Of course they do. I just don't think it's the job of the government to do the job for the parents.

And some members of the "moral majority" or religious right might not consider me a responsible parent for allowing a 15 year old watch some of the things that I allow mine to watch.

People like myself are, I think, increasingly becoming the minority.

Who knows what will happen years down the road? Constitutional ammendments, anyone?

The argument for protecting young children from certain things on TV and radio is a strong and sometimes compelling one, and if that were the only issue, I might be inclined to agree.

The thing is, though, that those who would seek to censor this stuff wish to do so for other reasons than simply the protection of children.

They have a much larger agenda. They seek to impose their moral viewpoints on all of us. Adults as well.

In a free society, we sometimes have to pay a price to keep our freedoms intact. If the price for not having government censorship of the media is that some children, who are not properly supervised by their parents, have the opportunity to view or hear things that may be unsuitable for minors, that is, I believe, a small price to pay.

I can't say I disagree with anything you just posted. Personally I do believe there are too many regulationsI woulden't mind a few less. I watched plenty of violent films when I was a child and I haven't gone on a psycho-killer crazy rampage. Where I get frustrated is when the gov't or "the right" are blamed. My point being that the gov't is ultimetly doing what the majority of Americans want and in effect, if that is the majority, how can that be wrong in a Democratic state?

First of all, we don't know for sure what the majority wants in many instances.

But even if we did, should "what the majority wants" be the only criteria in a democratic society for what we are allowed to do or not do?

I think if you submitted all of the following to a national referendum, the majority of people in America would "not want" some, if not all, of the following:

-- Pre-marital sex
-- Certain other sexual practices between consenting adults (homosexuality, sodomy, etc.)
-- Pornography on the internet
-- Any pornography at all, for that matter
-- Gambling
-- Rap music
-- Censorship or complete elimination of certain unpopular political views, such as Communism or Nazism
-- The return of prayer to the public schools

My point is that the basis for a democratic society is that everyone has the individual right to pursue certain beliefs, interests, and courses of action in their daily lives that, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, should not be regulated by the majority simply because they are in disagreement.

I have to disagree. Rap is the most popular music and most wanted music today (which has been proven). I don't think people would vote off anything on there except for prayer in schools and pre-marital sex.

We're talking about a national referendum here, which would include only people of voting age.

That's exactly what I have wrong with your argument. Where is the line drawn between infringing on others and not? Shouldent the best enviornment for children be a "village" where not only parent look out for them, but others (FCC) look out for them as well. Parents cannot watch their children ALL the time.

As far as "What the majority wants" yes in theory I do believe that what the majority wants should be the best in a Democratic society. Unfortunately the majority of Americans do not have the time or desire to educate themselves on every issue out there (me being one of them, hence the system of electing representatives to make those choices for us. I won't claim that the system is perfect, but I do believe it's the best system out there.

The majority of Americans do not want to do away with things like Saving Private Ryan and Catcher in the Rye. They want to restrict people like Howard Stern who have fat men shove their feet into womens vaginas. I understand that cable television was designed to allow more lee way (spelling?) than ABC, CBS, etc, but cable television is too common now to be able to show that kind of stuff. HBO and Showtime can do whatever they want, I don't care, but cable is in the majority of households, hotels, even schools.

So then, you believe that it's OK to have laws that govern our freedoms of choice if that's what the majority wants?

If a majority of Americans believe, for example, that homosexuality is "wrong" (which I believe they do), then you would have no problem with laws against consensual homosexual activity between adults (which do still exist in some states)?

As I said earlier, I can understand the argument for the need for laws or regulations to protect minors from certain things.

But I can't for the life of me understand why my personal actions or choices should be dictated by the majority, unless my choices or actions infringe upon the rights of others.

(Note: When I speak of "cable", BTW, I am speaking strictly about the "pay" channels, like HBO, etc. I understand that cable TV is everywhere, and, as you know, the commercial cable channels such as TNT, TBS, etc., follow the same standards as broadcast television. Sorry for not making that clear.)

How come when Hillary came out with a book titled, "It takes a village", the likes of Bob Dole emphatically stated it doesn't take a village, but parents to raise a child. Now years later people argue it "takes a village".

The last time I checked Howard Stern came on at 11:00 at night. If some ho in a crack house can't watch her kids at 11:00 at night and prevent them from watching Howard Stern that's her problem. Maybe I might want to see some woman get her vagina licked by some fat tube at 11:00 at night. As a tax paying American it is my right too. Come to think of it, obese people make me f*ucking sick. I don't want some 300 lb hippo on tv anymore. They should not be allowed to sit next me on the bus. If they take up 2 seats, by God make that cow pay for 2 seats. After all, it's what I WANT.

Sorry, I'm not gonna have some "soccer mom" in her SUV, toting her brats to practice while her husband is problably f*cking his secratary while she does this, tell ME what I can watch on tv. There's v-chips in tv's now and cable has "parental controls" on them. If Jane Doe cant' control her kids, she shouldn't have them. No one told me how to raise my kid, I'm not gonna tell someone else how to raise theirs.

Ok hold up, it's just a debate. I'm not looking for hostility on an internet forum. I already told Plawrence that I have almost the same view point as him. I'm just argueing the other side. Nothing wrong with that right? Without debates no improvements would be made.

And what happens when parent's aren't doing their job? Sure, you watch TV with your son. My parents did the same thing. But what about the parents who plug their kids into the TV while they go down to the corner to buy some crack? Or they get to know Jack Daniels better while little Johnny is watching Howard Stern?

Not when the taxpayers are paying to feed her drug habit through welfare, or paying the criminal justice system to incarcerate her when she's busted, or how about the future unseen costs to the taxpayers when little Johnny gets busted cause he wasn't raised right (ala Elvis Presley, "In The Ghetto"), he buys a gun and steals a car, et al.

I believe we're straying from the topic a bit here.

Censoring Howard Stern won't correct these problems.

And what happens when parent's aren't doing their job? Sure, you watch TV with your son. My parents did the same thing. But what about the parents who plug their kids into the TV while they go down to the corner to buy some crack? Or they get to know Jack Daniels better while little Johnny is watching Howard Stern? [/b][/quote]I can think of far worse activities their kids can be involved in than watching Howard Stern.

As I said in one of my posts above, there is always a trade-off in keeping our civil liberties intact.

A few kids watching Howard Stern seems to me to be a small price to pay for the right of adults to watch him or not watch him as they see fit.

And I don't beieve it's the governemnt's job to act as surrogate parents.

I don't know if you attend UB because you live in Buffalo, or live there because you attend UB.

But I wonder how you or your friends feel about the concept of in loco parentis ...the idea that the school should act as your parents in their absence.

It seems like the problem is get rid of the welfare system, shoot the crack whore who's getting high instead of raising her kid. If you honestly think that taking shows off the air are gonna solve the world's problems I don't know what to tell you. I never saw a defense lawyer say little Johnny was innocent because his mother didn't watch what he watched on tv. That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.

I am probably the last person who would ever support Howard Stern but you have to look at something else.

The only time I've seen his show aired on tv was at 1am. I could be wrong and there could be other times but I believe they are all late at night.

If you are old enough to stay up to 1am and watch it then you are old enough to make your own decisions. I don't know of many 12-13 year old kids who are allowed to stay up til 1am

That's where our system is messed up. Pretty much everything you listed is stuff that revolves around the youth. We should make the judgment. You seem to use the quote, "How will this effect me?" How is the taking away of Rap music going to help you or someone else? How is prayer in schools going to effect you? We (teenagers) hate to admit it, but we're very faithful, meaning that we pray a lot and have strong faith in God. That doesn't mean we're religious and go to church. I, for one, haven't been to church in years. It's just one of the few things we hide from adults. All of those things you mentioned that you think people would get rid of are things that effect ME directly, not you, not someone who isn't a member of the youth (no offense).

Here are the things you listed:

Pre-marital sex: I most likely will wait until I'm out of high school, but I highly doubt my only partner will be my wife.

Certain other sexual practices between consenting adults (homosexuality, sodomy, etc.): What people do in the bedroom is their choice.

Pornography on the internet: No way. Filters can be bought. If people are offended by it so much or don't want their kids to see it, block it.

Any pornography at all, for that matter: Porn makers aren't forcing people to watch their movies. (See above)

Gambling: I think it should be limited, but outlawed? Not a chance in hell.

Rap music: One of the few freedoms I have in a day. I don't know where I'd be without music. It's the only thing that doesn't judge you and it accepts you for who you are.

Censorship or complete elimination of certain unpopular political views, such as Communism or Nazism: If we ever tried to wipe communism off the face of the earth, I'd fight to NOT have it taken away. Just because we don't believe it's right doesn't mean people of another country don't.

The return of prayer to the public schools: I am against that.

I am pretty sure I have heard that defense before. Same thing with blaming violent video games for kids hurting each other.

It might not be a "good defense" but it has been used.

And what happens when parent's aren't doing their job? Sure, you watch TV with your son. My parents did the same thing. But what about the parents who plug their kids into the TV while they go down to the corner to buy some crack? Or they get to know Jack Daniels better while little Johnny is watching Howard Stern? [/b][/quote]Then those parents shouldn't be parents, as Beth said. I don't think ALL blame should be put on parents, but most of it, hell yes. It depends on the circumstances.

I have some facts here for TV violence and sex etc that I learned the other week in Law. By age 11, a child witnesses 100,000 acts of violence on TV and 8,000 murders. Sequels to movies triple and quadruple the murders. I do believe these movies, video games, and songs impact kids. HOWEVER, I am for the distribution of ALL movies, video games, and songs. They ALL receive some sort or rating and you MUST be ATLEAST 17 to buy this stuff that is "damaging society." If a parent allows their 12 year old who does miserably in school to buy the Die Hard Trilogy and Scarface Deluxe set, then play some GTA, then that parent isn't a parent.

Okay then.

I didn't say that TV is the source of the worlds problems. Your taking the argument to such an undeservedly macro level.

We should just ignore negative messages sent to the youth on these forms of media???

I attend UB because a.) It's academically the #30th ranked school in the nation and b.) It's within an hours drive of my house.

I was accepted at Syracuse and elsewhere, so...there were several factors effecting my decision.

So it's wrong for school to be a "parent," but we should give television, the ultimate pseudo parent, unlimited access?


I never said that, so...

What's retarded is your attitude towards what is being projected towards us, as consumers, on television, and how it affects our children. And I'd appreciate you not calling my argument retarded, thanks. :rolleyes:


It's a sad fact of life that people who SHOULDN'T become parents often DO. So ho-hum. What, are we going to regulate who can have kids now?

I agree, blame should fall upon their parents, first and foremost, and not television, or whatnot. But to say that TV, any TV, or radio, is completely acceptable when it projects X-rated style programming and such...there should be some kind of standard.

Or have we, as a society, come to accept these loose moral standards as the norm?

First off, basic cable is edited. Second, parents can block any channel. Why should things be taken off the air that have an effect on SOME kids when other kids just watch them for entertainment? If anything, you should be fighting to have violence off of the air, not 'x-rated material and Howard Stern.' What does Howard Stern do to damage society? Is he telling me to go out and shoot someone? Rape someone? Rob a bank? No. -Pat

It never ceases to amaze me that someone can form such a strong opinion about Howard Stern when they admittedly haven't seen or heard the show. I personally don't listen or watch, but not because the show is risque or x-rated (by the way I would never catagorize Howard Stern as x-rated) - I don't watch because the TV show isn't very good and I have alternative preferences on the radio.

I agree with George Carlin when it comes to censorship - the public can best decide what should and shouldn't be on the air by simply switching the channel.

Yea right! ha ha ha. I remember watching his television show alot in college, which is, correct me if I'm wrong just a televised version of his radio show. The most disgusting thing I've ever seen was this woman allowing this perverted fat man to shove his big toe into her vagina. I was with a bunch of friends and every last one of us was going to throw up. Sure there was a teeny tiny blur mark covering her but everyone knows exactly what was going on.[/b][/quote]You seem to be missing a crucial point here that nobody has raised, thus far: where, in the FCC's rules and regulations, does it say that nobody can broadcast a "woman allowing this perverted fat man to shove his big toe into her vagina"? I have a copy of the rules and regulations governing radio and I can tell you from an insider's view that this is precisely the problem with the FCC: it is worded so ambiguously that nobody is quite sure what can and cannot be said or done. As far as that particular episode, listen closely to how it was described: was it risque? Yes. Was it vulgar and indecent? Definitely not. If it was, then WXRK New York would have definitely lost its license by now.
Also, I must repeat myself: Howard Stern has never said or done anything X-rated on the air, and his show on E! Entertainment Television has never contained anything that was X-rated. Someone sticking his toe in a woman's vagina may be tasteless but it is hardly X-rated...plus, it generates ratings, and as we all know, ratings equal cash. Not to mention the fact that that particular episode was pretty good.

Can someone define X-rated for me then? I mean, if that was in a movie, I certainly think it would be above an "R". Probably beyond NC-17.

In saying I don't watch his show or listen to the radio doesn't mean I've never watched an episode. :rolleyes:

Actually, for a surprisingly interesting take on this whole argument, I recommend reading the final chapters of "Foley is Good," by Mick Foley, which delves into how the PTC wanted to censor wrestling and how he did his own research to counteract a University of Indiana study on the content of wrestling versus other programs, including daytime soap operas.

Ok well we obviously have different ideas as to what constitutes X-rated. A Toe shoved in a vagina is past X-rated in my book

It's gotta make you think if the toe was bigger than something else :p

From imdb.com:

"Banning 'Private Ryan'

Conservative religious and family groups said Friday that they plan to file complaints with the FCC charging that ABC violated the agency's indecency regulations when it aired Saving Private Ryan Thursday night. Fearing such action and the possibility that they might be fined, some 66 ABC affiliates refused to carry the broadcast, which nevertheless produced the largest Thursday-night audience that the network has been able to attract this season. Among the groups complaining about the Ryan screening was the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, which cited the film's "excessively profane language." It added, "ABC crossed the line by airing at least 20 'f' words and 12 's' words during primetime viewing hours!" The FCC acknowledged over the weekend that it had received numerous complaints about the telecast."

F*cking stupid this is. Makes me ashamed to be an American at the moment.

Can someone define X-rated for me then? I mean, if that was in a movie, I certainly think it would be above an "R". Probably beyond NC-17. [/b][/quote]If I had a definition of "X-rated" from the FCC then I would be glad to provide you with one, but that is precisely my point: the FCC does not say exactly what is and what is not OK. The rules and regulations are written in very murky and ambiguous language, which is why it is so hard to know exactly what it is that they forbid.
Furthermore, let us just get one thing straight: something that is X-rated is NOT indecent or obscene, according to the law. I am sick of people likening the term "X-rated" to something that is indecent or obscene, because it is not.

No argument from me that the rules are written in an ambiguous manner. In the case of a toe-invading-a-vagina scenario though, the movie would get an X-rating (now called NC-17) because its considered sexually explicit.