Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Author Share Posted March 25, 2004 Everyone should have an opinion. Although, what's right or wrong for someone or some group may not be right or wrong for someone else. Whatever happened to changing the channel, station, etc...? You think it would be that much easier now-a-days with remote controls. Changing the channel has never been a justification. Laura Petri was the first woman on tv to wear pants. Look how much we have changed. The difference is these no charge, public airwaves that the government has a responsibility to regulate. These material is beemed into my home. Would you support WGN showing Anal Attraction as the "after school special"? The argument would be, your kids can just change the channel. Would you support X rated movies being show on car video equipment? The argument could be your kids could just turn away. To me it comes down to access. Parents try and keep their children's environements safe. They wouldn't leave a loaded gun, or booze, or whatever in their kids room and say, just do not touch them. When this material is transmitted over free airwaves, parents only weapon is to eliminate tvs and radios from their homes. When the material is only available on pay per view or premium subscription services, parents retain some control. You and I and every American has a right to determine what is broadcasted into our homes. The media has continously pushed the envelope. Compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago there are way more freedoms. I think it is perfectly reasonable at some point for society to say whoa, we've reached the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I'm tired of athiestic wacko nutjobs thinking I can't voice an opinion because I go to Church on Sunday. Everyone who goes to Church and thinks that there are limits to what should be seen and heard on the *public airwaves* is a wackjob? When did I say they should have no rights? I said I don't like the religious right trying to tell me what is "indecent" and what I can and can't listen to. I personally don't like religious wackjobs, but I never said they should have no rights, just stay the f*** out of my life if I don't want you in it. I'm mad at this censorship issue, they are in the forefront of all the complaining about Howard Stern, Janet Jackson, and anything else they believe to be "indecent". They certainly have the right to complain about what they don't like, but trying to eliminate these things all together is BS. Not everybody wants to be saved you f***ing nutjobs.... Hope that helps.... Also my defintion of "religious wackjob" is not anybody who goes to church. Religious Wackjobs in the Cali Dictionary is any religious person who A.) Pushes there beliefs on me B.) Thinks that they and only they are right, and that word of God is the final say on everything no matter what anyone elses beliefs are. (i.e. the anti-gay marraige people) C.) A person who goes on a crusade to change things because of religious beliefs when not all people want things to be changed (i.e. The censorship issue) Basically I don't mind if you're religious, that's cool, I'm not, but jusy don't push it on me. I hae plenty of religious friends but they aren't pushing s*** on me. I don't mock them for going to church and they don't mock me for not going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Author Share Posted March 25, 2004 When did I say they should have no rights? I said I don't like the religious right trying to tell me what is "indecent" and what I can and can't listen to. I personally don't like religious wackjobs, but I never said they should have no rights, just stay the f*** out of my life if I don't want you in it. I'm mad at this censorship issue, they are in the forefront of all the complaining about Howard Stern, Janet Jackson, and anything else they believe to be "indecent". They certainly have the right to complain about what they don't like, but trying to eliminate these things all together is BS. Not everybody wants to be saved you f***ing nutjobs.... Hope that helps.... Also my defintion of "religious wackjob" is not anybody who goes to church. Religious Wackjobs in the Cali Dictionary is any religious person who A.) Pushes there beliefs on me B.) Thinks that they and only they are right, and that word of God is the final say on everything no matter what anyone elses beliefs are. (i.e. the anti-gay marraige people) C.) A person who goes on a crusade to change things because of religious beliefs when not all people want things to be changed (i.e. The censorship issue) Basically I don't mind if you're religious, that's cool, I'm not, but jusy don't push it on me. I hae plenty of religious friends but they aren't pushing s*** on me. I don't mock them for going to church and they don't mock me for not going. They have the right to tell you what society should do. It's the same freedom of speech you are trying to take away from them. Is how the air waves should be regulated pushing a religious view? Are speed limits a religious view? Is not allowing a guy to urinate on a sidewalk a religious view? Is not allowing topless sun bathing on Oak Street Beach a religious view? Do only religious people want to protect their kids from indecent behaviors? Only religious people want some limits as to what can be broadcast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 holy s***!! Texsox I agree with you 100% Moons must be aligned or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I just want to add to this... The right to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moochpuppy Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Changing the channel has never been a justification. Laura Petri was the first woman on tv to wear pants. Look how much we have changed. The difference is these no charge, public airwaves that the government has a responsibility to regulate. These material is beemed into my home. Would you support WGN showing Anal Attraction as the "after school special"? The argument would be, your kids can just change the channel. Would you support X rated movies being show on car video equipment? The argument could be your kids could just turn away. To me it comes down to access. Parents try and keep their children's environements safe. They wouldn't leave a loaded gun, or booze, or whatever in their kids room and say, just do not touch them. When this material is transmitted over free airwaves, parents only weapon is to eliminate tvs and radios from their homes. When the material is only available on pay per view or premium subscription services, parents retain some control. You and I and every American has a right to determine what is broadcasted into our homes. The media has continously pushed the envelope. Compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago there are way more freedoms. I think it is perfectly reasonable at some point for society to say whoa, we've reached the limit. Tex, I think your two examples are a bit over the top. IMO, TV has become a baby sitter for too many kids in today's society anyway and then when parents see or hear something they don't like or see appropriate for their kids they complain about what they put the kids in front of themselves. I don't remember watching any primetime TV before the age of 12. I was always outside playing or in my room reading, listening to music or playing board games with my Sister and/or parents. Maybe parents shouldn't rely on TV as a crutch as much as they do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Author Share Posted March 25, 2004 Tex, I think your two examples are a bit over the top. IMO, TV has become a baby sitter for too many kids in today's society anyway and then when parents see or hear something they don't like or see appropriate for their kids they complain about what they put the kids in front of themselves. I don't remember watching any primetime TV before the age of 12. I was always outside playing or in my room reading, listening to music or playing board games with my Sister and/or parents. Maybe parents shouldn't rely on TV as a crutch as much as they do? Mooch, the reason I used those examples is to point out the turn the channel argument does not hold up. At some point, society has to set standards. If we allow anything to go, then anything will go. For some members of society, we reached the limit years ago, for others it is today, for others, we will never reach something that is unacceptable. Whose views should be considered? Should we dismiss Americans without kids from this debate? Should we dismiss anyone with religious views from this debate? The way I see it, from the first radio broadcast or TV broadcast, the media justifiably has pushed the limits of what is acceptable. I am not advocating a return to 1950s Leave it to Beaver style programming. What I am saying is at some point, probably short of porn on free TV, society has to set a standard. With satellite radio and pay per view, I do not feel that using the public airwaves to broadcast anything just because someone wants to is good public policy. The material in question would still be available, just not in a format that any child with a TV set or radio could be exposed to. And I agree with TV as a baby sitter. But we help parents all the time. We do not allow cigarettte sponsorship in our schools. Some cities will not allow liquor or gun stores with 500' of a school. We do not allow pornographic magazines to be sold without being wrapped in plastic and covered. Parents do have to be responsible but do we have to make it even more difficult? Again, either we accept that a standard should be drawn and debate the standard. Not setting a standard would lead to anything goes on TV and I find that to be poor public policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 This is all just silly. :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moochpuppy Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 This is all just silly. :headshake I agree but it's the world we currently live in. I for one think it was an accident. I do the same thing myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsh Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 this has been a great disccussion. not so much regarding the simon finger thing, but regarding free speech, individual rights, and society values. It seems that it is impossible to have individual liberties and society values be in complete agreement with one another. for the most part i would say that i side with individual liberties when they are in conflict with the society values because i believe that protecting minority (unpopular) speech is more important than regulating people to conform to what the society (popular) opinion is. that said, i agree with tex that there are situations where regulations and limits are needed. i'm not for an everything goes society. i just don't know if there is a workable solution that can be used and applied to everything. obviously when you are dealing with public tv and radio there are different standards that apply than to cable/satellite. so how do we have regulations and limits while still protecting an individuals liberties and rights? do we just allow the marketplace to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"? or do we have our elected official decide for us? i think it's important to remember that it is great to be able to have these discussions, and that these problems are not life/death variety but are still very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I personally like to have the freedom to choose what I want to watch or hear, but as Texsox says, there have to be some limits placed and some common sense used in the placing of those limits. I'll give you an example of how community standards are set in a democracy. Right now, I live in a dry county. No liquor stores or bars anywhere in the county. The next county over is, however, "wet". Yet, that county does not allow the sale of liquor or beer or wine on Sunday. I do not happen to agree with any of these restrictions. However, I am in the minority, as they have been voted on several times. That's the way the majority of the populace wants it, so that's the way it is. As it should be. They standards or restrictions put upon the airwaves is also, theoritically controlled by the majority. They will stay in place until the majority becomes the minority. If you want things changed, work toward that end. Work to change the opinion of enough people to your point of view. b****ing about it accomplishes nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 26, 2004 Author Share Posted March 26, 2004 One of the interesting debates in a situation like to describe is this; should citizens of the "wet" county try in anyway to influence the elections in the "dry" county? You know if and when this comes up for a referendum, the county-line bars and liquor stores will make generous donations to the dry cause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.