Christian Fundamentalist Pornography?

[Manx]

(Some links are potentially NSFW. Or maybe all links are NSFW. Or none of them - you tell me.)

What makes <a href="http://www.howardstern.com/">this fantasy</a> or <a href="http://www.newsandentertainment.com/janet_jackson_superbowl.html">this fantasy</a> or <a href="http://www.clubjenna.com/">this fantasy</a> a societal problem that must be censored by the FCC while <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Revelations/">this fantasy</a> is considered "family entertainment"?

People have argued that sex is harmful and should therefore not be broadcast on television, etc. Where is the argument that religion manipulated into fear inducement is harmful?

People have argued that sex fantasy results in sexual disfunction which results in rape/molestation/etc. Where is the argument that fear-religion fantasy results in tolerance disfunction which results in abortion clinic bombings?

Normally I would have no desire, ever, to complain to the FCC about any content on television. But then I take notice that millions of others are doing just to that prevent me from enjoying my fantasies. It's a struggle for me, but maybe it's time to fight fire with fire.

Would you?

[liquidlight]

I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.

Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.

What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs? The FCC regulations are setup by a series of committees to reflect the majority, it would be nice if censorship wasn't necessary but sadly in this day and age people aren't capable of being mature enough about the content that if they disapprove of it to simply not partake.

As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases? And why is it that we insist on blaming something in the persons environment rather than holding that person responsible for their own actions?

[Manx]

Originally Posted by liquidlight

I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.

I watched the first part last night, so I'm not simply basing my opinion on the show off their website. The show is a Christian fundamentalist fantasy.

Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.

If we're not going to differentiate between broadcast TV and cable tv and pay-per-view - then the discussion would be moot. But since those three areas are significantly differentiated, the discussion remains.

What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs?

I was actually rather explicit on this aspect. I have never made any attempt to prevent their fantasy. My fantasy is currently prevented. So what you should be asking is the same question I am asking: why should I be expected to tolerate their fantasies when they're not willing to be tolerant of mine.

As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases?

The arguments I presented are not arguments I support - they are the arguments that are made to support censorship. I can't provide you evidence, though I'm certain a quick google search will provide you with "evidence" from those who make those arguments.

[pan6467]

I agree your first 3 "Fantasies" have been deemed wrong and have incurred governmemtal wrath. The 4th hasn't and won't because it is Biblical and religious (insert controlling people thru fear here).

BUT the saddest part is those who question why are being silenced, their platforms taken away or called extremists and therefore laughed at or ignored by the media (and they are the very ones who should be questioning the loudest).

On Stern's site you'll notice that our great GOP leaders in a government:
- who allows illegals (some of which could be terrorists) to come across our borders,
- who continue to "hide" taxes on things like phones, while giving tax cuts to the rich
- who continue to throw BILLIONS upon BILLIONS into a war while we cut social programs, the FDA and EPA

are spending time wanting to throw people like Stern and Opie and Anthony in jail........

LINK: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/43961.htm

April 6, 2005 -- A major Congressional leader now says he wants to make broadcast indecency — the smutty talk that gets Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony into trouble — a criminal offense.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III (R-Wis.) says criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner said this week at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference in San Francisco.

The current system — in which the FCC fines a station for violating the regulations — isn't working, he said.

"People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulator process," Sensenbrenner said. "That is the way to go. Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach."

Sensenbrenner could not say immediately how the law would work.

The FCC has fined CBS for the infamous Janet Jackson-Super Bowl incident and Stern for a too-graphic description of sexual acts on his radio show.

It was unclear how much support Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has for a such a drastic change in the law.

And our great GOP leaders (who go under this guise of less government conservatism) are talking about regulating what can be seen and heard on PAY cable and satelite stations..... so much so that the cable industry will probably remove Stern's show from E!......

LINK: http://billboardradiomonitor.com/rad..._id=1000866255

Comcast Considers Dropping Stern's E! Show
April 05, 2005
By Paul Heine



Even as he moves to satellite radio to escape the clutches of federal regulators, Howard Stern may still indirectly feel the teeth of the indecency cops. Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable TV provider, is considering dropping Stern’s E! Entertainment TV show when its Comcast contract expires this spring, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is reportedly concerned that the presence of lightning rod Stern could cause lawmakers to take a closer look at indecency on cable TV.

In fact, cablers are frightened by the prospect of indecency restrictions being extended to their medium. Gathered in San Francisco for the annual National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference, several executives voiced concern about calls by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to regulate indecency on paid subscription services like cable TV and satellite radio. “It’s scary,” one cable exec said, according to the Times.

With the exception of the squeaky clean Walt Disney Co., all of the media conglomerates that own the majority of the nation’s cable channels oppose widening indecency rules to include cable.

How can these "conservatives" who believe in less government, who cry that they pay too much in taxes for social programs ...... ALLOW AND CONDONE (and by electing these scum sucking censorship pigs, you are doing just that) live with themselves. This GOP "Conservative" bullshit is just that...... they are censoring what "they" deem is offensive, and spending billions and billions on the enforcement....

[raveneye]

Censorship is the meeting place of the radical right and the radical left. The last person I heard advocate sending peddlers of indecency to jail was Andrea Dworkin. Now the Republican Chariman of the House Judiciary Committee is doing the same thing!

In today's political climate it's getting harder and harder to tell reality from fantasy . . . .

[lindseylatch]

Ok, so we're comparing pornography with a tv show on ABC? Ok...
Well, if the tv show showed massive violence or naked people, it to would be censored.
I think it's more an issue of what people are willing to let their kids see. They don't want them seeing naked people, or excessive violence (although that ones getting less and less these days). It's not about "my fantasy vs their fantasy."

[arch13]

Originally Posted by liquidlight

I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.

Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.

What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs? The FCC regulations are setup by a series of committees to reflect the majority, it would be nice if censorship wasn't necessary but sadly in this day and age people aren't capable of being mature enough about the content that if they disapprove of it to simply not partake.

As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases? And why is it that we insist on blaming something in the persons environment rather than holding that person responsible for their own actions?

Becuase three are regulated and considered harmfull, while one is not. that is the question presented. Why are three worthy of tight regulation when one is not?
I don't disagree that Stern should be kept to pay-access venues, or that the superbowl incident was uncalled for (Though I don't have problem with breast on TV for both genders) as it was not part of the plan.
But if stern cannot be shown on public airwaves, and has been censored heavily for sexual content, why is religion which I do not want OKay on the publics airwaves?

If religion is okay, so is a breast. You cannot say one is acceptable for public consumption but not another without making a moral judgement. And who has that right?

As for regulating cable, that is bullshit. failed parents with no personal responsability have no right to bitch about what cable shows, as they are aware of it when the ordered it, and are still willing invite it into their house. Cable is not a basic right, nor a neccesity, and one must willingly pay to have it pumped into their brain. And yet they don't like what cable shows? Then they can cancel it. Anything less is avoiding taking responsability.

[liquidlight]

Originally Posted by arch13

Becuase three are regulated and considered harmfull, while one is not. that is the question presented. Why are three worthy of tight regulation when one is not?
I don't disagree that Stern should be kept to pay-access venues, or that the superbowl incident was uncalled for (Though I don't have problem with breast on TV for both genders) as it was not part of the plan.
But if stern cannot be shown on public airwaves, and has been censored heavily for sexual content, why is religion which I do not want OKay on the publics airwaves?

If religion is okay, so is a breast. You cannot say one is acceptable for public consumption but not another without making a moral judgement. And who has that right?

As for regulating cable, that is bullshit. failed parents with no personal responsability have no right to bitch about what cable shows, as they are aware of it when the ordered it, and are still willing invite it into their house. Cable is not a basic right, nor a neccesity, and one must willingly pay to have it pumped into their brain. And yet they don't like what cable shows? Then they can cancel it. Anything less is avoiding taking responsability.

That's my objection is that the basis of this, the "fight fire with fire" is that rather that attempting to gain acceptance and reduce censorship on the current mediums it seems that you're advocating MORE censorship in an effort to tip off some sort of philosophical pissing contest to prove that your ideal of what's moral and acceptable is more appropriate than someone elses.

I agree with you fully on the complete lack of personal responsibility in this society, it's one of my personal peeves about the world in general that no one is willing or seemingly even capable of accepting their own fault or responsiblity in almost any situation anymore.

The simple fact at the moment remains that the sheeple of the world are comfortable watching a show about something perceived to come from the bible or other religious aspect, but they're not willing to even comprehend the other side of the coin. The current American paradigm is that violence and religion are ok, sex is not, this just happens to also be contrary to most of the rest of the world when looking at their entertainment.

Personally I'd be most happy with seeing a complete dissolution of ALL censorship, I'm capable of making my own decisions about what I object to and avoiding it on my own, but that's not likely until the technology advances to the point that computers and television are consolidated and I have a protected personal profile which grants me access to what I want and not to what I don't, a system that would also allow me to personally decide what my children are exposed to.

I want it to be MY best interests, not what someone else feels my interests should be.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

Ok, so we're comparing pornography with a tv show on ABC? Ok...
Well, if the tv show showed massive violence or naked people, it to would be censored.
I think it's more an issue of what people are willing to let their kids see. They don't want them seeing naked people, or excessive violence (although that ones getting less and less these days). It's not about "my fantasy vs their fantasy."

We are comparing sexual fantasy with religious fantasy.

You state what is presently deemed acceptable: no massive violence and no naked people in the fantasy. Anything more is censored. Yes, that is how censorship presently works. But on what basis should it work that way? Simply because you or someone else wants it to work that way? I don't want it to work that way.

It is purely about "my fantasy vs. their fantasy". I contend that there is no harm in sexual fantasy. If someone claims there is, then I will counter that there is equal harm with religious fantasy.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by liquidlight

That's my objection is that the basis of this, the "fight fire with fire" is that rather that attempting to gain acceptance and reduce censorship on the current mediums it seems that you're advocating MORE censorship in an effort to tip off some sort of philosophical pissing contest to prove that your ideal of what's moral and acceptable is more appropriate than someone elses.

Well, I haven't done anything in regards to pressuring censorship of material I have no interest in as a retaliation for the censorship I experience for material I do have an interest in. The discussion of the matter is what I'm seeking here - so I appreciate your comment, as I agree with it.

However, as the mobility presently favors those who wish to censor my fantasy, with their more powerful group efforts, it becomes a valid consideration as to whether providing them with a practical demonstration of censorship of their fantasy is a valuable next step. I.E. I expect they would feel as I presently do if the FCC were to shut down the broadcast of Revelations.

[joeshoe]

Those three things don't have much in common with the fourth. The only connection your making is that they're all "fantasies" of some sort. In that case, everything could be considered a "fantasy."

I do see your point that government censorship targets liberal material rather than conservative, the "Revelations" tv show isn't really a conservative analog of those other sites. They're simply unrelated and reasons for censoring them are different.

The first three are censored because of sexual content, which some people see as inappropriate. I won't argue about whether or not they're appropriate, but obviously some people think they are.

You're suggesting the "Revelations" tv show should be censored, presumably with the rationale of religious intolerance or that religion doesn't belong in the media. If enough people thought that was true, then it probably would be censored. I bet in some Western European countries, they would ban that sort of show because of religious content.

My point is, religion isn't simply the inverse of pornography.

[Halx]

Censorship is the tool of people who seek to subjugate ideas different than theirs. It has little to do with the actual harm these things do. Rather, they seek to purify the culture in their image of purity, simply for the power that comes with it. The first step is to villainize something. Then you package it with your target culture. Then you seek to abolish it. It's cultural gerrymandering.

[Slavakion]

This censorship talk reminds me of this site, offering edited versions of movies. What I can't understand is why you would want to watch something that has been changed to remove something intended to be a part of it. Like Sex and the City being edited for TBS. I haven't watched it, but there must be quite a bit edited out to make it "public safe". And the website I mentioned offers a "clean" version of Passion of the Christ, supposedly without graphic violence. Wasn't a good 75% of the movie comprised of graphic violence?

Instead of banning or editing to please some of the public, why not do something else. Maybe if you don't want to see something, you can change the channel. Or aren't all TVs supposed to have V-Chips by now? Why not broadcast categories as a part of the ratings system. You don't want to see porn? Gone. Don't want to see religious programming? Gone. Absolutely hate shows about dinosaurs? No worries.

And the word gerrymander always makes me smile.

[Spektr]

I completely agree with you, Slavakion, but the problem is that your solutions deal with logic and common sense. These two factors, while completely necessary are very difficult to implement in a society that glorifies a copacetic, lethargic approach to every day life. It's much easier to make decisions when an authority figure makes them for you. Therefore the issues that people are concerned with a bred from what those in power want the populace to be concerned with in order to accomplish their own goals behind closed doors. People are much easier to control when they are stupid, uninspired and completely in the dark about just how bad things really are.