It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indecency Laws Fines Raised Ten Fold

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
If you want total freedom of choise you have give others the total freedom to express them selves and you cannot be offended... fair and square.

Wrong. Expression has it's limits. There is no society on earth with unlimited "freedom of expression".


And parents do have a choise, don't let your children watch TV.

That is not a choice. You want to own the airwaves for your own personal pleasure? And we have no similar right to enjoy the airwaves?


Censorship in any form takes away the right to ghoose from rest of us, do you claim to have right to tell me what I can watch?

If you read thru the thread, you will see that I do not advocate censorship. I advocate descriptive labels, describing the content of a program. What is wrong with that?


OT, do you allso advocate ban on games that have sexual or violent content?

Games are for kids. I don't play video games; they are a waste of time, imo. Put all the filth and violence in them that you need to satisfy yourself. Just add a descriptive label on the package.




posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Wrong. Expression has it's limits. There is no society on earth with unlimited "freedom of expression".


then I would say america has failed because you are SUPPOSE to have the right to do WAHTEVER you want so long as it doesn't forcefully interfer with others basic rights. Sure their expression intrudes on your rights, but you choose to watch TV, your not forced to. Your life doesnt depend on watching tv. Working 7 days a week or lose your job, now THAT is not a choice. Not watching TV or letting your child see nudity (not even sex) just nudity. I mean parents are afraid to tell their children how a baby is made so they make up lies. As a teenager I can tell you that all this censorship for "inappropriate" things is not helping the kids. I got more shelter from language and nudity then I ever got violence. I was playing games like Doom but got forbid I see a nipple or hear "the f word".

You should be able to expres yourself unlimitedly, so long as you have the funds to do it, and it doesnt physically hurt anyone.


That is not a choice. You want to own the airwaves for your own personal pleasure? And we have no similar right to enjoy the airwaves?


each person makes a choice. Turn off the TV. If enough people do that, TV will change to your standards so the majority will watch it again. Profits dictate whats on TV plain and simple. If many people stopped watching it because of extreme nudity or language, They would change it or loose their network. You have a right to make your own personal choice. If the MAJORITY want cursing and watch it, then your beat. If the majority doesnt, turn off the TV, and it will quickly change. You wont do that though, the same way people wont do that with cars whenever we are getting screw with gas prices after record setting profits. You couldnt stand to use a different form of transportation or just not go to work for a day, all at once. Because that takes physical effort and actual dedication, takes more then just words, that YOU would have to enforce Personally. You would have to take action rather then sit around, throw a it, and let some one else take care of it. (you means EVERY person who is for these fines and censors.)



If you read thru the thread, you will see that I do not advocate censorship. I advocate descriptive labels, describing the content of a program. What is wrong with that?


as I said before, and I posted that back in the thread, A program has a simple description of whats in the show/movie before you watch it. That description be avalible at all times, all you have to do is pull it up on the TV so mid tuning in viewers can check.

Like I said though, sheltering a kid can be a bad idea. I know that growing up I was extremely sheltered from cursing more then anything else by my mom, now I curse alot because I was rebellious and it stuck. Yet I only was talked to once about sex from my father who told me "when you have sex, wear a rubber, im not ready to be a grandfather." then encouraged me to because he said he never did and he regreted it. guess what, I haven't had sex. Same with drinking, parents said they don't care if I drink, just don't get too drunk to the point of poisoning and dont drink when driving/get in the car with some one drunk. Ive drank before, but ive never gotten fully drunk. Violence wasn't taboo in my house, now I am adjusted to it, but I know its wrong. I don't commit acts of violence because I know the difference between the fact its just a game on tv. You can make whatever choices you want but like you said, each child is different. I reacted exactly to the opposite of censorship, and I know MANY kids who went in a much worse direction. Theres a difference between not protecting your child and not caring about them. Not protecting your child, then explaining it to them when they face it, is different then letting them see it and never talking to them about it. Tell them whats happening, why, but don't decide their morality for them. Thats why we are stuck in time, with things getting worse, parents spread their morality to their kids before the kids even can understand WHY its wrong. There are better ways to go about teaching your kids what not to do.



Games are for kids. I don't play video games; they are a waste of time, imo. Put all the filth and violence in them that you need to satisfy yourself. Just add a descriptive label on the package.

Well games aren't exactly for kids anymore. The older games get the more older people have played them. 20 years ago, mostly only kids played them because it was the new technology. As they grow up now adults that grew up on video games are maybe still playing them. maybe not the same ones as today, but they want more mature games as they have gotten older. They dont want frogger anymore, but still want to play because they enjoyed it.

But yes, labels are appropriate. And if you don't like the game, don't buy it. I don't want you being parent of america trying to ban the game because you want to protect ALL kids. (again you meaning anyone trying to ban games)



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I never did understand the reasoning here.

we can show someone getting shot with a bazooka in an action film, but as long as they don't swear or no one shows too much boob, its ok.

you can broadcast tehmost vile, racist hate filled speeches, just don't say teh "F" word..

yeah, thats morals for you i guess. whats next, will teh holy rollers legislate themselves into heaven?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by jsobecky
Wrong. Expression has it's limits. There is no society on earth with unlimited "freedom of expression".


then I would say america has failed because you are SUPPOSE to have the right to do WAHTEVER you want so long as it doesn't forcefully interfer with others basic rights. Sure their expression intrudes on your rights, but you choose to watch TV, your not forced to. Your life doesnt depend on watching tv.

You are willing to cede the airwaves over to a certain group at the expense of all other groups. Taking my enjoyment of television away from me so that you can broadcast whatever you want is not within the spirit of a harmonious society.


You should be able to expres yourself unlimitedly, so long as you have the funds to do it, and it doesnt physically hurt anyone.

That's an oversimplification. A better explanation of freedom of expression is:

Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies, federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., “fighting words” that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). The government also limits speech that threatens it directly; although sedition laws are rarely prosecuted in the United States, such rationales as a danger to “national security” have been invoked to silence criticism of or opposition to the government. Laws designed to silence opposition to organized religion (e.g., laws against blasphemy or heresy), common in some other countries, would run afoul of the First Amendment.
www.answers.com...



That is not a choice. You want to own the airwaves for your own personal pleasure? And we have no similar right to enjoy the airwaves?



each person makes a choice. Turn off the TV.

And if this unbridled expression is extended to the outdoors, am I supposed to just draw my curtains and stay at home?


as I said before, and I posted that back in the thread, A program has a simple description of whats in the show/movie before you watch it. That description be avalible at all times, all you have to do is pull it up on the TV so mid tuning in viewers can check.

This does not cover live events. And I still don't understand your reluctance to having ratings labels on programs, which would satisfy the needs of both parties in this debate.


Well games aren't exactly for kids anymore. The older games get the more older people have played them. 20 years ago, mostly only kids played them because it was the new technology. As they grow up now adults that grew up on video games are maybe still playing them. maybe not the same ones as today, but they want more mature games as they have gotten older. They dont want frogger anymore, but still want to play because they enjoyed it.

That's nice. j/k



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, as ShakayaHeir stated:


Every new cable and satellite box has built into it the ability to filter out channels with a specific rating.

But that's not the reality, is it? Not every program is rated.


Okay dude, just for arguments sake I turned on my TV this morning and set up parental controls. It literally took me less than 30 seconds. This is the procedure I followed:

Menu -> Parental Controls -> Enter PIN #

And the screens that followed allowed me to restrict:

1. All programs by rating (including "unrated" programs)
2. All programs on any specific channel regardless of rating
3. All movie purchases
4. Show / Hide adult titles

I also looked through the programs to see how many were rated versus unrated and the VAST majority had specified ratings. Now I have Comcast which I'm sure is a fairly common cable company. My point is: the technology already exists for you to filter whichever programs or channels you don't want to see or your kids to see. Should we have censorship laws for public channels that you can pick up with your antenna? Sure, why not? Those channels are free, accessible to everyone with a TV, and in most cases unfilterable. Should we have censorship on cable TV which you pay for and choose to have? # no! No one is forcing you to watch anything, and if you're afraid that you'll accidently flip through the channels and *gasp* hear someone say the "F" word or see some nudity you should utilize the parental controls and block out any objectionable material. Don't ban it from television. There's a good percentage of us (maybe even the majority) that don't give a # what the # is on TV because if we don't like it we'll change the channel and in an extreme case use the parental settings to permanently block it out.

BTW, has anyone ever seen the network television version of Scar Face? Or Pulp Fiction for that matter? It's ironic how these cinematic masterpieces can be butchered just so none of the characters say any expletives on prime time television and yet in many of those same scenes where the language is edited out you'll see someone kill a room full of people.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
You are willing to cede the airwaves over to a certain group at the expense of all other groups. Taking my enjoyment of television away from me so that you can broadcast whatever you want is not within the spirit of a harmonious society.


if a majority wants it, then a majority gets it. If a majority doesnt want it, they can turn the TV off and unless the station wants to go out of business it will change the content. Plain and simple, no fines or jail time involved. no GOVERNMENT involved. I dont want the government deciding whats proper and what isnt. If people feel its improper, then let the station go out of business from lack of profits when no one watches it. plain and simple. every single station isn't going to load it with filth because it can. If any station is smart they would provide an alternative when the audience is looking for it, big profits.



That's an oversimplification. A better explanation of freedom of expression is:

Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies, federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., “fighting words” that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). The government also limits speech that threatens it directly; although sedition laws are rarely prosecuted in the United States, such rationales as a danger to “national security” have been invoked to silence criticism of or opposition to the government. Laws designed to silence opposition to organized religion (e.g., laws against blasphemy or heresy), common in some other countries, would run afoul of the First Amendment.
www.answers.com...


first personal direct threat is alot different then expressing yourself. expression does NOT intrude on anyones liberties, thats why the KKK can protest through an all black neighborhood. Id censor that before any nudity or "f word", and that is real life in the streets not just on TV. Now if they can say such disgusting things, why should nudity or "the f word" be any different?

If a TV program comes on and a guy says hes going to kill a certian person in real life, then yea thats pretty much a criminal offense. I hate how people are trying to act like TV is real life, and that it should be treated that way. Anyone thats watching TV and doesnt know the difference between fake and real needs to immediately turn it off and get out or seek some sort of help because thats a serious problem to not know the difference. Real life is not TV, why are we treating it that way?



And if this unbridled expression is extended to the outdoors, am I supposed to just draw my curtains and stay at home?


Real life and TV are different things, but dont worry Im certain that american people cant seem to tell the difference between fake and real. I guess thats why we are having this conversation now to an extent. (not saying YOU cant tell the difference, just americans in general)



This does not cover live events. And I still don't understand your reluctance to having ratings labels on programs, which would satisfy the needs of both parties in this debate.


ok a live event is your own personal "risk". your taking that risk by watching something unpredictable, still your choice.


Well games aren't exactly for kids anymore. The older games get the more older people have played them. 20 years ago, mostly only kids played them because it was the new technology. As they grow up now adults that grew up on video games are maybe still playing them. maybe not the same ones as today, but they want more mature games as they have gotten older. They dont want frogger anymore, but still want to play because they enjoyed it.

That's nice. j/k



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Well, like Shakeyheir said, cable and premium-cable channels have much lower standards and restrictions as to what they can and cannot show. Like I stated earlier, things broadcast over the airways (i.e. free content - networks, etc.) can be considered air pollution if it considered inappropriate, because nobody pays for it (which effectively means, it is free and available to any and everyone), and in a sense anyone can be exposed to it. I too have comcast digital cable and have both the ability through my cable box, and through my television itself to block certain channels with a P.I.N. which I occasionally employ when my nieces and nephews spend the weekend or something such. The functionality through both the television set and the cable box is useful because the cable box PIN is stored server-side, so the little-ones cannot simply hit the on/off on the power strip to disable it! (hey, I was 13 once, too!) It is not brain surgery.


ed- to explain why I mentioned both tv and cablebox functionality.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by AlphaHumana]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join