Decency and "the children"

[Tmy]

With all this FCC decency talk you always hear the old Mrs. Lovejoy line "wont somone think of the children."

It appears that decency depends on whether kids are watching or not. Should that matter?? Why are things indecent at 4:00pm but not at 10:00pm? If there is enough warning before a show, shouldnt there be a looser standard. Is it so wrong to assume parental supervision.

From what I understand the FCC acts on compliants. If someone complains that Stern is indecent, dont they mean in general, and not "indecent for children". Does that person have a valid complaint if there were no children listening with them? How does the indcency become ok if the exact same Stern show was at 11:00pm???

The more i think about the FCC the rediculous they seem.

 

[Elio]

I would say that law makes sense regarding children.

You can't assume parental supervision 24/24 (I wouldn't have liked it from my parents...).

It should be OK for parents to safetly let their children watch television or listen to radio during day hours.

Elio.

 

[Tmy]

I would say that law makes sense regarding children.

You can't assume parental supervision 24/24 (I wouldn't have liked it from my parents...).

It should be OK for parents to safetly let their children watch television or listen to radio during day hours.

Elio.

What kids rae listening to morning drive radio unsupervised?? Adn I resent babyproofing the world forthe sake of some kids with bad parents. Let them watch the Disney channel, why should all channels be limited?

Plus whats the worse that kids see on TV. Im guessing the nightly news. Dead bodies, rape, Monicas stained dress. No one ever dares censor the news. The double standards are amazing.

 

[Checkmite]

Plus whats the worse that kids see on TV. Im guessing the nightly news. Dead bodies, rape, Monicas stained dress. No one ever dares censor the news. The double standards are amazing.

Well...I know what point you're trying to make, but I would hazard a guess that even as few as they may be, more kids listen to Stern's radio show than watch the nightly news....

 

[Tmy]

Its well known that Stern is an adult show. THe news is supposed to be forthe family. Many teachers tell their students to watch the news.

 

[Elio]

Tmy :

What kids rae listening to morning drive radio unsupervised?? Adn I resent babyproofing the world forthe sake of some kids with bad parents. Let them watch the Disney channel, why should all channels be limited?

I don't think it's "babyproofing the world". Again I don't like the idea of parents being all the time on their children's back. Sometimes they just can't and that doesn't make them bad parents. I long as a given channel is freely available (no decoder), I don't think it is to much to ask them not to broadcast totally unsuitable material for children, again, during day hours only.

Plus whats the worse that kids see on TV. Im guessing the nightly news. Dead bodies, rape, Monicas stained dress. No one ever dares censor the news. The double standards are amazing.

That's another problem. Maybe double standart, indeed.

Elio.

 

[toddjh]

Television and radio aren't the issue. Or rather, they both pale in comparison to the internet, where a kid can find porn and all kinds of nastiness with one click of the mouse button. Filtering programs are a joke, and there are no "day hours" there.

In the modern era, I think we either have to assume total parental supervision, or else accept that kids are going to see the stuff regardless, and just throw up our hands and shake our heads. You could have complete control over what's shown on TV at all hours of the day, and it would still only solve 10% of the problem.

Jeremy

 

[Elio]

Jeremy :

Television and radio aren't the issue. Or rather, they both pale in comparison to the internet, where a kid can find porn and all kinds of nastiness with one click of the mouse button. Filtering programs are a joke, and there are no "day hours" there.

In the modern era, I think we either have to assume total parental supervision, or else accept that kids are going to see the stuff regardless, and just throw up our hands and shake our heads. You could have complete control over what's shown on TV at all hours of the day, and it would still only solve 10% of the problem.

Jeremy

I disagree.

The fact that it's not difficult for children to find porn on the internet doesn't mean we should do nothing regarding television and radio.

I don't see an immediate solution for the internet problem, although filtering programms are a good start.

Controlling what is being broadcast during day hours by televisions and radios is not a difficult thing to do. Even if it solves 10% of the problem, that's good enough...

Elio

 

[Samus]

I understand the reasoning behind not broadcasting adult entertainment during hours when children are likely to be watching. I also understand that it is impossible to supervise a child every second they are awake, and it is unrealistic to expect parents to do that.

That said, I reject the attitude that the government needs to "protect" us from ourselves. If little Johnny sees a boob on TV, the parent should explain what a boob is (I'm referring to breasts, though the argument could equally apply to politicians, I suppose).

More to the point, if a parent doesn't like television programming, the option always exists to turn the TV off. Surely there is something else a kid can be doing besides wasting away in front of a TV. Or, at the very least, they can pop in a video for the kid to watch instead.

 

[daenku32]

I saw an ad on TV for the V-chip.. At first I was like "damn cersors", but then I started thinking that if everyone can get a V-chip, then there should be no problem broadcasting nudity and extreme violence since those objected to it would just have the V-chip block it, automatically. And the rest of us could continue to get our smut and gore. Everyone would be happy.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Elio,

It should be OK for parents to safetly let their children watch television or listen to radio during day hours.

I agree. However, until there is some kind of scientific evidence supporting the claim that things like nudity and "bad" language are somehow harmful to children, that is not what this type of censorship is about. It is not about making television and radio safe for our children. It is about preventing things which certain people find "indecent", from being publicly broadcast and talked about.

So who makes the judgement? Who decides what is, and is not, indecent? Personally, I not only think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with public nudity, but that the stigma such a view puts on nudity is extremely psychologically harmful. I also find the kind of superstitious, hate-filled, fear-mongering rhetoric that the various Christian groups pollute the air-waves with, to be extremely indecent. But if I got to decide what was decent or not, everybody would be screaming religious intolerance.

If and when somebody can produce evidence that a particular kind of content poses a substantial risk to our children, then I would be perfectly happy to entertain the idea that some sort of (limited) censorship is justified. But so long as the judgments are being made based on puritanical and irrational religious based stigmas, I say if you don't want your kids to see it on TV, that is your problem, not mine, and certainly not the government's.


Dr. Stupid

 

[toddjh]

The fact that it's not difficult for children to find porn on the internet doesn't mean we should do nothing regarding television and radio.

Eh, I disagree with your disagreement. Personally, I don't think we should do anything about any of it, but then again I am notorious for being hostile to what I consider lazy parents. Saying that full-time supervision is unrealistic is fine; I agree with that. But saying that it's society's job to pick up the slack just insists on a different but equally impossible kind of full-time supervision: one in which people who do not even have kids are responsible for taking care of other people's children. How is that fair? People choose to have kids, they should do the work. If they can't watch their kids every minute of every day, well, then they should just accept that the kids will see some things the parents don't approve of. Seeing a boob during the Superbowl, or someone getting shot on Law and Order, is not that big a deal. People overreact.

I don't see an immediate solution for the internet problem, although filtering programms are a good start.

If you can find one that actually works and can't be disabled by a reasonably intelligent 11-year-old, I might agree with you. However, I am not convinced such software exists.

Controlling what is being broadcast during day hours by televisions and radios is not a difficult thing to do. Even if it solves 10% of the problem, that's good enough...

Assuming that the problem is big enough to warrant censorship, maybe. I'm of a different mind.

Jeremy

 

[Elio]

Hello Stimpson,

First time we meet...

I agree. However, until there is some kind of scientific evidence supporting the claim that things like nudity and "bad" language are somehow harmful to children, that is not what this type of censorship is about. It is not about making television and radio safe for our children. It is about preventing things which certain people find "indecent", from being publicly broadcast and talked about.

So who makes the judgement? Who decides what is, and is not, indecent? Personally, I not only think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with public nudity, but that the stigma such a view puts on nudity is extremely psychologically harmful. I also find the kind of superstitious, hate-filled, fear-mongering rhetoric that the various Christian groups pollute the air-waves with, to be extremely indecent. But if I got to decide what was decent or not, everybody would be screaming religious intolerance.
Elio.

I read my posts again and found no trace of references to nudity and bad language....
I agree with you on both those issues.

Just a few points :

I have no problem with nudity. On the contrary. Somehow telling children that nudity is evil, is totally irresponsable.

"Who makes the judgment ?" Well there are a lot of laws that are left to discretion. Libelling, for instance. That doesn't mean they must not be legiferate...

Why do you raise the "Christian group" argument ?

Are you trying to discredit me by association ?

That would be dishonest and rude ...

I'm a die hard atheist who only believe in science, humanism and art.

And restricting televisions and radios to broadcast specific material during specific hours is not censorship. They are allowed to broadcast what they want during other hours.

If and when somebody can produce evidence that a particular kind of content poses a substantial risk to our children, then I would be perfectly happy to entertain the idea that some sort of (limited) censorship is justified.

I won't wait for evidence that seeing people beeing disemboweled or burnt alive poses a substantial risk to our children to restrein those things for being broadcast anywhere and anytime.

But so long as the judgments are being made based on puritanical and irrational religious based stigmas....

Who's talking about puritanical and irrational religious based stigmas ?

I say if you don't want your kids to see it on TV, that is your problem, not mine, ....

Highly debatable... If we have all decided to live in community... ( No, I'm not a communist !

and certainly not the government's..

Of course not.

But if you live in a democracry. Then the government simply represents you ...

Take care.

Elio

 

[Elio]

Commander Cool :

I understand the reasoning behind not broadcasting adult entertainment during hours when children are likely to be watching. I also understand that it is impossible to supervise a child every second they are awake, and it is unrealistic to expect parents to do that.

That said, I reject the attitude that the government needs to "protect" us from ourselves. If little Johnny sees a boob on TV, the parent should explain what a boob is (I'm referring to breasts, though the argument could equally apply to politicians, I suppose).

I agree with the boob thing...

That's not the first time I see this reference to government imposing nasty things to people...

Why is that ? Where do you live ?

More to the point, if a parent doesn't like television programming, the option always exists to turn the TV off. Surely there is something else a kid can be doing besides wasting away in front of a TV. Or, at the very least, they can pop in a video for the kid to watch instead.

That would work only if parents are always behind their children's back. Not a good idea...

Take care.

Elio.

 

[Elio]

Jeremy :

Eh, I disagree with your disagreement. Personally, I don't think we should do anything about any of it, but then again I am notorious for being hostile to what I consider lazy parents. Saying that full-time supervision is unrealistic is fine; I agree with that. But saying that it's society's job to pick up the slack just insists on a different but equally impossible kind of full-time supervision: one in which people who do not even have kids are responsible for taking care of other people's children. How is that fair? People choose to have kids, they should do the work. If they can't watch their kids every minute of every day, well, then they should just accept that the kids will see some things the parents don't approve of. Seeing a boob during the Superbowl, or someone getting shot on Law and Order, is not that big a deal. People overreact.

Ok, forgive me to take your argument to the extreme :

So if you don't have children, you're not responsible for taking care of other people's children. Right ?

Well then, would it be OK for you to broadcast porn movies on giant screens on the streets. After all, you're an adult and you don't have any children. So, that's not your problem...

quote :
I don't see an immediate solution for the internet problem, although filtering programms are a good start.


If you can find one that actually works and can't be disabled by a reasonably intelligent 11-year-old, I might agree with you. However, I am not convinced such software exists.

Maybe.. But that should not prevent us from trying.

quote:
Controlling what is being broadcast during day hours by televisions and radios is not a difficult thing to do. Even if it solves 10% of the problem, that's good enough...


Assuming that the problem is big enough to warrant censorship, maybe. I'm of a different mind.

That is not censorship. Those restrictions apply only during day hours.

Elio.

 

[toddjh]

So if you don't have children, you're not responsible for taking care of other people's children. Right ?

Well then, would it be OK for you to broadcast porn movies on giant screens on the streets. After all, you're an adult and you don't have any children. So, that's not your problem...

That's not an issue of children, though, it's an issue of forcing the public to be a captive audience. What people are subjected to on the street, and what they choose to watch in their own homes, are completely different things.

That is not censorship. Those restrictions apply only during day hours.

We have different ideas of censorship then.

Jeremy

 

[Tmy]

Its rediculous to block out 80% of the waking day because some child might hear somthing "bad". THe reason Stern is on in the morning is to entertain all the adults stuck in traffic.

If little Jonny hears the show........too f'n bad. Its not like his head will explode.

Can someone even give me an example of what Stern has done that would warrent a fine?

 

[Samus]

Elio: That's not the first time I see this reference to government imposing nasty things to people...

Eh, the politician/boob thing was a joke. I live in the U.S. Elected officials are often the target of jokes, they just make it so easy!

Elio: That would work only if parents are always behind their children's back. Not a good idea...

Well, deciding what a child will watch on TV, especially a younger child (under 10), should be the sole prerogative of the parents (or whoever is designated as the guardian).

I'm not advocating non-stop parental supervision, I realize that is both not plausible and not a desired practice. I am simply saying that there are alternatives to television, and part of being a good parent is taking interest in what your child is watching on the boob tube, rather than just letting the state worry about that. The less control we relinquish to the state to decide what is 'decent', the better. This is just a personal opinion.

 

[American]

The internet will eventually make the FCC obsolete. Satellite radio, similarly, will succeed at replacing AM/FM.


It's amazing that the FCC didn't take control of the internet from the very start. If they can censor a broadcast TV, then they should be able to censor streaming video of live hardcore porn, one would think.


The battle is on, and as I just posted in my good friend Nie's thread-- there are many people who pretend they are after porn. They aren't. They are after the United States Constitution.


In any case, the public wants sex. The eventual outcome is predictable because even Senators jerk off daily... especially when your ugly wife is a broad named Teresa Heinz.

 

[Elio]

Jeremy :

That's not an issue of children...

I thought it was the thread's subject...

it's an issue of forcing the public to be a captive audience. What people are subjected to on the street, and what they choose to watch in their own homes, are completely different things.

As long as people can actually choose and control what their children are watching at home, no problem.

quote:
That is not censorship. Those restrictions apply only during day hours.

We have different ideas of censorship then.

I guess so ...

I would say you have the right to say what you want, but not to anyone, anytime nor anywhere.

Take care.

Elio.