**** the FCC

[o_uber]

Actions speak louder than words?

[o_jinx]

There is a certain absurdity to things as they stand. For example, your kid can watch Jack Bauer torture someone to death on TV, but if Jack says "fuck" the network gets fined. I mean, what?

I'm mixed on the issue. On one hand, yeah maybe you don't want your kids exposed to this stuff. On the other hand, I think US war coverage needs to show *more* violence, blood, gore, and dead bodies. More maimed US soldiers coming home. More dead Iraqi civilians. If we're going to do it, we should damn well have to see it.

What I can't stand is 'sanitized' violence- that is what desensitizes you to it, seeing violence without any of the up-close ugliness or consequences. I'll tell you one thing, watching Pan's Labyrinth, probably the most violent movie in recent memory, sure as hell didn't "desensitize" me to violence. It was fucking horrifying. The same with Saving Private Ryan and other media that show the ugliness of violence, not just the act from a safe distance.

I think they should just do what they already do- keep the more violent stuff like 24 and Battlestar Galactica later at night, rate them to warn parents, etc. Also, let people fucking swear on broadcast tv after 9 or 10pm.

[digression]:

This reminds me of something else ridiculous: the movie Crank. It has a "family friendly" audio track. For the people who want their kids watching a movie with horrific violence, public sex and nudity, limbs being severed, etc.... but are still afraid of them hearing the F-bomb! What the hell.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Jinx, the problem I see with this is for the kids with lousy parents who give no consideration for what their kids see. My son doesn't see stuff like 24...though his mom let him see Matrix Reloaded... I also don't let him see or listen to things that are rife with profanity. He's still hearing it...at his mom's house and at school. We talk about it. What I try to teach him is that profanity should not be treated as common conversation and that it's a limited and immature mind that uses it frequently. Does that mean I never swear? No, but it's pretty infrequent.

I think that which is freely broadcast over the public airwaves and that the if you want the less restrictive stuff go to the pay venues like cable or satellite.

[o_lithium]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Jinx, the problem I see with this is for the kids with lousy parents who give no consideration for what their kids see. My son doesn't see stuff like 24...though his mom let him see Matrix Reloaded... I also don't let him see or listen to things that are rife with profanity. He's still hearing it...at his mom's house and at school. We talk about it. What I try to teach him is that profanity should not be treated as common conversation and that it's a limited and immature mind that uses it frequently. Does that mean I never swear? No, but it's pretty infrequent.

I think that which is freely broadcast over the public airwaves and that the if you want the less restrictive stuff go to the pay venues like cable or satellite.

You're from a generation where family values actually meant something.

[o_uber]

Family. Religion. Country.

Even I consider myself conservative (or at least communitarian) who values order and even censorship, but valuing the Bill of Rights is foremost. Organizations such as the FCC who purblindly and obtusely deny fundamental freedoms actually make want to be libertarian. The parents are the people who ought to censor what their children watch, not the government (unless absolutely necessary).

As for cable, "We can't just deal with the three or four broadcast channels -- we have to be looking at what's on cable as well," Martin said.

You cannot be for the distribution of gore and guts in the media and against violence in fiction.

"Will it count on the news?" asked Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. "Will it count on news magazines like '60 Minutes' and 'Dateline'? What about hockey games when the gloves come off and people start punching each other?"

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Even I consider myself conservative (or at least communitarian) who values order and even censorship, but valuing the Bill of Rights is foremost.

It's good to hear a conservative coming out and condemning the Bush administration

[o_()))crayola))_>]

Radio cencorship is bullshit. As long as you have the option to change the channel, there is nobody forcing you to listen to it, and it's your job to decide not to.

I hate all forms of cencorship and it bothers me these people can get away with it.

[o_binarylife]

The FCC is a pointless vestigial organization. The fact is they were never voted into power by the american public. They were appointed. On top of that, the number of people that support the FCC in the United States represents the minority of voters. That's right, they are few and far between, just loud and vocal.

The original point of the FCC was to regulate what kind of things were broadcast onto ONE channel. Back when there only was one channel. In other words, when the public only had one thing to watch they had no choice, and subseuqently should not be forced to watch innapropriate things. However, now we have 900 channels on basic, digital cable (in my area at least) 900 channels to choose from. There's a freaking bible channel. There's a FAMILY channel. There are so many things to choose from that the FCC has no moral right to regulate television.

Anyone who doesn't want to watch violence currently has the magical ability to change the channel. The have no legal or moral standpoint and their continued existence and functionality frustrates me to no end.

That was a little rant... sorry.
But more to the subject, aside from their lack of moral and legal rights, their views are clearly in contradiction. Violence is ok, but boobies aren't. Part of a boobie is ok, but only on a dead girl. Dead girls are ok, as long as no no one says "boner" or "shit."

[o_uber]

To be fair, they do do some other things other than censorship.

[o_fail]

Ugh. Nazis.

[o_darken_hellspawn]

It is ok to show Jack torturing people because he is on a mission to stop the terrorists from detonating nukes. Now since he can do that with a clean mouth I have no problem with it since I do not want my kids repeating those words. Now if they want to grow up and torture terrorists or people invloved with terrorism now that would be a different story and I would back them %100 on that.

dh

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by Fail

Ugh. Nazis.

"I hate these guys."


Also, that reminds me of something Jack should have said when he kicked the suicide bomber out the back of the subway car in episode 2 or 3:

Jack looks around at the shocked passengers.
"No ticket."

[o_ekim]

Tell the preisdent I'm sorry.

[o_tyrus]

Originally Posted by Darken_Hellspawn

It is ok to show Jack torturing people because he is on a mission to stop the terrorists from detonating nukes. Now since he can do that with a clean mouth I have no problem with it since I do not want my kids repeating those words. Now if they want to grow up and torture terrorists or people invloved with terrorism now that would be a different story and I would back them %100 on that.

dh

^^
Very grotesque view, indeed.
---------------------------------


I really want to say that today's society has censorship completely ass-backwards being death and violence is far more accepted than nudity, sex and certain types of language. But all of these should not be censored and should all be viewed as parts of life, equally. So today's censorship unfortunately isn't backwards, but its more closely described as completely ridiculous, anyway it stands.

Nudity. As far as I had been taught, being raised in a Christian family (although now an Atheist) nudity is natural. It was natural in the story of Adam and Eve and it's even natural in the view of evolution where humans are believed to have evolved from ape-like animals. Clothing is what is not natural. Things that are natural should have absolutely no censorship. Censoring ideas such as nudity only pushes them towards a more taboo connotation. What the hell?

Sex holds the exact same arguments as nudity, but it takes it one step further. Rather than violence and death, sex promotes giving life. It too is also fundamentally natural. Unfortunately in the "ass-backwards" society we live in today, sex is the most explicitly censored type of media ever. Worthy of not just one "x", but three x's, "xxx".

Of the two ideas presented above, Nudity and Sex, I'd far rather my children be raised knowing of them than be raised knowing of blood, gore and death. However blood, gore and death are also parts of life, so these as well should not be censored either. What would you rather your child learn as he/she grows up?:

a. 101 ways to kill someone.
b. 101 ways to have sex with someone.

I think I'd lean more towards choice b. However, both would very helpful and really, it would be up to my child as to which they'd rather learn about, as to which interests them more.

The last idea is, in my view, absolutely the least harmful in any respect you can possibly imagine, Language. Language is nothing but sounds put together to make coherent communication possible. If you would rather describe sex as "fucking", then that is your option. Some words have different connotations as compared to others. In respect to this, you should have every right to choose the words that best fit your intended meaning. Censoring language is the most childish form of censorship.

To sum it all up, why censor anything? Censoring only causes negative connotations upon what is being censored, causes it to be pushed towards the taboo side of things (like I said earlier). Sex is not a bad thing. Nudity is not a bad thing. And definitely there is no forms of communication that can possibly be described as bad.
---------------------------------


Oh and I'm completely in agreement with the topic of this thread, however I would have written it out as it was meant to be...

Fuck the FCC (and every other government enforced type of censorship).

What your children are sheltered from should solely be up to the parent who is raising them and definitely not up to some random committee of beurocrats trying to impose their ideals of how you should raise your children.

[o_darken_hellspawn]

on the opinions that you have shared with us all but you forget one thing Tyrus. Sex and profanity are both unacceptable actions in schools today and it is not allowed. Now violence is as well but to a certain point because violence is talked about in every history class and since man is the ultimate object of destruction in this world and the years of old show it. Now on the grotesque view that you may or may think that I do have. Now my dear sir the fanatical muslims hate everyone........you, athesim, christians, jews........etc all alike because we have the common bond where we do not follow Allah and we will not convert. There is not a gray area in this for they would like to see us all dead. Now I am in the position now where we wipe them off the face of the earth which will bypass any world wars that may or may not happen with these people in the future. Now to torture a know terrorists and to swim in his dropped blood would be a cleansing experience for your soul and I doubt it would even be considered true violence.

dh

[o_tyrus]

Torturing any human, or any living creature, is plainly wrong. There is no way to justify the causation of pain upon living things.

There, however, are justifications to pay reparations for any wrong-doing. Although deciding on fair reparations will always cause endless debate.

Edit: Not censoring something does not imply that it is condoned.

Edit: Edit: Its funny how uBeR finds it acceptable to push the limits of nudity in the hot babes thread, but censores his own language in this thread. (if you are going to show 95% of a boobie, then why not follow along that example and show 95% of the word fuck..."f*ck" )

[o_elkz]

Originally Posted by tyrus

Torturing any human, or any living creature, is plainly wrong. There is no way to justify the causation of pain upon living things.

First tyrus, I want you to understand that we evolved from something similar to what the chimpanzees evolved from, some form of ape anyway. It is plain fact that long before there was television and Jack Bauer there was some ape that in order to survive its instinct was to kill prey- and then you have survival against rival clans of Neanderthal man, which means even more pain upon living things. There is a way to justify the causation of pain upon living things, it is called survival.

Your most probably going to comeback at me saying that in todays world there is no justification, perhaps 20,000 years ago. Well I find that quite ignorant. I think what you should have said tyrus, is that there is no need for there to be torturing of any human, or any living creature broadcast on a TV Network? I just find what you said kind of ignorant, considering you are a descendant of what I mentioned earlier in this post, that is if you are a human being from this planet.

The bottom line should be choice, if you want to watch that, and you some how find that kind of thing entertainment, then you should be able to watch it, then if you don't- you should have the choice not to, thats why there are different television programs and networks.. choice. The way I see it is that if something is natural, like mammals killing mammals, there is no reason why not to broadcast it. If it was something unnatural, such as a male having sex with a male, I don't feel that should be broadcast. I know there are one or two homosexual members, and people who are anti-homophobic, so that means I am gonna get flamed, but its not that I have anything against homosexuals for the most part, I just don't feel that kind of thing should be broadcast on television.

[o_tyrus]

I do see where I should modify my statement. Plus I should take it a little further, as I left out one more aspect...

Causing another animal harm without intent to eat that animal or without intent of defending yourself is wrong.

Killing for sport is wrong and torturing of any type is wrong.

[o_elkz]

Correct!

[o_darken_hellspawn]

is OKAY and just for that matter. To smear the blood of a few to save more is justifully right and to not continue with that tradition is barbaric. It is the right of the people to harm, maim, torture anyone who tries to destroy our way of life. It is in this justice where some sins will be overlooked due to the nature of fighting for what is right.

If crazys have to die for the will of man to go on then so be it. The infidels will pay with there life on their way to eating a all swine buffet in hell.

It is written.

dh