FCC trampling on freedom of speech...

[J.J. Maxx]

I've heard alot about this is the news recently and personally I thinks it's ridiculous. The fact that the FCC wants to censor what you hear and see when you turn on your radio and T.V. is stupid. I have fingers and if I am offended by something, I will turn it off. If the majority of people are offended by it, it won't get any ratings and it will be canceled.

The way I see it, the majority of Americans use foul language on a daily basis, talk about sex and sexual acts more than usual and the government and the Bush administration are trying to 'swim upstream' by making the media live in the past.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we should have hardcore tentacle porn on ABC Saturday Mornings, but I do think that if the general population of the country finds certain things acceptable for everyday usage, then that should also be allowed on TV and radio. I am old enough to judge for myself what is good and what is bad. It should also be the parents responsibility to monitor what their children are listening to or hearing, not the government.

[Starkist]

Someone more liberal in relation to media censorship than you would say that you're an evil fascist trying to censor people from tentacle porn.

...

Where do you draw the line?

[slothman]

You never draw the line unless it is illegal. I don't mean a despiction of something illegal but illegal itself. Otherwise all stuff is good. The classic argument I use is why should it be censored? Just because we say it's "bad?" What if the FCC said showing black people as equal to whites was bad? Just let the people decide.

[Gerudo]

gah, i happen to like tentacle rape...

[Starkist]

Maybe you don't follow polls, slothman, but the FCC is following the will of the people in this case.

[J.J. Maxx]

Maybe we should hold country-wide polls on simple issues via the internet?

Have a dedicated government website where the country can 'vote' on various topics. Like, 'Should we allow frontal female nudity on network television after 10pm?'

That way we could do it in a democratic sense rather than a bunch of old guys making the decision for the whole country. :shrug:

[bigjoe]

I can't say that I didn't see this sort of thing coming. It's somewhat amusing, though, to know the backlash that this will cause. ;)

[Starkist]

Michael Powell is not what I consider "old". I can just imagine though, the kids here at AGN going to such a site and repeatedly voting "yes" for those topless women... :blah:

[slothman]

When you say the will of the people remember that we have rights even a minority group has rights. Our form of democracy is "Majority rules, minority rights." Not "Majority rules and can take away rights of 49% of the people." If the people really had will they would pass an amendment to trump the First. It would still be immoral but at least it would be constitutional.

[Starkist]

So what do you do when 51% of the people have a will that conflicts with 49%?

[AtmaWeapon]

Debate and argue and get nothing done. That is, until someone lobbies, then let the biggest wallet win. It's the American way :thumbsup:


By the way, I'm on vacation.

[Radium]

I agree completely. Sign the petition. > http://www.stopfcc.com/ <

[slothman]

Well if the will is against the First Amendment, or others, then the 49% win. If it isn't then the 51% win. If that weren't true then Congress could, by virtue of a 51% popular mandate, ignore the Bill of Rights. Surely you don't think they should be able to do that? Of course if I pointed you to a site: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/19/9735/19430
You would probably think Congress should do that. I mean 67% of Congress must have a better idea than a bunch of non-elected judges. :D Of course the judges have a better idea when they are determining if Congress, or the FCC, can even do that in the first place. Remember the Constitution trumps all, even 51% or 67% of Congress.

[Ich]

This post is partly satirical, partly serious. Just skip down to the next person if you feel offended.

The FCC annoys me. They're given power because parents don't want to raise their own children and bother removing objectionable content from their field of vision. Parents figure, "We should let the government raise our children to be moral!" Mistake if I ever saw one. It's lazy parenting at fault here more than anything else. If you spent your time involved with your children, say, with the wife at home and husband as the bread winner, we would be given a much higher degree of assurance that the children wouldn't be submitted to objectionable content. Since society prevents that, I blame women's liberation for the problems with America today.

[slothman]

That's true for some of the FCC but they also have to regulate airwaves. Unless you Someone has to figure out how get's what frequencies.

[Rainman]

I think the the standards of the past have been fine. Any parent with reasonable control over their child would be able to keep their kids from viewing offensive content.

[bigjoe]

I think the the standards of the past have been fine. Any parent with reasonable control over their child would be able to keep their kids from viewing offensive content.
And any parent without said control didn't raise their children right. When I lived with my stepmom, if I messed up, it was pulling weeds until 2 AM.

[Archibaldo]

By the way how early is this "Tentacle porn" on?:naughty: