Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Stop the FCC

imasigimasig Member Posts: 149

Hey if any of you enjoy swearing, violence, and nudity on the airwaves like I do then head to this website and sign the petition so the FCC doesn't turn every channel into a sesame street marathon.  Ever since Janet Jackson's boob popped out the FCC and congress has been on a rampage and are really getting seroius about banning anything remotely offensive from the airwaves.  They have already gotten clearchannel to pull the plug on my hero, Howard Stern.

I don't know if it will actually do any good, but at least you can say we tried.

http://www.stopfcc.com/

«1

Comments

  • SerienSerien Member CommonPosts: 8,460
    I support the government..

    image

  • KuzzleKuzzle Member Posts: 1,058
     I dislike it when in shows and such they're trying to be serious and then have to use screwed up little kid words like 'stinker' or some crap like that. Just thought I'd say it.

  • UiruruUiruru Member Posts: 984
    I agree completely with stopping what the FCC is doing and I signed the petition.  I mean what is next, censoring people who disagree with what the government says?  I think it has gotten completely out of control and things should be put back the way they were.  If you dont want your kids to see that stuff, then use the v-chip and dont let them watch MA shows, that is what the rating is for. 

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh my god... dont ask where i found it
    image


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 98% who has, copy & paste this in your signature.


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

  • UiruruUiruru Member Posts: 984
    I want to know what other people think...

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh my god... dont ask where i found it
    image


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 98% who has, copy & paste this in your signature.


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

  • Clever_GloveClever_Glove Member Posts: 996



    Originally posted by MurtBijani
    I support the government..



    You truly frighten me.

    I actually hate topics like this, I'm against smut. I don't care for it, I don't support it. But when I comment on such things I associate myself to smut dealers. But I believe people can decide for themselfs what they do and do not want to see/listen too.

    I do think Janet went a bit far, since the superbowl is "PG" rated, many parents wouldn't have had there children in the room had they known what was going to happen, but the lost revenue from adveristing, boycotts and a time delay are all that needed to correct this problem.

    The problem lies in what is acceptable? Today it's Breasts and Mr. Stern that on the copping block, but how long until saying something that might offend someone becomes "Hate" speech and will be prosecuted?

    Murt, for someone that likes to boost such strong political views, what happens when others don't feel such ideals are fit for public consumption?

    Granted this is just a election year knee jerk reaction, but this part of a rather disturbing trend. I'm going to lay out some more recent examples of your rights being taken from you.

    Federal restriction on the use of cryptography.

    "Hate" laws are a restriction on free speech. It's already illegal to beat someone, what's difference does if you expressed a dislike against them in the past? But if they can prove you said something bad about them ahead of time, you'll get double the penalty. Disliking someone it's illegal yet. You'll notice many unpolitically correct ideas being labled as hate speech. Where do you think that headed?

    Try placing a ad for your favorite candidate a week before an election... you can't? Why shouldn't you be able to? If you want to buy airtime for any reason isn't that between you and the people providing the airtime?

    Even as you read this the UN is trying to cook up a way to get control of the internet. What do you think will happen to the internet once they succeed?

    sadly little petitions aren't going to do a darn, what you going to have to do, is write your congress person and tell you feel strongly about the protection your rights, and you will not vote them if they cave on such issues.

    Then put your money where your mouth is on voting day.

    Be informed, vote smart.

    Follow this link to learn who represents you, and how to get ahold of them http://www.vote-smart.org/ Always follow how the people represent you vote. DO NOT believe the party rhetoric, follow the voting records.

    Other usefully links:

    http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html worlds smallest political quiz.

    http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html take the time to read it, it's not nearly as long as you think.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html also smaller than you'd think, if you don't know rights, how will know when they are taken from you?

     

     


    -=-=-=-=-
    "We're a game that's focused on grouping and on solo play, you know, more group oriented, more solo play..."
    John Blakely Senior lead for EQ2. Link

    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

    -=-=-=-=-
    Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle


    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

  • UiruruUiruru Member Posts: 984
    Thanks, it is nice to see someone like you stand and say something like this... If you run for any office, ill vote for you... in 2 years... imageimageimage

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh my god... dont ask where i found it
    image


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 98% who has, copy & paste this in your signature.


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

  • imasigimasig Member Posts: 149

    "sadly little petitions aren't going to do a darn, what you going to have to do, is write your congress person and tell you feel strongly about the protection your rights, and you will not vote them if they cave on such issues.

     

    No, actually you have to call their office and talk to their secretary.  Then you tell them you're interested in donating to their re-election campaign fund.  Then you tell them how strongly you feel about the protection of your rights.

    "Be informed, vote smart. "

    Word.

     

  • AnofalyeAnofalye Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 7,433

    Well, those govs/feds are insane and they have a medieval/feudal mind at best!

     

    Basically, if it could have happen in a kinder garden park, why bother?  Yes, what happen to janet could have happen in any public place, there is no point in getting all messy over this.

     

    Sometimes I wonder where the line is between hiding the visage and any body part.  As long as peoples are not openly and willingly nude, if it is an accident, chill off and allow it!

     

    Italians public TV channels have porn at 2:00 PM, and Italy is the based of our western civilisations.

     

    I think that what they are doing is pretty much the same as the muslims hiding their women face, to hell with the nazis!

     

    Nudity dont need any encouragement, but you dont need to fight it that much, they really need to chill off, I see no reason why there should be no porn on TV public channels...I mean, what do you expect to achieve by making it a *mystary*, it is only natural and they are making it unattural by preventing it to much.

     

    A teen that get nude by accident(swimsuit going off for exemple) before there friends should blush, but no more, should be by no mean traumatised and shy for weeks like it is the case now!  An average teen girl that lose her swimsuit before her class will likely be shy for weeks if not more, this is a shame that we are so backward!

     


    - "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''

    - "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren

  • UiruruUiruru Member Posts: 984
    Personally, that is a little to radical for me, i mean little kids shouldnt be exposed to porn, but they shouldnt be made to feel like sex is something to be ashamed of. 

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh my god... dont ask where i found it
    image


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 98% who has, copy & paste this in your signature.


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

  • darkmandarkman Member UncommonPosts: 767

    Personally I would perfer not to discuss politics in a forum, especially when SOME people's level of intelligence well, isn't exactly very high to say the least.

    The only thing I will comment on is if you want to censor, just insert a stupid v-chip, and use a god damn rating, that's what they are there for geniuses!

  • UiruruUiruru Member Posts: 984
    that is what I said...

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh my god... dont ask where i found it
    image


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 98% who has, copy & paste this in your signature.


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

  • SerienSerien Member CommonPosts: 8,460



    Originally posted by Clever_Glove



    Originally posted by MurtBijani
    I support the government..




    You truly frighten me.

    I actually hate topics like this, I'm against smut. I don't care for it, I don't support it. But when I comment on such things I associate myself to smut dealers. But I believe people can decide for themselfs what they do and do not want to see/listen too.

    I do think Janet went a bit far, since the superbowl is "PG" rated, many parents wouldn't have had there children in the room had they known what was going to happen, but the lost revenue from adveristing, boycotts and a time delay are all that needed to correct this problem.

    The problem lies in what is acceptable? Today it's Breasts and Mr. Stern that on the copping block, but how long until saying something that might offend someone becomes "Hate" speech and will be prosecuted?

    Murt, for someone that likes to boost such strong political views, what happens when others don't feel such ideals are fit for public consumption?

    Granted this is just a election year knee jerk reaction, but this part of a rather disturbing trend. I'm going to lay out some more recent examples of your rights being taken from you.

    Federal restriction on the use of cryptography.

    "Hate" laws are a restriction on free speech. It's already illegal to beat someone, what's difference does if you expressed a dislike against them in the past? But if they can prove you said something bad about them ahead of time, you'll get double the penalty. Disliking someone it's illegal yet. You'll notice many unpolitically correct ideas being labled as hate speech. Where do you think that headed?

    Try placing a ad for your favorite candidate a week before an election... you can't? Why shouldn't you be able to? If you want to buy airtime for any reason isn't that between you and the people providing the airtime?

    Even as you read this the UN is trying to cook up a way to get control of the internet. What do you think will happen to the internet once they succeed?

    sadly little petitions aren't going to do a darn, what you going to have to do, is write your congress person and tell you feel strongly about the protection your rights, and you will not vote them if they cave on such issues.

    Then put your money where your mouth is on voting day.

    Be informed, vote smart.

    Follow this link to learn who represents you, and how to get ahold of them http://www.vote-smart.org/ Always follow how the people represent you vote. DO NOT believe the party rhetoric, follow the voting records.

    Other usefully links:

    http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html worlds smallest political quiz.

    http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html take the time to read it, it's not nearly as long as you think.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html also smaller than you'd think, if you don't know rights, how will know when they are taken from you?

     

     


    -=-=-=-=-
    "We're a game that's focused on grouping and on solo play, you know, more group oriented, more solo play..."
    John Blakely Senior lead for EQ2. Link

    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.


    What I am saying, however, is that shows like this should not just be on cable...where ANYWAY can pick them up.

    Ok, if people want to see other women's breasts that are not their wives, then let them pay a little extra and get it on pay per view or something..it's just unethical to keep it on public television.

    America goes day by day into the threshold of chaos..such as we are discussing now, if our government keeps allowing such profane things, hell, why don't we all strip and walk into a day care and have sex?

    as you can see by my point (which isn't strong, i know) that I know people want freedom of speech...just make them get it on a place where other people can't that don't want it...

    image

  • imasigimasig Member Posts: 149

    MurtBijani,

    I totally respect your views.  The only thing I'd like to point out is I don't think you can consider cable TV public television.  Since you are paying for it on a monthly subscription basis (unless you steal it) it is more private than public.  You can call your cable company and have them remove certain channels from your plan if you want ESPN but don't want MTV per say.  CBS, ABC, UPN are public television and yes wacko jacko's sisters boob should not have popped out on those channels.   But parenting takes effort and we don't want the government to remove effort out of parenting or else they're going to start removing content which I enjoy off cable TV. 

    Blah, I hate politics.

  • TaskyZZTaskyZZ Member Posts: 1,476

    Stuff that gets broadcast on the public airwaves has to be controlled. It sucks, but it is true.

    The problem is, the FCC let it go too far before they finally started to crack down on it. A decision they are taking fire for.

    The fact that they are cracking down on Stern makes me feel good though. I never liked that nut job...


  • EasyChair14EasyChair14 Member Posts: 2
    Public television is just that, Public.  When you go out into the public are you able to walk down the street naked, NO.  Why should that be any different on "Public T.V.?"

    Public T.V. is for everyones viewing pleasure, sure, i'd like to hear a little more swearing because it would make the shows realistic, but I dont watch T.V. anymore for it does nothing, has it helped me grow as a person? NO.

    My vote for this is, someone should create a sattelite that supports "Profanity, Nudity, Beatings and other miscellaneous acts".  That way, it's off of Public viewing and you'll always have what you want. 

  • UiruruUiruru Member Posts: 984



    Originally posted by imasig

    MurtBijani,
    I totally respect your views.  The only thing I'd like to point out is I don't think you can consider cable TV public television.  Since you are paying for it on a monthly subscription basis (unless you steal it) it is more private than public.  You can call your cable company and have them remove certain channels from your plan if you want ESPN but don't want MTV per say.  CBS, ABC, UPN are public television and yes wacko jacko's sisters boob should not have popped out on those channels.   But parenting takes effort and we don't want the government to remove effort out of parenting or else they're going to start removing content which I enjoy off cable TV. 
    Blah, I hate politics.



    I absolutely agree with this.  People get all up at arms when someone's kid ends up watching Howard Stern's show and hearing something they didnt want them to hear, but it is their own fault.  If you dont want your kids to watch it then dont let them stay up that late and set your freaking v-chip.  There is a rating system for a reason.  Just because some people cant control their kids, the rest of us have to pay for it.  Either control your kids or stop complaining, but dont try and make everyone else suffer.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh my god... dont ask where i found it
    image


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 98% who has, copy & paste this in your signature.


    A: 73% S: 66% K: 33% E: 26%

  • Clever_GloveClever_Glove Member Posts: 996



    Originally posted by MurtBijani
    What I am saying, however, is that shows like this should not just be on cable...where ANYWAY can pick them up.
    Ok, if people want to see other women's breasts that are not their wives, then let them pay a little extra and get it on pay per view or something..it's just unethical to keep it on public television.
    America goes day by day into the threshold of chaos..such as we are discussing now, if our government keeps allowing such profane things, hell, why don't we all strip and walk into a day care and have sex?
    as you can see by my point (which isn't strong, i know) that I know people want freedom of speech...just make them get it on a place where other people can't that don't want it...




    What your saying is you feel it's the role of the government to enforce personal standards rules on the public that they may not agree with?

    I don't anything here has suggested that we think Janet Breast should have be in public view during the super bowl. That little problem is a problem that fixes itself. By you not watch that station and advertisers putting their ad money somewhere else. (witch both have happened).

    They have paid the price for using free speech.

    The Government does not need to be involved in this. It's already fixed.

     

    ----- chapter 2 ---

    If you had children in pre-school and someone was allowed to walk naked in the middle of it, what would happen?

    A. You would remove your children, costing the pre-school money. Probably allot of other parents also.

    B. You would have a pretty stronge case for a civil suit. Whitch would also cost them money.

    After such and act, that school would go belly-up, and non-longer exsist. The goverment DOES NOT need to be involved, the free market will take care of it.

    Futher, we have millions of laws that already cover everything imaganable. The last thing we need is more goverment control.

    Laws are a way to deal with people AFTER they commit a crime, they can NOT prevent crime. We already have a law to prevent people from exposing themselfs in public. You can see how well it worked.

    No amount of goverment control will make people "moral" like you suggest. And even if they could, would it mean anything? If there is no free will murt, there is no virtue.

     

    ----- chapter 3 ------

    This is a much larger issues than a exposed boob.

    What happens Murt, when your idea's are considered to be "starting chaos"? How can you limit the idea's of person and not others, even if you disagree them? If you try, then it's only a short time until your speech is also revoked.

    What happens when the government decided they don't want people speaking poorly of them on-line? Think the admins of this site aren't going to turn over you IP once the Feds kick in the door?

    If your aware of the AirTime Fairness bill, then you should be aware it's only a matter of time until such things are common place, if people like you continue to support the government in taking away your person freedoms.

    We have a second amendment for a reason, I might not agree with things people say, but I support there right to say it, I a support my right to insult them for it, and I support your right to ban them for saying it.


     


    -=-=-=-=-
    "We're a game that's focused on grouping and on solo play, you know, more group oriented, more solo play..."
    John Blakely Senior lead for EQ2. Link

    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

    -=-=-=-=-
    Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle


    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

  • TaskyZZTaskyZZ Member Posts: 1,476


    Originally posted by Clever_Glove
    What your saying is you feel it's the role of the government to enforce personal standards rules on the public that they may not agree with?
    I don't anything here has suggested that we think Janet Breast should have be in public view during the super bowl. That little problem is a problem that fixes itself. By you not watch that station and advertisers putting their ad money somewhere else. (witch both have happened).
    They have paid the price for using free speech.
    The Government does not need to be involved in this. It's already fixed.

    It is the role of the government to make and enforce the laws as predicated by the people. By enforcing laws about how the public air waves are used, they are doing their jobs. If you don't like the law, then vote for a different politician next time.



    ----- chapter 2 ---
    If you had children in pre-school and someone was allowed to walk naked in the middle of it, what would happen?
    A. You would remove your children, costing the pre-school money. Probably allot of other parents also.
    B. You would have a pretty stronge case for a civil suit. Whitch would also cost them money.
    After such and act, that school would go belly-up, and non-longer exsist. The goverment DOES NOT need to be involved, the free market will take care of it.

    If it were not against the law, then you would have NO BASIS for a civil suit. Someone has to have broken a law or infringed on your rights. Rights which the laws are there to protect.



    Futher, we have millions of laws that already cover everything imaganable. The last thing we need is more goverment control.
    Laws are a way to deal with people AFTER they commit a crime, they can NOT prevent crime. We already have a law to prevent people from exposing themselfs in public. You can see how well it worked.
    No amount of goverment control will make people "moral" like you suggest. And even if they could, would it mean anything? If there is no free will murt, there is no virtue.

    We just need harsher punishment. People break the laws that they do because they feel the punishment to chance of getting caught ratio is favorable. If it weren't, then less crimes would be comitted.

    If you speed 5 mph, it is because you think you can get away with it. And the chance of getting a ticket is minimal and worth the risk of the $100 ticket you might get. But, if that same ticket would be $10,000 if a police officer decided to pull you over, then would you risk it?

    Every crime has a risk to punishment ratio. When someone breaks the law, they have weighed that ratio and decided it was worth the risk. Or they are just mental, we have a whole separate set of laws and rules for those people.



    ----- chapter 3 ------
    This is a much larger issues than a exposed boob.
    What happens Murt, when your idea's are considered to be "starting chaos"? How can you limit the idea's of person and not others, even if you disagree them? If you try, then it's only a short time until your speech is also revoked.
    What happens when the government decided they don't want people speaking poorly of them on-line? Think the admins of this site aren't going to turn over you IP once the Feds kick in the door?
    If your aware of the AirTime Fairness bill, then you should be aware it's only a matter of time until such things are common place, if people like you continue to support the government in taking away your person freedoms.
    We have a second amendment for a reason, I might not agree with things people say, but I support there right to say it, I a support my right to insult them for it, and I support your right to ban them for saying it.

    Not the slippery slope argument... Aaaahhhhh.... I am not going down that path...

  • DekronDekron Member UncommonPosts: 7,359

    I just have a bad feeling that the censorship will get worse if Bush is reelected.  We need to get his conservative ass out of office and get in a liberal president that will yank the leash on agencies like the FCC (and no I don't mean that jackass Kerry either image).  I think this is going to far, now especially that the FCC is starting to turn its filthy head to try and censor cable tv!!!  Here's how I see it,  it's always the little whiners that ruin it for everyone else.  They blame other people that their kids are so F'ed up when they fail to look at themselves as the problem.  Ok, so Janet flashed a little booby...big freakin deal.  They are not looking at the whole picture.  Here are these "nice christian people" sitting and watching a modern day gladiator arena minus the killing (and no I'm not speaking against football, I like it image) and here these people are whining about a little flesh.  Sure let your little kids watch and play a violent game, but yet when a boob flashes on the screen for less than 2 seconds they get all freaked!  To get to the point.  (1) You whiny jackasses need to learn to watch your kids and be responsible for what they see and (2) If you don't like something change the freaking channel and quit whining and ruining things for other people!!!!

    ok vent off

    been a while since I posted so I figured I'd come back a screaming image

    edit:  Oh, by the way I am not supporting porn or anything, my last staement was just in general.  Here I live in Oklahoma, the crappiest state in the union which does not allow gambling or tatooing...why?  Because our state reps who promised to do "what the people want" feels that it is immoral.  Oh...and he also thinks that a lottery is a tax on the poor, but yet he supported a 2 dollar tax increase on cigarettes (i don;t really care because I don;t spoke...just making my point), which according to state statistics the largest percentage of smokers are hanging slightly above all the way down to poverty level.  Once again because people don;t like something themselves they ruin it for everyone else!


    --------------------------------------------

    33.333333333333336% of me is a huge nerd! How about you?

    --------------------------------------------

    People can be split into two groups: arrays and vectors. Both hold data but one is more efficent than the other.

  • minkis18minkis18 Member Posts: 24
    i signed it as quick as i could. told friends to also
  • Clever_GloveClever_Glove Member Posts: 996

    It is the role of the government to make and enforce the laws as predicated by the people. By enforcing laws about how the public air waves are used, they are doing their jobs. If you don't like the law, then vote for a different politician next time.

    perhaps I was little ambiguous, but I'll get that in a moment.

    This is just a clarity statement: The Congress and senate make laws, the people do not. You can only vote for those making laws, you do not make the laws themselves.

    It's interesting when the FCC feels it should act and when it should not. How many murders are seen each week? How many other sexual situations are tossed around, how many rapes and assaults? How many hind ends do you see on "public" TV? How much profanity? 

    But let a breast flop out and you'll feel the full force of the law.

    "FCC rules generally do not govern the selection of programming that is broadcast. The main exceptions are: restrictions on indecent programming, limits on the number of commercials aired during children's programming, and rules involving candidates for public office."  - http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadcast.html

    Inspite of what you think, there are no laws on what is "indecent".

    Let that market work, the government has no place here. You the viewing audience are capable of deciding what is acceptable.

    If it were not against the law, then you would have NO BASIS for a civil suit. Someone has to have broken a law or infringed on your rights. Rights which the laws are there to protect.

    Did I say these laws are bad? No I don't, I did say they government should allow the market to do it's magic, yes. 

    I'm sure concerned citizens such as yourself, will see the correct result to such a problem.

    The government exists at most to protect people's right to: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

    Your going to have to prove that your rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are somehow violated by TV/Radio programing.

    We just need harsher punishment. People break the laws that they do because they feel the punishment to chance of getting caught ratio is favorable. If it weren't, then less crimes would be committed.

    If you speed 5 mph, it is because you think you can get away with it. And the chance of getting a ticket is minimal and worth the risk of the $100 ticket you might get. But, if that same ticket would be $10,000 if a police officer decided to pull you over, then would you risk it?

    Every crime has a risk to punishment ratio. When someone breaks the law, they have weighed that ratio and decided it was worth the risk. Or they are just mental, we have a whole separate set of laws and rules for those people.

    Nice, Why stop at fines. Why not just shoot law breakers on the spot. If you break a law no matter how small your a criminal right? Why should we allow criminals to live?

    Would you risk your life to glance your eyes off the speedometer?

    I hope we can agree such measures are ridiculous, much is what your suggesting in your example.

    While I agree to be hard on real crime. Minor traffic violations are not "real crime".

    The government is not God, no matter what it laws it makes, no mater how hard it implement them, it can NOT protect you. You must be reasonable for yourself.

    Not the slippery slope argument... Aaaahhhhh.... I am not going down that path...

    Convenient of you.

    As long as the government is taking away the rights of people you agree with, then it's all good.

    But I'm sure it will be a different story when it's you they are coming after.  Freedom of speech is a two way road. Today it's porn, tomorrow it's anyone that doesn't praise the government. (Air Time fairness bill and the recent ban on politcal ads before an election)

     

     

    -=-=-=-=-
    "We're a game that's focused on grouping and on solo play, you know, more group oriented, more solo play..."
    John Blakely Senior lead for EQ2. Link

    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

    -=-=-=-=-
    Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle


    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

  • Clever_GloveClever_Glove Member Posts: 996



    Originally posted by dekron

    I just have a bad feeling that the censorship will get worse if Bush is reelected.  We need to get his conservative ass out of office and get in a liberal president that will yank the leash on agencies like the FCC (and no I don't mean that jackass Kerry either image).  I think this is going to far, now especially that the FCC is starting to turn its filthy head to try and censor cable tv!!!  Here's how I see it,  it's always the little whiners that ruin it for everyone else.  They blame other people that their kids are so F'ed up when they fail to look at themselves as the problem.  Ok, so Janet flashed a little booby...big freakin deal.  They are not looking at the whole picture.  Here are these "nice christian people" sitting and watching a modern day gladiator arena minus the killing (and no I'm not speaking against football, I like it image) and here these people are whining about a little flesh.  Sure let your little kids watch and play a violent game, but yet when a boob flashes on the screen for less than 2 seconds they get all freaked!  To get to the point.  (1) You whiny jackasses need to learn to watch your kids and be responsible for what they see and (2) If you don't like something change the freaking channel and quit whining and ruining things for other people!!!!



    Would those be the same free speech liberal people that wanted solve there lack of idea's being presented on AM radio with legislation?

    Maybe it's those freedom loving liberals that want all artifacts of religion removed from public sight? And holidays exempted from the calendar?

    Or maybe the set of liberals that believes diversity of skin pigment but not of idea's.

    I'm afraid leftist want to the same thing, but instead of nudity, they want to censor anyone that doesn't agree with them. (Air Time Fairness Act, Campaign reform that prevents Ads to be aired before an election)

     


    -=-=-=-=-
    "We're a game that's focused on grouping and on solo play, you know, more group oriented, more solo play..."
    John Blakely Senior lead for EQ2. Link

    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

    -=-=-=-=-
    Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle


    Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.

  • KuzzleKuzzle Member Posts: 1,058

     Ok I have some stuff to say.

     The government just screws up everything so nothing should be left to them.(If you don't agree I don't wanna hear you whining about it.) Censoring is redundant. If you take something away it becomes more valuable and therefor people will want it more. I'm saying this in general, not about Janet Jackson's boob, 'cuz I really don't care about that. It's like back in some time or another when the government banned alcohol, people just made moonshine and such. I wouldn't leave any of my choices up to the government, they're all to uptight. It's the same thing as not letting people drive untill they're 16, you take it away and they'll do it anyway. Crap.

     I wanna make my own choices, too bad for any uptight government official who wants to make them for me, I'll break his nose before I let him tell me what to do.

  • hosagihosagi Member Posts: 2

    I agree the Janet B(.Y.)B thing went to far(imho there wasnt much to look at now if Brittney Spears did that you would actually see something but im getting off topic here)

    I agree there needs to be strict guidlines about the stuff, but people you need to realize when the so called "Infallable Government" gets rolling nothing is going to stop it today their banning Howard Stern, next week every channel on cable and satilite networks are copys of NickJr Disney and 24 hr Seasame Street, now little kids might find that fun but TV as we know it will die due to the fact that(no matter how much they publiclly detest it)people will pay big bucks to see full frontal nuedity, blood, guts, gore, death, and romance why do you think the top 5 grossing pictures are "Titanic", "ET", "Star Wars", and "The Matrix", but if the government has their way the censorship wont stop their it will spread to all forms of media, including the internet, radio, and magazines

    /e starts crying at the thought of not getting his Playboy and Penthouse subscriptions imageimageimage

    we need to show them that we will do anything we can to prevent this

  • TaskyZZTaskyZZ Member Posts: 1,476


    Originally posted by Clever_Glove
    Nice, Why stop at fines. Why not just shoot law breakers on the spot. If you break a law no matter how small your a criminal right? Why should we allow criminals to live?
    Would you risk your life to glance your eyes off the speedometer?
    I hope we can agree such measures are ridiculous, much is what your suggesting in your example.
    While I agree to be hard on real crime. Minor traffic violations are not "real crime".

    It was just an example that would drive home the point. Not the actual law/punishment that should be enacted. But it was an example that everyone could understand.



    The government is not God, no matter what it laws it makes, no mater how hard it implement them, it can NOT protect you. You must be reasonable for yourself.

    Of course, people should be responsible for themselves. But there has to be a limit to what extent these companies can do in public. Like the Super Bowl incident (now I personally don't give a shit, and actually used my TiVo to watch it multiple times to be sure of what was actually shown), you can't use the free market in that example, as it has already happened and no one expected it to.

    [quote][b]
    Convenient of you.
    As long as the government is taking away the rights of people you agree with, then it's all good.
    But I'm sure it will be a different story when it's you they are coming after. Freedom of speech is a two way road. Today it's porn, tomorrow it's anyone that doesn't praise the government. (Air Time fairness bill and the recent ban on politcal ads before an election)
    [quote][b]

    I never said I agreed with it. But there are proper channels to fight it. They have already banned talk of killing the president, that slope is just getting steeper... (I think I hear black helicopters hovering outside, should not have posted this :) ).

    The Public Airwaves are just that. They are public, anyone can watch them. They are owned by the public, and so the governement does have the right to restrict how they are used.

    I do not always agree with the rules that are made, but we have to deal with them as best we can. Vote someone in who will make the changes you want to see.


Sign In or Register to comment.