Posted on 03/01/2005 10:01:09 AM PST by Dave S
"Subscription" may be a bit of a misnomer in this case. I "subscribe" to the basic cable package, with no extra frills. There are many shows that I find a little over the top with unnecessary smut and trash. In a case like this, it's almost analogous to saying that since I decided to have a front window, I shouldn't be offended in my neighbors decide to 'get it on" in my front yard; I'm free to pull the drapes.
If it's a true subscription, then I don't care what they put on, but I don't want to have random smut interspersed with normal daytime TV. The way it is now, if you want to protect kids from smut, you'd have to block 60% of the normal channels on cable/satellite TV.
Oh, I know, children really don't matter...screw 'em, adults deserve to live their lives and the children can go jump off a cliff. By gosh, I have a "RIGHT" to do as I please!
I just like to keep reminding people that a lot of societies ills could be cured if we started shaming the appropriate behaviors.
People often mistake language for action. There's a difference between 'indecent' language and 'indecent' action. Ted Stevens apparently doesn't know the difference. He's playing right into the hands of the left.
Stevens needs to think through what he is proposing or be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
Like I said, if you going at it from the standpoint that "It's for the childen" is all that matters, you're not going to get much traction.
You're not making any more sense than the Democrats howling that the Republicans want to see inner city children starving and old people thrown out on the street because they won't go along with increasing the welfare programs as much as the 'Rats think they ought to.
"you'd have to block 60% of the normal channels on cable/satellite TV."
What's the matter with that. I remember a time when I only got one channel and don't feel the worse for it.
If you want to live in a nickelodeon/disney channel TV world that's fine. No reason to impose that on everyone else.
I am talking about day to day decisions that people make in their lives...nothing to do with the government....or government control....I hope someone decides not to visit the "pervert bookstores", or watch "pervert entertainment" because they know it harms children, not because the government told them not to.
Believe me when I say that I want the federal government to stay out of everything, they only makes things worse.
Go for it, but note that "shame" is not synonymous with "arrest and imprision".
Taliban Ted should resign from the Senate and find a more appropriate place to be a censor -- like Alabama or Saudi Arabia.
I agree, but I think shame does a lot more than prison, etc.... look how we have shamed smokers? Let's do the same for those who have children out-of-wedlock.
For some reason I made the assumption that you were posting based on the content and context of the article that is the subject of the thread.
Great, then you won't mind when your neighbors start doing it on your front lawn - just because the other neighbors don't like it, or your kids get the occassional shock, so what?
Methinks you're missing the forest for the trees - just because some folks like smut and casual filth doesn't mean we should all have it imposed on us.
Oops, wait a minute, that's a permutation of your argument. I wonder if it is more powerful and sane in your direction or my direction?
Do decency standards not effect children? Just because I may not want the fed. gov. to implement a ban or what have you....I want society as a whole to shame that type of behavior.
How exactly are children harmed? And if that is the standard, wouldn't we have to ban certain books ... guns ... cars ... fast food ... etc.?
2. I'm opposed to giving ANY new power to a bunch of inept, incompetent, power-hungry, unelected bureaucrats like the FCC.
I am talking about moral issues, i.e. and yes, I would hope that society would shame certain magazines, tv shows, etc....
I do not see where a gun or fast-food has anything to do with the morals of our young children.
Trying to twist this to where nothing is bad is what I expect from people who partake in things they would not want their chilren to partake in. So they try to throw everything in the mix so they do not look so bad.
" "Subscription" may be a bit of a misnomer in this case. I "subscribe" to the basic cable package, with no extra frills. There are many shows that I find a little over the top with unnecessary smut and trash. In a case like this, it's almost analogous to saying that since I decided to have a front window, I shouldn't be offended in my neighbors decide to 'get it on" in my front yard; I'm free to pull the drapes.
If it's a true subscription, then I don't care what they put on, but I don't want to have random smut interspersed with normal daytime TV. The way it is now, if you want to protect kids from smut, you'd have to block 60% of the normal channels on cable/satellite TV."
Your post is illogical and nonsensical. If you look out your front window, that's public property, available for anyone to see. If you look at your cable, even 'basic' cable, that's something YOU specifically made an effort to go out and get. YOU chose to have it into your house. It is not available in public unless someone goes out of their way pay for it. Like you did.
Trying to equate even basic cable with behavior in public is moronic. Get a clue before you post something so ridiculous.
All well and good. Right now, we are talking about a "federal ban or what have you". If you want to discuss some other issue or aspect, there are other threads. If you can't find one, you can always start one.
He's nuts! I can understand the networks, radio and even basic cable but Pay Per View?
"just because some folks like smut and casual filth doesn't mean we should all have it imposed on us."
No one's imposing 'smut' and 'filth' on you. Like I said, if you want to block channels on your television, be my guest. I hope you understand that your argument is in full support of Michael Copps, the democrat, at the FCC who is the pushing anti-indecency legislation.
Look at the more oppressive governments around the world. You'll see that the more oppressive they are, they will have an equally oppressive attitude to legislating morality. These are the most immoral political structures.
The issue isn't what society does to shame bad behavior. The issue is what the government will do to legislate certain material out of existence. Every person can vote with their remote if they don't like a program, but censorship removes that decision from us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.