Republican Moron wants to ban some vulgarity from TV/radio

[Loonman]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAJRPG39OD.html


He introduced a bill last week that would punish television and radio broadcasters if they aired any of eight specific words and phrases. The language of the bill, the Clean Airwaves Act, is far saltier than Bono's comment.

[La_Serpiente]

1. Here is the bill - copied and pasted

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3687
To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 8, 2003
Mr. OSE (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a)' before `Whoever'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) As used in this section, the term `profane', used with respect to language, includes the words `shit', `piss', `fuck', `cunt', `asshole', and the phrases `cock sucker', `mother fucker', and `ass hole', compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms).'.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Geez, I would love to see that bill debated in the house :crazy: :freak:

[Loonman]

2. No "tits"?

Strange.

What about shit-faced donkey-raper?

Horse-fucker?

[RetroLounge]

63. Tits doesn't even belong on the list

it sounds like a snack!

(apologies to George Carlin)

[no name no slogan]

76. Donkey-raping shit eater

Is that phrase allowed, too? If not, why not? There are just some times when that phrase is the best way to express ones distaste with another person-- like, say, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Ted Koppel.

[OldSoldier]

176. Covered

Shit-faced donkey raper and horse-fucker (also pig-fucker and uncle-fucker, but not cock-sucking or ass-licking, but since the whole stanza was "you cock-sucking, ass-licking uncle-fucker") are hyphenated phrases, which he bans too.

So I guess this is banned too...

Shut your fuckin face uncle fucka,
you're a cock-sucking,ass-licking uncle fucka,
You're an uncle fucka, yes its true,
nobody fucks uncles quite like you.
Shut your fucking face uncle fucka, you're the one that fucked your uncle uncle fucka,
You dont eat or sleep or mow the lawn,
You just fuck your uncle all day long!

*farting and laughing- Traffic Warden:"Whats going on here?"
more farting*

Uncle fucker, uncle fucker, uncle fucker, uncle fucker,
Shut your fucking face uncle fucker, (unclefucker)
You're a mother fucking bastard uncle fucka,
You're an uncle fucker and I'll say, you fucked your uncle yesterday!
Uncle fucka, thats you, F.U.C.K. U.
FUCK YOU!! Uncle Fuckaaaaa.

Suckmyballs

[Khephra]

23. Hey! You can say "prick"!

Prick, prick, prick, prick!

:evilgrin:

[0007]

71. Y'can say "suck a pussy" you "donkey dick"

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. Clear Channel

meet Clean Channel.

[redqueen]

4. He's a moron for wanting to clean up language?

I admit there are far worse problems... but hearing that the 'f' word can be used as an adjective, and from what I understand it's not only during prime time... I think this bill isn't exactly unresponsive to the concerns of Americans.

I don't care if it's on during prime time, but I certainly don't think it should be on during times when children might be around to hear it.

[Loonman]

5. I'm more concerned about the lies on the news

Than the language.

[redqueen]

34. I guess you missed this part:

"I admit there are far worse problems"

:eyes:

[Occulus]

7. The easiest answer to that last

is to... turn off the set.

edit: I get really ticked when people who have kids tell me I need to sacrifice something I enjoy because they can't take the time to be good parents. Fuck 'em. Nobody- NOBODY- has the right to deny *me* something because they don't want their kids exposed to it.

[elfwitch]

14. I totally agree with you...

I am a parent. I don't like other people trying to be one for me. I don't want the "so-called" Christians deciding what I should and shouldn't expose my son to. I don't like it when other people try to decide what is best for me or my son for me.

I think the problem is that these people are either really bad parents and don't know where their kids are or what they are doing so they cannot control what they see. Or they are the overprotective types that don't let their kids have sugar or watch cartoons because they are too violent.

In either case, they can keep their morals and their parenting skills to themselves.

[LeahMira]

24. Probably a bit of both...

I think the problem is that these people are either really bad parents and don't know where their kids are or what they are doing so they cannot control what they see. Or they are the overprotective types that don't let their kids have sugar or watch cartoons because they are too violent.


Still, we raised our three kids and didn't permit bad language to be used in our home, or even to be overheard by us from them "by accident" outside of our home. Certainly our kids heard those words and knew either vaguely or precisely what they meant, but they still don't use them as adults. I expect the government to see to the education of children and to make sure that all children are safe and well cared for. For pete's sake, when we can't even find enough flu vaccine to provide to kids these days, why on earth are we worrying about what the kid might say when he gets the shot? Geez!

[redqueen]

39. Control what they see?

Come on... you want me to lock my children out of the room while I'm watching something during family viewing hours? Get real!

This has nothing to do with morals or parenting skills. It's about what's fair to the majority of people.

[redqueen]

37. Nice

So, because you want to hear filthy language during family hours, then all of us with kids should just not watch any TV.

That sounds fair.

[0007]

88. You got it Toyota, I'm with you.

[bearfartinthewoods]

103. you know, i don't ever recall someone saying they enjoy vulgar language

and i'll probably get flamed for using the term but it's the most apt i could come up with.

[redqueen]

107. Why would you be flamed?

It's accurate!

But despite no one coming out and saying it... it's obviously true lots of people love it... check out the defenders of vulgar speech.

[MadHound]

133. Puhleeeze redqueen,

Stop trying to generalize everybody who disagrees with you. It is an ineffective and insulting tactic. The people who are opposed to this bill aren't "defenders of vulgar speech", we are defending free speech in its entirety! Even the right for you to say what YOU want to say. It is the law of the land that we will have freedom of speech period. Not just freedom of some speech, not just freedom of nonoffensive speech, but freedom of ALL speech. And yet here you are, trying to restrict that God given right.

Sorry, freedom of speech is the law of this land. However there is nowhere in the Constitution that you have the right not to be offended. So quite frankly, deal with it.

Several times it has been pointed out to you that there are remedies that you could pursue, operating the remote, getting Tivo, turning the damn tube off, writing the broadcaster, etc. And yet all you do is push for the restriction of free speech. Makes me wonder.

[redqueen]

139. No generalization necessary, MadHound

You, yourself, have disparaged people sharing my view in several posts. So your high horsey 'stop generalizing us' whine is a bit, shall we say, hypocritical?

And I must point out, yet again, that these restrictions are already in place, they are not enforced consistently, but they are already in place.

Do you have any idea what kind of nitwit henny-pennies people look like when they tear their hair out over what's basically only a confirmation of a regulation which already exists?

Honestly...

[MadHound]

163. Ooo, don't go all bold font on me, please

You accuse me of not reading what you wrote in an earlier post(though actually I have), and yet here you are not paying attention to what I've said. So I will repeat myself.

The laws regarding on air language restrictions have been loosened over the past twenty five years. I know this, I was a DJ during part of this time, and lived this small piece of history(summer of 1981 we could actually play George Carlins Seven Little Words routine on air). If you want confirmation of this you can go here: <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html>
If you wish to use your common sense rather than spend the rest of the day going through the CFR, ask yourself one question. If these language restrictions that you keep crowing about are still in place, then why is virtually every single network not catering to children feeling free to flaunt this old law? Could it be because that old law was loosened and changed?:think:

And the reason that I'm disparaging you and the other speech restrictors around here is because you wish to limit my freedom of speech! First it is to protect the children, then it is for the betterment of society and then off we go down that slippery slope and when we're done with the ride you nor I will not be allowed to say jack unless it is preapproved by the government. Do you wish to retain your right to criticize Bushco? Well then don't go chipping away at the first amendment just because it is an inconvience for you to push the buttons on your remote.

In fact why don't you put that freedom of speech to work for you and write the networks regarding your grievances? Or get a Tivo set so you can bleep out the commercials(a benefit in more ways than one)? Or simply operate the remote control? Anything except trying to tear down our right to speak freely!

You keep trying to paint those who are in favor of free speech as people who like to wallow in filth. You don't even know me, so how do you know what I'm like? Your generalizations and keyboard character assasinations only point out the inadequecies of your arguement, ie you don't have a leg to stand on. All you wish to do is tear down the first amendment because you are either unable or unwilling to operate your remote control. What part of "God given right to free speech" don't you understand? Better yet, what part of "No Constitutional guarantee not to be offended" don't you understand?

[redqueen]

165. Why was Howard Stern fined as recently as 2001?

You claim the regulations were loosened... how much?
Obviously not too much or his station would not have been fined for hundreds of thousands of dollars. :eyes:

I think it's a henny penny argument to tie this to free speech that is in any way meaningful. This is obviously not the case, as is clear if you observe reality.

These laws have not been loosened in any significant way. They are not fairly enforced, but they still bleep curse words in songs so if you really are serious about having knowledge of this 'loosening' please cite a specicfic regulation, and don't just link to the main page which links thousands of documents. :eyes:

Yes, this is about filth. You and others here are not demanding the right to a new law implementing something akin to the fairness doctrine, no indeed... quite the contrary... this very active thread is based on one thing: a bill which sought to make a law to enforce the regulations which are already in place, and are even enforced, once in a while.

And yes, I do claim you haven't read my posts, as in another of yours you accuse me of wanting to 'park my kids' in front of the TV. That is when my tone towards you changed.

Remember the effort to 'change the tone' of DU?

[MadHound]

169. My, but you ARE easily offended

If my comment distresses you so much. Remember the rules of DU, you know, the part where it says that it helps to have a thick skin. And I'm not accusing you of wanting to park your kids in front of the TV, what I said was "I know for a fact that there are umpteen dozen family channels where you can park your kids and not have worry about them ever seeing or hearing something offensive." I am using a figure of speech here, a rather common one. I never said a word about what you WANT to do, I offered a suggestion of what you CAN do.

And your arguement that its a "henny penny arguement to tie this to free speech that is in any way meaningful" is disingenous at best. There are hundreds of judges, court cases, and plaitiffs that do exactly that. Ever hear of Lenny Bruce, or his court case for obsenity? Or how about Red Foxx? The list goes on and on specifically tying blue language to the issue of free speech. If you think this is being "henny penny" then you opposed in your opinion by thousands of judges and lawers going back throughout our history. The issue of blue language and free speech are inextraboly tied together.

And yes, the law has been loosened in many signigicant ways. Just an example for you, back in the sixties the costumers for Star Trek could show as much cleavage as they wished, however legally they were bound NOT to show the bottom half of a womans' breast. Today the law has been loosened to the point where you can show ANY portion of a womans' breast excepting the nipple.
And answer me why, in the summer of '81, I was able to broadcast Carlin's Seven Little Words skit without fear of fine, whereas three months earlier I would have been staring at a $50,000 fine per banned word? Could it be because the law was changed? And don't try to tell me that the FCC is simply being lax in it's enforcement, I know better. Every single radio and television broadcast is monitored and/or recorded from ten minutes to the top of the hour until ten minutes after the top of the hour. In addition, each and every broadcast is monitored and/or recorded at random times in between. I know, as a station manager it was my business to know. And if you think the FCC isn't hungry for money, well I've got an experiment for you, but you will have to have aprox. $200,000 dollars per minute to perform it.

And yet here you are, in a round about way making my arguement for me. You claim that the laws haven't been loosened in any significant way, all that is needed is enforcement. Yet my question for you is if enforcement is all that is needed, why does the 'Pug Represenative feel the need to bring this bill up for action at all? Could it be because there are no laws like it currently on the books?

As for Stern, you are leaving out the part where his $1.7 million dollars in fines were dismissed. The FCC laws that are on the books concerning indecency(and yes there are some) are highly contraversial(darn those free speech issues) and subject to broad interpretations. Apparently somebody thought that Stern hadn't crossed the line.

And no, I'm not going to go do the research for you, I do enough poring through the CFR in my current job. However I did give you the link, I've given you some examples, you can go do the heavy lifting for yourself if you are so interested.

By the by, the reason that you are still hearing blue language bleeped out of songs isn't due to government censorship, it is due to corporate censorship. You can hear one version with the language bleeped out on the top forty commercial stations, and yet roll down the dial to your indy stations and hear the full uncensored version. Commercial stations have to worry about advertisers so thus tend to be a bit more conservative. Indy stations have no advertisers to worry about so they can charge ahead unhindered.

And no, once again, this isn't about filth. Myself and the people who are opposed to this proposed law aren't blue language affecianados, nor do we wish to hear the language just to hear it, nor are we out to corrupt the children. We are fighting this because it is another attempt to chip away at the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. Just as when the ACLU defends the KKK's right to march doesn't make the ACLU racist, thus our defense of a radio and TV station to broadcast what it wishes doesn't make us purveyors of filth. A lot of times with cases like this, one has to take a seemingly unsavory position in order to guarantee freedoms for all.

[elfwitch]

12. children might be around to hear it?

Because kids don't hear this kind of stuff in the world every day? I've got a two year old and I am quite guilty of letting S and F bombs fly when he is around. It doesn't phase him at all. Kids only use "dirty words" for shock value. If they hear it all the time and aren't made to think it is a big deal, they don't even think about using those words. it is when people get all riled up when they say a bad word that they decide to use it over and over again.

[devinsgram]

157. Here I am in total agreement

My kids were exposed to some marine language and they did NOT use it at all, where their friends that were not exposed to it actually used it more when they were not around their parents. But then those kids where at my house all the time because they didn't want to go home. They didn't have to be up tight little robots all the time. They knew I accepted them for themselves, not what their parents wanted them to be like. Such a shame.

[bowens43]

22. This is why we have off switches and hundreds of channels.

Policing your children's TV watching is your responsibility, not the responsibility of Congress.

[redqueen]

43. So you also believe I should lock my kids up

and not watch tv with them ... okay. That's two for 'screw families... I love curse words!'

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. If I'm watching a television show about nature, and a commercial comes on showing something inappropriate... that's somehow my fault?

Perhaps I should just get soundproof helmets with blinders, so that when we watch something together, I can just lock them up for the commercials and then take it back off when the show is on?

Honestly...

[petrock2004]

69. well i think

the point is that if you've taken time to explain to your kids why they shouldn't use curse words, or if you just spend enough time with them to get to know them (which i'm sure you do - you must be a good parent if you care enough about them to not want them exposed to vulgarity) then i don't think you'll have a problem. when i was a kid, my mom talked to me and my sister about swearing, and how it can have a negative effect on your reputation and the way people perceive you. i never swore in front of my parent, because i didn't want them to feel disrespected. but i heard curse words ALL the time from other people. (not a whole lot on tv though.)

so i think if you're this worried about it, you're probably on the right track with your kids anyway. and that's why i sort of agree with the idea that it's not congress's responsibility to raise kids. i think a lot of people just let the TV babysit these days. and while there are hours and hours and hours of programming geared towards children specifically, they're still going to be exposed to violence and vulgarity. but educating them about why they shouldn't want to emulate what they see on TV is really the best thing you can do.

they're going to hear/see whatever it is that you don't want them to anyway. that's how kids are. just give them the tools to make the right decisions based on the best information. and that is the job of a parent, NOT of a government.

[redqueen]

78. This is beyond curse words

The bill is silly, obviously, because it leaves so much unaddressed... smut, violence, etc.

My real frustration is that people don't seem to realize or care that children are losing their innocense due to our 'free speech' craze.

There should be certain hours during which TV should be family friendly. OR possibly ensure that during family-friendly shows, that certain commercials aren't shown.

But no... some guy tries to do one little thing to make things just slightly better... and he may be way off base... not sure if he wants these off the air 24 / 7 or what... but the kneejerk liberal reaction is, IMO, stupid.

[petrock2004]

82. the whole point of children is that they lose their innocence

that's why they grow up.

if you want to delay that until they're 25, then, by all means, keep them locked up with helmets on.

[redqueen]

87. Nice Strawman

How about just till they're 8, is that okay with you?

Or is it up to you and all the other liberals with such well-defined senses of what's really important to tell me how long my kids have before they will be exposed to the filth you fight so hard to protect your access too?

:eyes:

[petrock2004]

93. look

you have talked repeatedly in this post about having to "deafen and blind" your kids when something comes on tv.

THAT is what is ridiculous.

THAT is what i think is irresposible.

why don't you EDUCATE your kids. then THEY can make the decision as to what is right and wrong.

but by deciding all of that for them, you are REMOVING their power to make their own decisions.

and i'm not happy with the filth and smut on tv. i think it is disgusting. i agree with you on that. but i think that it is totally ridiculous to have to forcibly block your children from seeing it. that is only going to make it harder for them.

and it's not MY responsibility to raise your kids either. you do what you think is best. but there's no MOM at their friend's house to block their little eyes and ears. there's no MOM in the hallway at school to keep them from hearing all the smut and filfth that comes out of the mouths of other 8 year olds.

do your kids a favor and TELL THEM why they shouldn't be seeing the crap on tv.

and personally, i do sort of agree with banning smut from tv. but that doen't remove your responsibility to your children. ever.

[redqueen]

99. Right and wrong?

Obviously people are only interested in discussing curse words.

Have you seen the commercials for Gothika? They're on during family viewing hours. How about the ones for the Victoria's Secret whatever... they're on during family viewing hours as well...

but again... I should just tell my kids that women aren't really valued only for their looks and they'll believe me and not the TV, right? I mean, after all... it's not like women don't already tell their kids that... and look - no problem with anorexia and bulimia or anything at all... nope... everything's fine, just as it is.

I just posted that I give up. Just wanted to respond here because you seem to be focused on just curse words.

[petrock2004]

104. i think you're right

i definitely agree that there are terrible commercials on tv. there was one on spike tv, an *adult* channel, that kept showing naked dead girls. i think that's terrible. i wouldn't want my kids to watch it.

but i DISAGREE with the idea that it's the government's responsibility to change that. i wrote a letter to the network. i don't know if it had anything to do with me (i doubt it) but they don't show that commercial anymore.

do something POSITIVE if you want to see a change. you are the consumer, it's your right to tell the company what you think should be changed. don't make the government your babysitter.

[redqueen]

111. OMG that's the new "men's" channel

I don't even watch that... crap to the nth degree.

We'll have to agree to disagree about government intervention. Just as with regulating businesses' financial dealings... IMO the lassiez faire or free market treatment of this issue will result in what we see now.

They don't care what the consumer thinks because these channels are owned by multinational conglomerates - the power of the consumer, if not nearly a concensus (which it obviously isnt'... just observe this thread), has no effect whatsoever. So families will lose.

[petrock2004]

115. sure

let's agree to disagree

:D

isn't america great? i'm glad we can still have heated discussions government policy issues w/o being arrested and stuff. :D

beats soviet russia any day, even WITH all the crap on tv :D:D

[redqueen]

122. Yes it is!

Well, mostly... ;)

BTW, WTH kind of commercial showed those pictures... just curious -- what the heck were they advertising?!

[petrock2004]

134. ugh... that CSI show

that stuff is gross. i don't need to see it. :)

[bowens43]

124. So you want to go far beyond this ridiculous bill

and ban even more 'speech' that you find objectionable? Wow.

[bitchkitty]

175. If I was that concerned,

I wouldn't let them watch TV. That's the answer - not control the content of TV, but control your kids. I do not want to have to tailor my taste to suit yours or anyone else's children, and I don't think I should have to.

[bowens43]

97. You don't have to let them watch.

So you want to go even further? What next? legislate sex acts between consenting adults? How about banning inflammatory political speech. The it's for the children argument doesn't cut it anymore. The TV can be turned off. If you don't like what's being broadcast, call the company and complain,. If enough people feel the way you do, they'll set standards.

The 'knee jerk liberal reaction' is to ALLOW the government to legislate morality 'for the children'. And you're right, it's stupid. As much as I hate to admit , I'm with the conservatives on this one, more government regulation is a bad thing.

How is placing limitations on freedom making anything slightly better?
Less freedom is never better.

[ProfessorGAC]

136. Free Speech Craze?

Come again. We're on a free speech craze?

Geez, i was not taking a position one way or the other on this, but if your reason for wanting to bottle up television language, or violence, or sex, is because you think that free speech is a fad, you lost me.

I'd take an opposing position to yours, for that alone.
The Professor

[redqueen]

137. Well that's thoughtful

You see, what we have here is a huge gulf of disagreement.

Those that think that free market rules alone should determine what gets shown in television media, and those that think regulations are necessary, for one reason or another.

When I say 'free speech craze', I'm referring to those that think nothing of voting for a candidate who supports free trade, despite the horrible problems with it and obvious calamity to follow, yet will fight to the death to defend media's right to broadcast vulgar terminology during whatever hour they please.

I am all for free speech. But surely we as Democrats all recognize that even free speech has limitations. We can't yell 'fire' in a theater, we can't lie about people to damage them, etc. Similarly, on radio and television there are supposedly restrictions on what can be said / shown.

However, as you and I and any other educated / aware person knows, these rules are flaunted continually.

Some people care, some people don't.

Whose rights supercede whose?

[ProfessorGAC]

150. I'm A Regulatory Capitalist, Myself

I'm not a "magic of the free market" guy. That's a pipe dream, adhered to by the most two dimensional thinker. So, that's not what i'm saying at all!

But, you're positing a false dilemma.

There is no right to not be offended specified anywhere in our jurisprudence. So, it's not a matter of one right superceding another. It's a right to be allowed to speak freely. It's not a right to not be subjected to that which you don't like.

I'm not a fan of sex and violence on commercial TV. I think that before 10pm Eastern, there should be a strong emphasis on keeping it clean. Not Disney, Pat Robertson clean, but some reasonable limits.

But, at the same time, i don't want laws that clearly won't pass constiutional muster and i don't want government telling people what they can and can't say or hear.

As long as the choice exists to watch something else, or turn it off, the government has no place making such decisions for folks.

For me, it's not the language that is the issue. It's the government overstepping its authority that rankles me. To keep gov't in their place, i'm willing to accept some dirty words on TV.
The Professor

[redqueen]

154. As I've posted many times on this thread, these rules already exist

They're not always enforced, but they are sometimes. They've been around for decades.

There is no right not to be offended, but as another pointed out, the government regulates things to protect children in other ways. Some among the less intellectually inclined will scream 'stop using kids as an excuse!' but apparently you think limitations are necessary, and not strictly to avoid offending adults, but to protect children. (Deducted, please let me know if erroneously.)

If, as you say, this law won't pass constitutional muster, why then are the FCC regulations in place?

At other times in this thread, I've pointed out how this is indeed a 'my rights vs. your rights' dilemma.

I, as a parent who wishes to watch family-friendly shows including, but not limited to cartoons, have experienced many times the unpleasant situation of having to send my kids out of the room or turn the tv off entirely during commercials. This is frustrating because often I'll miss parts or my kids will end up seeing either inappropriate sexual material, hearing inappropriate language, or seeing violent material.

So, whose rights supercede? Those who wish to have this material broadcast freely or those who wish to have restrictions in place so they can enjoy family-friendly programs without having to jump through hoops to protect their children?

[ProfessorGAC]

161. Still A False Dilemma. But We Can Agree To Disagree.

The FCC laws have, indeed, been challenged on many occasions and have been found wanting, by law. Most of the restrictions have been voluntarily maintained by the broadcasters. That's responsible, but still voluntary.

As a (reluctantly) childless married man, (but with nieces and nephews that i love dearly), i am sensitive to the needs of parents. Just doesn't impact me directly.

However, the larger issue of government overstepping its bounds is a far greater concern. And, i am a believer in metrics. Regulations placed upon business behavior that protects the consumer (directly involved in the transactions) and other competitors (with workers to maintain) are perfectly acceptable and warranted.

But, personal liberties are, for me, sacrosanct. The government has no place in this debate. The economic power of the consumer is a more appropriate tool to adjust the marketing behaviors of the commercial networks. Harder, yes. But, more appropriate.

Thanks for keeping this philosophical difference civil. Enjoy your evening.
The Professor

[redqueen]

162. Agreed. :-)

Curious about your assertion that adherence to the FCC regulations are voluntary. How then are stations fined such large sums? Surely if they were not mandatory they would not pay... no? Interesting...

Thank you also for the pleasant exchange, and same to you. :)

[VT70]

170. I support free trade

I don't understand people like you. There's nothing wrong with free trade, or free speech.

[bowens43]

90. It has nothing to do with 'screw the family or curse words'.

It has to do with keeping government out of our business. Congress has no right to legislate morality.

Personally I have NEVER seen an inappropriate commercial in the middle of a nature show and I watch a LOT of nature shows. If it happens call the station and complain loudly, if you do that often enough they'll get the picture and change their ways. The last thing we need is government creating more laws to place limitations on freedom.

[Bandit]

110. Okay where do you stop?

Is damn okay and for how long? If these words get banned from TV what will be next? Where does the slippery slope end? I agree America has sunk into a vulgar pit of obscenity and violence but "Why do you hate our Freedoms" That is the pandora's box that has been opened. It cannot be closed again and keep America free. The question is are we really free and do we really want to be free? Do we want a Daddy (dictator) to protect us from ourselves?

[TLM]

57. There is a button on your TV called POWER.

It is called that because it gives you the POWER not to watch something you find offensive.


Why should I have to watch boring sanitized TV because some irresponsible parent wants to use their TV as a babysitter?

[redqueen]

80. That argument

is lazy and assumptive.

I do not use TV as a babysitter, nor do I consider a lack of curse words to be 'boring'.

(Wondering now if I'm the only one that listens to NPR or watches PBS... they're woefully inadequate to sate one's appetite for lots of sailor language)

My concern is for my children, with whom I watch television. When we watch some programs were are confronted with commercials that are inappropriate.

The kneejerk liberal response is sad and reflects badly on us... but keep fighting for your filth, liberal america... you stand up for the right things!


Free trade? It's fine!

But take away our curse words... NOW THAT's A FIGHT!

:puke:

[bowens43]

101. It's isn't lazy or assumptive.

It's lazy to not take the time to regulate your child's viewing habits and TVs DO have power buttons , so no assumption there.

NPR and PBS? I listen and watch every day. I haven't seen ANY smut on there. My children also watch the Discovery channel, the disney channel, the family channel, the history channel, all amazingly smut free WITHOUT government regulation.

You seem to see this as a small issue. It isn't. Limitations on freedom are perhaps the most important issues facing us today. They are slowly chipping away at the bill of rights. By the time most people notice our rights are gone, it will be too late.

[redqueen]

113. Freedom?

Using curse words, showing violence, and depicting women strictly as objectified sexual objects instead of people is a pretty narrow defintion of freedom.

Discovery, history, travel... plenty of smut and violence in the commercials.

I don't think it's a small issue at all... it's huge.

[bowens43]

126. That's only part of the definition of freedom,

it encompasses MUCH more then that, but it's definitely part of it. Freedom is a scary thing to some people.

If you've seen smut on those channels, you must have a pretty WIDE definition of smut.

[redqueen]

168. Yes, actually, I do.

I see commercials for "Bratz" toys, and think that's really the first step... marketing sexually oriented toys to young girls.

Freedom is not scary. Thinking is hard. Many people would rather regurgitate what they've heard people they like and admire say than think for themselves about matters of right and wrong... of fair and unfair.

It's far easier to follow the leader.

[0007]

127. Are you kidding me?

I enjoy NPR & PBS and watch 'em everyday. I enjoy opera, plays and listening to lectures on philosophy. I also enjoy watching South Park, and other smut. I'm more offended by folks who want to preach their views and tell me what's right and what's wrong and what people can say and can't say.

I've raised two children and nothing has changed in my household because of them. They didn't turn out bad. IMO you can't be a shield for your children, you can only tell them the truth.

[Cat Atomic]

135. "keep fighting for your filth, liberal america"?

What you call filth, others might call normal. Start censoring words and pictures of lingerie today, and tomorrow you're censoring thought and commentary. You may think it's trite, but it's also true.

Keep fighting for censorship, and you may find *yourself* marginalized and censored as well.

[redqueen]

144. Another person doesn't know these rules already exist?!

My God in heaven... what the hell is wrong with this country?!

THIS IS IT!

These rules already exist, and have existed since the advent of television and radio.

They are not fairly enforced, but they are enforceable nonetheless.

For so many people to be so unaware of the regulations already in place is astounding.

And, again... if Democrats showed half this much commitment to maintaining fair labor laws... this would be a much better country.

But instead, we just have really vulgar media.

THANKS!

:puke:

[Cat Atomic]

173. You don't have a point, but thanks for the random aggression.

Of course I'm aware that there are already guidelines and censorship in broadcast television.

[spindoctor]

81. My kids say a lot worse.

Just like I did when I was their age. And trust me, they don't get it from me or my wife, and they don't get it from *beep*ing Comedy Central.

It's a fact of life. I'm proud that they don't do it if they think that I can hear them.

[BiggJawn]

6. First the "Ray-Gun Dime", now this....

Nice to know they have some "down time" in DC where they can really act like assclowns for the folks at home.

So he plagerizes George Carlin, takes out "Tits" and adds "Ass-hole".

And just where IS that Anthrax mail-bomber, guys and gals? Hmmmm?

I vote against these clueless bastards every time they come up for re-election, but Buyer keeps going back just the same.....

[ACK]

8. Don't like the vulgarity on television?

Turn the damn thing off and give your kids a book for goodness sakes.

Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves?

Bullshit.

Using the fuck on tv is not like calling fire in a crowded theater.

Keep the fundies and Lieberbush off the Bill of Rights.

I hate this slow erosion of freedoms via the FCC and other regulatory agencies. Its maddening that in a free society we buy into this.

I am sure there are others that will disagree but I get all crazy civil libertarian ACLU on this sort of nonsense.

[cirej2000]

9. We ban it here

;)

[bowens43]

25. DU isn't a government entity,

it is a private enterprise. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights place limitations on Government.

[redqueen]

45. Uh huh

I'm hearing ... from Democrats, supposedly ... the same argument Republicans use to claim that we should allow lassiez faire business rules and do away with all regulations.

[bowens43]

105. Do you understand the Constitution?

The Constitution was created to place limitations on the power of government, not to place limitations on private entities or individuals. Each step taken to give more power to the government and take power and rights away from the people moves us closer to totalitarian form of government.

[redqueen]

114. ROFL! Same line as rethugs!

OMG are you not listening to yourself?

This is really something... next you'll be telling me corporations don't have to pay taxes. :)

[bowens43]

129. So you don't grasp the concepts?

Why doesn't that surprise? Here's a news flash for you, the republicans don't own the Constitution and they are not the only ones who believe in it. It's an excellent document, you should try reading it sometime.

[redqueen]

132. It is you who do not grasp the concepts.

My argument is that just as government must enforce regulations on private business to ensure they follow laws, they must similarly create and enforce regulations on private business to ensure they follow laws.

:eyes:

Again, and for the umpteenth time... these kinds of regulations have been in place since the advent of television. They are not new.

Despite all the handwringing and 'slippery slope' bs, this is not new. In fact, despite having these kinds of reguations on the books and enforceable for decades, things have steadily gotten worse.

[bowens43]

147. So, the regulations are already on the books?

Then why do we need more? If they aren't working , what makes you think more regulation is the answer?

[petrock2004]

149. hahahahahahaha

good question!!!

:D:D:D

and with that, i'm out! too much anger here i fear... :hi: bye!!

[redqueen]

155. Are they fairly enforced? No. Are they enforced much at all? No.

Very simple. Observe the situation.

[redqueen]

158. It is not that they are not working.

They would work fine if they were enforced.

Do you take the same position on environmental legislation?

That, because the laws are not enforced, that we should not pass any more?

:eyes:

[Cooley Hurd]

30. Just in the subject line of the first post in a threads...

not in the subject lines of subsequent posts or in the message body.

[Gringo]

10. I am SICK of the filth on TV

Call me a rightwinger if you like. Hell, I'm an atheist, and it still bugs me. It's all part of the dumbing down, just like the infotainment passing as news.

Show whatever you want on the premium channels or pay-per-view, but get the filth off of regular cable. I'm sick of flipping thru the channels and getting those explicit "Girls Gone Wild" commercials. What kind of effect will they have on kids? They are so wanton and tasteless. And the V-Chip doesn't block commercials, only programs. I'm sick of being insulted by lowest-common-denominator TV. No wonder I watch so little anymore. I've had to block half the channels altogether. The latest one was "E!" because of their endless coverage of porn stars and that moron Howard Stern's show.

TV is a sewer now. I miss quality. It was actually better when there were only 4 channels.

[MadHound]

15. Easy answer, turn the channel, or better yet, turn off the TV

But don't try to legislate your morality for the rest of us. There are lots of kids channels out there that are safe viewing for children. Better yet, turn off the TV and give your kids something that will really help them, a book. But don't try to legislate your morality for the rest of us. Ever here of something called the first amendment? Well, at least for now, it still applies.

One of the more interesting juxtapositions vis-a-vis morality that I've found in our society is that violence, lots and lots of violence in our media is condoned, even encouraged. But God forbid we show something as natural, beautiful and God given gift as sex. That is unless the sex is intertwined with violence, then that's OK.

[redqueen]

48. Sorry, I thought families were people too

For goodness' sake... there are programs about nature and such that I enjoy watching with my children.

You're telling me... 'too bad'. How is that fair?

[MadHound]

59. How am I restricting your right to watch nature shows?

By all means, watch them, I love them. All I am saying is that by imposing this legislation, our freedom of speech will be further curtailed and I will fight that with every ounce of energy I have.

Please, watch the nature shows, they're much better for you and your children than the pap that is put out on the Big 3.

[redqueen]

64. You don't get it

Even NOW, during that nature show, at least 7 commercials will come on that will require me to ask them to close their eyes or leave the room altogether.

Relaxing the regulations is asking for it to get worse.

[MadHound]

83. I don't know what nature show you are watching

But when I watch History Channel, The Learning Channel, Discovery, et al, I don't see those commercials unless it is reeeal early in the morning, and most of the time not even then. And I know that the programs on PBS don't have these commercials, since they are for the most part commercial free.

Besides, there is always the remote, what we should give up freedom of speech because there are people who can't operate it?

[redqueen]

91. Same channels

And during daytime hours... like I said, you probably don't even notice it.

PBS yes is fine... no problems there at all.

I can operate the remote just fine. In your opinion, your right to filth is more important than my right to not miss part of a show because I'm forced to turn off the tv for a few minutes so you can get your right filth protected.

I feel that I must once again point out that the restrictions on what can and cannot be shown on tv and when have been around since the invention of television.

And it's sad that this thread is so fiercely debated, while the free trade threads beg for attention.

:eyes:

At least to your credit you are there as well. :)

[MadHound]

116. Then I don't know where you are getting your TV feed from

I get mine off of satellite and I don't see the kind of commercials you are talking about on daytime, prime time or family time television on those channels. And yes, I do notice these things since I like to keep track of the propoganda that is being fed to us, thus I watch what comes on television closely. A little project of mine you might say. Now I do know that you will get these kind of commercials on the Comedy Channel and the like. But those are channels that are supposed to be for more mature audiences anyway, so I see no conflict there.

However, that being said, even if you are getting those kind of commercials on prime time, I still say that it gives you no right to restrict our God given right to freedom of speech just because you are upset that you have to use your remote more than you like. Monitoring what your kids watch is YOUR job, not the government's. And yet here you are, upholding that liberal stereotype of demanding a nanny state instead of a free one.

PS, there is alway Tivo too. My bad, I forgot, too many buttons to push too often.

[bowens43]

108. Complain to the station manager.

If enough people feel as you do and complain often enough the 'problem' will go away. What commercials come on during a nature program that you find so offensive? For the life of me, I can't think of one and the Animal Channel and the Discovery channel are on most of the time in my house.

[ACK]

16. Are you willing to legislate the moral temperment of entertainment though?

That is the real question.

[Gringo]

32. It has nothing to do with morality

Anything should go on pay channels. They cater to sepcific tastes. I buy my basic cable as a package, and I don't think I should have to pay for such grabage. It's not immoral, any more than the piece-o-crap new "cat in the hat" movie was immoral. It is, like "Cat", however, incredibly insulting and mind-numbing. And again, the V-chip that was supposed to let parents protect their kids from this stuff, doesn't block these pornographic commercials. I'm no prude. I want my kids to have plenty of good sex, even out of wedlock when they're old enough. I just don't want them to have the notion that the drunken whores of "Girls Gone Wild" are normal, or desirable women. They deserve better in life.

I'm probably not making my point well, but to hell with it. I support the guy's effort, and would support efforts to ban porno commercials from broadcast & basic cable. Keep the smut on "Skinemax" where it belongs.

[MadHound]

36. So do you also support the restriction of freedom of speech

Because that is what you are advocating here. If you are simply insulted by the stupidity, with or without the language, that abounds on TV, then turn the damn thing off. Give your kids a book, spend some quality time with them.

I'm just looking out at the slippery slope this kind of garbage legislation could lead us down.

[VermontDem2004]

42. I can't believe I am agreeing with a Chefs fan

But he is right, plus you don't even need to turn off the tv, you can turn the channel. I am pretty sure half of the channels on basic cable are clean.

[Gringo]

47. I guess I do - besides your argument is specious

How much of the left & far left's message ever gets on TV without some wingnut there to ridicule it.

Freedom of speech on television is already restricted. The people have NO voice on TV, it is strictly what powerful corporations want aired. When TV guarantees equal time to Kucinich and those who would free Mumia, I'll agree with you. Since all of that is effectively banned, I think language and smut should also be relegated to pay channels.

[MadHound]

77. So since the bathwater has already been tossed

You wish to throw the baby after it?

You must be part of that forty percent of Americans who think there is too much freedom of speech eh? What, the Constituion just seems a little outdated to you? Darn those pesky notions of freedom of speech, what's next, freedom of religion?

There are other buttons on your remote besides just on and off(though with any TV I think that button should be used liberally). There are plenty of stations out there where you can view adult material that won't offend you. There are also plenty of channels out there that your children can watch without you worrying. Hell you can even set up your cable or satellite programing so that it will only let you tune into the channels that won't offend you. But why in the wide wide world of sports should we further restrict our God given right to freedom of speech?

Oh, by the by, you can get time on TV for Kucinich and free Mumia. Its called public access cable TV. I know its not much but there it is, free speech(quick quick, stamp it out!)

I just find that parents who are looking to have the government legislate morality so their kids won't be offended generally tend to be lazy and negletful parents. I'm not going to give up our right to free speech just so some schmoe doesn't have to bother knowing what his kids are watching.

PS, I hate to inform you of this, but child psychologists find that children who view more violent television are more screwed up than kids who view more sexual TV. You wanna ban Terminator too?

[Gringo]

141. I don't have a problem with nudity or sexuality

But showing REAL footage of REAL drunken sluts going down on each other at mardi gras is NOT a positive depiction of sexuality. It's demeaning, debasing, and gives kids a very wrong idea of how normal adults behave.

Showing a naked man and a naked woman making love is not a big gripe with me.

And yes, I think overly violent stuff needs to be cut (or run on pay channels)

[redqueen]

52. Slippery Slope?

You people are acting as if this is new.

These guidelines have been in place for decades. :eyes:

I read to my kids and spend quality time with them in all kinds of ways, and one of those ways is to watch shows that are entertaining to the whole family. That used to matter.

I guess TV isn't for families anymore. If there is a program you want to watch with your kids -- eff you -- right?

[VermontDem2004]

65. No

There are programs you can watch your with kids, no one here is suggesting to have bad langauge on every show on every channel. But there are programs that may be inappropriate in your opinion for your kids that you don't have to watch. It is about freedom of choice.

[redqueen]

67. You think the relaxed regulations only apply to programs

and not commercials?

Show me evidence that commercials won't get any worse than they already are and I'll agree that at least it's not getting any worse.

But it's already pretty damn bad ... I honestly can't believe people here think kids shouldn't be allowed to watch a family friendly television show without having to worry about seeing some godawful commercial about who knows what.

[MadHound]

96. Actually you are wrong

Having been a DJ for a number of years in my younger days, I can tell you that speech guidelines have been loosened a number of times in the past twenty five years, a good thing in my eyes. This is just a right wing legislative attempt to impose somebody elses morality on all of us.

And please, spare us any more of the Poor Families pity party. I know for a fact that there are umpteen dozen family channels where you can park your kids and not have worry about them ever seeing or hearing something offensive.

I guess you too must be part of that forty percent of Americans who think their is too much freedom of speech. I wondered where they all were.

[redqueen]

100. "Park your kids"

You aren't debating... you obviously haven't read what I've written.

I see I should do as I planned and just give up.

Hey, at least we know what's important to Democrats, though, right?

:puke:

[bowens43]

40. You don't have to pay for it. Get rid of your cable and buy

an antenna. The point is , if you are so concerned with what your children see on TV, don't allow them watch it or make an effort to give them fewer choices. You typically won't see the girls gone wild crap on the 3 major networks.


Smut , like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[redqueen]

61. This is getting ridiculous

Whether we're talking about basic cable or network, the smut and violence and filth on TV is out of control.

And from the vast majority here, that's how we like it. (and we wonder why things are so screwed up)

Here's the deal: I am not talking about letting my kids alone to watch whatever they please. I am concerned about crap shown family viewing hours and during family shows.

If I'm watching a show about nature (because this actually happened recently) and a commercial comes on depicting a violent movie or a smutty subject (victoria's secret show type stuff) ... how is that acceptable? You're right... you won't see 'girls gone wild' crap but you will see plenty. You probably don't even notice it -- do you have kids?

This stuff should, IMO, be kept to prime time viewing. Children are people too. Part of the government protecting children is keeping them from being pushed into adulthood too quickly.

They deserve some period of innocense and freedom from the ugliness of the world. Part of the government's job, IMNSHO, is to ensure they are protected from what's being steadily being forced into their world by the networks for their profit (paid advertising).

[ACK]

79. I have kids too stop hiding behind them

You are repulsed by certain content on television and instead of having the guts to say I do not like that I want it stopped like the fundies do, you hide behind your kids.

Sure, we will only restrict freedoms between these and the other hours. No, it is not a slippery slope (sarcasm on). Of course the fundies and the moral majority will not use this as an in for further changes.

You said, "Part of the government protecting children is keeping them from being pushed into adulthood too quickly."

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Keep the government the hell out of my bedroom and out of parenting.

It is not the governments job to raise your children or protect them from evil entertainment.

The arguments for this nonsense are so two-faced.

The next time a fundie wants to ban a book in your library because it does not fit their idea of morality I want every single one of you that backed this nonsense to remember this nonsense. Then when they cart of Steinbeck for using objectionable language I will weep and curse you all. You are playing enablers to this sort of nonsense.

It is not the governments job morally engineer a moral environment for your kids. Why?

Because individuals and families have different ideas of morality. You want to push that community standard of morality down the populace's through as much as any evangelical preacher man.

[redqueen]

86. Are you not reading what you're responding to?

I actually ENJOY some of these commercials, but they are entirely inappropriate for children, and during certain hours / certain shows they should be restricted.

You again make the laughable argument about a 'slippery slope'. I got news for you, oh so educated and knowledgable one... we've been on that slope since the invention of the television... how much more fascist has it gotten? OH! that's right! It HASN'T! It's gotten much BETTER for those who can't get enough filth. :eyes:

Library books are different... DUH You don't have to check them out.

But if I'm watching a program it is unreasonable to expect me to turn the tv off or change channels to try to find something unobjectionable during family friendly hours.

As I said in another post:

Keep fighting for the right things, dems! It really shows who you are and what you believe in!

Free trade? FINE!

But don't take away my filth! CAUSE THEN I CARE, AND I'LL FIGHT!

[ACK]

92. You don't have to turn on that channel or you can change it

Its called raised your arm and using the remote and turning the channel when that mean old bad commercial you don't like comes on.

Its kind of the same as not checking out a library book you don't like.

There are broadcasting standards. They are forms of censorship and wrong. They infringe on the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights.

You want to expand on that infringement. I think I understand that.

[bearfartinthewoods]

123. and out of parenting.

what is your position on seat belt
manditory education
vacinations
drinking age of 21

if i tried i could come up with more instances where the government
impacts the way you parent for the good of the children.

do you object to all of these as well as a plea for a little help so people can relaxe and watch the tube with their kids?

[redqueen]

145. Thank you

Another thoughtful post. :)

[redqueen]

50. I'm with you

But from the looks of it, having any guidelines setting standards on any channels at all is 'legislating your morals on others'. :eyes:

[ACK]

55. Yes it is

But don't worry the fundies will all be happy to tell you what is proper for you and your children to listen to and watch on tv in BushCo's America.

They thank you for your support.

[redqueen]

Please

These regulations as to what's acceptable for TV audiences and when have been around for decades.

LOL... bushco america... :eyes:

[ACK]

54. Yes it has everything to do with moral engineering...

You don't like certain types of speech and as I said in another post you try to hide behind your kids to justify it.

Turn the channel. Use the remote. Get up off the sofa and turn the damn tv off. Watch public television.

You don't think you should have to pay for such garbage. Talk to the cable company. Don't take the lazy way out and let some guy decide what is moral enough for tv from Capitol Hill and what is not.

Who decides what is garbage and what is not? Two people having sex. Is that garbage? Is it about context? Who decides?

Its not whether or not you are prude. It is whether you are ready to let someone else force their ideas of morality on the public as a whole.

I guess you are. Its too much effort to police what the kids are doing.

Lets just legislate away a couple of words here and a type of speech there and ...

Voila your kids will look real puzzled when you tell them they use to have the freedom to say what they think.

[redqueen]

70. Utter crap

This is not hiding behind kids. This is part of making television 'family friendly'.

You seem to be saying that the only places families can watch TV together is on PBS. That's nice and "American" of you. "All you people with kids who care about what they see, you don't get to watch anything but PBS" :eyes:

You rant about letting someone else force 'their ideas of morality' onto the public as a whole as if the children in this society are not a part of the public as a whole.

Have you somehow forgotten that broadcast standards have been around for decades?

It's not that it's 'too much effort to police what the kids are doing' ... that's a lazy copout of an argument.

If I want to watch a program with my kids I shouldn't have to deafen and blind them during the commercials.

[VermontDem2004]

75. You aren't restricted to just PBS

You have Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, as well as others you can watch with your kids and I challenge you to prove to me they show "inappropriate" commercials on those channels.

[ACK]

85. Who's idea of family friendly?

I know that broadcasting standards have been around for decades.

They are form of government censorship on the freedom of speech and expression. They should be abolished. There has never been a more frightening infringment on the Bill of Rights that those "standards".

You want the government to raise your kids and the fundies running this nation to dictate what you can hear and can't hear then go ahead and enable this arguement.

You are the one too lazy to take responsibility of raising your children and want to give the power to Republicans to congress to do it for you.

When they start back carting of copies of Huck Finn and Steinbeck books from the library for the use of objectionable language I hope you can sit back in your safe little world and be happy.

[bearfartinthewoods]

118. fuck yes...i'll do it!

i'll liscense family channels, kid channels and adult channels and r-rated channels and Xrated channels and keep them seperate. i'd also regulate all providers to insist that people who don't want r or x or kid or whatever, don't have to take them and don't have to pay for them

that should make everyone happy and protect everyone's rights.

[bowens43]

35. Turn it off, throw it out, get a V-Chip, do a little research etc.

There are lots of solutions that don't involve the government passing more laws and regulations to place limitations on our 1st amendment rights. If enough people are upset by it, it will eventually affect the bottom line of the TV and radio stations broadcasting the objectionable content.

Sorry, even though I'm a father of three, I won't support the idea of the government regulating speech.

[redqueen]

73. So amazing

Has everyone suddently forgotten that these standards have been in place for years?

lol... if enough people are upset by it...

that's the SECOND right wing argument I've heard in this thread... first lassiez faire ... now free market.... i love it!

[bearfartinthewoods]

130. so you're opposed to hate speech legislation?

[redqueen]

159. So very glad you're still contributing

:)

[bearfartinthewoods]

178. my plan regulates broadcasting, not free speech.

it would give channels a choice as to which liscense they wish to have. if they apply for a kids or family liscense, they agree that all content, even commercials would abid by certain criteria. the same with all other classifications. the channel owners will chose which criteria they feel will suit their audience and agree to same.

that way there really is NO RESTRICTIONS on what can be broadcast or said or viewed, as long as it occurs within the XX liscensed channels.

families could then safely block channels which offer material they do not want and enjoy the family or kid channels without worrying that offensive content might suddenly show up in the commercials in family oriented fare.

how is that a violation of free speech? freedom of speech does not mean a guarantee of an audience.

[redqueen]

46. Thank God

I was beginning to wonder if all Democrats had suddenly turned into Beavises and Buttheads.

[Butterflies]

94. I agree, it's sickening

I can't always be in the room when my sons are watching TV, and it's getting worse and worse. It's unnecessary to have all of that trashy stuff on basic cable. There used to be rules and standards for TV, and I don't know why or when it changed. :(

[redqueen]

117. Well obviously liberals love filth and will fight to the death to keep it

This thread has really disturbed me...

Even more considering how little participation is on the free trade threads. :wow:

[bowens43]

131. Liberals love freedom and will fight to the death to keep it.

It's a shame that you are not able to distinguish between love of freedom and love of filth.

This goes way beyond free trade and attacks the fundamental principles of our form of government.

[redqueen]

143. Really?

Then why aren't you on the Free Trade thread? Hmmmmm?

Only certain types of freedom are important to the vast majority of Democrats, it seems. :eyes:

And, again, these regulations are already in place.

:eyes:

They're not enforced, usually (sometimes they are, but not always).

This bill would actually make things more fair, since now only some are punished for violating these rules, which, again, already exist, and have for decades.

[funkyflathead]

11. I can support this

Makes tv a little more "intelligent" IMHO.

[petrock2004]

98. yes.

THAT is a good argument for "cleaning up tv."

making tv more intelligent would be wonderful. doing it to protect little kids that are growing anyway... that's slightly ridiculous

[Loonman]

13. It's for the Children! It's for the Children!!!!

That fake "battle cry" makes me sick.

[cirej2000]

20. Yeah, like kids today aren't sophisticated enough

to know the difference between TV, Videogames, MTV and reality.

It's more moral-engineering by the right.

[Ksec]

17. Im all for it

great!

[ACK]

18. Why?

*

[Ksec]

21. Hey , you can teach your kids to tell their teacher

to go fk therselves for all I care. If I choose not to I should have that right also. If I want to turn the radio on and have to worry about the f bomb how can I listen or have kids around. Turn it off? No I have a right to listen as much as the next guy. I think there should be some places where the foul language isnt used. You want it you have your right, I dont, I should have my right also...

[ACK]

27. I have kids too stop hiding behind them

You do not have the right IMO to tell someone else they can't drop the f bomb even if they are on the radio and tv. I hate the FCC and other organizations and their morality policing of culture.

Because you don't like or approve of certain types of speech you want it banned and you hide behind your children to rationalize it.

There are places the f bomb is not used. Ever station is not shock radio. Maybe listening to the heavy metal station running the shock jock show of the moment when you take the kids to school is not the best thing. Turn on NPR or the classical station or .. well .. something else.

Turn the channel. Learn how to use the remote control. Turn the channel people.

Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.

They even hide behind their kids to do it.

Great.

[Butterflies]

153. why is protecting your children "hiding behind them"?

No one is doing that. Some parents here think that their children are important and they deserve decent TV programs.

I don't want to hear all of the cursewords and I certainly don't want to see those "girls gone wild" commercials, but I'm even more concerned about my children seeing and hearing all of that. They're still developing their personalities, and the trash TV can't be a positive thing for them.

I don't have HBO and Cinemax and all of those channels BECAUSE I want to avoid the things I might feel are objectionable. It's fine to keep it there - that's the option of people who want that.

There's no hiding here.

[bowens43]

28. What gives YOU the right to determine for others what is appropriate?

You do have the right to listen but you don't have the right to determine content (unless you happen to own the TV or radio station).
Of course you could organize boycotts and try to hurt the bottom line of stations you consider to be vulgar.

[MadHound]

31. Hey, there are plenty of stations out there that aren't blue

But quite frankly I should be able to listen to Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor without having every other word bleeped out. Somehow that just detracts from the performance you know.

This isn't an either/or deal. We currently have plenty of adult stations, both radio and television, that are not "blue". We also have plenty of stations that are. You stick to the ones that are clean, and you won't be offended. If you go to the others, well realize what your stepping into. The constitution does guarantee the right of free speech. However it does not guarantee that you can live your life free from offense.

[Ksec]

33. You may be right but

I still think there should be places where its Not used.

I have no problem with you having your right to hear the language.

I have a problem with you determining what I hear. Why should you have a right to impose language deemed foul om me?

[VermontDem2004]

38. Imposed?

Basic Cable has a little over 30 channels, I can guarantee you atleast 10 channels are clean. Actually in fact is this bill even necessary, unless it is live TV I rarely hear the words listed on the bill the repuke is trying to ban.

[ACK]

44. He already included an answer

Don't listen. Turn the channel.

You want to limit my speech so you don't have to hear it.

It sounds like what Bush wants with the free-speech zones for protestors.

Who determine what foul language is? How long will it be before treasonable speech against our mighty government is included in that list?

We act like we can pick and choose when freedom is good and when it is bad. Once you start limiting freedoms you suddenly realize that there are limited to the point they are useless.

Moral engineering of speech and media is bad no matter how much Lieberman screams about it.

[Ksec]

51. You know the argument

I could easily flip this back on you. I have a right to watch. You cant tell me to turn it off. If you do thats imposing on my rights to watch .

Lemme ask you a serious question here. Are there any words you consider foul, by that I mean language you wouldnt use in a public place or a school? (i know, hiding behind children again)

[ACK]

66. That is why I keep saying...

Turn the channel.

If you listen to the hard rock all smut radio channel why in the world would you be surprised at the f* bomb?

Yes. There is. But at the same time, I will fight with my ever-loving dying breath to protect any person's rights to say those same words where ever they like.

I would not say it. But if someone else did I would ask them if they minded not saying those words. I would not chide them or insult them but I would ask. If they refused, that is their right and I can explain to my children about free speech and free expression and why I think those words are wrong.

I can call my station and tell them I do not think the speech of radio jock is right but I am not willing to allow the governmnet if I can help it to limit that jock's freedom of speech. If he wants to tell me to f* off on the air fine.

I listen to another station.

Where is this place you live where they have only one radio station that plays nothing but filth?

[MadHound]

49. There is no force or imposition being used here

You are free to change the channel, turn off the radio/TV, or slip in a CD/DVD. However this legislation is restricting free speech. Why should my speech be restricted just because some people are easily offended?

And there are lots of places that foul language is not used, up and down the dial.

And get a clue, by having the freedom of speech that we have now, I DON"T determine what you hear. However by imposing this legislation on me, YOU will be imposing your morality on me. Sorry, you sound like a nice person, but I will fight that everyway I know how.

Again, the constitution guarantees freedom of speech. It doesn't guarantee freedom from being offended. Nice to see there are people out there who are ready to chuck our constitution just so that they won't be offended.

[Ksec]

53. Wait a minute

You are determining what I hear.

[VermontDem2004]

58. No he isn't

He is suggesting if a tv show or whatever wants to use a *gasp* bad word they should be able too, no one is suggesting bombarding your tv with bad language 24/7 on every channel. It is about freedom of choice, if you want to hear realistic language on your favorite TV show you should be able too, and if you don't want to hear it you have two options, turn the channel or turn off the tv.

[Ksec]

68. This option thing you keep using

You have the option of giving me options? How about I impose some options on you. You can pop in a video or watch pay channels if you want to hear that language..

[VermontDem2004]

72. I prefer not to spend money to hear that language

Here are the options, there are what are considered family oriented programs on TV that you can watch as well as programs that aren't considered family oriented. Everybody should have the right to watch whatever they want too, if you don't want to see a certain program due to bad language CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

[Ksec]

74. OK Im playin Devils Advocate here

Just so you know. Ive always fought against censorship.

But in truth I still believe we need places /

[redqueen]

102. I missed it... another sane person!

Thank GOD! :)

[Sperk]

19. they can start by getting rid of Rush....no one more vulgar than him.

teaching our kids name calling and lying your way through life. :mad:

[Loonman]

26. Too many people use the TV as a babysitter, so they want "nanny state"

They want "nanny state" rules.

[tigereye]

41. funny I can see both sides of this

I used to be horrified by Tipper et al. Having a child does change it a bit. We tend to pick videos that do not have a lot of foul language or watch the PBS station, since I do not want my child to hear that language. We try not to swear much either. And sometimes the commercials are the worst... very violent for shows with lots of shooting, and I wonder who they are aimed at when they air right after school, etc.

The other part is that I think some forms of media are trying to develop an appetite in children for what I think of as "explosion media", i.e. 'Arnold' films, etc. Even the recent Pooh films have a cliffhanging rescue motif! So while I think parents need to turn off the TV, have the kids read, play outside, etc. and really pay attention to what their children see ( for instances endless images of senseless violence), it bothers me to see how coarse TV is. I don't like it, and I usually turn it off too.

[redqueen]

106. Thank you

The outright hostility toward anyone saying anything about their concern for what their children see is absolutely abhorrent.

Appreciate your input on this subject.

[NashVegas]

29. From a Creative Viewpoint

Though there are times when using four-or-however-many-letter words are appropriate, these times are generally confined to adult fare that's aimed *at adults.*

85% of the 'cussin' :) I hear is directed not at adults, but at younger ones, and it's used as a short cut; the people using are usually less, not more, creative than those who don't, who challenge themselves to find ways around it.

I have no problem with confining adult language to adult hours and pay-tv (like HBO), but no way should it be wiped out entirely.

[Kamika]

56. Man I agree with him

I'm just 21 and even I think tv today has way too much vulgarity.. small childrens program has words like 'Bitch' and stuff..

[redqueen]

119. Thank you!!!!

Just wanted to thank you for contributing. :)

[barbaraann]

60. Local news shows are XXX-rated, at least here.

They lavish coverage on child molestors, abductions, murders, rapes, BFEE mind control, war cheerleading, fear-mongering, etc. etc. etc. and almost never cover anything positive. If it bleeds, it leads and the more gruesome the better.

At this point trying to bring decency to television is a waste of time.

[RetroLounge]

62. Oh, sorry, I thought this was another thread about

Lieberman...

[Scott Lee]

84. Yet more proof of how much the GOP loves free speech

I couldn't make up shit better than this. Priceless!

[Gman]

89. I just don't want my kid to hear raunchy talk everywhere, all the time

that's all I ask. Keep it to when and where kids won't be bombarded. Else, let 'em say what they want.

I don't like profanity in a stand up comic for the sake of it. Too often it's for the shock value. That's when I change the channel. I just see it as a lame way to get a laugh.

[redqueen]

95. I GIVE UP

The free trade threads sink because no one cares about THOSE issues. Better to support a candidate based on polls and money.

Liberals, be proud of yourselves. You fight the good fight for the good battles.

Families with children have no right to television unless they will turn it off during commercials. Fair? By you, yes.

The regulations dictating what is ok for tv and when have been around for decades.

Have fun wallowing in your love of crap.

[bobbyboucher]

109. Certain channels should be "filth free", ads and all.

There you go. I'm sure cable and satelite providers could add packages for family only programming, with the capability of getting the Hustler Channel for mom and dad if they want (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

It doesn't necessarily have to be all one or all the other.

[barbaraann]

112. The problem with that is when your kid goes to someone else's

home. People think nothing of showing pre-school kids R-rated stuff even when the parent requests otherwise. I fought that battle for years.

[redqueen]

120. It's really disheartening

Some of us want our kids to enjoy at least a few years of innocence.

It's very, very, very hard to do... and getting harder every single day.

[bowens43]

140. You're right about that of course but

government legislation is not the answer. I raised 3 kids and worked diligently to regulate there TV viewing, It wasn't easy. You can't legislate morality. If people want smut free choices, they'll get them by making their opinions known. A TV station will not continue to do something that it thinks will cost it viewers. Call and email stations and especially, their sponsors. It doesn't take very many people to make a difference . Take for example the Ambercrombie and Fitch catalog. people complained, now it's history. No legislation needed.

You seem to think that we are arguing in favor of filth, we aren't.
We arguing against allowing the government to determine the content of broadcasts. There is a huge difference.

[barbaraann]

142. Almost impossible now, I think.

I'm sorry to say.

[redqueen]

160. Judging by the ferociousness of these attacks

Do you wonder why?

[barbaraann]

174. No, I don't.

Have you seen what happens to me when I post about the sex industry?

[bowens43]

121. They're already here and there are several of them.

But that's not enough apparently.

[redqueen]

125. I don't think 100% CARTOONS is good enough for my kids.

Sorry if that's not okay with you. :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

151. Then turn OFF the TV!

You're complaining about TV during the day--apparently the same stuff is OK during Prime Time? You sit at home all day watching---which stations? Please be specific. Are any of the forbidden words featured in the ads that you see?

Have you tried complaining to you cable service / local stations / networks about things that specifically bother you? Have you made the effort?

Non-TV options: Reading, talking, arts & crafts, taking a walk. You & your kids will be better of if you don't watch so much TV. Have them help you with the housework--everybody ought to know how run a washing machine, how to cook a simple meal.

And, yes, many of us here are Liberals. I, personally, am not ashamed of it. Lots of what's on TV is, indeed, stupid or vulgar or both. So I only watch what I like.

[redqueen]

156. So ugly

And obviously you haven't read any of my other posts.
*sigh*

Yes, it's okay during prime time. Children are usually not present, so it's fine.

I do not 'sit at home all day' watching anything. Thanks for contributing to the ugly, inciteful comments posted about parents who both care about and watch TV with their children. :eyes:

I'm a liberal as well, but a thoughtful one.

I don't take a position on any issue based on ill-considered, kneejerk reactions.

I happen to believe that just as corporations must be regulated to follow financial laws, they similarly must be regulated to follow the FCC regulations (which they flaunt regularly).

No one is asking you to be ashamed of anything (except perhaps caring more about defending the right of corporations to brodcast vulgar content more vigorously than defending the rights of workers).

However, if you had bothered to read any of my other posts you would have noticed that I see these vulgar and violent commercials during nature programs and history programs.

[Gringo]

146. How is nudity free speech anyway?

If I walk around with my dick out on the street, I get arrested for public nudity, but you people want it on CBS at prime time.

If I staged a mock bloody knife fight on the street, I'd get arrested for disturbing the peace, but to show it on TV is okay.

Face it, free expression is restricted in all kinds of ways. Why anyone thinks we need more filth on the public airwaves is beyond me.

IT DUMBS EVERYBODY DOWN. Even If I don't let my kids watch it, a big chunk of his classmates will, and they'll teach him every twisted thing they learn. So sad.

[thebigidea]

152. snicker

"If I staged a mock bloody knife fight on the street, I'd get arrested for disturbing the peace, but to show it on TV is okay."

No you wouldn't. I've done this several times for films, and I didn't even have a permit.

[redqueen]

164. And it influences them

With all this mindless 'oooooh, shiny!' stuff to drool at, why would they ever watch PBS?

You're exactly right, it dumbs us down. It's very effective, and I'm disheartened so many fight so hard for it, while ignoring the larger issues.

(Like Free Trade, which with nearly every candidate, we get to continue to bend over for.)

[maveric]

128. Was George Carlin consulted on this bill.

Seems like he took most of those words from GC's old routine.

Georges original list:
Shit
Piss
Cunt
Fuck
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits

[evil_orange_cat]

138. "Republican moron"... isn't that redundant?

;)

[saigon68]

166. Kool

N/T

[pnb]

148. Oh crap

Let them show what they want. Let's get the cigarette and hard liquor ads back on TV as well. They should fall under the same category.

[Ksec]

167. This is the type of person that makes us lose the votes.

Anything goes, no censorship, let em fk in front of kids. Its all good.

Pulease go away. Your extreme veiws are out of touch.

[I_like_chicken]

171. Whats so bad about kids hearing vulgar language?

Is it a cultural thing, or is there scientific evidence that shows kids will be emotionally or physically harmed if they hear it? I personally don't think kids can in anyway be harmed by hearing vulgar language, I used to watch R-rated action films with my dad when I was little, and I turned out fine. (I guess that is up for arguement, but hey, I am a Democrat!!)

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. Looks like the King James Bible needs censoring then

Isaiah 36:12 - "But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

[OldSoldier]

177. First, I am appalled that this language got into the Federal Register!

Just think of the children! What kind of example are we setting for the children? Every high school library gets the Congressional Quarterly and not a one ever gets read. All of a sudden there's a bill like this and the kiddies are going to be reading it. Which would be a good thing, except they'll skip right past the bill changing the title of the person sitting in the White House from President to Fuehrer, just so they can find another bill with the word fuck in it!

And second, what kind of sick asshole comes up with this list?

Shit? Okay.

Piss? That goes with shit, as we all know, so that's potentially cool too. But how are you going to say an active boy is full of "piss and vinegar" if you outlaw the word piss? Lots of multiple uses with some of these words.

Fuck? Why ban Fuck? Fuck is the only word in the English language that fits into every word class except maybe for conjunction--can you imagine the conductor at Conjunction Junction using And, But, Or and Fuck to hook up words and make them function? Me neither. But Fuck is such a useful word, especially as a modifier. See http://www.sigg3.net/myself/fuck.html for more uses of this wonderful word. (Besides, if we didn't have the word Fuck, how would Republican Action Hero movies get made?)

Cunt? You can't have Cunt if you can't have Fuck, but this one's okay because there are lots of alternate words for Cunt. There are probably as many slang synonyms for the vagina as there are for the penis, and the Federal Register isn't large enough to hold them all. Ban Cunt and people will start calling it Pussy or Quim, and won't this repug look silly as he makes repeated trips to the hopper to amend his act to ban new dirty words? Probably no sillier than now...

Asshole? I guess this goes with Cunt, but will Butthole be banned too? And just Ass? But if they banned Ass then how would they describe the Ass with four legs and long ears? But by banning asshole, we won't get to hear how our Dear Leader called a reporter a total asshole during the 2000 campaign when it comes time to run the 2004 campaign.

Cock sucker? Last I checked cocksucker was one word. The law says it's two, which obviously means that if I say it as one word, it's still legal. Same with mother fucker, but motherfucker contains the word fuck so it's illegal on its face.

And finally, ass hole. Yes, you read that right: it's illegal to say asshole as either one word or two.

Scandalous words, and I hope this bill gets all the attention it so richly deserves: "Are you fucking high? Get this out of here and don't try this shit again!"