| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2005 09:37:33 PM |
| Object: |
FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0389_FCC_Indecent.html
FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight
WASHINGTON D.C. (FR) - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in
November that radio and TV stations can broadcast indecent programming
between midnight and 6 a.m. without facing government sanctions. The
commission said that at other times indecent programming can not be
broadcast because of the "risk that children may be in the audience."
This ruling nullifies a federal law (Section 1465 of Federal Laws, Chapter
71 - Title 18), which says, "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or
profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both," said Donald
Wildmon, president of the National Federation for Decency. "The FCC usurped
the power of Congress and the President and said that it would allow
indecent programming between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 am.'"
"The FCC in effect voided the law, acting on their own, without the law
being changed through the proper channels of government," he added.
"The FCC has sent a message to broadcasters: 'You are free to do as you
please between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 am."
Indecent material would include such publications as Hustler, Penthouse,
Playboy, Swank, and similar "softcore" pornographic magazines and material
currently being shown on the Playboy Channel and by Holiday Inns on their
pornographic satellite channel. The commission's ruling was a clarification
of an earlier decision dealing with "material that depicts or describes, in
terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for
the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs."
The ruling does not affect obscenity, which continues to be banned from
broadcast at all times. However, difficulties in defining obscenity have
rendered the nation's obscenity laws all but useless.
Paul J. McGeady, general counsel of Morality in Media, complained that the
FCC's ruling will "push the pig into the parlors of millions of American
homes after midnight," and argued that the FCC was wrong to allow indecent
programming because broadcasting legislation passed by Congress "prohibits
obscene and indecent broadcasting, and it has no window - it applies 24
hours a day."
Peggy Charren, of Action for Children's Television, said the new ruling
still misses the point, and argued, "The problem with censorship is that one
person's dirty word is another person's satire." Charren said laws against
obscenity are sufficient to protect the airwaves. According to a CBS survey,
more then one million children under twelve were still up after midnight.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Lovejoy" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 12:34:35 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:sMCdnfYZXMUetPHenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest
indicators that the country is in a moral decline.
snip<
Yep. That was the strongest sign that ancient Greece was in decline. And
the Roman Empire. If they'd just kept indecency off TV, they'd have lasted
to this day.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0389_FCC_Indecent.html
FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 09:55:42 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:sMCdnfYZXMUetPHenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline.
I agree! And what could be more indecent than our president using the
public airwaves to lie to the public about an illegal war that's killed
thousands?
A bit of nookie pales in comparison to the obscenity you celebrate.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed
the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion have always proved
themselves intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
-- Robert E. Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Your sig is straining my irony-o-meter. |
05 Nov 2005 09:36:03 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
(responding to his sig)
However intolerant the Pilgrims were of spiritual liberty, their descendants
had pretty much given up that form of mind control by the time that Lee
said that. Not, of course, that Lee would know anything about depriving
others of liberty. He didn't fight a war to sustain slavery. . . Oh,
wait, he did!
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Your sig is straining my irony-o-meter. |
05 Nov 2005 10:22:50 PM |
|
|
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in
news:DSebf.2608$Ea3.497963@twister.southeast.rr.com:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
(responding to his sig)
However intolerant the Pilgrims were of spiritual liberty, their
descendants had pretty much given up that form of mind control by the
time that Lee said that. Not, of course, that Lee would know anything
about depriving others of liberty. He didn't fight a war to sustain
slavery. . . Oh, wait, he did!
Colin Day aa #1500
(0) It's just a rotating sig!
(1) The pilgrims gave up nothing. They lost the power to dominate others
as demographic changes took that power away from them.
(2) Lee was not a rabid secessionist. If Virginia had not seceded, he
would not have left the U.S. army to join the south. He was, however, a
man of his time, and a man of his place. It would be unfair to judge him
using the standards of today. It is perfectly fair to judge him by the
best standards of his day. In this, I think he still falls short.
Others saw slavery, and knew it was wrong. He had access to all the same
information. He should have known it was wrong, and he should not have
taken actions that supported it.
(3) Christianity and contradiction go together like gin and tonic.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Anyone who says God is on their side is dangerous as hell.
-- lapel button
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Your sig is straining my irony-o-meter. |
05 Nov 2005 11:03:19 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist <enkidu@leaddogs.org> writes:
(2) Lee was not a rabid secessionist. If Virginia had not seceded, he
would not have left the U.S. army to join the south. He was, however, a
man of his time, and a man of his place. It would be unfair to judge him
using the standards of today. It is perfectly fair to judge him by the
best standards of his day. In this, I think he still falls short.
Others saw slavery, and knew it was wrong. He had access to all the same
information. He should have known it was wrong, and he should not have
taken actions that supported it.
See <http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html> and in particular,
the statment,
"Into this confusion the new Republican party injected its
nominee, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate
Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody's
second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution
forbade the Federal government from taking action against
slavery where it already existed, but was determined to keep
it from spreading further. South Carolina, in a fit of
stubborn pride, unilaterally announced that it would secede
from the Union if Lincoln were elected."
...
"The war was on in earnest. Ironically, the combination of
political events, southern pride, and willfulness succeeded in
paving the way to the abolition of slavery; a condition that
no combination of legal action on the part of the most
virulent abolitionist could possibly have accomplished."
Disagreements over slavery were part of the reason for the anger,
but Lee had no reason to believe that staying in the union would
have led to slavery being abolished.
Oh, and you can thank the Europeans for the abolition of slavery
in the U.S. as well: according to
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html>,
"The South was using enslaved people to aid the war
effort. Black men and women were forced to build
fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and
laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and
armories. In the meantime, the North was refusing to accept
the services of black volunteers and freed slaves, the very
people who most wanted to defeat the slaveholders. In
addition, several governments in Europe were considering
recognizing the Confederacy and intervening against the
Union. If Lincoln declared this a war to free the slaves,
European public opinion would overwhelmingly back the North."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 06:53:37 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sMCdnfYZXMUetPHenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com...
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
The concept of "freedom" sure scares you, doesn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 10:05:36 PM |
|
|
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Faciest fund Wanky TV, and then the Faciest tell you how naughty U are
to watch it. You really are in a pickle over there!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
06 Nov 2005 07:43:39 AM |
|
|
In article <sMCdnfYZXMUetPHenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com>, J Young
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Here's the real indecency:
-----------------------------------------
Indecency and TV Evangelists
Preachers on television often assume the mantle of protectors of the
nation's morals, leading with calls to enforce stricter standards of
"decency" on what one can watch on television. But what about their own
programs? Shouldn't standards of "decency" be applied to them as well?
In The East Carolinian, Peter Kalajian writes:
It seems that there is not one program broadcast by T.B.N. (trust me, I
have watched them all, and if anyone is curious, it is something akin
to having every one of your fingernails pulled out with a pair of
pliers) which does not, at some point in the broadcast, ask the viewer
for money. Whether in the form of paying for a prayer from the minister
(who, by the way, may very well be MC Hammer), a prayer handkerchief
(that's the best one) or simply a donation to guarantee you remain on
the good side of the Lord, the entire network is based around bilking
people out of their money.
Pat Robertson (most dangerous man in America) has gone on record,
several times, accusing Islam (the entire religion) as being "wicked"
and "heretical." ...Jimmy Swaggert has gone on record saying that it is
funny to kill gays, and was caught with his hand in the proverbial
cookie jar with a young woman who was most certainly not his wife.
We need to enforce a standard - a standard which everyone is forced to
live by. If Jackson's breast is inappropriate, sexual promiscuity on
reality TV and bamboozling televangelism (some of which can be
classified as hate speech) should be inappropriate as well.
It is curious that sexual situations are considered too "indecent" to
be on television, but attacks on Islam, gays, and nonbelievers are
considered just fine. What sort of "decency" standard ranks sexuality
as worse than hatred?
--------------------------------------
Or, maybe you'd like to check out the following site (NOT
work-safe!!!), just in case the above didn't give you wood:
http://www.christian-bdsm.org
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 09:55:25 PM |
|
|
In news:sMCdnfYZXMUetPHenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest
indicators that the country is in a moral decline.
Really?
Then Saudi Arabia must be your idea of heaven.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BYTE ME!" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 09:48:41 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicato=
rs
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indece=
nt
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Damn, I guess this means you will just have to stay up later so you can=20
watch the porno. You will not be getting much sleep no doubt.
You should be aware that you can turn off the tv if you don't like the=20
programming. Are you too fucking stupid to figure that out?
You should also be aware that it is none of your fucking business what=20
other people watch, even porno.
No get a life *****!
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 11:03:51 PM |
|
|
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tYVaf.100752$uo2.71129@fe04.news.easynews.com...
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Damn, I guess this means you will just have to stay up later so you can
watch the porno. You will not be getting much sleep no doubt.
You should be aware that you can turn off the tv if you don't like the
programming. Are you too fucking stupid to figure that out?
Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens during
the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as they
possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a pay-per-view
basis
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 07:52:05 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> suddenly spluttered:
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tYVaf.100752$uo2.71129@fe04.news.easynews.com...
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Damn, I guess this means you will just have to stay up later so you can
watch the porno. You will not be getting much sleep no doubt.
You should be aware that you can turn off the tv if you don't like the
programming. Are you too fucking stupid to figure that out?
Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens during
the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as they
possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a pay-per-view
basis
In my, and any sensible moral framework, the quintessence of decency
is honesty, so let's get rid of religious broadcasting and then the
job of sorting out what else is or is not decent will be a damn sight
less arduous.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 06:57:28 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:k_WdnbD7hfEgoPHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens during
the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as they
possibly can?
If you're the parent, why aren't YOU doing something about it? I.e. using a
V-Chip TV, or not allowing your kid to have a TV in his room?
You just want the government to take place of the parent.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 02:28:15 AM |
|
|
*Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens
during
*the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as
they
*possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
*censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a
pay-per-view
*basis
Tell me, what's the Americans' problem with nudity and sex? So what if
kids see that? I'm much more concerned about kids seeing violence the
way American television present it daily with guns, shootings and the
like than seeing some softporn (and believe, where I live, we can see
some of this American softporn you're referring to which is much more
prude than what anyone can see at public pools or beaches).
Tell me in what way sex = trash? What kind of sick mind do you have?
BTW, would you explain us what this has to do with Seattle politics,
California, Jewish questions and homosexuality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 02:34:44 AM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
*Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens
during
*the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as
they
*possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
*censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a
pay-per-view
*basis
Tell me, what's the Americans' problem with nudity and sex? So what if
kids see that? I'm much more concerned about kids seeing violence the
way American television present it daily with guns, shootings and the
like than seeing some softporn (and believe, where I live, we can see
some of this American softporn you're referring to which is much more
prude than what anyone can see at public pools or beaches).
Tell me in what way sex = trash? What kind of sick mind do you have?
This is really funny. I was just finishing up a post
in which I suggest that the media reinforce unhealthy
tendencies *both* in portrayals of sex and violence.
Thanks for your candid yet unsolicited revelation of
your extremist political leanings. I now know
*everything* about your politics.
Contrary to what you believe, an utterly uninhibited,
anything-goes approach to sex is no more healthful for
society than is an endorsement of violence in the
entertainment media.
BTW, would you explain us what this has to do with Seattle politics,
California, Jewish questions and homosexuality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
06 Nov 2005 03:00:52 AM |
|
|
*This is really funny. I was just finishing up a post
*in which I suggest that the media reinforce unhealthy
*tendencies *both* in portrayals of sex and violence.
*Thanks for your candid yet unsolicited revelation of
*your extremist political leanings. I now know
**everything* about your politics.
Are you serious when you write that or you are just provoking?
What's extremist in saying that between letting my children watch some
cheap t&a films and violent ones, I don't hesitate one second?
Are you also one of the *those* who would have paid 10 K to cover one
breast from a statue at the White House?
*Contrary to what you believe, an utterly uninhibited,
*anything-goes approach to sex is no more healthful for
*society than is an endorsement of violence in the
*entertainment media.
Please, point me the part of my posting where I wrote that I was in
favor of an "anything goes" approach?
I said that a casual, natural and sane approach to sex and its
representation is much more healthier than all the violence that is
exposed. Gee, I peeked at porn magazines and films when I was a kid
-I'm 39- with some friends, and we're all married today, without any
sign of alienation or problems, all having a pretty "normal" life...
I also pointed that the USA was extremely prude when dealing wtith
nakedness: a film that shows naked breasts is most probably going to be
restricted that another one where someone's head explode... And I think
this is wrong. If you see anything extremist in that, I can't help
you... Gee, in the city I live, last Summer, at a museum where
paintings from Egon Schiele are permanently on display, on one
particularly hot day, the admission was free for people who showed up
naked... And guess what, in this country, there are no "Spring breaks"
with all the boozing and the partying, the numbers on teenage-pregnancy
are pretty low, and the abortion rate for underage women is also quite
low... Can the USA, especially with the Southern states, match that?
Saying that American softporn movies (actually, there would be an
interesting debate to make on them: most of the ones I've seen seem to
associate sex with immorality... quite revealing...) are more prude
than most public beaches/pools
of Europe is also stating the obvious... Bottom line, the USA is the
most sexually-repressed society in the Western world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Max Masters!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 12:14:45 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tYVaf.100752$uo2.71129@fe04.news.easynews.com...
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Damn, I guess this means you will just have to stay up later so you can
watch the porno. You will not be getting much sleep no doubt.
You should be aware that you can turn off the tv if you don't like the
programming. Are you too fucking stupid to figure that out?
Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens during
the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as they
possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a pay-per-view
basis
"DECENCY" should have a pay-as-you-go tax. I hate that ***** on my tv.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BYTE ME!" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 11:50:15 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tYVaf.100752$uo2.71129@fe04.news.easynews.com...
J Young wrote:
=20
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicato=
rs
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indece=
nt
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
=20
=20
Damn, I guess this means you will just have to stay up later so you can=
watch the porno. You will not be getting much sleep no doubt.
=20
You should be aware that you can turn off the tv if you don't like the
programming. Are you too fucking stupid to figure that out?
=20
=20
Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens duri=
ng
the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as t=
hey
possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a pay-per-vie=
w
basis
=20
=20
=20
=20
Ever hear of the V chip? It is in every tv set sold. Every hear of=20
parental responsibility? If they are your kids, it is your=20
reponsibility, not societies. And here we thought you were a=20
conservative, I guess not!
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Responsible Parent" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 11:19:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:03:51 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote in message <k_WdnbD7hfEgoPHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
"BYTE ME!" <donotreply@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:tYVaf.100752$uo2.71129@fe04.news.easynews.com...
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Damn, I guess this means you will just have to stay up later so you can
watch the porno. You will not be getting much sleep no doubt.
You should be aware that you can turn off the tv if you don't like the
programming. Are you too fucking stupid to figure that out?
Thank God I am able to do so, but what about the child who awakens during
the night? What about young teens who routinely stay awake as long as they
possibly can? What about the mentally ill? I don't advocate complete
censorship; perhaps the trash you enjoy could be shown on a pay-per-view
basis
How about a little parental responsibility? Does the government have
to do everything for you? I thought you were against big, intrusive
gov't?
Try getting a set with a v chip. Think of solutions instead of
relying on others to do it for you. You'll be banning the bible next.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 10:15:32 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline.
Baloney.
Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
They ARE regulating it, dummy: they only allow it to be broadcast
after midnight, long after you've taken your Metamucil and gone to bed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 11:07:01 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline.
Wrong. Obnoxious actions are an indicator (however you want to define
"moral" above).
And now compare the US with countries like Germany where very similar
regulations are in place since quite some time. Compare murder rates,
teenage pregnancies, whatever you normally like to point to as a sign of
"moral decline", and you find that the less liberal US (err, sorry, the 4th
reich - hail shrubbenführer!) are land with inferior "morals".
Strange, eh?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Max Masters!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 12:13:10 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0389_FCC_Indecent.html
FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight
WASHINGTON D.C. (FR) - The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in
November that radio and TV stations can broadcast indecent programming
between midnight and 6 a.m. without facing government sanctions. The
commission said that at other times indecent programming can not be
broadcast because of the "risk that children may be in the audience."
This ruling nullifies a federal law (Section 1465 of Federal Laws, Chapter
71 - Title 18), which says, "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or
profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years or both," said Donald
Wildmon, president of the National Federation for Decency. "The FCC usurped
the power of Congress and the President and said that it would allow
indecent programming between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 am.'"
"The FCC in effect voided the law, acting on their own, without the law
being changed through the proper channels of government," he added.
"The FCC has sent a message to broadcasters: 'You are free to do as you
please between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 am."
Indecent material would include such publications as Hustler, Penthouse,
Playboy, Swank, and similar "softcore" pornographic magazines and material
currently being shown on the Playboy Channel and by Holiday Inns on their
pornographic satellite channel. The commission's ruling was a clarification
of an earlier decision dealing with "material that depicts or describes, in
terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for
the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs."
The ruling does not affect obscenity, which continues to be banned from
broadcast at all times. However, difficulties in defining obscenity have
rendered the nation's obscenity laws all but useless.
Paul J. McGeady, general counsel of Morality in Media, complained that the
FCC's ruling will "push the pig into the parlors of millions of American
homes after midnight," and argued that the FCC was wrong to allow indecent
programming because broadcasting legislation passed by Congress "prohibits
obscene and indecent broadcasting, and it has no window - it applies 24
hours a day."
Peggy Charren, of Action for Children's Television, said the new ruling
still misses the point, and argued, "The problem with censorship is that one
person's dirty word is another person's satire." Charren said laws against
obscenity are sufficient to protect the airwaves. According to a CBS survey,
more then one million children under twelve were still up after midnight.
If this means we can get that show that had that model known worldwide,
then thank god!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 09:50:23 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
FREE CLUE: Buy a remote control for your TV and learn how to use it!
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "WILD BILL TAYLOR" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 12:21:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 10:50:23 -0500, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
FREE CLUE: Buy a remote control for your TV and learn how to use it!
STFU -- It's an American thing, boy.
<snip>
Homophiles have a tendency to get snippy at a certain time of the
month (even the males...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wunderkind" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 06:51:12 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Seems these religious types *still* don't know how to use the "off" button!
Better yet, since they like to claim TV is detrimental to "family
values," they should toss out their TVs and watch only podcasts of The
700 Club and such like.
WK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 08:25:39 PM |
|
|
"Wunderkind" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:4scbf.193$c_1.153@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
Seems these religious types *still* don't know how to use the "off"
button!
They _do_ tend to be pretty stupid.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
04 Nov 2005 09:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:37:33 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
I don't think Television has been around long enough to be even a weak
indicator of a countries moral decline. Remember moral values require
moral thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Maizlich" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 12:55:36 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:37:33 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
I don't think Television has been around long enough to be even a weak
indicator of a countries moral decline.
Sure it has. How long do you think it takes?
TV has been around since the late 1930s in a minor way;
since the early 1950s in a big way. In 1950, young men
and women didn't live together out of wedlock; less
than 25 years later, it was going on in a big way. 55
years is AMPLE time for lots of moral change in a
society, and it is to be expected that it would show up
in a popular entertainment medium like television.
The problem for the fuckwit "J Young" is that he wants
it to be both cause and symptom simultaneously. That
is, he thinks that indecency being portrayed on TV is
indicative of society's moral decline, which - if your
view is that a decent society doesn't permit indecent
entertainment to be shown - is correct. But then he
wants to try to pretend that *allowing* this type of
programming to be shown is what *causes* the decay. He
can't be right about both.
I believe that TV *does* reflect the moral values of
society, with a bit of a lag; that is, if there has
been some decline in moral values of a society, it will
show up in TV, but not immediately. People who blame
TV for causing moral decline have it wrong - the moral
decline already occurred by the time you see evidence
of it on TV.
Having said that, I think that having it exemplified in
TV programming (and other media) serves to reinforce
the values. For example, if TV shows some young
unmarried couples living together, it won't cause a
real-life young unmarried couple, who weren't already
contemplating living in sin, to say "ah, what the
hell!" and start shacking up. What it *will* do,
though, is serve to validate the choice of a couple
that was on the fence, or who had already shacked up
but with some misgivings about it.
"J Young", bluenose ordinaire, clearly is offended that
values other than the ones he holds dear are manifest
in TV programming. He's unhappy with the current moral
state of society, and rather than accept that perhaps
the society always had the seeds of its own moral
decline already planted within it, wants to find a
handy scapegoat. This is what always amuses me about
cranky uneducated conservatives like Limbaugh. They
harken back to some mythical "golden age", when society
was (they believe) good. Now, in their view, society
is *****. How could this happen? Their answer: bad
people - communists, "libruhls", etc. - corrupted the
wholesome, pure American (white) society. But that
simply begs the question. How could these bad people
emerge out of a golden, pure society? The next step is
one they can't take: acknowledging that the society
they viewed as righteous, moral and pure was nothing of
the sort.
Remember moral values require
moral thought.
That was a stupid throwaway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 08:54:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 06:55:36 GMT, "S. Maizlich"
<s.e.maizlisch@uta.eduu> wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:37:33 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
I don't think Television has been around long enough to be even a weak
indicator of a countries moral decline.
Sure it has. How long do you think it takes?
TV has been around since the late 1930s in a minor way;
since the early 1950s in a big way. In 1950, young men
and women didn't live together out of wedlock; less
than 25 years later, it was going on in a big way. 55
years is AMPLE time for lots of moral change in a
society, and it is to be expected that it would show up
in a popular entertainment medium like television.
The problem for the fuckwit "J Young" is that he wants
it to be both cause and symptom simultaneously. That
is, he thinks that indecency being portrayed on TV is
indicative of society's moral decline, which - if your
view is that a decent society doesn't permit indecent
entertainment to be shown - is correct. But then he
wants to try to pretend that *allowing* this type of
programming to be shown is what *causes* the decay. He
can't be right about both.
I believe that TV *does* reflect the moral values of
society, with a bit of a lag; that is, if there has
been some decline in moral values of a society, it will
show up in TV, but not immediately. People who blame
TV for causing moral decline have it wrong - the moral
decline already occurred by the time you see evidence
of it on TV.
Having said that, I think that having it exemplified in
TV programming (and other media) serves to reinforce
the values. For example, if TV shows some young
unmarried couples living together, it won't cause a
real-life young unmarried couple, who weren't already
contemplating living in sin, to say "ah, what the
hell!" and start shacking up. What it *will* do,
though, is serve to validate the choice of a couple
that was on the fence, or who had already shacked up
but with some misgivings about it.
"J Young", bluenose ordinaire, clearly is offended that
values other than the ones he holds dear are manifest
in TV programming. He's unhappy with the current moral
state of society, and rather than accept that perhaps
the society always had the seeds of its own moral
decline already planted within it, wants to find a
handy scapegoat. This is what always amuses me about
cranky uneducated conservatives like Limbaugh. They
harken back to some mythical "golden age", when society
was (they believe) good. Now, in their view, society
is *****. How could this happen? Their answer: bad
people - communists, "libruhls", etc. - corrupted the
wholesome, pure American (white) society. But that
simply begs the question. How could these bad people
emerge out of a golden, pure society? The next step is
one they can't take: acknowledging that the society
they viewed as righteous, moral and pure was nothing of
the sort.
Remember moral values require
moral thought.
That was a stupid throwaway.
Yes and I liked it. I read it in a book called The Science of Good and
Evil, by Micheal Schemer and have been quoting it to Xians for months
now and they all nod in agreement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Max Masters!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC Rules Indecent Programming O.K. After Midnight |
05 Nov 2005 02:05:34 AM |
|
|
S. Maizlich wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:37:33 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Lack of decency in television programs is one of the strongest
indicators
that the country is in a moral decline. Obscene or any otherwise
indecent
programming should be strongly regulated by the FCC; not giving these
pornographers free reign of the airwaves.
I don't think Television has been around long enough to be even a weak
indicator of a countries moral decline.
Sure it has. How long do you think it takes?
TV has been around since the late 1930s in a minor way; since the early
1950s in a big way. In 1950, young men and women didn't live together
out of wedlock; less than 25 years later, it was going on in a big way.
55 years is AMPLE time for lots of moral change in a society, and it is
to be expected that it would show up in a popular entertainment medium
like television.
The problem for the fuckwit "J Young" is that he wants it to be both
cause and symptom simultaneously. That is, he thinks that indecency
being portrayed on TV is indicative of society's moral decline, which -
if your view is that a decent society doesn't permit indecent
entertainment to be shown - is correct. But then he wants to try to
pretend that *allowing* this type of programming to be shown is what
*causes* the decay. He can't be right about both.
I believe that TV *does* reflect the moral values of society, with a bit
of a lag; that is, if there has been some decline in moral values of a
society, it will show up in TV, but not immediately. People who blame
TV for causing moral decline have it wrong - the moral decline already
occurred by the time you see evidence of it on TV.
Having said that, I think that having it exemplified in TV programming
(and other media) serves to reinforce the values. For example, if TV
shows some young unmarried couples living together, it won't cause a
real-life young unmarried couple, who weren't already contemplating
living in sin, to say "ah, what the hell!" and start shacking up. What
it *will* do, though, is serve to validate the choice of a couple that
was on the fence, or who had already shacked up but with some misgivings
about it.
"J Young", bluenose ordinaire, clearly is offended that values other
than the ones he holds dear are manifest in TV programming. He's
unhappy with the current moral state of society, and rather than accept
that perhaps the society always had the seeds of its own moral decline
already planted within it, wants to find a handy scapegoat. This is
what always amuses me about cranky uneducated conservatives like
Limbaugh. They harken back to some mythical "golden age", when society
was (they believe) good. Now, in their view, society is *****. How
could this happen? Their answer: bad people - communists, "libruhls",
etc. - corrupted the wholesome, pure American (white) society. But that
simply begs the question. How could these bad people emerge out of a
golden, pure society? The next step is one they can't take:
acknowledging that the society they viewed as righteous, moral and pure
was nothing of the sort.
Remember moral values require
moral thought.
That was a stupid throwaway.
Well written, thought out, cogent, something worthwhile to think about,
and yet, will be impotent to those who need the message most.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
