Coming to the US Supreme Court on Tuesday

[marlin29311]

I really don't care if anything objectionable is broadcast as long as it's content that is otherwise legal. Don't like it? Don't watch it. Everyone has a different opinion about morality and decency, and it's not the nation's job to parent your kids.

Tell that to the parent that now has to explain what a "porno" is to their 5 year old kid that saw a commercial for that new movie during a sport game.

[AZhitman]

I'm all for FCC regulation, heck I am even for censorship...can we get one of those pixelation things on Bill O, he really just looks and acts like a big d!ck.

What your not really understanding about this case is its not about 'censoring' TV its about getting fined for somebody saying something unplanned. That is a dangerous step towards censorship, what your implying is not nearly to the same level. Comparing a fine on the slip of a tongue to outright censorship is just making you look sillly.

Ummm, how is that?

If it's a free-for-all, how can ANYTHING be a "slip of the tongue"?

Maybe your disagreement is with telco and those who'd prefer anything and everything be passable, across the board, regardless of its level of repulsiveness.

[skylndrftr]

'its a movie especially for grownups'

thats a lot of bluster for a guy whose watched threads list contains:

NSFW jailbait thread

[marlin29311]

'its a movie especially for grownups'

thats a lot of bluster for a guy whose watched threads list contains:

NSFW jailbait thread

If that's directed at me, that's the most ignorant statement ever - try looking at what I posted in that thread, BEFORE it became a jailbait thread.

Am I a parent? No. I don't care what gets seen by older eyes - I'm fine with the "pay to hear" type things like Howard Stern, etc. But when you start throwing terms around on national and public broadcasting that has a wide range of audience exposure, I believe that we have to look at what we say. While you might think it's ok to talk about porno's to your 5 year old, some people don't.

[audtatious]

What about the "you decided to have kids and it's entirely your job to raise them" approach?

I support that as I never asked anyone's opinion nor for "the village" to help me as a single father. Can you tell the school system and local Gov to step back?

I'd have to move to the UK for that.

Or order the channel package or surf the net for pron....

[telcoman]

telco - How do you reconcile your vote with Obama's support of the Fairness Doctrine? I'm curious to hear a well-crafted explanation of that.

________________________________

telco, I agree that the FCC needs to piss off in most cases.

However, I'm torn, because there's clearly some content that simply offends the senses.

.

I'm not sure why you would object to the Fairness Doctrine?

The way I understand it, if there is an attack on someone that is broadcast, the station must give an opportunity for the person attacked to respond.

What is your problem with that? Isn't that only the fair thing to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Telcoman

[BusyBadger]

The libs had their time with the ultimate fairness doctrine - free enterprise, it was called Air America. Its obvious no one wants to listen.

Maybe the intelligent discourse provided by SNL signals a change in future programming formats.

[audtatious]

That's because Dems get the same information from TV and news print as they hear on Air America thus there is no reason to listen. Reps get information and commentary from AM radio that they don't get via other venues of media.

[AZhitman]

I'm not sure why you would object to the Fairness Doctrine?

The way I understand it, if there is an attack on someone that is broadcast, the station must give an opportunity for the person attacked to respond.

What is your problem with that? Isn't that only the fair thing to do?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Oh, I forgot. You're all about "fairness".

Go give half your stuff to the guy down the street, since he doesn't have as much as you do. Seriously.

Howie, for someone who's SO opposed to the FCC's intervention with Stern, you really have no clue:

...a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

So, for every hour that Stern talks about boobs and incest and anal sex, your favorite channel has to have an hour of "opposing" viewpoint.

For every hour of Rush, an hour of [insert libby media show here].

If you oppose censorship and restrictions, you'll oppose the FD. Unless you're a pantywaist nincompoop who's pissed that there's not enough liberal radio shows... in which case the only person you have to blame is the American public, because historically, those shows have sucked - and failed.

If you can't comprehend why the FD is the biggest load of CRAP ever, then there's no sense trying to explain it to you.

[telcoman]

If it's a free-for-all, how can ANYTHING be a "slip of the tongue"?

Maybe your disagreement is with telco and those who'd prefer anything and everything be passable, across the board, regardless of its level of repulsiveness.

You can hear mcCain's slip of the tongue here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...08380

using the c word referring to a part of the female anatomy.

Howard Stern was playing a bunch of over the air slipups early this morning including the one McCain made. There was also another one from a TV weather person in Wisconsin that slips when using the word folks. He slipped up and used the wrong f word.

So the question is should stations be fined for slip ups?

I don't think so.

Anyone who thinks their child will be harmed for hearing George Carlins list of seven words has got bigger problems in my opinion.

Telcoman

[szh]

Anyone who thinks their child will be harmed for hearing George Carlins list of seven words has got bigger problems in my opinion.

I am curious ... do/did you practice what you are preaching here? Do you have children and have/were they been sat down and had the Carlin video (or radio program) list of words played to them at a young age?

I am not opposed to words being on television during programs aimed at grownups, per se, because I am not concerned about that. However, I would certainly not like to expose my son to foul language if I can avoid it. So, yes, we try to be very careful with what he is allowed to watch on television.

This is not always easy. For example, my son is very politically interested and very aware of the elections, etc., and we do allow him to watch CNN ... however, on Sunday, we had to turn off CNN, when some program with Hughly (spelling?) came on with his "news" commentary.

And, yes, we avoid speaking foul language ourselves (not always perfect), and one problem with my ten-year old is that he is picking it up at school from other kids, whose parents are not as on the ball.

And, yes, I do believe that certain foul language exposure is harmful to children in the long run. Some words are derogatory towards women and races, and those can anesthetize and inure kids to those attitudes at too early an age.

For example, I want him to be outraged at music (particularly rap) that perpetuates or endorses violence to women. If that happens on the radio or on television, then it makes my job more difficult: to bring up my son in the way I want.

Z

[AZhitman]

Z, he's not gonna comprehend all that.

Easy for Howie to criticize current parents, when his kids were brought up in a MUCH different environment.

Howie, would your grown kids want you to play Stern's show in the car while you're taking the grandkids out for ice cream? How about some misogynist gangsta rap?

[barrigas14]

Are you freaking kidding me?

Oh, I forgot. You're all about "fairness".

Go give half your stuff to the guy down the street, since he doesn't have as much as you do. Seriously.

Howie, for someone who's SO opposed to the FCC's intervention with Stern, you really have no clue:

...a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

So, for every hour that Stern talks about boobs and incest and anal sex, your favorite channel has to have an hour of "opposing" viewpoint.

For every hour of Rush, an hour of [insert libby media show here].

If you oppose censorship and restrictions, you'll oppose the FD. Unless you're a pantywaist nincompoop who's pissed that there's not enough liberal radio shows... in which case the only person you have to blame is the American public, because historically, those shows have sucked - and failed.

If you can't comprehend why the FD is the biggest load of CRAP ever, then there's no sense trying to explain it to you.

Mostly I hate the FCC...

But, you are trying to get people to say you support Obama 100%. I don't support anyone 100%. I disagree with some of my friends actions and what they believe in, but if someone pulled a gun on them I'd step in between the two.

So stop saying that because you support Obama you support everything.

I doubt you support everything that McCain has done or will/wants to do.

[AZhitman]

Nope. That's too simplistic.

And I suppose it's a little easier for me since I don't really have a dog in this fight.

BUT, if J-Mac was a strong supporter of something as absurd as the FD, you can bet your AZ heinie I'd be having second thoughts as to whether he deserves my vote.

All I want is someone who opposes censorship to explain to me how the can reconcile the two?

I mean, certain posters are pretty adamant about it - They should have a gracious plenty to say in response.

[ishkabibble]

Tell that to the parent that now has to explain what a "porno" is to their 5 year old kid that saw a commercial for that new movie during a sport game.

I doubt you'd see anything like that. But, if you did, it's your choice to be watching it with your kid.

can we get one of those pixelation things on Bill O, he really just looks and acts like a big d!ck.

[skylndrftr]

All I want is someone who opposes censorship to explain to me how the can reconcile the two?

Your worse than telco sometimes...its BEEN explianed, you just don't like the answer. The FD regards equal time for equal viewpoints. It also would mean that Money would have a lot less to do with political campaigns. It would mean Obama wouldn't have a 30minute infomercial (or alternatively, McCain would). It means you can't go on TV and call one candidate a terrorlst and not let him respond. Censorship is refusing to air a viewpoint you disagree with. How you can even compare the two is beyond me...I love having Bill O'reilly on the air. In fact I want MORE Bill O, hes good for my viewpoint...but only when somebody stands up and points out the utter hypocracy in everything he says and does.

as for the porno thing...what was originally referred to was that during the world series their was an ad for "Zack and Miri make a porno" which is the new Kevin Smith movie. Oh no the word porno was mentioned....lets hope they don't advertise tampons or sausages or...milk

[WDRacing]

You can't tell a for profit organization that it HAS to air anything. The object is to air what THEY think will get them the best ratings. Fairness has nothing to do with it. The Gov has no right to tell any bussiness what it HAS to sell.

Do you not understand that?

Lets make it clear, do you think the Gov should be able to tell a bussiness what it has to sell?

It's as simple as that.

[ishkabibble]

do you think the Gov should be able to tell a bussiness what it has to sell?

Yep, it happens all of the time whenever a business uses something "owned" by the government (in this case, the airwaves).

Heck, half of the people on this thread support "having to sell" family-friendly content.

[szh]

And, yes, I do believe that certain foul language exposure is harmful to children in the long run. Some words are derogatory towards women and races, and those can anesthetize and inure kids to those attitudes at too early an age.

By the way, look at this for an example of how teens (not young kids exactly!) are affected by what they see on television: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27506234/.

How can anyone possibly think that kids are not affected by foul language and other stuff that happens on television and movies and rap music, etc.?

Yes, damn right, I want whatever exposure my son gets, to be properly filtered and managed and limited in scope ... till he is older (old enough to know better).

Your opinion expressed here:

Anyone who thinks their child will be harmed for hearing George Carlins list of seven words has got bigger problems in my opinion.

is way off the mark.

Z

[marlin29311]

as for the porno thing...what was originally referred to was that during the world series their was an ad for "Zack and Miri make a porno" which is the new Kevin Smith movie. Oh no the word porno was mentioned....lets hope they don't advertise tampons or sausages or...milk

That's just as ignorant as your previous statement. There is a difference in discussing a "porno," which is a sexually explicit film, as compared to consumer products. There is no comparison, and the implications of the discussion in each case are completely different. Sausages and milk? How does that even begin to compare?

I doubt you'd see anything like that. But, if you did, it's your choice to be watching it with your kid.

So now I can't watch a baseball game because it's my choice there is a commercial between innings for the "porno" movie? Yes, I clearly asked FOX to put that ad while I was watching baseball with my kid.

[WDRacing]

Yep, it happens all of the time whenever a business uses something "owned" by the government (in this case, the airwaves).

Heck, half of the people on this thread support "having to sell" family-friendly content.

Surely you can see the difference between censorship and dicatating what must be shown? There is a big difference between wanting "clean" television during certain hours and forcing a Broadcast Channel / Network to air equal opportunity programming.

WD

[skylndrftr]

So now I can't watch a baseball game because it's my choice there is a commercial between innings for the "porno" movie? Yes, I clearly asked FOX to put that ad while I was watching baseball with my kid.

Well its their company...shouldn't they be able to do what they want?

You guys are for moral regulation but against fiscal ones. you want to control what they broadcast, but don't care when they lie cheat and steal their way into billions.

The choice is being made by the people today and you all are going bye bye!

[OriginalWheelman]

You guys are for moral regulation but against fiscal ones. you want to control what they broadcast, but don't care when they lie cheat and steal their way into billions.

Why not? Everyone has forgotten about Whitewater because they liked Clinton so much.

[marlin29311]

Well its their company...shouldn't they be able to do what they want?

Not when they're affecting a large audience. Quite frankly I think the MPAA should have had the title changed, but that's another debate.

You guys are for moral regulation but against fiscal ones. you want to control what they broadcast, but don't care when they lie cheat and steal their way into billions.

Last I checked it was the dem's that voted against the regulations on the mortgage industry and opened up the sub-prime mess.

Care to enlighten on the lying, cheating and stealing? Your statement seems overly vague if you ask me...

Another quality post.

[telcoman]

Why not? Everyone has forgotten about Whitewater because they liked Clinton so much.

You are too young to remember Watergate.

BTW millions were spent and wasted investigating Whitewater.Read Susan McDougald's book. She went to jail rather than lie for a corrupt govenment.

Telcoman

[OriginalWheelman]

You are too young to remember Watergate.

BTW millions were spent and wasted investigating Whitewater.Read Susan McDougald's book. She went to jail rather than lie for a corrupt govenment.

Telcoman

But I do know about it. My point is that it exists on both sides of the fence. People choose to forget things because they view a particular figure positively. Nixon is (not saying he doesn't deserve it) looked back on a dirty rotten scoundrel, so it stays in the history books next to his name. Clinton is looked back at favorably, so Whitewater will likely be swept under the rug. Sort of like JFK's affair w/ Monroe etc...

[telcoman]

But I do know about it. My point is that it exists on both sides of the fence. People choose to forget things because they view a particular figure positively. Nixon is (not saying he doesn't deserve it) looked back on a dirty rotten scoundrel, so it stays in the history books next to his name. Clinton is looked back at favorably, so Whitewater will likely be swept under the rug. Sort of like JFK's affair w/ Monroe etc...

Here is an update

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...pnews

Telcoman