Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FCC chair to cable and satellite TV: Clean up your act or else
ap on San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 11/29/05 | Jennifer Kerr - ap

Posted on 11/29/2005 2:58:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON – Sexed-up, profanity-laced shows on cable and satellite TV should be for adult eyes only, and providers must do more to shield children or could find themselves facing indecency fines, the nation's top communications regulator says. "Parents need better and more tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters, particularly on cable and satellite TV," Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told Congress on Tuesday.

Martin suggested several options, including a "family-friendly" tier of channels that would offer shows suitable for kids, such as the programs shown on the Nickelodeon channel.

He also said cable and satellite providers could consider letting consumers pay for a bundle of channels that they could choose themselves – an "a la carte" pricing system.

If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.

"You can always turn the television off and of course block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"

Martin spoke at an all-day forum on indecency before the Senate Commerce Committee. It included more than 20 entertainment industry, government and public interest leaders with differing views on whether broadcast networks, cable and satellite companies need more regulation.

Cable and satellite representatives defended their operations, and said they've been working to help educate parents on the tools the companies offer to block unwanted programming. They also said "a la carte" pricing would drive up costs for equipment, customer service and marketing – charges that would likely be passed to subscribers.

Others at the forum, such as the Christian Coalition, urged Congress to increase the fines against indecency on the airwaves from the current $32,500 maximum penalty per violation to $500,000.

Since the Janet Jackson "breast-exposure" at the Super Bowl nearly two years ago, indecency foes have turned up the pressure on Congress to do more to cleanse the airwaves. But efforts to hike fines have so far failed.

Even so, Committee Co-Chair Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, told the forum that lawmakers want to see the industry help protect children from indecent and violent programming.

"If you don't come up with an answer, we will," he said.

Congress is considering several bills that would boost fines.

Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said some critics have complained the bills don't go far enough and that decency standards should be expanded to cover cable and satellite.

Currently, obscenity and indecency standards apply only to over-the-air broadcasters. Congress would need to give the FCC the authority to police cable and satellite programming.

Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association said the government doesn't need to intervene, and that there's more room for self regulation.

Some lawmakers also complained about the TV ratings system and said it was too confusing for parents. But broadcasters said they weren't ready to give up on the V-chip and the ratings system it uses to help identify programs with sex, violence or crude language.

Jack Valenti, the former president of the Motion Picture Association of America, cautioned lawmakers to let the industry come up with a solution. Otherwise, he said, "you begin to torment and torture the First Amendment."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: areyouabadinfluence; cable; cabletv; cleanup; controlyourgonads; couldbeyourdaughter; fcc; fccchair; filthinmybrain; isyourinfluencegood; itsmybrainwasteit; kevinmartin; nannystate; pornworld; rudecrudesociety; satellite; satellitetv; sluttv; talibornagain; tedstevensisanarse; trashtv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

1 posted on 11/29/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Consumers to FCC: go pound sand.


2 posted on 11/29/2005 2:59:43 PM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Mr. Martin - Sit down and get to know your V-chip, you moron.


3 posted on 11/29/2005 3:00:08 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Thank God Government's rescuing my sorry self for not being smart enough to change the channel or turn it off.


4 posted on 11/29/2005 3:00:15 PM PST by TomServo ("Aunt Bea- after dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

But, but, but, running around nude on TV is FREE SPEECH!


5 posted on 11/29/2005 3:02:30 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I have no faith in any politician or political party any more. They all lie for their agendas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
There is ample legal precedent that the FCC has zero regulatory authority over satellite & cable TV. Anything they did would immediately be taken to court, and struck down.
6 posted on 11/29/2005 3:02:40 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (You know you have bird flu if you have usual flu symptoms + desire to crap on freshly washed cars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I recently had basic cable hooked up again because of the supposable "discount" they promoted. What I've seen on there isn't worth a plug nickle.

And they want me to pay for more channels of programming that's even worse? I don't so...

7 posted on 11/29/2005 3:03:15 PM PST by Ladysmith ((NRA, SAS) Support Zien's PPA/CCW bill in Wisconsin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

More time wasting and bloviating from people with nothing better to do.


8 posted on 11/29/2005 3:05:42 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel (The Democratic Party-Jackass symbol, jackass leaders, jackass supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"FReeper" = a self-described conservative who thinks the idea of shielding children from harmful or inappropriate material is contemptible. Syn. "bilious old fart"


9 posted on 11/29/2005 3:07:17 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

There’s way to much smut on TV and the sad fact is that most parents let their TVs raise their children. I’m glad to see the FCC do something about this.


10 posted on 11/29/2005 3:07:28 PM PST by WashingtonStateRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunStar; NormsRevenge

> Mr. Martin - Sit down and get to know your V-chip, you moron.

Trouble is, for most viewers, all channels are channel
"3" at the input to the actual TV (where the V-chip is).
However, many set-top boxes have equivalent capability.

We recently fired Dish, and told them
"call us back when you get a'la carte".

The problem here wasn't young family member stumbling
into porn, but the bill-payer (me) objecting to paying
for crap we never watch, including Legacy Media "news"
channels, many seriously slimy leftist propaganda channels
(but also all the sports, and most of the tunes).

The cable and DBS ops can make these pols go away by
offering a'la carte. If they do it cleverly, they can
even make MORE money in the post-alc epoch.

So what do they have against alc?
Set-top boxes needing to be swapped out?
Can't force-feed us lib jive channels anymore?


11 posted on 11/29/2005 3:08:40 PM PST by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonStateRepublican
Me too. I just wish the FCC would regulate more stuff so I wouldn't have to worry about my kids getting their hands on it. What about books? Gosh, have you SEEN some of those books out there? Catcher in the Rye? Can you believe that's required high school reading some places?

And the Bible! You know there is stuff in there about whores and sex?!? I can't believe some people expose their kids to this stuff!

I just hope the FCC sets its sights a little higher than just cable television. Some of the smut out there is just absurd.

12 posted on 11/29/2005 3:12:34 PM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TomServo; All

Now let the FCC clean up the screens used by the veiwing public. By that, I mean get rid of ALL of those obnoxious, view-obstructing, plasma tv screen ruining, on-screen station logos. Give us, the veiwing public the choice of either having or not having them on our screens. Extend that to all electronics with a tuner. We are smarter than what THEY think we are. If anyone has a program recorded from 10 to 15 years ago, you will notice no logos, or very few of them. It's gotten to be a joke. When I watch the tube, all I want to see is the presentation. Not a lot of logos. Give us back our unobstructed view of the matter being presented.


13 posted on 11/29/2005 3:13:41 PM PST by NCC-1701 (RADICAL ISLAM IS A CULT. IT MUST BE ERADICATED ASAP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"You can always turn the television off and of course block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"

I like steak and don't like seafood. Therefore, all seafood restaurants should be required to serve steak. Sure, I could always just not go to restaurants that don't, but why should I have to?

14 posted on 11/29/2005 3:14:22 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (I am a leaf on the wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
"But, but, but, running around nude on TV is FREE SPEECH!"

No, but running around nude on a paid commercial service is free enterprise. The FCC lacks the requisite authority to actually do anything to cable or satellite television providers. With the broadcast radio and television industries dying, the FCC finds itself slipping into complete and total irrelevancy. That must be absolutely terrifying for the group of Puritan busybodies at the FCC and the PTC.
15 posted on 11/29/2005 3:15:47 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonStateRepublican
I've never understood why people feel such a strong need to get their rocks off watching crap of this type on TV anyway. Let's face it - most homes have multiple sets and in most homes it's TV that babysits the kids, not Mom or Dad, and the V-chip doesn't always filter the garbage out.

If TV sex is the only way you can get your jollies, then go buy or rent a porno.
16 posted on 11/29/2005 3:16:02 PM PST by reagan_fanatic (Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boundless
The problem here wasn't young family member stumbling into porn, but the bill-payer (me) objecting to paying for crap we never watch

Amen. I'm looking forward to the day I can dump CNN and all the Spanish channels our cable company keeps adding. Thanks to cable, illegals will never have to learn English.

17 posted on 11/29/2005 3:16:52 PM PST by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

They want their porno on demand, not have to get dressed and drive 5 miles for their kicks!


18 posted on 11/29/2005 3:17:19 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I have no faith in any politician or political party any more. They all lie for their agendas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Did someone say CABLE and SATELLITE?

The FCC should go take a flying leap. They have no jurisdiction whatsoever.


19 posted on 11/29/2005 3:18:49 PM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
""FReeper" = a self-described conservative who thinks the idea of government regulations forcably "shielding" children everyone from what some consider to be harmful or inappropriate material instead of leaving it up to parents to take some responsibility in the raising of their own children for a change is contemptible."

There ya go, I fixed all the typoes! :-)
20 posted on 11/29/2005 3:19:36 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I have 70 channels on extended basic cable.

I would glady give up 40 of the junk ones so I did not have to wade through them to get through the 30 semi-decent/viewable ones.

a la carte should be mandatory. The only trouble with that is subscribers would have to use digital cable, rather than analog -- and the cable co automatically bumps up the cost of digital for the box, etc.

Still, dropping 40 junk channels (and their current costs) could make up for the added digital connections.


21 posted on 11/29/2005 3:20:23 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomServo

You may be smart enough to turn the channel, but are you fast enough? We were watching the Super Bowl when Janet Jackson had her "accident"? Our grandchildren were speechless, and immediately waited for Grandma & Grandpa's reaction.
We were speechless too!
We mainly object to vulgar language & violence; We can handle a boob now and then.


22 posted on 11/29/2005 3:20:31 PM PST by Walkenfree ("Aspire to Inspire before you expire")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

the FCC might be able to fanagle their way into regulating cable, but I would say that satellites are well out of their jurisdiction.


23 posted on 11/29/2005 3:21:02 PM PST by meyer (Dems are stuck on stupid. Al Gore invented stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonStateRepublican
"the sad fact is that most parents let their TVs raise their children. I’m glad to see the FCC do something about this."

You're happy to see the government step in and parent children in lieu of parents handling things themselves?

Sure you're on the right site?
24 posted on 11/29/2005 3:21:39 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701
on-screen station logos

I was watching FoxNews a few days ago, and I swear I saw live video. It was a small area in the background that seeped through between the circulating FoxNews box and the red Alert banner, and the blue 'you are too stupid to understand what this picture is about, so we are labelling it for you' label.

The control room screwed up -- and allowed some video to seep through.


[end sarcasm]
25 posted on 11/29/2005 3:24:59 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
Cute, I guess, but not accurate. The FCC is telling the companies to come up with a way for customers to CHOOSE (you libertarians love that word) which channels are available in their homes--and which will not be available, especially since some of those that come with available packages now are grossly inappropriate for youthful viewers. It makes great sense, except to bilious old farts libertarians.
26 posted on 11/29/2005 3:25:01 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Walkenfree
"We were watching the Super Bowl when Janet Jackson had her "accident"? Our grandchildren were speechless, and immediately waited for Grandma & Grandpa's reaction. We were speechless too!"

I envy the day when people can responsibly afford to worry about children getting a 1/8th of a second blurry glimpse of a woman's bare breast on television. If that's the worst thing that happens to them, they're in damn fine shape.

"We mainly object to vulgar language & violence; We can handle a boob now and then."

Which is a far more sensible position to take than "oh, sure I let my 6 year old watch Die Hard 3, but my God, did you see the Super Bowl thing?!". However, it's rather easy to identify programs on television which are going to have violence or language that are inappropriate for children. Many programs have ratings right up in the corner. Digital cable and satellite services include ratings and synopses of programs available at any time. There are also channels that specifically cater to children. I've yet to see something inappropriate on Nick.
27 posted on 11/29/2005 3:28:48 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Not sure if that WAS sarcasm. I've seen some shows where you were lucky enough to see the car chase or whatever it was being shown. Sporting events are a pain to endure because of all the view-obstructing graphics. Sheeesh, enough already.


28 posted on 11/29/2005 3:30:19 PM PST by NCC-1701 (RADICAL ISLAM IS A CULT. IT MUST BE ERADICATED ASAP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"The FCC is telling the companies"

Ok, so we've identified the problem...

"It makes great sense, except to bilious old farts libertarians."

It makes great sense to those who can't get enough Big Guv.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - President Ronald Reagan

How quickly we forget his guidance.
29 posted on 11/29/2005 3:33:32 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Lovely. It's like watching the Soviet Union emerge. These so-called pro-family groups present the greatest threat to freedom this nation has ever faced.


30 posted on 11/29/2005 3:36:28 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PBRSTREETGANG
The FCC should go take a flying leap. They have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Not yet, perhaps.

Even so, Committee Co-Chair Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, told the forum that lawmakers want to see the industry help protect children from indecent and violent programming.

"If you don't come up with an answer, we will," he said.

Congress is considering several bills that would boost fines.


31 posted on 11/29/2005 3:38:06 PM PST by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonStateRepublican
This is just the growth of big, tyrannical government. Nothing more, and certainly nothing laudable. This is downright sickening, and more so that any freeper would applaud it. Disgusting.
32 posted on 11/29/2005 3:38:10 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boundless

Ala carte is only going to benefit me if it lowers my bill. If the breaking up of tiers means that I'm going to wind up paying more for less, then it's a no go for me. Unfortunately, breaking up of teirs could easily mean just taht, higher prices per channel.


33 posted on 11/29/2005 3:41:26 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

I love it how you guys invoke Reagan when you really want to defend unrestricted access to porn and drugs and stuff like that. You're about "freedom" and "choice" in about the same way that your heroes, the abortionists, are. It would take a strong stomach to live in the society you would create; I sometimes doubt even the most bilious old fart could do it.


34 posted on 11/29/2005 3:41:26 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The FCC should be stripped of all authority over content and exist only to ensure broadcasters are sending out their radio and television singals correctly.

If you want to shield your children from smut, take it into your own hands, leave Big Brother out of it.


35 posted on 11/29/2005 3:43:00 PM PST by RWR8189 (George Allen 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
I've never understood why people feel such a strong need to get their rocks off watching crap of this type on TV anyway.

What makes you think even for a moment that your ability to understand, or not understand why someone else might find it entertaining is in any way requisite for the existence of the programming? In other words, who died and made you supreme ruler who's permission everyone should seek?

36 posted on 11/29/2005 3:44:03 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Melas
It's like watching the Soviet Union emerge. These so-called pro-family groups present the greatest threat to freedom this nation has ever faced.

Oh, man, you missed the TALKING POINT. Your socially conservative GOP compatriots are NAZIS, not communists. (But calling us Taliban is also OK because, really, we know in our hearts that supporting the unbundling of cable channels is just like 9-11--or even worse.)

37 posted on 11/29/2005 3:44:54 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

At least in my area, you have to pay extra for the Spanish programming. It's not even available on the very expensive platinum package that I subscribe too. As a fan of latin music videos, I'm somewhat dissapointed, but not so dissapointed that I'm willing to pay the price to get it.


38 posted on 11/29/2005 3:45:20 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PBRSTREETGANG

That my friend is the scary part. They're begging congress to expand their authority to cable. XM radio will be next. These bastards will never be satisfied.


39 posted on 11/29/2005 3:46:10 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meyer
"the FCC might be able to fanagle their way into regulating cable, but I would say that satellites are well out of their jurisdiction."

Wasn't there a case a few years ago where some state like Tennessee or Alabama, or somewhere, brought a lawsuit against not only some porno satellite channel, but also the "stars" themselves?

Seems like someone thought that broadcasting smut onto "their" turf was a punishable offense.

40 posted on 11/29/2005 3:46:23 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonStateRepublican
There’s way to much smut on TV and the sad fact is that most parents let their TVs raise their children. I’m glad to see the FCC do something about this.

I have an easier solution for you. DON'T watch it.
41 posted on 11/29/2005 3:47:00 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
If TV sex is the only way you can get your jollies, then go buy or rent a porno.

At least until the Ted Stevenses of the world decide that the FCC needs to regulate video stores.

42 posted on 11/29/2005 3:49:44 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
I might work out in your favor, but it might not. What would happen if you broke up the teirs is that some channels would have to charge more to stay afloat than they currently have to pay. And, ala carte programming would substantially increase the cost on the cable side, since it would be more labor and system intensive to authorize channels on cable boxes 1 at a time instead of in preprogramed packets.

Under and ala carte system, you might be one of those people who's channels choices are unchanged or possibly even cheaper than you presently pay. Maybe, the savings would be substantial enough to offset the increased your provider would have to charge you for the greater logistical burden the ala carte system would place on its resources. However, that's no guarantee. It could just as easily go the other way, and you find yourself paying higher prices for your channels, plus more to the cable company for the greater work load, and find your bill doubled.

43 posted on 11/29/2005 3:51:46 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Just what we need more government regulations. God forbid, any Parental Responsibility!


44 posted on 11/29/2005 3:52:11 PM PST by FFIGHTER (Character Matters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
What makes you think even for a moment that your ability to understand, or not understand why someone else might find it entertaining is in any way requisite for the existence of the programming? In other words, who died and made you supreme ruler who's permission everyone should seek?

Well then - why not take it all the way, genius? Let's broadcast beastiality and sodomy too. And while we're at it, throw in some snuff and pedophile films as well.

After all, who are YOU to judge what someone else finds entertaining?
45 posted on 11/29/2005 3:54:51 PM PST by reagan_fanatic (Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Under and ala carte system, you might be one of those people who's channels choices are unchanged or possibly even cheaper than you presently pay.

Ala carte puts so much of this tiresome debate to rest.

SBC, now AT&T, will offer something like a thousand channels.  Surely, the technology of choice can circumvent the uproar to everyone's satisfaction.

46 posted on 11/29/2005 3:57:02 PM PST by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"FReeper" = a self-described conservative who thinks the idea of shielding children from harmful or inappropriate material is contemptible. Syn. "bilious old fart"

LOL!!

I think you have just given me my new FReeper nickname! I was considering something like "scruffy curmudgeon," but I like "bilious old fart" better.

Thanks!

47 posted on 11/29/2005 3:57:22 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
At least until the Ted Stevenses of the world decide that the FCC needs to regulate video stores.

Don't get me wrong - I am NOT in favor of more gubmint regulation. It would be far better if the broadcasters and filmmakers would have the balls to police themselves when it comes to offensive content.
48 posted on 11/29/2005 3:58:07 PM PST by reagan_fanatic (Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"I love it how you guys invoke Reagan when you really want to defend unrestricted access to porn and drugs and stuff like that."

Heh, I love how some people like to generalize, use hyperbole, and call everyone who disagrees with them a druggie simply because there doesn't exist a single valid argument for expanding government beyond it's already insanely inflated size and scope. I don't want unrestricted access to pornography, nor have I ever said that I do, so that's wrong. I haven't even mentioned drugs, so that's wrong. As for "stuff like that", could we perhaps be a tad more vague? I almost had some idea what you meant...

"You're about "freedom" and "choice" in about the same way that your heroes, the abortionists, are."

Ok, so I'm a crackhead porn fiend abortionist. What, no cannibalism accusations? Was it actually me over there on the grassy knoll? Come on, now, you completely missed a perfect opportunity to call me a commie queer, too! :-)

You've yet to make a valid argument to counter my perfectly valid points that paid, commercial satellite and cable television providers are beyond the legal scope of the FCC, and that they should be. You've yet to make a valid argument to counter my perfectly valid point that parents, not the government, should take the initiative in ensuring their children are not exposed to materials they, the parents (not the government), consider to be inappropriate. If parents want more tools to help them control what their children can view when they're not around, then parents, not the government, must lobby the issue with their providers.

For suggested talking points on expanding government power, expanding the control of the FCC, and limiting the scope and role of personal responsibility and parental responsibility, please see here. Thanks.
49 posted on 11/29/2005 3:58:25 PM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

Sigh...I should have expected a pathetic attempt at erecting a straw man from your quarter. Sad.


50 posted on 11/29/2005 4:01:55 PM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson