ruin them for life? "OMG, our son just saw boobs on tv... what are we going to do?!" :rolleyes:

Why are people so hung up on these trivial issues? There's no logical answer for any of it, so it needs to stop.

Violence makes more sense to control. I mean, you hear and see all kinds of crazy violence after 7 PM. CSI shows dead bodies all bloodied up and these same "crime" shows often show people getting shot. Why is it okay to feed those types of scenes to people, but it's not okay to show a nude woman taking a shower?

It's like anything else: if you don't want to see it, don't watch it. You KNOW what type of shows will show certain things. CSI showing violence - if you don't like violence, it doesn't take a genius to think, "Hey, maybe I shouldn't watch this show. Maybe Wheel of Fortune or a sitcom would suit me better." Or let's say that Desperate Housewives showed breasts/penis on occasion, you know damn well that watching a show like that could present you with these situations, so don't watch it. It's not really about what offends people, because they should be smart enough to stay away from the things that do offend them.

You KNOW that by listening to Howard Stern, you will most certainly be subjected to explicit sexual talk at times. You have to be pretty damn ignorant to not know that Howard Stern talks about such things, and he's a prime target for the FCC. The majority of his audience WANTS to hear these types of things, so saying, "well it's not fair to offend some people.." is absurd. Flat out, if you don't want to be offended, don't freakin listen to Howard Stern because you KNOW it's coming.. and when it does and you're still listening, you better keep that mouth shut because no one forced you to sit through it.

That's also why we have warnings and disclaimers on certain shows. Comedy Central shows completely UNCENSORED shows each and every saturday at 1 AM along with a warning. If you see the warning and continue to watch Chris Rock, or South Park the Movie, you really have no right complaining about it.

That's what I mean when I say this country is backwards and hypocritical. It baffles me as to why so many people can't think outside of the box and question these things.

KMA I think Mephisto does have a point. While yes, it is a small lunatic fringe that complains it appears they are listened to enough that allow the government to take control of situations. Perhaps it is because while the lunatic fringe speaks out there seems to be noone that truly has the power they have to demonstrate against them.

What amazes me are the people who cry there is too much government and yet they will gladly get the government involved in issues they want heard. What they need to think about is every time they get the gov't involved they allow more freedoms to be taken away or regulated.

Art, I respect you opinions and I believe anyone has the right in this country to demonstrate their cause whether it is against pornography or styrofoam or plastic army men. However, I strongly urge caution in these aspects for as I stated above, each time we demonstrate against something (and with the vast majority of people uncaring and unwilling to argue against the loss of rights, until it affects them and then it is too late), we lose rights and priveleges.

Granted today's world in many, many, ways is much bigger than the world of the past, but instead of regulating everything; temperence, understanding and acknowledgement of differences, is far more attractive then new laws. The problem we have in this country in reference to this topic is that people are more interested in what they want and not necessarily what is right for the whole.

I have always believed that nudity and non-seen referenced sex is far more appealing to me than the violence that is shown. To me showing children that the naked human body and sex is ok and not evil, immoral or disgusting, is far more important and better than allowing these kids to watch people get shot and killed and that is ok.

If the truth be truly exposed, I would venture to say far more people would be willing to watch sex than violence any day. It's in our advertising and sayings such as "sex sells". Yet, we have this group that makes sure the gov't regulates sex and doesn't touch the violence. Yet, violent video games are the biggest sellers.

What happens when you push sex out and say violence is ok, IMO, causes far more sexual crimes, far more perversion (because of the taboo idea), far more deviancy in regards to sex. And with the violence comes desensitization and copy catitis.

We need to find a middle ground a balance that works for the majority.

What authority do you (or anyone else) have to say if someone has the right to be or not be offended? People have the same right to be offended by the nude suits as others can be offended by the Ten Commandments being posted in front of a court building, or a baby Jesus being put in a christmas scene. Honestly, the reaction this INVESTIGATION OF A COMPLAINT has gotten makes me think the FCC might be on to something.

Fox actually faced one of the largest fines ($1 million, IIRC) for a dating show that they aired.

Stompy -

I couldn't *gasp* agree more with your points.

However, there is always going to be a "backwards and hypocritical" segment of any population. It is unavoidable.

Maybe we would be better served if we didn't lend credence to their absurd opinions and just ignored them? They won't go away, but maybe they will decrease. Everytime we discuss some rumour or ridiculous notion, we further bolster the already convoluted behavior of these people.

What power do these people hold? By the very nature of their excessive complaining, they will ultimately dilute their own arguments. We could get rid of them a lot more quickly by not granting them the audience we are giving them. We give them the power, not the government, every time we publicize their rantings.

The fact that it is one tiny group making almost every complaint tells me there isn't a problem.

As a general comment here, I'm chagrined at the lack of respect shown for people who may have a different way of looking at things than those who espouse popular libertarian and "freedom-of-expression" ideals. It's one thing to have strong feelings for one's own point of view. It's quite another to feel a need to deprecate and denigrate those who harbor positions different than one's own.

this is why we live in a free country to have the freedom to change the f*#@king channel. if you don't like it don't watch it. end of story!!!

mrb

Hypocritcal really...

Yeah I am soo comfortable with a comittie deciding what is best for me as well. I wonder if they think it is okay for me to shower twice a day? The government already regulates how much water (the water I pay for) can go into my toilet.

We Americans need less agencies, more people having the balls explaning to their kids embaressing stuff, and in general more people being responsable for themselves. I guess if ART needs a government babysitter appropriatly regulating what he can and can not see that is good for him, but I prefer to judge for myself.

That's pretty much my only reaction here. Any other reactions are overshadowed. I might've been inclined to debate or even agree with the point being made, if not for the immense childishness exhibited by several posters in this thread.

My mistake. I do have one other reaction.

Perhaps it's due to insufficient investigation on my part, but I have yet to find a coherent argument as to why Janet Jackson's breast qualifies as 'free speech'. Help me out here.

Ebonics. Shaking it says it all. :thumbsup:

May I assume from your comment that you do not have young children?

Thank you for pointing that out Alan, I truly hadn't heard that. So I guess noone is above the FCC.

I agree somewhat but this group does have strength in that, people don't stand up to them. One thing growing up I saw was the "boycott) movements that showed small groups could carry massive weight. Politicians see these groups and their powerful lobbyists and since there isn't as powerful a voice trying to bring sanity, the politicians will tend to agree with those most outspoken (because they feel that is where the majority must lie).

A politician can't know what everyone believes he has to go by what the most vocal group says, his party and the lobbyists. Is it right for them to do so? I don't know how one can argue against it. To get heard above this group and others, there must be a more vocal group (or a group as vocal) that stands up to them.

So your last statement, IMO, is the problem. Too many people think this is just a small group and therefore do not speak up, and this small group gets shows banned, regulations passed, fines levied and complaints heard.

It's a vicious system, but as I said, if a group as organized and as vocal could stand up things may change. Until there is a big enough stink against this group it shall continue to get what it wants.

I don't see why it's offensive. I don't think it's free speech, I think it's a body part. What is wrong with the human body, other than cultural taboos that have no basis in logic?

I have to agree that the fringe groups making these latest complaints do not represent most of us. However I find it ironic that I cannot (or will not from now on) see a woman's breast on a football halftime show but I can click over to the National Geographic channel or PBS and see all I want. Until recently I just assumed it was white breasts they were restricting, LOL.

Well, I, for one, amd still waiting for Dick Chenney to be fined for swearing on TV. (remember that one) There were plenty of complaints about that one. I guess maybe next time he'll have to flash more nipple.

And as for the FCC, yes, as i recall, it is an illegal operation. Its opressive government like this that forced us to go to war with England way back when to gain the freedoms we've had stripped from us over the last century. Its amazing how we can go from a compltely free people in 1776 to the mess we have now, and it sickens me

Thre have been a lot of claims on this thread saying things like "the small lunatic fringes have no power" or "don't assume we're all lunatics due to the few that have no power". But when we allow what these people say to become policy and law they do have power, and the power that matters. When a company can be fined millions of dollars due to the complaint of ONE PERSON (yes, reread that, i said ONE PERSON) then something is seriously flawed. Joe Scmoe can get any show he doesn't like removed from television/radio, have a company fined millions of dollars, and have licenses taken away that cost well over $50 million for use of airaves revoked all because he doesnt like the word "boner" or "crap". And i for one say that IS crap.

Law is FORCE. And we should have only as many laws as it takes to keep some semblance of order, and nothing more. Just one hundred years ago it was legal to kill another man in a duel. Today a man can't even say the word "tits" on tv or radio. If they do they are fined hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, and the company that allowed that man on television faces the same. Some may say that our forefathers didnt go to war and die just so i can say "tits". But those people are WRONG. They went to war and die so i can say any damn fool thing i want, and if someone doesnt like it then tough shit. (thats right i said shit, deal with it)

Live free or die! They are not just words to be brushed off.

Well, first of all, if it's "getting old" then don't read my posts and move along.

Secondly, I prefaced my statement with an apology as I knew it would possibly annoy some people.

Thirdly, unbeknownst to you and everyone else who read the initial post, I was drunk when I wrote this and my usual attempts to temper natural human exasperation were probably reduced.


I don't disagree.

Well, there's obviously enough to create a two page thread in the time it takes me to go out, get drunk with my friends, come home, read a story, post to TFP, get up the following morning and fly to Sydney...

All about 36 to 48 hours.

So it's obviously of sufficient enough interest to generate at least some debate. Feel free to move along yourself though... :)


I get so tired of hearing this kind of comment, bandied about as if America was the only country with freedoms. In fact, the US has more restrictive publicly accessible airwaves than most "Western" countries. But that's a whole different issue.

We're not.

What was the point of that last comment?


It's created a lot more debate than many other topics so far this week.


Mr Mephisto

you are correct, but if i did, that is why my cable company has given me enuf cheesy family, cartoon channels that that i can let them watch them instead. Or maybe no television at all. Read a book, play outside, take apart a puzzle. TURN OFF THE TV and learn different things. or talk to your children about sex/violence. this is so taboo in this society, but instead we decide to hide it on forums like this where we have the titty board...thats OK...What the F&#@K.

mrb

Things can be offensive even if they don't offend you personally. I like dead baby jokes, but they're clearly an offensive area.

I'm thinking that one possible basis is that it's not wise to overstimulate kids well before they're mature enough to handle the topic of sexuality, or their view on the matter could be unhealthily skewed. I just pulled that out of my ass, however. It may be BS.

The other reasons that come to mind are religious in nature.

Would you agree that public TV should be fined when they broadcast nudity without warning? What about cable TV, when the audience has no reason to expect nudity?

Would it be acceptable to ban nudity on public TV, but allow it with no restrictions on cable? (This is where I'm undecided, currently, leaning toward 'yes'.)

I'd like to add that the natural and unclothed nude human body is not something that I see, in itself, as objectionable in any way.

I do find the uses it is put to in the course of selling, pandering, advertising and otherwise pushing small-minded and often perverse agendas upon the public at large is something that is best regulated as to age and other appropriateness. The forces at work to manipulate us operate by testing the limits of decency laws and regulations, nudging them away, or flagrantly ignoring them. Many of these corporations and individuals are powerful and amoral.

To think that they might have untrammelled "right" to foist their products on everyone, at any time, in any place, and on any medium is understandably objectionable to many good citizens.

Well no one forces you to wear a t-shirt that says "CocaCola" on it, or paint an exxon logo on your car, or stick billboards on your front lawn advertising K-Mart. TV and Radio need to make their money someplace. Some choose to run commercials, they can be annoying. Some choose to interrupt their programming every 15 minutes witha 30 minute plee for money (like PBS), which i personally find much more annoying (atleast commercials TRY to be entertaining). If someone offered to pay be $5000 to wear a cocacola t-shirt every day for a week i would probably do it. If someone offered to pay me $50000 a month to have a billboard on my front lawn for K-Mart, what the hell, i would do it. But no one would force you to do it. In america it is your choice. Just like it is your choice to turn off the TV when the commercials come on, or go to get a snack when PBS starts begging for money. No one forces you to watch them.

If all of a sudden all indecency laws were trown out a bunch of people may put naked folks in their commercials. And it may work for a while, sure. People would get to talking, peopel would watch the jiggle. But after a while it would lose its appeal and they would have to use anothr means to grab your attention. Because if everyone is naked, its no longer anything special and it wont catch your eye. As of right now its taboo, so even the thought that some female MAY have nipples under her sweater+undershirt+bra is appealing. BEcause rightnow, people never see a titty. People will sell their mother to see one. But once they're everywhere who would really care if they see one more pair jiggling on tv? Or some guy's wang flopping around trying to sell chicken nuggets. People may actually stop to think "hey, do i actually NEED this item?" Imagine that.

Ask a kid in france how cool a titty is. I'd be suprised if many really give a damn. They go to the beach and they're everywhere. They see their mother's boobs, they see their grandmother's boobs, they see their sister's boobs. MOST FEMALES HAVE bOOBES, and the vast majority have nipples. It's a fact, look it up.

I should probably mention that i don't mean to offend, and that my posts are directed at everyone who reads them. Also if i happen to put up a counter-arguement to something someone mentioned in their post it's more of an in general reply on the subject and not a jab at anyone personally. I take this subject VERY seriously, and my posts can seem harsh, but I'm not trying to insult anyone. I take the blatant oppression of anyone as a personal assault on myself. Be it the fining of one person for saying a word or showing a boob, or the fining of entire companies by the government for the allowance of free speech or having sexual organs. This is supposed to be the land of the free. Not the land of babysitters or censorship.

People need to lay off using "children" as an argument for everything. Just because people aren't good at monitoring what their children watch doesn't mean everyone else should deal with the consequences.

There's been something out for quite a while now called a VChip that lets you control what your children watch. If you don't have it, look into getting it. The TV rating system exists for a reason, use it.

If you don't want to get it, then be a better parent and monitor what they watch if you honestly believe a breast is going to scar them for life :thumbsup:

Just wait till they hit their teens and *gasp* see them for themselves. What then? You're gonna go nuts.

I think this is a really good argument. For instance, here in Sweden, people just don't care very much if a breast och butt is shown on TV. Why? Because it's natural. Everyone has them. Nudity does not necessarily equal sexual situations. Swedes in general have the belief that violence is less damaging than a couple of boobs. With that said, I'd still wouldn't let my 8-year old (That is, if I had children) watch Sex and the city...

Your title and first sentence is what set me off. I didn't see anything prefaced with an apology. However, your BAC definitely shines light as this is not your usual way of introducing a topic. I have grown accustomed to your fixation on American politics, but I didn't expect you to label an entire country as mad based on some whiney group lodging a complaint. So, I withdraw part of my comments based on the new information you have provided.

I liken this to several other threads in here that are trying to paint ugly pictures prematurely.

/very suprised at the length of this thread, all because someone complained, not because anything actually became of the complaint.
//can't help but look, its like a car accident.

First off, they shouldn't be watching a show that could potentially have nudity. Let's say a show at 9PM showed nudity, the parent should know better than to let their kid watch it if it really bothers them that much.

Another aspect is, how and why would it harm a child to see, for example, a nude woman in a shower? Like I said in another post, they can just as easily go to the bathroom and glance between their legs and wonder what the hell is goin on down there.

Those reasons shouldn't really matter, as religion shouldn't be shoved in the faces of others.

[quote]Would you agree that public TV should be fined when they broadcast nudity without warning? What about cable TV, when the audience has no reason to expect nudity?[quote]

If it's completely unexpected, then sure... but if it's a show that WARNS about these scenes, then no, because you know ahead of time the type of show you're watching. If you're watching sunday morning cartoons and all of a sudden some porn clip is shown, fine away. If you're watching some show on fox that shows a woman's breast, say, temptation island, then no, because why else would you watch that show? The whole premise of the show is about sexuality. You can't knowingly watch something like that then turn around and complain. (I'm not saying *you*, just people in general).

I see no logical reason why nudity or swearing should be censored period, as long as they're in their proper places.

I mentioned Howard Stern in a past post, but let's say he had a late night show on NBC that showed women topless... now why would you watch that show KNOWING what Howard Stern is all about, then get all huffy and pissed when breasts are shown? That's what the majority of his audience wants.

It's not like it's a sudden shock and surprise when he does something like that.

I feel that as long as proper warnings are in place, anything goes. If your show contains swearing, nudity, and violence, display a warning before and after each commercial break.. or, display the rating for the show in the lower left hand corner of the screen, so that way when someone flips to the channel, they can easily determine whether or not the show they are watching contains something that could potentially offend them.

The only issue I have is when I get caught off guard, which happens often on network TV as they try and push the envelope as much as possible.

I have finally had to set rules as to what channels can be watched (customizable remote--great invention for kids).

Then, I got caught off guard by Nickelodeon.

I have young children who think talking about farting is funny and appropriate. In an effort to teach manners, I tell them that what they are saying isn't polite. Then what happens, Nick goes into a three minute tirade/spoof into farting, which practically negates any improvements I may have made with my kids.

There was a time when the whole family could sit and watch shows together in the evening. I look back fondly at the "special" night when I could eat my dinner on a TV tray and watch a network show in the evening with my parents.

Cosby Show?
Murder She Wrote?
Family Ties?
Dukes of Hazard?
Fall Guy?
TJ Hooker?
SWAT? (yeah, my dad is a cop, so cop shows where o.k. in our house)
etc., etc., etc. (sure they are corny now, but they were shows the entire family could watch, together, without worrying about content).

Can I do this now with my kids? Not that I am aware of. I enjoy several network shows, but there isn't one that I would let me kids watch.

In our house, movies are slowly taking over TV stations as I can be more sure of the content.

Kids of today need G.I. Joe and Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles.

Teletubbies are members of the occult.

Taken together, I agree with this. The caveat: nudity, and to a lesser extent, swearing, is not expected on network TV. The same goes for quite a few cable channels. Effectively, I would consider that implicative of a ban, unless advance warning is given and given very conspicuously. They're not considered proper places.

I agree with the general idea of leaving it up to the parents, but I don't approve of leniency that makes it unreasonably hard for the parents to monitor the situation. Perhaps we agree here? We're close, at any rate.

For those that are still echoing the 'free speech' mantra, I'd still like to hear how Janet's breast constitutes free speech in any way, shape, or form.

[QUOTE=Mr Mephisto]Sorry if I sound terse, but what the fuck is wrong with America?!!

Grown accustomed to my "fixation on American politics"?! Goodness, that pretty close to a condescending remark. Others are interested, but I'm "fixated"?

With regards to the actual topic at hand, let me offer this for further consideration.

This story absolutely refers to a silly complaint by a (right-wing?) interest group. Of course it should be reviewed by the FCC, as that is their job. Equally, of course it should not be considered reflective of the whole of America.

But, and this is a big but, the fact remains that America and American media ARE becoming more conservative. You simply cannot argue that fact. That's the underlying tenet of this thread. I believe it's ridiculous that the country that spends the same amount on hardcore pornography that it spends on foreign aid, that has the most violent entertainment media industry in the world, that is in the top 5 countries for murder with firearms (fourth after South Africa, Columbia and Thailand!) still goes mental because some singer's tit flops out on TV.

That is the issue. The inexorable "conservativization" of the US media.

So, perhaps the way I couched my original question was a bit provocative (no more provocative than you labeling me fixated, in my humble opinion), but the original story is useful as a foil with which to debate the issue.


Mr Mephisto

and that, mr mephisto, is why i understand this kind of "dispute" as trivial in itself--a diversionary border dispute tripped by a far right religious group that is moving its way through the usual channels--this kind of thing functions as noxious in itself, but also to give a false impression of the slide rightward in american television (in particular), which has been underway for some time at (for example) the level of the leaking of conservative discourse into the frame of reference used by news writers to interpret information.

that seems to me the central political problem involving the dominant media in the states--the mechanisms are multiple, and quite well-known--the only thing they have in common is alot of funding.

given the above, the question of whether a cluster of fundamentalist protestant nitwits have decided that athenian and roman sculpture from--say--the 5th c. bc to the 5th c. ad are somehow offensive really is not that big a deal. what matters about them is not that they exist--such nitwits have always been around--but that they are now more organized than ever and are asserting their theocratic views on the rest of us along a number of fronts, including this one. and that they feel powerful enough to attempt to assert their views. which is in itself fine--but you have to fit them within the broader, increasingly reactionary climate that accompanies these stages of the decline of the american empire--without that, they would not matter.

Perhaps.
Perhaps not.

Why not acknowledge there are some of us who have atttempted to create a sensible rationale for the potential implications of the incident in question? We've broadened the discussion, as you know. Instead of marginalizing this, I'd suggest acknowledging the good folks whose opinions on the implications of this do not fall within the category of people who seem to be the focus of derision here.

Such as ARTelevision's website????

Is not some of the "pornography" on the site for your commercial gain? Or is it not a "pay" site? Or do you not consider yourself a commercial operation?

joeb1 -

I don't envy you for the can of worms you just opened. You will notice that what Art does and how he does it is very artistic. I would guess that by using the label "pornographic" that you stepped in a good one here.

Mr. M. -

Honestly, I was so set off by the title and the WTF part that I completely missed the "sorry" part. I even looked at it a couple of times and missed it every time.

First, I think I might disagree with the foreign aid comment. I haven't been able to find a good source for numbers, but most of the info I saw doesn't seem to back up that comment.

And yes, I used the "fixated" comment on purpose, as well as the loose Irish and Austrailian analogies. I wasn't being condecending, I was being pointed. Saying someone is fixated is hardly a derogatory remark. Especially when it is true.

As far as the "conservatization" of the American Media. Huh? I hardly think the entire media establishment is leaning to the right. If that was the case, the likes of CBS and CNN would shrivel up and die.

What you see involves popularity. Media outlets that lean to the conservative side are becoming more and more popular. Fox kills every other cable news outlet time and time again in the ratings. What does that mean? It means that Fox is providing a product that people want more than the other competing products. If Americans didn't want a news outlet like Fox, then Fox's numbers wouldn't be anywhere near where they are. They would be closer to the now defunct Phil Donahue Show on MSNBC.

But I really cannot see the increasing popularity of the likes of FoxNews as an indication that our whole media establishment is turning conservative. Especially when you have a fiasco like CBS and the "memo".

Now, if you are sitting extreme left of left (which many here are), than even Nancy Pelosi comes across as conservative. However, you will find that such an opinion will not hold any water with any decent number of Americans.

And, I will be pointed here, others show an interest our politics, your interest is considerably more. I am not saying you shouldn't say what you do or that you are wrong, I just have never seen a non-American go out of their way, time and time again, to point out the flaws in someone else's country. Again, I am not criticizing you for it, I am pointing out my own observation as you clearly stand out in this category. It is fairly safe to say that, if a new thread is created by Mr. Mephisto in the Politics Forum, there is a 90%+ chance that it will be anti-Bush in some way or another.

Usually I ignore such threads. This one got my attention because it tried to define my country based on a complaint of a fringe group.

While I welcome the debate, I hardly think that America as a whole can be labeled because of it. Also, I see no evidence, whatsoever, that America is becoming "conservative". I live here. If my country were becoming as conservative as some people would like to assume, I would be jumping for joy. As it were, I am not jumping, nor do I foresee any jubilant bouts of jumping in the future.

Heh, at least I am honest about it.

/could give two shits if a boob pops out on TV or not
//I censor the TV my kids watch for reasons other than nudity

Anything, at any given time can be found offensive to anyone. There is someone above (sorry didn't want to pull a quote just for this) who thinks dead baby jokes are funny. That is his right. I find Sam Kinison to this day hilarious even though I've heard everything he's ever recorded about 1,000 times. That is my right.

I understand having to protect children but unlike any other "free" country that I know of we go above and beyond to pass laws against people's rights for "the children". Yet, we have the highest juvenile crime rate, the highest teenage homocide rates, the highest drug use among teens, the highest teen pregnancy rates and so on and so on and so on.

We feed our kids ritilin and other drugs because they are "hyper" and we just can't control them. We sit our kids in front of the television to babysit them and we don't pay attention to what they watch, but all of a sudden when we see something, offensive to us, we freak. We find nothing wrong with buying our children video games where they must kill graphically. I have yet to hear of (and I maybe wrong) a television show being fined for being too violent in nature.

My point is we are lazy when it comes to our kids. We are turning over how we raise them to the government, we use them to get what laws and control we want from the gov't.

These people who usually complain about the children and what they must endure, are in most cases the ones who vote down school issues. Think we have too many services paid for by taxes to help kids and believe most parents in lower incomes don't deserve children.

I find it all very hypocritical. It is the parents who must be held responsible not society and not the government.

If you can't find something on television for your children to watch at at 10PM, when they should be in bed, then buy a video, because with all the choices out there, there is no reason to cry to Uncle Sam to dictate what the rest of us can watch.

If your children can't listen to a radio at 8:30 AM because a few stations in your area have Stern and Stern wannabes on, you need to ask WHY aren't they in school (and when I was a kid I had far more to do than listen to a radio during breaks, like sleepovers, sleeping in, going outside and playing, socializing, etc) and why can't you turn the station? Why must society be punished for your beliefs?

Yet, I'm sure you have no problem letting those same kids play violent video games.

We have gotten so bad out here that a child can threaten the non-abusive but punitive parent, "If you punish me, I'll go to children's services and tell them."(direct quote I have heard a child say.)

I cannot help it that the complainers out there have no life and feel they must get their agendas shoved down my throat. They just have no right to dictate to me and to the majority what we can or cannot see or hear on our televisions and radios.

No problem.

I'll dig up the specific references when I get back to Perth. I'm in Sydney at present. In the meantime, the point is detailed in a book called Fifty facts that should change the world by Jessica Williams, ISBN 0-9729529-6-9 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...651205-6339312). An interesting read on many levels. It has copious footnotes to support each "fact". I'll post them when I return to Perth over the weekend.

Emphasis added.

I don't think I'm immature or pathological. Neither do I believe I'm neurotic. I also do not post exclusively on American politics.

Therefore, it is not true and it IS insulting. However, that's not the point. I had (perhaps naively) thought my engagement in this forum was welcome and that it was noted that I try to maintain a fair balanced point of view; notwithstanding my obvious political leanings. I go out of my way to correct myself when proven wrong or to apologize if my facts are presented in an partisan manner. I can refer, for example, to my thread on the US deficit where I took your criticism as entirely valid. I also note that you deigned not to reply to me on that thread (if memory serves me correctly).

Perhaps "conservatization" was the wrong term. Or at least, I didn't mean it in the political sense it has come to imply these days. By conservative, I meant in a social or sexual manner. CBS and CNN are not dying out, but they sure as hell are being more careful with any dipiction of the human form, reproduction, pregnancy and any other "sexual" subject matter than they were before Bush was elected.

What I see is media outlets responding to massive fines imposed by the FCC at the instigation of the Bush Administration. No more. No less.

It's nothing to do with news. It's got to do with the Administration trying to impose it's "mores" on the majority. Of course, that's just my opinion. :) One shared by many others "fixated" on US politics and society too you know.

Well, though this is not the point, let me answer that statement. If a conservative news station is getting increasingly popular and consistently outrating other stations... then by simply logical definition US media IS becoming more conservative. Anyway, that's not really my point so let's move on.

You've got to be kidding me, right?

I have consistently stated that the world benefits from the US. I admire your country greatly. I think it's a force for good in the world. It does a HUGE amount of good. And I have gone on record as saying that over and over again.

But I do find the current Administration is "damaging" America's reputation overseas. Many of the US boardmembers here agree.

So, because I'm not American, I can't comment on the current Administration? Or more accurately, that I'm prejudiced if I do? Don't you think that's a little bit restrictive of you?

Oh but you are. And if I stand out on this category, it's because as one of the "liberal" or "anti-Bush" posters, I go out of my way to see both sides and to accept when I'm wrong and when BushCo do good.

Personally, I don't think it is fair to say that. But, even if the figures agree, being "anti-Bush" is not the same as being "anti-American". If that was the case, you should also be criticising around 50% of your own countrymen and women.

No it didn't. It used a story to create debate on a real topic.

So you don't see a movement to "clean up the airwaves"? Hmmmm... maybe all the stories I'm reading are complete bunkum. Maybe the FCC didn't fine stations for trivial matters that, prior to Bush, would have warranted a rap over the knuckles. Maybe I, and the many people who agree with me in this thread, are mistaken.

Maybe.


Mr Mephisto

Dostoevsky can attest to the massive sum that nationalized/public artistic and cultural sites cost the people every year in France.

Simply put, humans in general have so much more potential, the pie has to be divided up between those who enrich lives and those who advance culture. At some point, culture is going to lose out in national policy circles. I'd rather have artists relegate the paintbrush to their evenings if it means we solve more serious social concerns like conflict, hunger, disease..art is a wonderful way to convey and evoke emotion, but it does little to feed the hungry.

Art will survive, and it will continue to progress, and there will never be a concensus as to what is acceptable. There must be limits on what is acceptable, however, and you cannot say that all the random nudity in Europe is because nudity is man's natural state, and that's a good thing to show when you're selling food. Nudity is evocative, no matter how "accepted" it is in one's culture.

I also don't see the US having mass media seizures like the UK does, for instance, when it deems material like metal music inappropriate (Read the booklet inside Metallica's "Garage Days Revisited").

word.

Sorry, I was a little ambiguous.
I meant to say that I'd rather have artists relegate painting,etc., to "side" activities in favor of a more generally accepted "constructive" job like nursing, teaching, or farming. We're not yet in any kind of a situation that would warrant that kind of change, but hypothetically...

I just want to point out that most people do not normally think that the Olympics and Superbowl are going to have nudity. They are also typically broadcast before 9 pm.

I was watching PTI the other day, it was the tuesday after TO's skit with Nicolette Sheridan. Wilbon made a very good point. People get all up in arms about Jackson's boob or Sheridan's half breast, yet no one is really up in arms about the fact the superbowl is one gigantic commercial for erectial dysfunction.

No arguement there. I find the thought inducing comments made by ART on this board really do add an amazing view of the human psyche. :thumbsup:

My previous post was in no way a swipe at him personally or artistically. Just trying to get him and others to see. That if we allow the FCC to control every aspect of censorship. All forms of media??? What is next?

Now granted the internet is different for now. So If we give them too much control. When will enough be enough? So at some time he will have to pull all display's of flesh the non pay part of his site.

Look at the religous zealots in my area. (Bob Jones) That have taken priceless works of art and painted their own fig leaves to cover the private parts of some amazing pieces of art. Disturbing, but a view of censorship at it's best.

I find nothing wrong with ARTelevision or his website.

But what happens when somebody's kid accidentally links to it. The child might see more than his parents want him or her to. Is this the kids fault? The parents? The FCC or governing body of the internet?

I don't find it offensive. But this is all in the eyes of the beholder. What might be consisdered "artistic" to me and you. Will be considered "pornographic" by others.

Janet Jackson did not bother me. I'm just glad it was Janet and not Michael. It's hard to tell the two apart lately. :lol: :lol: (this is a joke.. so please don't take it the wrong way!)

I just want to point out that an international event, hosted, managed, filmed and produced in a country other than the US should not have to "water down" their ceremonies for the more sensitive US tastes.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with a stylized represenation of a pregnant women. To say otherwise is rediculous. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with a stylized representation of ancient Greek Kouros statues.

Should museums like the Getty be banned from allowing children to enter?


Mr Mephisto

Mr. M -

You're blowing my point(s) way out of proportion. You will notice, of course, that there are several different definitions for "fixate"--you chose the words you didn't like, I never tried to infer you were neurotic or the like. Also, I am in no way suggesting that you are not wanted here, nor do I want you to think I want you to go away. That was hardly the point of my post.

HOWEVER

Please do not try and pass yourself off as objective. You are as slanted as I am, just the opposite direction. You are usually pretty fair with your opinion, yes, I will wholeheartedly agree with that. And yes you are one of the first people to admit when you are wrong. But I have never, ever, ever seen you give "Bushco" a fair shake. I do, however, see you go out of your way to critique "Bushco" regardless of the facts or lack thereof. (keep in mind, I don't particularly like the guy either)

Case in point: The FCC

Why is it just Bush that catches the heat here? The most successful censorship campaign that I am aware of was launched by the wife of a leading Democrat: Tipper Gore. Another leading Democrat has launched many efforts to "censor" Hollywood as well: Joe Leiberman. This is hardly a conservative vs. liberal issue like some want it to be.

But, that's just not as fun as making us conservatives out to be evil and repressive.

Anyway, the best number I can get on US Foreign Aid is around .6% of GDP which puts the number around $10B. It seems that every source for porn revenue had a different number. Here is what I found on Forbes:
"[Pornography] is an industry where they exaggerate the size of everything."

Anyway, it is moot because we are consistently in the top four for dollar amount of foreign aid. I don't see much praise for the amount, rather I see constant criticism that we should be giving away more money. I give about as much credibility to complaints about America as you give to the complaints made by the PTC.

Lastly, so what if any part of America is adopting conservative core values? Why do you care? It is not like any of the people adopting this position are being forced to do so. There is no gun pointed at my head forcing me to believe in the core values I adhere to, I do it because I want to. But yet, you want to label us as "mad"? (c'mon, you can't possibly think that with your title and opening line that someone wasn't going to be bothered--regardless of the BAC).

That is what really bothers me here. I am very conservative, very pro-family and not even a teency bit religious. Yet, for what I believe, I get people telling me "WTF" and "you're mad".

And, to go back to a point I made previously, I cannot watch TV with my family in the evenings unless it is a DVD. Unlike when I was a kid, there is almost nothing on any network channel that I would consider o.k. for my kids to watch.

There is also a (so much for lastly) reason I chose to bring this up with you. Of the people that share your biases, you are the most likely to actually respond intelligently. There are many, many people here I would love to say similar things to, but that would be an utter waste of time. Usually, with you, I can bring this up and it is responded to appropriately. You must notice, also, that I am one of the few conservatives that has admitted errors. By my own nature I hate to admit, but I do nonetheless.

I will try another word, how is that? I am confused by your attentiveness to the failings, as you see them, of my country. I can see here or there comments, I am just trying to understand the continual comments.

O.k. - the "lastly" thing is officially out the window. I can never be accused of not talking enough.

I just read your last post.

To me, it is a non-issue unless the FCC actually finds in favor of the complaint. We could go nuts trying to debate every complaint made by someone here in the US. Complaints mean nothing. They can be lodged by anybody, regardless of their social/economic/political persuasion. I complain about stupid shit all the time, it doesn't mean my babbling needs to be taken seriously.

I'm well aware that some of what we do on our own website can be considered pornographic.

I would never defend shoving it in anyone's face who didn't want it. We are highly conscious of age-appropriateness as regards content.

I also support the validity of those with opinions who oppose what I do.

As for commercial gain - the costs of the site far outweigh any small amount of "income" it has ever produced - this is publically documented. The site doesn't constitute commercial interest or mass media by any definition of the terms.

Personally, as an artist, I have made public statements - quoted in the Village Voice, for example - stating my total opposition to public funding for the arts. The simple fact is that my ideas are neither doctrinaire nor self-serving as is often assumed to be case - and is indeed often the case - with other artists. I do not take the positions commonly associated with my colleagues in the arts.

Agreed. I'd like to add that here, as well as in society at large, the people without children have all the answers in regard to raising them.

I will only say this about those 2 particular events.

On JJ, I do not agree with what was done (and yes it was intentional), however, I watched the game and the halftime show and it happened so fast that I believe a vast majority would not have even thought about what happened had it not been for the outcry.

On the Olympics, upon which this thread is based, the opening games were done in a foreign country paying tribute to their heritage. I see nothing wrong if the television crew did not focus on the nudity in and of itself. If they did, then perhaps one of the cable sister stations were more appropriate, but that would not be because the opening was perverted but because the crew tended to focus on something they knew would offend people.

I also find it funny that this is some 3-4 months after and I am just now hearing about this issue. If it had been so big of an issue I would have thought people would have been making a big thing of it when it happened. But then again election year and all......

That's the thing, no one's shoving it in anyone's face. I'm not sure why people keep saying that, as if someone is forcing your eyes open making you watch it all. There are tons of shows that are TV-MA

Someone has to make a conscious choice to click on "titty board" or any of the other adult-oriented links. Someone doesn't click on "Titty Board" then sit back in awe, shocked and angered because pornographic images were shown.

If they were automatically presented with those images upon login, different story.

The same applies to TV. If you're watching something like "Temptation Island" and it just so happened to show nudity, no one is forcing anything upon anyone due to the very nature of the show. If the person would get offended at those images to begin with, they wouldn't be watching the show period. I'm sure my grandma gets offended at those types of images, but you'll never see her watching Temptation Island. She KNOWS what it is.

I'm not quite sure why people are so against the "if you don't like it, don't watch it" idea. Coupled with warnings like I've mentioned for the past few posts, there's simply no excuse for anyone to be caught off guard.

I'm sure you agree with the idea of "If you aren't aware a law exists and you break it, you should get punished regardless. Ignorance is not an excuse." The same should apply to tv. If you're not smart enough to at least briefly research or lookup the show you are watching, that's not an excuse and you need to deal with the consequences. It needs to go both ways.

[edit]
Also, I would blame the rating system we have. I've caught a glimpse at CSI here and there, and being rated TV-PG, it shows quite a bit that you wouldn't show in a PG movie... more like PG-13 borderline R. The system exists for a reason, they need to use it.

When did I ever try to do so.

Agreed. As is almost everyone here; even those who support the Libertarians.

Regardless of the facts or lack thereof? Well, that's a matter of opinion really, isn't it?

I don't really know what you mean by "giving him a fair go" in anycase. I disagree with most of what he does.

Do I praise him for the good things he does? Absolutely. The one that jumps out at me is the unprecendented amount of aid he has given (or released) to fight AIDS in Africa. In this respect he has put all of his predecessors (including Clinton who I greatly respect) to complete and utter shame.

I've also gone on record saying that I think he's a fundamentally good man doing what his conscience dictates and what he believes is right. I happen to disagree with most of what he does, but I do not think he's some evil conspirator trying to take over the world; that role is taken by Cheney... :-)

So, when I have a certain political position and I feel Bush embodies almost everything I loathe about capitalism and globalization run riot, then it's only to be expected that I criticise him. I'm more than willing to give him praise, when said praise is due. Give me some examples and I'll happily do so.

Therefore, the use of the phrase "never, ever ,ever" is a bit inappropriate. At least in my opinion. :)


Well, it was the Bush Administration that I was targetting. And they get the heat because they acted after pressure from the AG.

That's why.

And I would equally condemn these instances if I knew about them. But I react to news stories to which I'm exposed. And I've not seen any description of any of the above.

I respect conservatism. I disagree with it, but I respect it. Indeed, the older I get the more conservative I become myself. However, I'm at heart a liberal. I've gone on record as stating that I DON'T think conservatives are "evil and repressive". Why paint me with the same broad brush-strokes you rail against yourself?

Like I said, I'll post the references when I get home and can find them. I at least included a link to the book where I read the comment, and specifically didn't simply make a throwaway comment. Again I believe this is an example of trying to ensure I at least support my contentions with reasons.

Yes, but as a percentage of GDP, which is the most appropriate measure, you are far below what you should be. At number 21 globally, you lag behind much smaller countries like Ireland (13), Australia (15), Finland (9), France (7) etc. The full graph can be found at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_gdp

Having said that, the $6.9 billion you gave in 1997 comes only second to that of Japan (measured in 1999).

So, the fact that you pay less than other countries, as a percentage of GDP and therefore as a real measure of what you can afford, is not something to be really proud of.

What IS worth being proud of is your exemplary (and very recent) record on helping fight AIDS in Africa, as I have already mentioned.

You should be giving more money. If smaller countries can afford, then so can you. Plus the fact that the US committed to do so. Let me add that no one is perfect here. Nearly all UN countries are failing in their obligation to contribute 0.7% of their GDP.

Because American policy affects me. Like everyone else on this planet. That's why.

Plus, I'm interested. Sorry if that bugs you, but I am. I like a healthy debate. As I've said before, I'm more than happy to debate British politics, Australian politics, Kurdish and Iraqi politics, the future of the UN, the pros and cons of NASA funding and human expansion into the solar system, the likelihood of FTL travel and ET intelligence, the appropriateness of compensation for 9/11 families... the list goes on. And that's just on this Politics Board.

I still don't understand why you have a bee in your bonnet about my posts. But it's unfair to single me out and spend more time in this thread attacking my position and record than debating the facts. Such criticisms would be better suited targetted at some of the more extreme "left-wingers" here. And believe me, there's plenty of those.

Fair point and duly noted. I don't think you're mad. You're entitled to your opinion. Out of curiousity, do you believe a (clothed) pregnant women is obscene? Or a Korous statue?

That's unfortunate. Is it sexual content or violence that you object to? I tend to agree, by the way, that some content is inappropriate for young kids. That's why we have the so-called "watershed" here and in Ireland/UK.


Thank you for the compliment! It was a compliment, right?

I guess I just like a good debate. I honestly do not mean to insult you or your country.


Mr Mephisto

I don't want to get into your debates because the 2 of you are making very good points.... somtimes off topic and sometimes trying to draw blood from the other but you BOTh are being pretty good and civil.

However I just want to say one thing in regard to other country's citizens following our politics, and in some cases moreso than a majority of our own citizenry.

THE US is the big kahuna. Before when we had the USSR we had to play nice and since they fell we have had leaders on both sides of the aisle very adamnant towards our interests and saying screw the world.

So, I can see why people in other countries would want to watch what we do and take a deep interest as our policies, whether we here in the States see it or not, affect the world and other countries.

It's the same as why some of us watch other countries governments, the interest in what they are doing and how it will affect us.

just my 2 cents.

As much as I hate AOL-isms, I actually laughed out loud on this one. Yes, you are right.

No, not on either case. I honestly cannot think of an instance where I would see nudity as obscene. Now appropriate is a different topic altogether.

Sometimes sexual, although my kids are a little too young to even understand the concept. I am mostly concerned about violence/images(non-sexual)/language/actions. I put a lot of effort into raising my kids and helping them become future positive members of our community. I am very proud of the fact that one of the first words for each of my kids was "please" or "thank you". I don't want to have to compete with the television for placing and instilling morals and ethics in my kids. I am mostly concerned with how kids portrayed on TV treat their parents and one another. After a couple of mimicking events of behaviour unbecoming of anybody, several shows on Nickelodeon are not allowed in my house. There are several other "kids" shows that are not allowed as well (on different channels).

The fact that I have to monitor a kids network, concerns me greatly. I can only think of one channel that I have confidence in and that is PBS--the kids shows are excellent, educational, uplifting, etc.

In a nutshell, I don't want my kids to think that most of the behavior they see on TV is appropriate or acceptable (and, unfortunately, most of it is--however, I don't condone censoring it--that is my job, not the government's).

What is "watershed"?

I guess that was my entire point. I suppose a more accurate post title would have been [Small but vocal minority interest group in America] gone mad :)

I can understand that. But, at the same time, you can't shield them from the world forever. Once they step outside that door and begin to go to school, then they will be exposed to lots of bad influences.

With regards to TV shows, it's funny you should say that. I was just talking to Mrs Mephisto last week about how "in my day", we watched TV shows like "Bill and Ben, the Flowerpot Men" (a very quirky, but entirely harmless British TV show with absoutely no violence) or "Andy Pandy" (ditto). Now it's all violence and Ninja Mutant Turtles and Transformers and other junk. SIGH I miss the innocent days of my youth, and I'm still only in my 30's!

But I have no problem with the non-sexual representation of nudity. Two things I don't like on TV during "children's viewing times" and that is cursing and pointless violence.

What about the show 7th Heaven? Isn't that geared specifically to conservative, Christian and/or family friendly parents? I have to admit Mrs Mephisto and I even watch it sometimes, even though it can be cringe-makingly corny. haha

The watershed basically stipulates that before a certain time (usually 9PM), TV shows must maintain a certain standard. After that time, it is considered adult viewing (not porn, but adult subject matter) and TV shows can include sex, violence cursing etc.

Here in Australia, they preface each show with a rating. PG, M, MA and explicitly state whether the show includes violence (V), sexual references (S), coarse language (L), nudity (N) etc. It's quite clear to the viewer.

In other words, no watershed in Australia, but simple ratings. In the UK and Ireland, no ratings but assumption that content after 9PM is unsuitable for young children.

Either system works. I prefer the watershed myself, as it's less likely kids will be at home alone and watcing M shows when you're out.


Mr Mephisto

I wouldn't argue with that at. Especially since my parents fall in this category. Sometimes these people are just nutty--and I grew up in that culture.

Well, they are young and I fall into the "overly protective" category. I look at it this way: now, and for the near future, is the time for me to protect/shape/etc. My hope is that when they leave the fold, they remember they way in which they were raised.

Kids are too young right now, they wouldn't get the show (and I have never watched it). Right now we are in the Blue's Clues, SpongeBob, Dora the Explorer genre. My oldest does like to watch reruns of the show with the Olson twins--the name escapes me right now.


As I said earlier in this thread, I don't give much credence to these types of complaints. I think it will end up backfiring on them like the whole Teletubbie thing backfired on Falwell (at least, I think it was Falwell). Most Americans (I hope) are smart enough to see that this is far from obscene.

Absolutely the parents' responsibility. If you can't parent your child during their "TV time," there shouldn't be a TV time. Indeed, you likely shouldn't be a parent.

(Some might read this and scorn my harsh tone, but I kid you not: bad parenting--not our lack of education, our graphic TV shows, our evil music, our violent games--is the fundamental reason why a huge and growing proportion of today's youth (even counting individuals at old as 30) are ignorant, lazy, short-sighted, and are host to a number of other emotional, social, and psychological ailments.)

Sorry, I hope I didn't come across the wrong way here. I wouldn't expect you to be otherwise. It was just a kinda whistful comment on how innocence is always lost. I utterly respect your goal to raise your children the right way; something sadly lacking in a large minority of parents these days.

Indeed, as an expectant father myself, I suspect I would give you a good run for your money when it comes to "over protectiveness".

Just ask me in 6 months... :)


Mr Mephisto

My two sons are grown - for whatever that experience was worth as far as helping to form this opinion. Instead, I think it comes from my study and research of the actual power of mass media upon our minds.

I do not think it is at all reasonable - given the multi-billion dollar motivation and behavior research, advertising, and media-influence budgets that are behind shaping the culture and therefore the consciousness of all of us, especially including the impressionable and peer-senstitive minds of children - to promulgate the idealistic myth that parents have some magical power to isolate their kids from the corrosive effects of mass-media culture by simply "being good parents" or by proactively attempting to work counter to the prevailing cultural and media influences. To think so is to my mind absolutely wishful thinking and an easy way to simply blame a couple of individuals at a time for the appallingly mindless, consumer-oriented, manipulated, and mind-numbed state of our citizens, society, culture, consciousness, and behavior.

Just to add to this slightly, in the UK we do have ratings but usually they aren't categorised. There is almost always a quick verbal warning from a narrator-type-person-thing just before any program that has content worth warning about, even after the watershed. It's a fairly good system, but I assumed all countries had their own equivalent. Is this not true of America?

Personally, I think the problem lies between what Art and macmanmike6100 said.

I see many, many cases where the fault clearly lies on the parent(s).

I also see many cases where the problem was unavoidable.

Here is one personal example:

Back when we just had our one daughter, both my wife and I worked. Because of that, my daughter had to go to day care. While I wasn't happy with the idea, I didn't feel we had the choice.

That is, until dinner time one night.

My 2 year-old pointed her finger at me and said, "BANG-BANG, you're dead!"

She didn't learn that from home.

The next day, we sold our second car, made plans to move to a smaller, less expensive place and we never had any of our kids in day care again (there were other problems with day care, this one just really stood out)--one parent was always home during the day.

Also, while it sort-of falls into the "parental" problem side: How do I watch over my kids when they are at someone else's house? Someone, let's say, who doesn't necessarily share my views on TV/Movie standards? Do I not allow my kids to play at their friend's houses? Nope, can't really do that, now can I?


And, to comment on a point made earlier in this thread: Yes, it is about the kids.

We are adults. We should be able to make our own decisions regarding what we see/saw/watch/etc. What we see/hear/read shouldn't have too much of an effect on us.

Kids are still having their minds formed. They are still learning about who they are and where they are going. They still need the guidance that we, the parents, are supposed to provide them.

They are the true innocents and must be protected (because they can't protect themselves--age related of course) or we risk even worse problems down the road in our society.