Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 151 of 310 (394505)
04-11-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by One_Charred_Wing
04-11-2007 7:03 PM


Re: When you're in a hole...
Don't dig. You'd be to China by now. You're a good guy, and write some excellent posts in the Faith and Belief forum from time to time, but you're making a fool of yourself here.
Well thanks for looking out.
1.Explain WHAT GIVES THE FCC (or anybody) THE RIGHT TO CENSOR PUBLIC AIRWAVES FOR CONTENT?
I can't, officially, I would only be guessing. And frankly I don't have the time to research it. But I don't really care, because it seems fair enough to me, the whole ratings system, and what the FCC does. It is more fair than unfair, and it is way to complicated to be left to the average American to decided what should, and should not go on the airwaves.
I'm not the one with the problem against the FCC, even though they have pissed me off more than once. I'll live with it, for the benifits.
2.Please don't claim that an ad for a show glorifying adultery is as damaging to a child as physically abusing said child, unless you have some professional evidence to support this claim.
Is scientific evidence really necessary?
But thats not even the point. The point is that it didn't match the ratings of the show I was watching, and things like this seem to happen way to often.
3.People have the right to say what they want on a public forum. It's not harrassment if you keep replying to them, and even if you don't, nobody's forcing you to come on here and debate.
Maybe, maybe not. I have already seen examples on ebay that don't follow that line of thinking.
4.Big Brother is not as strict as some people think. The Patriot Act's bad, but fortunately the government doesn't have THAT much power right now.
Or do they even care.
Yes, Bush is a tool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-11-2007 7:03 PM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-12-2007 2:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 310 (394506)
04-11-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 7:52 PM


Re: No to Censorship
quote:
I find it wrong to have a R rated commercial during a G rated basketball game
If that game was broadcast during prime time, and the game was something that adults would watch, then you had plenty of warning that ads for shows that have prime-time-allowable content might be shown.
And I'll bet that there were beer commercials showing just as much women's skin during the game. And I'll also bet that they showed the cheerleaders in their skimpy outfits at least once during the game too.
So, was the game really G-rated, as you say? Or was it something closer to PG-13?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 7:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:08 PM nator has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 153 of 310 (394507)
04-11-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by nator
04-11-2007 7:53 PM


Re: No to Censorship
I don't have TV in my life, by choice. We have a TV in the house, because we love movies, but that's all we use it for.
I actually admire that. I think about doing that often, but it never seems to happen.
Why not?
It was my answer, and Brenna's answer, and NosyNed's answer.
Well, it's just part of life. It's like anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by nator, posted 04-11-2007 7:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 1:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 154 of 310 (394509)
04-11-2007 8:06 PM


Apology
I just want to apologize to anyone who thinks that I want to restrain peoples right to free speech, that's not my intention.
Freedom of speech has it's purpose, and just maybe that purpose is greater than regulating TV. But I am not happy with what I see on Tv sometimes. That doesn't mean that TV shouldn't have every kind of programing, only that it should be structered correctly.
And I still don't think that you should have a right to offend people, ON PURPOSE. If your speech should offend, then that is a different story. It's about intention.

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by tudwell, posted 04-11-2007 8:28 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 168 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 1:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 155 of 310 (394510)
04-11-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
04-11-2007 8:02 PM


Re: No to Censorship
And I'll bet that there were beer commercials showing just as much women's skin during the game.
Childrens shows have women in bathing suits, I find nothing wrong with that.
So, was the game really G-rated, as you say? Or was it something closer to PG-13?
Not sure exactly. It may even be unrated. But that's only one example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 04-11-2007 8:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 1:59 PM riVeRraT has not replied

tudwell
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 156 of 310 (394512)
04-11-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Apology
Rat, I think you'd do better to complain to the network you believe is showing inappropriate commercials than to turn (or seem to turn) the issue into one of free speech. It's the networks that choose to play the commercials when they do.
And I still don't think that you should have a right to offend people, ON PURPOSE. If your speech should offend, then that is a different story. It's about intention.
How do you tell when someone inentionally offends another? You can't dig through their brain to find out just what they were thinking at the moment they said whatever controversial thing offended people. All one can know is that someone said something offensive and people were offended by it. Anything else is speculation. So either people can offend others with the right to free speech or they can't. It's that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:06 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by riVeRraT, posted 04-12-2007 9:38 AM tudwell has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 157 of 310 (394529)
04-11-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 7:54 PM


Re: No to Censorship
riVeRraT writes:
You don't see a difference in "information" and things that could possibly hurt your childrens minds?
No.
They can't learn to filter out the bad information if they never see any.
If you shield them from life, it will only make them more curious to see what you don't want them to see. There's more danger in that than in letting them make their own choices.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 7:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 04-12-2007 9:43 AM ringo has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 158 of 310 (394532)
04-11-2007 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dan Carroll
04-11-2007 5:18 PM


Re: No to Censorship
you and me, baby. we'll change the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-11-2007 5:18 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by tsig, posted 04-12-2007 7:25 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 159 of 310 (394533)
04-11-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 5:03 PM


Re: No to Censorship
why is it that you think we have to start a revolution to change things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 5:03 PM riVeRraT has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 160 of 310 (394548)
04-12-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 8:01 PM


Re: When you're in a hole...
riverrat writes:
But I don't really care, because it seems fair enough to me, the whole ratings system, and what the FCC does. It is more fair than unfair, and it is way to complicated to be left to the average American to decided what should, and should not go on the airwaves.
'Too complicated for average Americans' implies that nobody on here, including yourself, can have a legitimate opinion. Leaving your fate in the hands of the authorities (especially if you feel that the current head of state is a tool) is not good ethics.
Is scientific evidence really necessary?
Just the part about the child abuse, which seemed very hyperbolic from my stance. But you know, if it's an opinion, I guess nobody can take that from you.
But thats not even the point. The point is that it didn't match the ratings of the show I was watching, and things like this seem to happen way to often.
See, there's where you have a decent point--regardless of whether or not violence and sex can be on TV, should programs that do not incorporate such things have commercials for programs that do?
If you answer yes to this(and you do, from what I've read) then you answer the topic question as 'the airwaves should be more censored in this way ______ because ______'. And there you have a legit case.
I'm not trying to be condescending; it just seemed like the ways you presented your point just made you an easy target.
And we all know that Dan eats the souls of easy targets...

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 8:01 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-12-2007 10:30 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 161 of 310 (394561)
04-12-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by tudwell
04-11-2007 8:28 PM


Re: Apology
Rat, I think you'd do better to complain to the network you believe is showing inappropriate commercials than to turn (or seem to turn) the issue into one of free speech.
I don't think I was the one who equivicated it to freedom of speech.
How do you tell when someone inentionally offends another?
Well in the case of this thread, Dan admits it.
I am sure there are many more ways of being able to tell.
I mean if your running a commercial for a 2 hour long movie, and you decide to air the worst part of it, isn't it obvious you are trying to shock people, and possibly offend them?
I am not sure how that would all work, and maybe just by the honor system alone it could stop many things that are just unnecessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by tudwell, posted 04-11-2007 8:28 PM tudwell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-12-2007 10:37 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 162 of 310 (394563)
04-12-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by ringo
04-11-2007 9:54 PM


Re: No to Censorship
If you shield them from life, it will only make them more curious to see what you don't want them to see. There's more danger in that than in letting them make their own choices.
Well just for clarity, I do not intend to "sheild" children from life, but make life relative to their age.
I mean if we can start showing pornos to a 5 year old, we might as well hand them the keys to the car, and say "have a fun time at the bar".
(grossly exaggerated to show a point)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 04-11-2007 9:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 04-12-2007 11:03 AM riVeRraT has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 310 (394569)
04-12-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by riVeRraT
04-11-2007 7:52 PM


Re: No to Censorship
No, the post doesn't say threats against his life, it only says threats, and pointless offending the president could be consider threatening.
Not in a way where the secret service steps in. Dig up, stupid.
Look, I am done with you.
What, again?
If you can't get what I am saying, and have been saying all along, and that is, I find it wrong to have a R rated commercial during a G rated basketball game, then there is nothing more to say.
First of all, I still find the idea laughable that you saw an R-rated commercial on network television. What was it that earned an R rating, I wonder? Was there nudity? Swearing?
No doubt you will answer this question quickly and directly.
Secondly, whether you find it wrong or not is irrelevant to whether there is legal grounds for preventing it. You keep refusing to look directly at this idea, because you have no legal justification.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 04-11-2007 7:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 310 (394571)
04-12-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by One_Charred_Wing
04-12-2007 2:13 AM


Re: When you're in a hole...
And we all know that Dan eats the souls of easy targets...
I'm trying to cut down. It's not worth all the effort of setting up the altar, anointing myself with the blood of infants, innvoking the undying spirit of the many-angled ones from the higher planes...
And honestly, I think I'm getting a bit of a paunch. Those easily-targeted souls go straight to your gut.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-12-2007 2:13 AM One_Charred_Wing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-12-2007 2:27 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 310 (394572)
04-12-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by riVeRraT
04-12-2007 9:38 AM


Re: Apology
Well in the case of this thread, Dan admits it.
And yet I walk the streets, a free man.
I mean if your running a commercial for a 2 hour long movie, and you decide to air the worst part of it, isn't it obvious you are trying to shock people, and possibly offend them?
Or that you're trying to get people to watch it, by showing the most awesome part of the movie.
The problem with your reasoning is that people love the things that seem to offend you. They love gore. They love swears. And far and away, above all else, they love tits.
No, scratch that... we love tits.
If these things were so universally offensive as you'd like to think, TV stations wouldn't bother airing them. There'd be no money in it, because no one would watch. And the fact that they aren't universally offensive is one of many reasons why it's really dumb to try and censor them for being offensive. Your poison, my...
...well, I don't want to refer to breasts as "meat." But you see my point.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by riVeRraT, posted 04-12-2007 9:38 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-12-2007 2:33 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 173 by nator, posted 04-12-2007 2:41 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024