FCC Wary of Greeks Baring Gifts at Games (washingtonpost.com)
In response to one or more indecency complaints, the Federal Communications Commission has asked NBC to send it tapes of its coverage of the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Athens, the network confirmed late yesterday.
Ironically, the night before, NBC's Summer Games coverage was named the family-friendliest special of 2004 during WB's broadcast of the sixth annual Family Television Awards. The awards are given by the Family Friendly Programming Forum, a group of 46 major national advertisers working to encourage networks to produce more family-friendly prime-time fare...
Yet another example of how open we Americans are to free expression and ideas from other lands nowadays...
Posted by Glenn Hauman at December 13, 2004 12:45 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting"One or more indecency complaints" doesn't say how many of them are actually distinct...
Ok, I guess the sky really IS falling. Or at least, so it would appear.
Jim in Iowa
For those of you who think Bush is leading a drive to turn America into a theocracy, here is a more moderate view. I personally think this writer has a much clearer understanding of Bush than is often portrayed. Read it if you want to hear another perspective:
Jim in Iowa
Something about this one strikes me as just plain silly.
Okay. This specific case reeks of ridiculousness.
If this type of stuff continues, the pendulum that swung after the "Janet incident" will swing back and there will be a backlash.
Peter, but censorship, as Bill Maher would say, it's FOR THE CHILDREN.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken, the original post is from Glenn, not Peter.
And just to get the facts straight, the FCC is asking for tapes to investigate a complaint. The story doesn't say if it's one complaint, a dozen, or a mass e-mail campaign. Investigating complaints IS part of their job.
I didn't see NBC's broadcast, but stills (which you could get on Yahoo) from the opening ceremonies showed that the opening performances included a woman portraying a greek fertility goddess with her breasts bare, although they were painted white. Male members were also dressed as greek statuary, with full genetalia visible. I couldn't tell from the pics whether they were fake or not, but I'm guessing the males at least were wearing something.
My first thoughts were "I sure hope NBC takes full advantage of that 10 hour delay (or whatever it is) to edit this broadcast so they don't get a call from the FCC."
Does anyone remember the broadcast? From what little I did see, it looked as though NBC was trying to make it seem like it was being broadcast live, including cutting in from commercial in the middle of a commentator's speech.
I don't believe the men were wearing anything over their groins, except bodypaint.
But so what?
From John:
"I don't believe the men were wearing anything over their groins, except bodypaint.
But so what?"
Not that I'm supporting the FCC or any censorship, but the only times broadcast TV has allowed nudity is in rare exceptions and with prior notice to viewers. When Schindler's List was shown on network TV, they had a warning before and during the broadcast.
Whether we like it or not, nudity isn't something that the FCC allows, in general, in broadcast TV.
What surprises me is that it took the FCC this long to react. Those complaints have to be months old, unless someone taped the show and re-watched it recently.
So, the "so what" is that if NBC broadcast naked men and mostly naked women, they should be fined.
Although knowing the FCC, they'll find some way to call the somewhat classy and respectful nudity of the Olympics not obscene, reserving such terms (and fines) for the MTV nudity displayed by Janet and Justin.
Kathleen Parker: And it was John Kerry, not Bush, who made stem-cell research a political issue.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I thought Reagan's death, Christopher Reeve's death, and Nancy Reagan's stated position on it had something to do with it.
Investigating complaints IS part of their job.
And jumping on the "It's censorship" bandwagon, seems to be Glen's job!
The sky is falling!
Ken,
To be fair, if this is motivated by the nudity, and the FCC doesn't do anything about it, then the FCC (and our current administration through association/oversight) *will* be essentially guilty of exercising censorship as far as what is and isn't fined on broadcast networks.
If the FCC determines that NBC broadcast nudity (full male, female top) during the broadcast, but does not impose any fines, most likely because the nudity was not "obscene", then that's censorship. When the government allows one entity/speaker to broadcast an event without penalty, but fines a different entity for broadcasting a similar event, it's censorship.
Say did ABC and its stations get in trouble for the opening segment of ROOTS which had topless African Women? Perhaps the FCC should now put the hammer down on ABC. Better late than never. :-)
I...I can't say much...they are watching....*THEY* ARE WATCHING!...you guys have no idea how bad it really is!...I can't even [edit] to my [edit] anymore! Just the other day the [edit] came knocking and told me I had to [edit]! ...Oh no! I've said too [edit]!
[this post has been edited by the VRWC]
I was just about to make the same point that J. Alexander made in his above post.
As an African American man this topic has less to do with nudity and more to do with racism.
Not to get off on a rant here (Ode to Dennis Miller) but historically this country doesn't have a problem with "tribal" nudity...I believe it is due to the horrible amount of racism and skin color hatred that exists in America.
Somehow nude black women in Africa (refer to the following movies Shaka Zulu, or Roots) is deemed acceptable due to the fact that the indigenous people are not seen as civilized.
I always find myself saddened by this but the FCC going overboard (with censorship)in my opinion is just an extension of one of the many social issues that our current society is facing today.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
Kathleen Parker: And it was John Kerry, not Bush, who made stem-cell research a political issue.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I thought Reagan's death, Christopher Reeve's death, and Nancy Reagan's stated position on it had something to do with it.
Oh, so the media made him do it! ;-)
Jim in Iowa
Warren S. Jones III: "Somehow nude black women in Africa (refer to the following movies Shaka Zulu, or Roots) is deemed acceptable due to the fact that the indigenous people are not seen as civilized."
I agree with this assessment for the most part. I submit the we in the western world are not as civilized as we would like to think we are. Oh, we've made some headway when it comes to caring for people with certain infirmities, but it usually takes a press conference to get us there.
We're mostly civilized on a one-to-one basis. Get us into large groups and organizations and we become superstitious, petty, and unreasonable.
But that's all beside the point of this thread.
I just wonder how far back the FCC will have to go in televesion history before someone in authority starts asking some serious questions as to the motivation behind some of these witch hunt... err... I mean investigations. I just hope someone starts asking before "Burning at the Stake" becomes the newest reality T.V. show.
I wonder if that would be limited to cable...
Regards,
Mitch Evans
IRCC, Roots did have a "some scenes are disturbing, viewer discretion is advised" or some such running before it. I recall my parents having a discussion of whether I should be allowed to watch it or not (I did. The most disturbing scene for me was when Cicily Tyson spit in the old woman's drink... I was a lot nicer to the school lunch crew after that...)
Robnn brings up maybe the biggest point about the FCC. I'm pretty sure that those disclaimers before shows, or scenes even, hold a lot of sway with the FCC. It creates a viewer beware situation, where the broadcast network delcares that something is coming that parents might want to insulate their kids from. And if the parents decide to allow youngins to view, they get what they deserve.
Take last year's Superbowl...no warning was given. Although the bare breast was maybe the least offensive part of that show.
Of course, the fine imposed on Howard Stern tears this little theory to shreds. You could make a very defensible argument that Stern's show doesn't NEED a disclaimer: You can be guaranteed to hear something offensive during every show, so it should be a perpetual listener beware case.
But here's where it all falls down.
AMENDMENT ONE:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences.
Congress just recently passed a law upping the fines for "broadcast indecency." I believe they passed previous laws establishing such fines as well.
They clearly have no legal right to do so. See italicized section above.
Leviathan,
Courts have determined that Free Speech does not encompass public obscenity, or even private displays of such, in some cases. Private rights are always balanced against public good. Congress has the express power to regulate the Public Good, which can trump private rights, including Free Speech.
As far as Free Speech goes, no one is totally free to say or do anything they want. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (reckless endagerment) or call anyone a murderer (slander) or even say it in print (liable). We are a democracy and we (meaning all Americans) make laws to protect us all. I have an 8-year old child. I don't want him to see nudity (cultural, tribal or otherwise) on TV. Warnings are all well and good as they allow me to change the channel, but the Olympics/SuperBowl had no such warning. I agree that Free Speech is one of the most important rights and freedoms in America, but it DOES NOT mean you can say what you want (or show what you want) on TV or anywhere else.
Trace
Trace: You certainly can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre--presuming the theatre is actually on fire and people are going to die if they don't immediately evacuate. Keep in mind that you are still likely to cause a panic.
"Congress has the express power to regulate the Public Good"
No, in fact, it doesn't. If you'd like to dispute that, please be so kind as to produce the section of the Constitution that covers that.
And if it did, it wouldn't trump the Bill of Rights.
"I have an 8-year old child. I don't want him to see nudity (cultural, tribal or otherwise) on TV."
Your TV has an off-switch, and a plug, and you're not even required to have one in the house. You want to make sure your child sees nothing on TV you'll find objectionable, you can just turn it off and keep it off. Otherwise, you have to weigh the risks and benefits of it, and decide for yourself whether the benefits of having your child watch TV outwiegh the risk of him seeing something you'd rather he didn't.
But in your decision you should have to live within the laws of the land, which clearly disallow Congress from taking the action they have.
Necessary and proper clause, innit, Leviathan? With that on their side, they can do anything they feel like.
I say, as plainly and as rationally as I possibly can state it, that the sky IS falling.
Censorship is real and our feedoms as americans and as artists, writers and creators of free speech/art/expression/news and what have you are in SERIOUS jeapordy.
See the story here as a for instance:
What is the basis of censorship here other than someone just didn't like it or think it should be permitted?
"Take this peice down or I'll have you arrested"? On what grounds?
This troubles me deeply and it really should trouble us all.
I say, as plainly and as rationally as I possibly can state it, that the sky IS falling.
Censorship is real and our feedoms as americans and as artists, writers and creators of free speech/art/expression/news and what have you are in SERIOUS jeapordy.
See the story here as a for instance:
What is the basis of censorship here other than someone just didn't like it or think it should be permitted?
"Take this peice down or I'll have you arrested"? On what grounds?
This troubles me deeply and it really should trouble us all.
Your TV has an off-switch, and a plug, and you're not even required to have one in the house. You want to make sure your child sees nothing on TV you'll find objectionable, you can just turn it off and keep it off.
If I paid for cable that included HBO, Showtime, etc., your point would have some validity. But there has been for years a standard that nudity is not shown on public TV, particularly during hours a child might be watching. Whether you feel that standard is right, legal, fair, etc., is beside the point. The standard has existed since TV began. As a result, it is NOT an unreasonable demand to say that I should be able to watch TV with my child without having to worry about what might be shown. Until that standard is clearly changed and public notice is given, or unless a warning is clearly posted on a given show, I should not have to lock my TV in a closet for fear of what my child should see.
I choose not to have cable for this very reason. Others are paying for the privilege to see "Sex in the City" or unedited movies on cable. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when I am told I can't watch network TV with my child or that I can't let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.
Jim in Iowa
Here's one Glenn missed.
Bush photo at farmer's market causes row
Councilman from Lancaster orders picture removed
"I do have a problem when I am told I can't watch network TV with my child or that I can't let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown."
To misquote Gaines, during the Senate hearing on comics, Jim.....are you that scared of your child that you think something they see on tv or something they hear on the radio will turn them into a serial killer or engage in some form of criminal or antisocial act?
Is it that you have no faith in your child or no faith in your parenting skills?
Or is it that you're just another prejudiced, bigoted, small minded, terrified-of-the-unknown-and-what-you-can't-understand conservative that wishes all these damn gays, blacks, powerful women, foreigners and liberal terrorists would stay out of your sensory range and stop their insidious challenging of everything you cling to and use as a crutch.
ps. Why DO you still post here? I thought that 'inside every conservative christian is a sadomasochist just bursting to get out' was just a myth.
Hardman,
A gallery owner telling an artist to remove a painting is not censorship. It's been established that censorship can only be done by the government, which is plain in the story didn't happen.
This artist seems to feel he can be critical of someone thru his art, and yet others can't be critical of him. Sounds like someone went to the Michael Moore school of logic that says that "I can produce something negative, but if you say anything negative about me, I'll sic my lawyers on you".
Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ass about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form.
And about the Olympic opening ceremony, well first of all no one was actually naked. The performers wore costumes that made them look like nude statues. There's a pic in this link:
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/51086559JS041_OLYopener.jpg
I guess if thats considered indecent than the closing down of art museums all across the country is next order of business to make sure our children are saved from the awful influence of nonsexual nudity.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
US Constitution, Article 8
General Welfare = Public Good
Bill of Rights are amendments, Article 1 is an original construct. BoR will at times trump express legislative powers, but if Congress identifies something as in the General Welfare/Public good or interest, it exceeds the reservations expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Such as, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Or you can't stand on a street corner and shout obscenities to people passing by. Or you can't collect child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home.
"If I paid for cable that included HBO, Showtime, etc., your point would have some validity. But there has been for years a standard that nudity is not shown on public TV, particularly during hours a child might be watching. Whether you feel that standard is right, legal, fair, etc., is beside the point. The standard has existed since TV began. As a result, it is NOT an unreasonable demand to say that I should be able to watch TV with my child without having to worry about what might be shown. Until that standard is clearly changed and public notice is given, or unless a warning is clearly posted on a given show, I should not have to lock my TV in a closet for fear of what my child should see."
Poor Jim, totally at the mercy of the networks. Oh, if only someone would make a list of what shows were on what channels at what times, and what would be happening on them, perhaps with notations giving the level of violence, language, sexuality, etc. A sort of Guide to the TV, if you will.
Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ass about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form.
Then why complain here? Write or call your Congressman and let him (or her) have an earful. By the way, I'm no cheerleader for the FCC. I don't think I've ever said whether what they do is right or wrong. I've always just tried to point out that they have the power and authority to do it.
First, the pics Derek posted are onoly part of the problem. I'm *pretty* sure those are fake or pants of some kind. But they also had a woman with bare breasts portraying a fertility goddess, and while she was also painted, she wasn't wearing anything to cover her.
Second, for those laying into Jim for his opinion that he'd like some standard of decency to be imposed on broadcast TV, get real. Anything that goes out to the masses FOR FREE is going to have to have some standards. And anyone who isn't concerned that their kid may stumble across some violent/explicit sex filled show either isn't a good parent, or isn't a parent, period. Can anyone honestly say that they'd not mind their 5 year old tuning into the Playboy channel?
If someone wants to watch more explicit/violent/whatever shows, there's a place you can go, where you can pay for it, and not have to worry about the FCC imposing a minimum level of decency.
And as long as we have a public level of decency, that's going to swing back and forth between lenient and strict. At the moment, it's strict. In 10 years we'll be watching re-runs of Benny Hill on Fox at 2pm on a Sunday.
Posted by: Michael Pullmann:
"Poor Jim, totally at the mercy of the networks. Oh, if only someone would make a list of what shows were on what channels at what times, and what would be happening on them, perhaps with notations giving the level of violence, language, sexuality, etc. A sort of Guide to the TV, if you will."
Um, Michael, that's exactly what Jim is saying. The Superbowl incident had no kind of disclaimer at the beginning saying that the program would involve nudidity. Also, because football (and sports in general) there are no on-screen bugs about violence. Janet Jackson's stunt, be it her and Justin alone, or in cooperation with MTV/Viacom/CBS, was a sneak attack (so to speak) upon the viewers. Personally, I think it was wrong to fine the O&O stations. Any fines should have come from the performers and the producers of the segment. Same with the Bono "f-bomb".
And have you actually read a TV Guide recently? It's more programming grids than any kind of program description.
public obscenity
Yeah, it's good to know that seeing tits is obscene.
The rest of the world must think we're the most shallow dumbasses on this planet because we're so farking afraid of looking at our own bodies and *gasp* perhaps liking what we see.
Sorry, I'm not in a politically correct mood. This constant crap from the FCC regarding UNobscene nudity is pathetic.
Your TV has an off-switch, and a plug, and you're not even required to have one in the house. You want to make sure your child sees nothing on TV you'll find objectionable, you can just turn it off and keep it off.
If I paid for cable that included HBO, Showtime, etc., your point would have some validity. But there has been for years a standard that nudity is not shown on public TV, particularly during hours a child might be watching. Whether you feel that standard is right, legal, fair, etc., is beside the point. The standard has existed since TV began. As a result, it is NOT an unreasonable demand to say that I should be able to watch TV with my child without having to worry about what might be shown. Until that standard is clearly changed and public notice is given, or unless a warning is clearly posted on a given show, I should not have to lock my TV in a closet for fear of what my child should see.
I choose not to have cable for this very reason. Others are paying for the privilege to see "Sex in the City" or unedited movies on cable. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when I am told I can't watch network TV with my child or that I can't let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.
Jim in Iowa
Here! Here!
Just the other day I was wacthing some old show in re-runs that featured Lucille Ball in a..I don't even know if I can say this... a "motherly way". This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarressed. Add to this the fact that those trampy Brady parents are often shown SLEEPING IN THE SAME BED, not the mention all those sluts talking about their periods on in tampon commercials.
What chance do the kids of today have?
It's good to see the FCC finally taking up the slack of my role as a parent.
Jim in Iowa: I do have a problem when I am told I can't watch network TV with my child or that I can't let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.
Wolf in the Forest: To misquote Gaines, during the Senate hearing on comics, Jim.....are you that scared of your child that you think something they see on tv or something they hear on the radio will turn them into a serial killer or engage in some form of criminal or antisocial act? Is it that you have no faith in your child or no faith in your parenting skills?
Luigi Novi: Why does not wanting your kid to see certain things have to do with fear of them, or of one’s own parenting skills? You’re saying that if Jim doesn’t think his kids are old enough to see Basic Instinct or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, there must be some nefarious or ulterior motive or emotion present? Are you saying that’s unreasonable to not want your kid to see stuff like that?
Wolf in the Forest: Or is it that you're just another prejudiced, bigoted, small minded, terrified-of-the-unknown-and-what-you-can't-understand conservative that wishes all these damn gays, blacks, powerful women, foreigners and liberal terrorists would stay out of your sensory range and stop their insidious challenging of everything you cling to and use as a crutch.
Luigi Novi: So now anyone who criticizes TV content is racist and homophobic? What does one have to do with the other?
Jeff: "It's been established that censorship can only be done by the government, which is plain in the story didn't happen."
Sorry, but I must point out that censorship is cencorship regardless of who's guilty of it. You are correct, however in pointing out that this instance of cencorship is not sponsored by our government. Does that make it any less wrong?
Kingbobb: ""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
US Constitution, Article 8
General Welfare = Public Good"
You know Article 8 at no time states that General Welfare = Public Good. The idea that General Welfare = Public Good seems to be an extrapolation at best.
Besides, if the framers of Article 8 meant Public Good why not simply state "Public Good?" I think in this case it's best to look at the definition of the word "welfare."
wel·fare ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wlfâr)
n.
Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
Prosperity.
Welfare work.
Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
Corporate welfare.
Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from wel faren, to fare well, from Old English wel faran : wel, well; see well2 + faran, to get along; see fare.]
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
welfare
n 1: governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need [syn: social welfare] 2: something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the common good" [syn: benefit] 3: a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous; "the town was finally on the upbeat after our recent troubles" [syn: wellbeing, well-being, upbeat, eudaemonia, eudaimonia] [ant: ill-being]
**from dictionary.comm**
In cases like this I prefer the first definition because that is usually what the word means without centuries of added meaning. But I have posted the entire definition in order to point out that the phrase "common good" is as close to "public good" as the definition gets and is only mentioned in the context of government sponsored social programs.
As a result I submit that General Welfare, in the context of Article 8, is not synonimous with "Public Good."
What 'General Welfare' and 'Public Good' DO have in common is that they are both anoyingly vague terms.
I've put WAY too much into this. Pills. I need pills.
Here's to Sexual Side Effects,
Mitch Evans
Look, the words "But," "Except," "Excluding," "Indecency," "Obscenity," and "Pornography" predate the Bill of Rights by centuries. If the framers had intended to exclude such from the protection of the First Amendment, the power to do so was readily available to them.
It is clear that such was not their intention.
Equally is it clear that they had no intention that material before the Bill of Rights could trump that Bill, nor any of the rights codified therein. In fact, the Bill of Rights merely highlights a few of the biggies, as it was always intended by the framers that Americans live in a sea of rights, interrupted by small islands of restrictions, while the government lived in a sea of restrictions, interrupted by small islands of rights. It was always their intention that the government be forbidden any power not expressly granted them, and thatthe citizens be granted by default any right not specifically restricted in a body of law.
And the notion that the Federal Government's charge to "promote the general welfare" gives it the power to pass laws "for the public good" is simply false. Consider that Federal drug laws are drawn on the basis that drug abuse has an impact on interstate commerce. If Congress were allowed to pass laws in order to "Promote the General Welfare," don't you think that would be the basis of narcotics laws?
In the end, it comes down to this: The First Amendment isn't needed to defend popular speech. It isn't needed to defend uncontroversial piety. The only reason to have a First Amendment is to defend speech that would otherwise be quashed, spoeech that is unpopular, that is unconscionable, that is intolerable. The rest is defendedby its inoffensiveness. If you see something that offends you, remember: That is what the First Amendment is for, and you are the stronger for it.
Posted by Leviathan at December 13, 2004 04:43 PM
"Congress has the express power to regulate the Public Good"
No, in fact, it doesn't. If you'd like to dispute that, please be so kind as to produce the section of the Constitution that covers that.
And if it did, it wouldn't trump the Bill of Rights.
Well, there's this interesting little bit of the original Constitution, prior to even the Bill of Rights, wehich is generally referred to as the "Elastic Clause", which gives Congress the power to do just about anything it caN SLIP PAST THE cOURTS...
"Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ass about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form."
"Then why complain here?"
Why do YOU?
PAD
You beat me to the punch, PAD.
And just so you know, eclark, I do (and most likely will in the future) write to my elected officials when I feel strongly about things. And just because the FCC has the authority and power to do certain things doesn't mean we should sit back and allow them to misuse it.
Here are I assume the "offending" moments:
Warning! Nipple alert!
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/14%20August%202004/51086559JS154_OLYopener.jpg
The fertility goddess (who seems to be clothed)
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961450_b.jpg
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961616_b.jpg
More of the statue guys:
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961681_b.jpg
Coed statues:
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961683_b.jpg
Looking at the statue guys, you can see a waistband around the abdomon and it appears that all the legs are the same mold.
Last night I stopped by the house of my best friend's widow. She and I have certainly changed over the years, as well as have grown apart from one another. In the course of the conversation during my brief visit, she casually mentioed her disdain for Desperate Housewives and stated that she had never been a member of a converative values group, but after reading a recent Newsweek article on the program, she was considering joining to support "the cause". I responded by ststating that DH was one of my favorite programs on television. She was aghast and responded with a litany of criticisms and questions including a statement about her being gravely concerned with the oversexualization of the wives and the lack of morals. She wrapped up her comments by saying that she is a desperate housewife and they are unrelatable.
Her answer to my first question troubled me more than I can tell you. She is intellegent. She tends to educate herself on issues before forming an opinion. She is typically an independent thinker.
Her answer: No.
..... my question? Have you ever watched an epsiode?
I explained my fondness and enthusiasm for the show. I talked of only 1 wife that I truly found unlikeable and immoral (Any guesses? It's not Edie.). I pointed out the there are consequenses for all of the questionable decisions made (Citing, in detail, Lynette's initial horror of hearing a woman suggest she drop her kids off out of the car when they misbehave and then actually attempting it when overwhelmed.). I even pointed out that my interpretation of the majority of the overt sexuality is either a witnessing of the intimacy or lack thereof between characters or simply satirical in nature.
She paused. States that she could understand why I would like it, based on how I described it. Never did say that she would try and catch an episode though.
Fred
So tell me ...
Being a Scotsman myself I am unsure how things go in America so in light of all this controversy
(1) where do you stand on the art gallery question ? I took my wee son to the gallery the other day, and what should I see but sculptures of Greek goddesses blatantly displaying their brazen nudity. One brazen hussy, by the name of " Aphrodite " was thrusting, thrusting I say, her devils dumplings in the direction of the general public. Is it not time that art galleries started to exercise some judgement in this, I ask ?
Some people even paint this sort of thing !!! If I wanted my son to see painted Jezebelle's exposing themselves I, well, I - I - I wouldn't want it, that's all I'm saying - but IF I did I would take him to Madam Blintsky's Painted Jezebelle Emporium for Adventurous Gentlemen. And NOT to a public gallery.
(2) I also notice that it has become quite the custom among young ladies these days to display rather more of their anatomy than was the case when I was their age.
I refer to the disgraceful practice of exposing their ankles. This is clearly designed to inflame the passions of young, easily corrupted men who risk falling into the solitary vices through continued exposure to such wanton licentiousness, giving rise to torpor and derangement of the mind.
If the good Lord had meant us to expose our ankles he wouldn't have given us thigh length leather riding boots, b'gad.
This sort of display should not be made public, but restricted to the privacy of our own homes where we can observe projected daguerrotypes of such things behind closed doors .
Ban the filthy stuff
I reamin sir, your obedient servant
Lt Col Moran ( Indian Army ret'd) VC, DSO, MM and bah...
"I talked of only 1 wife that I truly found unlikeable and immoral (Any guesses? It's not Edie.)."
Is it Gabrielle? She's the only one doing something destructive that doesn't seem to feel she was wrong to do it.
And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
Derek!:
>>"I talked of only 1 wife that I truly found unlikeable and immoral (Any guesses? It's not Edie.)."
>Is it Gabrielle? She's the only one doing something destructive that doesn't seem to feel she was wrong to do it.
ding ding ding, we have a winnah! Gabrielle is one of the most unlikable characters that I've watched on television in some time. No sense of responsibility. No sense of commitment. No focus other than her own desires. The only reason that she took the action she did at the end of Sunday's episode is due to being confronted by a friend and feeling extremely uncomfortable.
>And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
You are perplexed. I'm scared out of my mind.
Such as, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Or you can't stand on a street corner and shout obscenities to people passing by. Or you can't collect child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home.
This is why I always shout "SHARK!" in crowded elevators. It just confuses the hell out of people.
"Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ass about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form."
"Then why complain here?"
Why do YOU?
Boy, PAD's really gunning for me. I don't know whether to feel flattered or endangered.
Oh, and I'm rarely complaining about government when I post here. When I do have a complaint about what government is doing, I usually do go elsewhere. In fact, most of my "complaints" aren't complaints, but responses to questions or issues brought up by PAD, Glenn, or others.
Leviathan, not to be snide, but if you're going to speak about what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended, don't look at the texts. They are intentionally broad and vague so that they may serve whatever ends are needed and allowed by the society in which they exist. Which is a really convoluted way of saying that they are meant to be living documents that grow and change as our country grows and changes.
If you really want to get into orginal intent (called a Constructionist view by some) look to the transcripts and texts of the Constitutional Convention. Here's an article and site it.
[URL]http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_history.html[/URL]
This argument isn't new. It predates the Constitution. The main body, and the Bill of Rights, present a compromise between those that wanted a broad Consitution granting the government powers, and a narrow one that limited those powers to specific areas.
Then, thanks to our courts, there are all the rights that exist in the *penumbra* of the Constituion, like privacy. It's not once mentioned in the Constitution, yet I'd be willing to bet that most people would list it about the right to free speech, which actually is included.
No right is absolute. They can't be. Nor is any right ireevocable. If you start with that premise, then it certainly is more than possible that one clause of the Constitution can trump another.
Censorship, in and of itself, is not bad.
*GASP!*
TRUE censorship, as practiced by the government, (and we've been seeing some of that lately :( ) is bad. That is the complete blockage of something from the people.
A private group or individual who is NOT allowed to "censor" is under tyranny. If, as a publisher, I am forced to print something I don't want to print, where is my freedom?
The government in the form of the FCC blocking something from public television is not censorship unless they block it from everything else.
I am extremely careful about what my young children see because they are forming opinions and thought-patterns based on what they see and the often faulty conclusions they draw from what they see. Ideally I'm sounding them out on those thoughts, but many are pre-articulation, so getting at them is difficult. It's a big deal for me because of the way I grew up and viewed women (not to mention how I treated them) in negative ways because of the faulty conclusions I drew from what I saw and read. I'm not trying to abdicate as my parents did, but full coverage is difficult.
FWIW, my family doesn't watch TV. It wasn't so much a conscious decision, but my wife and I never watched it before kids, and we don't now with kids. I don't think we're missing anything (but then, I wouldn't know). IMO, commercials are worse than most programming...
Robbnn:
"IMO, commercials are worse than most programming..."
Speaking as someone that watches 8+ hours of TV a day (and gets paid to do it), a lot of the time commericals are much better than the programming.
I'm enjoying the Play Beer series, sponsored by Bud and Miller. Can you program TiVo to record certain commercials?
It's almost like Spy vs. Spy, or rather, Beer vs. Beer.
This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarressed.
Well, heaven forbid you ever have another child and the mother, being 8 months along, forces your child to ask that question again.
Then you can be embarassed all over again over nothing. It sounds like you need to be a parent.
Cause if your kid doesn't get an answer from you, they'll get it from somebody else, and you probably won't like that either.
"ding ding ding, we have a winnah! Gabrielle is one of the most unlikable characters that I've watched on television in some time. No sense of responsibility. No sense of commitment. No focus other than her own desires. The only reason that she took the action she did at the end of Sunday's episode is due to being confronted by a friend and feeling extremely uncomfortable."
Yes, but she didn't HAVE to, nevertheless. She could have left Susan out to dry. After all, if Susan had tried to say, "It wasn't me, it was Gabrielle," do you think the boy's mother would have believed her? Unlikely. The point is that Gabrielle, faced with the consequences of her actions being hurtful to Susan, found the line she would not cross. That is, by me, intereesting. The notion that she had rationalized her behavior thus far, but could not find anything within her to rationalize allowing Susan to have her reputation trashed. (Not that Susan isn't perfectly capable of doing it to herself.)
Best line of the episode, though, had to be Lynette: "Where can I score me some high-grade Nanny?"
PAD
PAD, it was an interesting response, but didn't surprise me. She had a choice and truly was upset with Susan's confrontation with her, but we'll have to see if there was anything more than her wanting to avoid a continuance of her friend's response and possibly the ire of the rest of the group. Is she evil incarnate? Nope. She still strikes me as the most unlikable, self-centered and destructive of the the wives.
>Best line of the episode, though, had to be Lynette: "Where can I score me some high-grade Nanny?"
>PAD
Most disturbing line was the narrative that spoke of others getting what they deserved while the audience viewed Ms. whassername being buried. This appeared out of place and overly harsh, actually distracting me momentarily. Some people may say such a thing in the heat of emotion, but our frinedly, ghostly narrator hd, up until then, appeared to have gained some otherworldly insight and peace. Did it strike anyone else as a bit odd?
Fred
"This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarressed."
Why?
I mean it. My God, why?
I really don't get this. I don't understand how people can get so worked up about things that have such commonality.
How can people get worked up about the human body? Don't all humans HAVE bodies? What kind of self-loathing must it take to be ashamed of something that everybody possesses? (Although I am reminded of the "Seinfeld" line in which George, I think, tells Jerry that he would have thought Jerry--when it comes to women--would be a leg man. And Jerry responds, "Why would I be a leg man? I *have* legs.")
How can people be embarrassed about human reproduction? Show of hands: Anyone reading this arrive on this planet by some means other than human reproduction?
Why do people freak out over the most fundamental common grounds we have?
PAD
"She still strikes me as the most unlikable, self-centered and destructive of the the wives."
More than Edie? Well, I disagree with that. In any event, I see where you're coming from, but to me that just means that she's got the most intriguing, and difficult, journey to undergo. But she IS undergoing it.
"Most disturbing line was the narrative that spoke of others getting what they deserved while the audience viewed Ms. whassername being buried. This appeared out of place and overly harsh, actually distracting me momentarily. Some people may say such a thing in the heat of emotion, but our frinedly, ghostly narrator hd, up until then, appeared to have gained some otherworldly insight and peace. Did it strike anyone else as a bit odd?"
I can't speak for anyone else, but considering she was commenting on the death of the woman who was directly responsible for her decision to commit suicide--and was utterly unrepentent about doing so--I can see Mary Alice carrying a grudge even into the next life.
PAD
Since the conversation has moved to Desparate Houswives, does anyone know when they're going into reruns?
I missed the first five or so episodes before I even heard good things about it (my friends aren't into evening soaps) so I decided to wait until they started replaying it and start from the beginning.
It's not the question generating issues of nudity and such on broadcast TV that would concern me. It's explicit gratuitious sex, graphic and real violence (say, Faces of Death), things like that that I would want to shield my young children from accidentally stumbling across while flipping through channels. If I want to see that, or if I want to expose my kids to that, I'll go somewhere that offers it. I don't want it coming into my home unbidden on airwaves that I can't stop.
As to being embarrased by a question your child asks, forgive me if this seems harsh, but I think that's just avoiding your responsibilities as a parent. You are your child's primary teacher. Don't shy away from the chance to educate them because *you* are uncomfortable with the answers.
Maybe it is just me, but I took Russ's comment about asking where babies come from to be sarcasm and meant to be an parody on those who support the FCC's actions.
You don't have to have a TV in your house Kingbobb, or, you could actually spend time with your children and monitor what they watch.
Most cable and satellite systems group types of channels together that intelligent channel surfing allows you to avoid. Try being a parent instead of expecting the rest of the world to do it for you.
Further, new tvs have chips installed in order for parents to lock out channels and certain programs from kids.
And for cable and satellite users, the boxes seem to universally have those functions as well.
Remember the V-chip you "parents" screamed for? Try using it.
"You don't have to have a TV in your house Kingbobb, or, you could actually spend time with your children and monitor what they watch.
Most cable and satellite systems group types of channels together that intelligent channel surfing allows you to avoid. Try being a parent instead of expecting the rest of the world to do it for you."
Bladestar, that position is plainly unrealistic and borderline idiotic. We're not talking about cable, we're talking about broadcast network TV. Tell me what's so irresponsible about wanting the free TV product that comes into your house from the simple act of owning a TV to be at some minimum level of decency? Perhaps I *AM* being a good parent by recognizing that I can't monitor my child 100% of the time, and for those times when I can't, they choose to watch TV, I know that I can be fairly certain that what they are going to see isn't going to be something I don't want them exposed to.
Let me put this another way. I can't control what comes over broadcast television. I can change channels, but the signal is still there. I just have to change channels again to get to it.
If the TV signal were a person, I could physically keep them from entering upon my property. I could erect a fence, refuse to open the door, tell them to get lost. If they were in my house, I can kick them out, or call the police and have them arrested.
With a TV signal, you can't do any of that. The only way to make sure you can't access it is to noy use/have a receiver (TV or radio). That's like the equilivent of building a house with no doors or windows, to prevent someone from entering your house. Effective, yes, but practical?
I'd rather lose some freedom of expression over public airwaves in order to protect my right to educate my children in the manner I choose to, rather than having to deal with all the garbage that a totally free broadcasting system would result in.
Funny, I tried to explain to people last week that TVs have off buttons and nobody listened then either.
Fred, I quite agree that commercials are often better than the programming in the sense of quality, but not necessarily of purity, if you get my meaning (which you probably did from the beginning).
Ultimately, what is appropriate and inappropriate for broadcast TV is going to change from person to person. You either program for the lowest reasonable common denominator or not at all. Ultimately, it will be the sponsor's call. Unfiltered TV might drive away large segments of the marketplace (then again, it might not...) so free market may be the best choice. Dunno. Doesn't apply to me other than unparented little boys who know more about sex than their bodies are ready for might try to figure it out with my girls, in which case you'll all see me on the news...
Kingbobb, why should my free tv viewing habbits have to be curtailed. I do not have children. So why should I have to pay extra for cable to be able to watch adult-oriented entertainment? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just program your tv so that your children can not watch certain shows and channels? If not, wouldn't it be less intrusive for you to get rid of your television or simply use it as a monitor for dvds and videos?
Sorry, Jeff. You are wrong. It's censorship.
Closing a show because you dislike a piece in the exhibit is censorship. The show organizer is the chain of distribution in this case.
Again, threatening to arrest the artist is ludicrous, and completely unfounded and again I ask the question, on what grounds would such an arrest be made...what law was violated?
This Bucky Turco character seems to like the idea of "promoting art". What a pity he doesn't have a handle on understanding what art actually is.
This case isn't even obscenity, it is a question of taste and of point of view. A democracy must offer a plurality of points of view or else its claim that it IS a democracy is fictitious.
,,,and to all, please accept my apologies for the double post earlier. It was my first one here, so I was still attempting to figure out what the heck I was doing.
J Alexander,
Because it's not just me. It's a lot of people. Why should anyone be able to force anyone else to have to endure risking being exposed to what they would consider trash (while admitedly others would consider it art) in the privacy of their own home.
But you raise a point that will make a good deal of this discussion moot: programable TVs. I don't know exactly how the V chip works, but I think it relies on coding attached to the signal. Much as the in the case of Wal Mart selling CDs that contain explicit lyrics, if those CDs don't come with the voluntary parental warning, Wal Mart is going to sell them. The V chip can't do anything unless the signal is coded correctly.
But as TVs become better able to work as filters, this is in fact going to be less of an issue.
If it were just me, and the whole world wanted to have 40 channels of Girls Gone Wild running 24 hours a day, I'd just not have a TV. But I'm guessing that, like many things, there's a split. I honestly don't know where the majority is at, but in my opinion, if we're talking about a publically available signal that you cannot keep out of your house, and a significant percentage of people want that type of broadcast relegated to Cable, then it should be.
Maybe you've got it right: maybe those who want to exercise control over their TVs should be the ones relegated to paying for shows that are held to some minimum level of decency.
Let me ask this, then for those who think public TV airwaves should be unregulated: How do you feel about lewd/raunchy/disruptive behaviour in public? Would seeing people copulating openly in the park while you were strolling with your family upset you?
Let me ask this, then for those who think public TV airwaves should be unregulated: How do you feel about lewd/raunchy/disruptive behaviour in public? Would seeing people copulating openly in the park while you were strolling with your family upset you?
When people start breaking into your home and forcing you to watch them having sex, then your analogy would work. The bottom line is, no one is forced to own a TV. No one is forced to watch certain programs.
It is YOUR responsibility as a parent to monitor what your kids are watching, not mine and not the networks. Trying to force the networks to conform to some kind of standard is a waste because there will always be something that somebody doesn't like. You can't get nine supreme court justices to agree on what is indecent, how are you going to get 280 million Americans to agree?
"It's explicit gratuitious sex, graphic and real violence (say, Faces of Death),"
How many people here realise that the majority of Faces of Death was faked?
or did you think that scary host in the first one was actually a Dr.?
Den, that's my point, exactly. TV's don't (yet) have a reliable ability to control what signals they do and don't recieve. Until they do, allowing shows with explicit sex and violence is exactly like someone breaking down your door and using your couch. You can't control what comes into your home over TV airwaves.
And saying people don't have to own a TV is stupid. I could just as easily say that no one has to take walks in the park. Don't like what goes on there? Don't go there. Broadcast TV is more like a public park. People go there to enjoy a public good. They don't have to, but when they do, they do so with the expectation that they aren't going to see someone drop trou and go at it with their hunnie.
To a certain extent, the public airwaves are just that, public. They aren't private, and so whatever goes out over the public airwaves has to some extent be mindful of not encroaching too much onto people's right to privacy.
When TVs can reliably control what signals they display, we can stop worrying about this. Until then, "you can turn it off" isn't a totally viable argument. I *can* turn it off, but just as easily, by 7 year old can turn it back on when I'm out of the room.
Bah, I keep getting caught up in this...
And forgetting to add that it's all rather moot, anyway. FCC really doesn't need to regulate. Network TV is advertisor driven. If we didn't have the FCC, we'd have to lean on the corporate sponsors to get the shows we don't like off the air. And as long as Coke and Pepsi are behind TV shows, most of what we see is going to be pretty tame anyway.
I find it interesting when people say that I should worry more about being a good parent by monitoring what my kids watch. As if, by trying to make sure that children don't get exposed to the worst, most potentially harmful images on public broadcast TV somehow isn't the act of a concerned parent.
I've never said anything about wanting to stop other people from seeing this type of material. Just not in a public forum. Is Playboy kept out on the shelf at Barnes and Noble? No, they keep it behind the counter and covered up. Or it's shipped in a wrapper. Heck, even Heavy Metal is now shipped to B&N shrinkwrapped. Why? No one is going to make kids look at those things. or pick them up and open them. And covering them only means that you have to wait till you actually buy it and get to your car or home before you can *read* it.
Same for broadcast TV. Which for many of us isn't free anyway, and someday won't be free for anyone. Once we're all paying for cable, won't it be interesting to see how the FCC rationalizes it's continued existence?
"If the TV signal were a person, I could physically keep them from entering upon my property. I could erect a fence, refuse to open the door, tell them to get lost. If they were in my house, I can kick them out, or call the police and have them arrested.
With a TV signal, you can't do any of that. The only way to make sure you can't access it is to noy use/have a receiver (TV or radio). That's like the equilivent of building a house with no doors or windows, to prevent someone from entering your house. Effective, yes, but practical?
I'd rather lose some freedom of expression over public airwaves in order to protect my right to educate my children in the manner I choose to, rather than having to deal with all the garbage that a totally free broadcasting system would result in."
Now My TV is a sony vega, and it doesn't have a built in antenna, tus the evil indecent free brocasts are not in my home. Forgive my spelling by the way, i'm running a fever again. Now I could get an antenna, and thus have the glory of free tv with all it's imagined indecency. Really lets put this in perspective how many apperances of full nudity, or utter gory blood and guts happen on network TV between 5 am, and 9 pm? I'd really like to know. And if you feel the time doesn't matter because your protecting the children, why arn't your kids in bed after nine, or at 9 the tv could go off. ok so we saw janets nipple, lets deal with that, hmmmmm a few seconds of nipple exposeing the kids to "hardcore porn", hmmmmmm destroy them!!!! Endless seeming coverage of sept 11, horror and all. 2 planes hit the trade center, but if you were watching the news it was 3 days of plane after plane explodeing. But a nipple...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Anyway if you remove you antenna and get cable then unless I'm mis-informed then you can lock out the evil free brodcast channels that thus offend you and damage your children beyond belief. I speak as a former child who grew up watching jiggeling breasts, occasional nipples, missed cuss words and all on USA up all night. This has clearly left me a deranged lunatic who spends all my time collecting violent porn, beating up puppies, pulling the wings off little girls dressed like faries at halloween (hard to find other times of the year)shopping at places other than Wal-mart, and not liking what king george is doing to our once great country. Oh also when I was 14, and don't tell anyone, but I saw Graham Chapman dick in Monty Python and the life of brian. He wasn't having sex at the moment, he was just standing there. But as nudity is a shamefull horrible thing that me must protect the children from at all costs, let me assure you that seeing that british willy inspired me to become the cereal killer i am today!
what do you think, last post, over the top?
"Den, that's my point, exactly. TV's don't (yet) have a reliable ability to control what signals they do and don't recieve. "
He doesn't get it! they do have one it's called an off button. Maybe his set is broken and can't turn off.
Jeff, your exposure to casual nudity has clearly warped your fragile mind...
Overall, I think the discussion is somewhat moot. ABC isn't about the air "Faces of Death 4" (real or faked), "brought to you by Pepsi" any time soon. And gaffs and mistakes are going to happen and be infrequent, so the need really isn't as great as the number of posts I've made would probably indicate.
I'm going to appear to pull a 180 here, and say that I don't think there's a need for the FCC. Maybe there used to be, but with cable taking over the way we get TV, public airwaves are becoming less and less relevant. And TVs are getting better at siphoning out unwanted shows.
But here's the thing underneath it all. *You* have a right to view whatever entertainment you want. *I* have a right of privacy to be free from viewing things that *I* consider to be offensive. *Your* right ends where it begins to infringe on *my* right, and likewise, *my* right ends when it starts to unreasonalby interfere with *your* right.
So what's more intrusive? To tell the *I/my* people to sell their TVs, or tell the *you* people to buy DVDs/cable? I'd say that the *I/my* folks are in control at the moment, so don't expect to see NBC's Playboy Hour anytime soon.
"When TVs can reliably control what signals they display, we can stop worrying about this. Until then, "you can turn it off" isn't a totally viable argument. I *can* turn it off, but just as easily, by 7 year old can turn it back on when I'm out of the room. "
Then do your duty as a parent, instruck your 7 year old in what they are not allowed to do, and when they dis-obey punish them. stop expecting others to raise your kids. I have a child, and I don't expect you to raise them, and after reading your posts I wouldn't want you to.
"let me assure you that seeing that british willy inspired me to become the cereal killer i am today!"
So what's your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
A number of folks here have mentioned the TV rating system and suggested that using those to control what kids are watching is sufficient and that, as long as it's properly labeled, adultish content should be allowed on broadcast TV. That's fine as far as it goes, but a number of the real-world instances we're talking about in this thread (including the one that started it) are cases where there wasn't warning.
I've watched a number of Olympic opening ceremonies. Nothing in those viewings led me to expect paint-covered bare breasts or guys wearing (artistic) strap-ons.
I've watched a number of Monday Night Football games. Nothing in those viewings led me to expect a naked woman jumping into a player's arms.
I've watched a number of Superbowl halftime shows. Nothing in those viewings led me to expect a pop singer's breast would be exposed. (Okay, this one really wasn't the network's fault.)
The point is that parents sitting down to watch these events with their children had reasonable expectations about what they were and weren't going to see; expectations they used to decide ahead of time whether the show was likely to be appropriate for their kids. Those expectations were not met. Thus the anger.
Dav2.718
"let me assure you that seeing that british willy inspired me to become the cereal killer i am today!"
So what's your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
------------------------------
Count Chocula!!!!!
I *can* turn it off, but just as easily, by 7 year old can turn it back on when I'm out of the room.
Once again, Kingbobb, I am amazed are your lack of reading comprehension.
What part of "It's YOUR job to monitor what your kids watch" are you having trouble comprehending?
If you didn't want the responsibility that goes with raising a 7-year old, then you should have kept your pants on. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the job you signed on for.
As I and others have tried to point out to you, all TVs come equipped with a feature that is 100% reliable in keeping objectional material out of your home.
THE OFF BUTTON!!!!
To misquote Gaines, during the Senate hearing on comics, Jim.....are you that scared of your child that you think something they see on tv or something they hear on the radio will turn them into a serial killer or engage in some form of criminal or antisocial act?
Is it that you have no faith in your child or no faith in your parenting skills?
Let me ask a question back: Should I have NO standards for what is appropriate for a child to hear or see? Your question is absolutely absurd. I do not question my skills as a parent, but I also believe there are some things that it would be better to avoid exposing a child to before they are ready to handle it.
Based on your logic, the fact that Michael Jackson exposed a minor to pornography is not necessarily a bad thing. Will a 10 second glimpse of Janet's nipple scar my child for life? Of course not. But why is it wrong in your mind for me to want to avoid exposing my child to "girls gone wild" before he even reaches the age of puberty?
Let me be blunt: Do you want absolutely no standards for network TV? If the public wants, can we show graphic sex? Should we show the most violent scenes ever put on film? I, for one, believe there is still some shred of common sense in this country that it is inappropriate to expose a child to some things if it can reasonably be avoided.
Have you ever dealt with a child who has been sexually abused? Have you ever dealt with a child who saw his 3 year old sister murdered before his eyes? I have. And those events leave deep scars. Yes, those are extreme cases that happen in real life, not on TV. But you are a fool if you think TV does not have an impact on a child.
Or is it that you're just another prejudiced, bigoted, small minded, terrified-of-the-unknown-and-what-you-can't-understand conservative that wishes all these damn gays, blacks, powerful women, foreigners and liberal terrorists would stay out of your sensory range and stop their insidious challenging of everything you cling to and use as a crutch.
Again, I ask a very simple question: Why does my suggestion there should be some standard mean I am wanting to stick my head in the sand? I realize standards have changed in the last 50 years. We have gone from not even being able to say the word "pregnant" on the air and couples had to sleep in twin beds (as in "I Love Lucy") to shows like NYPD Blue that uses language and nudity. I have never suggested we completely turn back the clock. I have simply suggested that we show some common sense and have some basic standards that would reasonably avoid exposing kids to things they are not ready for.
ps. Why DO you still post here? I thought that 'inside every conservative christian is a sadomasochist just bursting to get out' was just a myth.
I post for two reasons. First, I have learned a lot about how some of you think. If I only talk to conservative Christians, I would be actually sticking my head in the sand, and that would be stupid. Second, I like the challenge of trying to defend my views. I don't expect to change most of your minds, but I do like to be forced to actually articulate what I believe. While I may not be as eloquent and as clear as I would like, my views are worthless if I can't express them in a relatively clear manner. The feedback from many of you has helped me to think more about what I believe and why. Unlike the stereotype you seem to hold, I, and most of my conservative Christian friends, believe it is important to think clearly, consistently, and logically. If what I believe is true, it can and will withstand the attacks/arguments from the other side. I am not arrogant enough to think I have all the answers, so I keep asking questions.
Beyond that, I enjoy PAD's writings (and least most of them). I like his TV reviews, and hearing his perspective on things. I may disagree, but he usually states his position well. So I primarily come back because of PAD.
Jim in Iowa
David Hungerford makes a good point. Are the ultra consevatives listening? Its letting porn, violence, and an unrealistic view of the human body. We're talking about sports people. David Hungerford is right! BAN all sports!!!!!!
By the way, Wolf in the Forest, in case you weren't paying attention, I have pretty much agreed that censorship is wrong in most cases (such as the posting about removing gay books or the one about the comic books). I have simply defended the concept that it is appropriate to have a reasonable standard of decency for TV and radio. So a fine for the "wardrobe malfunction" is very appropriate in my book. A fine because Janet said to vote for Kerry would not be. The latter is free speech, the former is indecency.
Jim in Iowa
(1) where do you stand on the art gallery question ? I took my wee son to the gallery the other day, and what should I see but sculptures of Greek goddesses blatantly displaying their brazen nudity. One brazen hussy, by the name of " Aphrodite " was thrusting, thrusting I say, her devils dumplings in the direction of the general public. Is it not time that art galleries started to exercise some judgement in this, I ask ?
Unless someone is totally ignorant of art (and yes, with our current educational system, I know that may be happening), they should know that some art actually features, gasp, nudity! In fact, it can even be found in some art inside a church!
I have a very simple answer: I should know what my child might see if I take him or her to an art gallery or leave an art book laying around the house. Especially when you are dealing with art over 50 years old, there is a reason it has been considered a great work of art. I have no problem with nudity in art (or in Greek statues). I may not drag a 6 year old to an art gallery because he may not be able to endure the agony of it, but I would want to expose him (no pun intended) to good art as he matures. (And as a parent, I can exercise some discretion when it comes to modern works of whether it is good art or not!)
Jim in Iowa
Lets go all the way. Big name clothing makers could cloth all of the "obscene" ancient art work. kind of a sponcership thing. David wearing a sporty body glove and vest combo!
So what's your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
------------------------------
Count Chocula!!!!!
You do realized that I fed you that straight-line, don't you?
How long can these food references go on?
So what's your preferred prey, Cheerios or Captain Crunch?
------------------------------
Count Chocula!!!!!
You do realized that I fed you that straight-line, don't you?
How long can these food references go on?
--------------------------
as long as the public is hungry for more, they'll just eat it up
Posted by kingbobb:
"...I don't think there's a need for the FCC. Maybe there used to be, but with cable taking over the way we get TV, public airwaves are becoming less and less relevant."
Well, then you obviously have no idea of the main function of the FCC. Their main job is to regulate the frequencies of the broadcast spectrum. This goes from television, to radio, to the ambient radiation given off by your computer monitor, and so on. Just deciding on what part of the spectum was to be used for digital television, and the broadcast standard took over 10 years of hard work between the FCC, the makers of broadcast transmitters and the main broadcast networks (with PBS being the most active in the process).
What part of "It's YOUR job to monitor what your kids watch" are you having trouble comprehending?
If you didn't want the responsibility that goes with raising a 7-year old, then you should have kept your pants on. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the job you signed on for.
As I and others have tried to point out to you, all TVs come equipped with a feature that is 100% reliable in keeping objectional material out of your home.
THE OFF BUTTON!!!!
In other words, you want to change the rules of the game in the middle of the second half. Whether you like it, agree with it, understand it, or not, the fact is when TV and radio first were introduced, they realized they had a decision to make. The belief at the time was that the airwaves belonged to everyone. As such, anyone with enough money could put up an antenna. The one with the strongest signal on a given channel would win. In addition, they had to come up with a standard that a TV or radio would follow so that people could turn on the channel.
At the end of the day, the powers that be decided to keep TV and radio signals free. This removed the DIRECT ability of us as consumers to determine what was and was not aired. This was not "pay per view." So in order to avoid any one party from controlling all programming, they put in place rules designed to keep what was on TV appropriate to a large segment of the viewing public. (If any of you disagree with my historical summary, I am open to hearing it. But this is what I have read of how TV and radio began.)
As a result, the comment "you can just turn off your TV" is changing the rules of the game. Network TV and AM/FM radio belong to the public as a whole. They do NOT belong to just a network, artist, or sponsor. So my desire that there not be nudity and obscenity is quite appropriate. The airwaves belong equally to us all. That is why I rejected Den's comments last week. It ignores how this was established in the first place.
Until those rules are changed, I won't accept your telling me to just "turn off" my TV. The airwaves are public property, and I have a right to express my desire of how they are used. I have a right to even demand that there are no "wardrobe malfunctions" during a sports event. (It doesn't matter if I am monitoring a show with my child when such events occur.) Doesn't mean my voice alone has to be listened to, but you are ignorant if you think I am a small minority in my thoughts on this matter.
As PAD and Glen have tried to imply with other posts, things can start small. I agree that censoring a book simply because it mocks Pres. Bush is wrong, even though I voted for him. At the same time, to not oppose a "small" wardrobe malfunction would be foolish. The line of decency does not make a massive change overnight, but it does so in small ways. It is one thing to have "Schlindlers List" or "Saving Private Ryan" on TV with appropriate advisements for parents (and I completely support their being shown). As a parent, I can make an informed decision. It is another for there to be what I am convinced is a staged "wardrobe malfunction" that unchallenged just moves that line one step towards even more indecency on TV.
That is my two cents worth.
Jim in Iowa
How long can these food references go on?
--------------------------
as long as the public is hungry for more, they'll just eat it up
That's not good, because I'm actually not terribly creative. I'm virtually starved for good ideas.
Lets go all the way. Big name clothing makers could cloth all of the "obscene" ancient art work. kind of a sponcership thing. David wearing a sporty body glove and vest combo!
Which begs the question: with Mr. Ashcroft leaving, will the statue of Lady Justice be restored to her full glory? Will she get sporty clothes (Nike would be best, of course)? Or will the new guy continue to keep Justice shrouded?
"Tell me what's so irresponsible about wanting the free TV product that comes into your house from the simple act of owning a TV to be at some minimum level of decency?"
I have a standing policy never to bitch about what I am given for free.
That said, the point, at least of my argument, is that it is of no relevence whether or not some or others of us find it desireable that the Federal Government regulate the content of TV programs. Broadcasting is a form of both speech and the press, and the Constitution, and its intent is clear. Even if it is indeed a compromise between different desires by different forces, the First Amendment that is the highest law of this land expressly forbids Congress from doing so. This prohibition is absolutely clear and without wiggle-room.
Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. It's not just a good idea, it's the law, whether you like it or not.
Just curious if those of you who say "just turn off the TV" would still approve of MoveOn.org going after Sinclair broadcasting for its supposedly one sided editorials. Or will you suggest that when it comes to political speech, we should censor after all? If you don't like what Mark Hyman says *to adults* who are capable of making a rational decision about what he says, just turn off the TV.
Jim in Iowa
Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. It's not just a good idea, it's the law, whether you like it or not.
Then the campaign finance reform of 4 years ago should be thrown out the window. It clearly is a limit on free speech.
Jim in Iowa
With no bearing at all on the particulars of the current discussion, I'd like to share a quote I just read (unfortunately unattributed) that has some bearing on the original post.
"The censor is not always a bully. He is often an ass."
In other words, you want to change the rules of the game in the middle of the second half.
I'm not the one who changed the rules. The FCC did. I happen to strongly believe that their entire authority to fine for the still undefined standard of "indecency" is unconstitutional. I realize that not everyone sees it that way, but that doesn't make them right.
Which begs the question: with Mr. Ashcroft leaving, will the statue of Lady Justice be restored to her full glory? Will she get sporty clothes (Nike would be best, of course)? Or will the new guy continue to keep Justice shrouded?
Is that a great metaphor for this administration. Justice isn't just blind, she's hidden.
Just curious if those of you who say "just turn off the TV" would still approve of MoveOn.org going after Sinclair broadcasting for its supposedly one sided editorials.
Now Jim, didn't we have a discussion last week about these little "trap" arguments? MoveOn.org is wrong on this one. The fact that I may agree with them on their disdain for our current idiot-in-chief is irrelevent. You think you're being clever by saying, "ooh, those liberals will defend MoveOn.org just because they hate Bush that much. They don't really mean it when they say censorship is bad."
Guess what? Doesn't hold with me.
Then the campaign finance reform of 4 years ago should be thrown out the window. It clearly is a limit on free speech.
Yes it is and yes it should be thrown out. You're point being?
God, I'm glad I live in Canada.
"There's naked people at the Olympics! Painted like statues!"
"Well that's just silly. Now, about that NHL strike..."
I'm curious - why does everyone fixate on the "turn off the TV" arguement? It's stupid reasoning - it's much too easy to get the signal back, by turning off the TV. If you're asleep and your kid sneaks to the TV, or a babysitter is over... who deals with it then?
BUT. As for controlling what signals you receive - you can control this. Most TVs and cable boxes have programable lockouts, which you can use to block out content. You don't like the ads on CBS after 11PM? Block it. If you want to watch it, enter the password to temporarily unblock it.
As for the Olympics - you're right, you were not warned beforehand that there could be objectionable material. But how different was it than going to an art gallery with classical statues? It is not as though the people dressed as statues were having sex.
A factor that hasn't been brought into this discussion (to the best of my knowledge), is that of the parental response to a child seeing *enter offensive material of your choice here*. As a kid, I rarely attempted to get away with something that I knew that my father had strong feelings about. When I did and was discovered, consequences occurred. Whether one discovers a child has snuck around and a parent enacts a consequence for the misbehavior or witnesses said offense with a child and has a two-way conversation focused on reactions, seeing offensive material isn't nearly as important as putting it into some sort of contextual perspective for a child.
Fred
Why do people freak out over the most fundamental common grounds we have?
That reminds me of this bit from South Park when the boys are in possession of a porno tape (Backdoor Sluts 9), but don't know that its porn. They think its a copy of Fellowship so they set off on a quest to return it to the Two Towers video store. (The episode is called THE RETURN OF THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING TO THE TWO TOWERS, check it out if you can. It'll be on the South Park Season 6 set whenever that comes out.)
ANYWAY, the kids unknowingly return the porno tape without watching it, but the parents are all freaked out because thier kids are seeing things about sex. So the parents say "No, no, no,its natural and we should tell them about it, otherwise they don't know how to process it." So, the kids return the porn tape and the parents corner them, intending to tell them about the birds and the bees. As follows:
STAN'S DAD: "Alright, now listen kids. There's some things we need to put into context for you. You see, a man puts his penis into a woman's vagina for both love and pleasure. But sometimes the woman lays ontop of the man facing the other way so they can put each other's genitals into thier mouths. This is called 69ing and its NORMAL."
STAN'S MOM: "You see boys, a woman is sensitive in her vagina and it feels good to have a man's penis inside of it."
KYLE'S MOM: "That's right, but sometimes a woman chooses to use other things. Telephones, staplers, magazines. Its because the nerve endings in the vagina are so sensitive its like a fun tickle!"
KYLE'S DAD: "Now, onto double penetration, boys. you see, sometimes when a woman has sex with more than one man, each man makes love to a different orrifice."
STAN'S DAD: "That's right. Its something adults can do with really good friends in a comfortable setting."
KYLE'S MOM: "Its ALSO important that you understand why some people choose to urinate on each other."
STAN'S DAD: "Going 'Number One' or 'Number Two' on your lover is something people might do. But you must make sure your partner is O-K with it before you start doing it."
KYLE'S DAD: "Ok boys, do you have any questions?"
*the kids stare back blankly, shocked, unable to say a thing.*
STAN: Wow. . .
Moral of that story? Just let kids be kids, man. Its a short time, might as well not mess around with it. That and don't rent Backdoor Sluts 9.
I've watched a number of Monday Night Football games.
Then you realize that football is one of the most, if not the most, violent sport we have on television.
Every broadcast SHOULD come with a warning about what you are going to see, because it isn't very pretty at times.
But, it's ok to watch guys nearly kill each other - watching a guy getting carted off the field after being knocked out cold would likely qualify.
As long as there is no risk of being able to see a nipple.
hey, remember when we were talking about this admiminstration and science being a dirty word?
The government's chief of AIDS research rewrote a safety report on a U.S.-funded drug study to change its conclusions and delete negative information. Later, he ordered the research resumed over the objections of his staff, documents show.
...
AP reported Monday that NIH knew about the problems in early 2002 but did not tell the White House before President Bush launched a plan that summer to spread nevirapine throughout Africa. Now, officials have new concerns the drug may cause long-term resistance in the hundreds of thousands of African patients who received it, foreclosing future treatment options.
Oh. How about this one?
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html
Someone snuck a creationist book on the Grand Canyon into a Park Service bookstore. The Park Service chief tried to yank it. The higher ups in Washington, DC blocked it.
I am a Bush supporter, but a lot of these things are pretty ridiculous.
However, censorship isn't just a Republican thing.
However, censorship isn't just a Republican thing.
Of course not. But it's still our job to bring these idiocies into the light so they can be deal with properly.
Jim in Iowa: In other words, you want to change the rules of the game in the middle of the second half. Whether you like it, agree with it, understand it, or not, the fact is when TV and radio first were introduced, they realized they had a decision to make. The belief at the time was that the airwaves belonged to everyone. As such, anyone with enough money could put up an antenna. The one with the strongest signal on a given channel would win. In addition, they had to come up with a standard that a TV or radio would follow so that people could turn on the channel.
At the end of the day, the powers that be decided to keep TV and radio signals free. This removed the DIRECT ability of us as consumers to determine what was and was not aired. This was not "pay per view." So in order to avoid any one party from controlling all programming, they put in place rules designed to keep what was on TV appropriate to a large segment of the viewing public. (If any of you disagree with my historical summary, I am open to hearing it. But this is what I have read of how TV and radio began.)
As a result, the comment "you can just turn off your TV" is changing the rules of the game. Network TV and AM/FM radio belong to the public as a whole. They do NOT belong to just a network, artist, or sponsor. So my desire that there not be nudity and obscenity is quite appropriate. The airwaves belong equally to us all. That is why I rejected Den's comments last week. It ignores how this was established in the first place.
Until those rules are changed, I won't accept your telling me to just "turn off" my TV. The airwaves are public property, and I have a right to express my desire of how they are used. I have a right to even demand that there are no "wardrobe malfunctions" during a sports event. (It doesn't matter if I am monitoring a show with my child when such events occur.) Doesn't mean my voice alone has to be listened to, but you are ignorant if you think I am a small minority in my thoughts on this matter
Well, Jim, here's the thing you're missing... since the airwaves are public property, your opinion matters as much as anyone elses.... so if you don't want to see something you deem objectionable... and someone finds that objectionable content to be perfectly acceptable entertainment to them... guess what? You're BOTH right (this is assuming that said objectionable content fits within most standards of "public decency", I'm not talking about something extreme, like porn).
But given that someone would have to actively watch tv to see the entertainment you object to, but you have the option of changing the channel, or just turning off the tv, the most fair decision would be allowing the show with the content to air, thus giving everyone the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to watch it or not, rather than remove it, making the unilaterial decision of "not watching it" for everyone, including the people who do want to see it.
So, using your own justification, the "turn off the tv" arguement actually wins. Ain't freedom great?
Derek said And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
There are some things you don't want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
That's one thing I wouldn't mind being censored. Keep it in the bedroom and out of the news.
There are some things you don't want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
Typical authoritatian attitude. Y'all be at out in the PRC.
Just curious if those of you who say "just turn off the TV" would still approve of MoveOn.org going after Sinclair broadcasting for its supposedly one sided editorials.
Now Jim, didn't we have a discussion last week about these little "trap" arguments? MoveOn.org is wrong on this one. The fact that I may agree with them on their disdain for our current idiot-in-chief is irrelevent. You think you're being clever by saying, "ooh, those liberals will defend MoveOn.org just because they hate Bush that much. They don't really mean it when they say censorship is bad."
Guess what? Doesn't hold with me.
Well, yes, we did. Except I did ask it in the form of a question rather than stating it as a fact. There are some, such as you, who are consistent. However, based on reading the posts on this site, I would respectfully suggest that you are in the minority for being that consistent.
Jim in Iowa
Novafan:
>>Derek said And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
>There are some things you don't want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
No wnder you feel so strongly about this. What was his name and why didn't you simply file for divorce?
Well, yes, we did. Except I did ask it in the form of a question rather than stating it as a fact. There are some, such as you, who are consistent. However, based on reading the posts on this site, I would respectfully suggest that you are in the minority for being that consistent.
You may be right, but I would not make such an assumption without hearing what everyone else's opinion is.
Den: turning off the TV doesn't stop the signal. It's still there, and when you turn it back on, there it is. It's not 100%. And when my kids go to someone else's house? Or see a TV on at Sears?
And by asking public airwaves to maintain a standard of decency, I *am* doing my job as a responsible parent. You want to show your 7 year old Girls Gone Wild 12? Go ahead, I'm not stopping you. Just don't put it on a public broadcast that goes to everyone.
Jeff, let me ask you a question, as a good parent: Did you put child resistant covers over your electrical outlets before or after your kid stuck a pen in one? Welcome to the world of Closing the Barn Door after the Cows have Left.
It's pretty apparent that most of those calling for unfettered public broadcasting view TV viewing as a private right. And to a certain extent, they're right. What you watch in your own home is your business, and I've never said that it should be anything but. Watch whatever you want. But your right to see something ends when it comes into my house.
Sure, TVs do have the ability to block certain programming, but that's not a reliable system just yet. Until it is, we have a need to maintain a decency standard over public airwaves.
Bitch all you want, but I have 60+ years of history and law on my side.
Look, I'm not talking about that stupid DH/MNF bit a few weeks ago. I'm talking about hard core sex, graphic violence. We either have *some* standard of decency, and have to put up with groups like the PTC that want to moralize TV, or we have no standards, and TV becomes a true minefield of visual images.
And as for regulating TV as censorship, that's just not the case. Unlike the PTC, I'm not calling for the abolition of certain shows, or even types of shows. I'm just sayiing don't use public airwaves to broadcast them. You can't censor something that has another avenue of communication available to it. Cable, DVDs, satellite, whatever, are all available options for shows that are not appropriate for public broadcasting. Just as there are places you can go to see nude dancing, but not the public park.
turning off the TV doesn't stop the signal. It's still there, and when you turn it back on, there it is. It's not 100%.
But when it's off, you can't see the signal, genius! Until the networks figure out how to beam a signal directly into your brain, you still have to actively view the programming.
And when my kids go to someone else's house?
Still your job. If you're letting your 7 year-old wander the neighborhood and you don't know whose house they're at or what they're watching, you should be reported for child neglect.
Or see a TV on at Sears?
Shop at Wal-Mart then.
You want to show your 7 year old Girls Gone Wild 12?
I never said that. Put the strawman away. I think that Girls Gone Wild is stupid. I've never watched any of their videos.
That's not the point. The point is censorship is wrong, even when it's for the children.
But your right to see something ends when it comes into my house.
No, you're right to prevent programming ends when you try to block what comes into my house.
Bitch all you want, but I have 60+ years of history and law on my side.
So did slave owners. What's your point?
Den, I'm not trying to block anything from coming into your house. This is the point you're not getting. Again, I've never said that you can't watch something you want to. Just that, for things that get broadcast over public airwaves, there should be a decency standard.
My GGW example isn't a straw man: you practically make my point for you. You think it's stupid. Do you think it should be ok for ABC to have a GGW hour? Or do you think that GGW shows should not be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast?
Regulating public airwaves is not censorship. Censorship is when you prevent an idea from being expressed. You don't have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it. And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there's no censorship.
My GGW example isn't a straw man: you practically make my point for you. You think it's stupid. Do you think it should be ok for ABC to have a GGW hour? Or do you think that GGW shows should not be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast?
First of all, as I've already said, I believe that the idea that the FCC has the right to regulate the content of the "public airwaves" is unconstitutional. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law," not "Congress can declare a particular medium public property and censor it to their hearts content."
Second, to answer your question, yes, if ABC advertised it as a program for adults and parents were advised to use discretion.
Regulating public airwaves is not censorship.
Yes it is.
Censorship is when you prevent an idea from being expressed.
Which is what the FCC does.
You don't have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it.
According to the First Amendment, I do. The only exception is shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which isn't expressing an idea, just making an exclamation.
And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there's no censorship.
Bullshit. If I tell you that you can't hold a sign up to protest a particular candidate during a rally in a public place, but I tell you that you can hold your sign at a "free speech zone" on the other side of town where nobody is paying any attention, I've censored you.
God, I miss the days when this entire country was a free speech zone.
"God, I miss the days when this entire country was a free speech zone."
When, exactly, was that? Before the first colonists landed?
"Second, to answer your question, yes, if ABC advertised it as a program for adults and parents were advised to use discretion."
And what if they didn't? Why do they need to do this? What happens if they don't? If, as you state, there's an unfettered right for free expression, then ABC is under no obligation to advise or warn anyone about any of their broadcasts.
Which proves my point: Even you think that there should be some standard of decency when it comes to public broadcasting. Don't you think forcing ABC to make a statement about their show fetters their right to free speech?
Mind, I've never said what those fetters should be, just that there should be some. And, apparantly, so do you.
"Bullshit. If I tell you that you can't hold a sign up to protest a particular candidate during a rally in a public place, but I tell you that you can hold your sign at a "free speech zone" on the other side of town where nobody is paying any attention, I've censored you."
Well, I think you've kinda got me here. Webster's defines censor as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."
Your rally example is what I'd call effective censorship. The expression hasn't been prevented, but because of the forum you relegate it to, it has been effectively suppressed, meaning that the message is lost when it cannot be presented to the desired audience.
I think relegating public broadcasting is different. Let's stick with GGW (you'd think I was shilling it or something): The intended audience is people who want to see drunk college girls lift their shirts. That audience can be effectively reached through video/dvd, cable, sattelite. By preventing the broadcast of GGW over public airwaves, you aren't preventing the target audience from viewing the material. No effective censorhip. The idea/expression is still able to reach the interested audience with no loss of the information it contains.
The First Amendment protects free speech from abridgement, meaning a reduction in scope. Which is why your example of political protesting locations is a good example of something that violates the First Amendment. Can explain to me how the creators of GGW have had their free speech rights reduced by not having access to the public airwaves to show their product?
You may be right, but I would not make such an assumption without hearing what everyone else's opinion is.
I agree. Which is why I *did* ask it as a question in the first place. In the meantime, I formed a hypothesis based on what others have written. If anyone else takes time to answer my question, I will find out whether or not my hypothesis proves true.
The point is censorship is wrong, even when it's for the children.
Have to disagree with you there. But based on your statement, it is probably not worth debating since there are a number of underlying assumptions that bring you such an absurd conclusion. Not all censorship, even for children, is right, but I would hope there is enough common sense left to realize that some censorship for children is appropriate. (For example, it is basically child abuse / sexual abuse for an adult to leave a copy of hardcore pornography accesible to a 5 year old child.)
Jim in Iowa
When, exactly, was that? Before the first colonists landed?
Maybe. It seems like it was just a few years ago that we had more freedom of expression.
Oh wait, it was. :)
And what if they didn't? Why do they need to do this? What happens if they don't?
They will lose viewers and the market forces will demand that they do.
The First Amendment protects free speech from abridgement, meaning a reduction in scope. Which is why your example of political protesting locations is a good example of something that violates the First Amendment.
And yet is has become common practice in this country.
Can explain to me how the creators of GGW have had their free speech rights reduced by not having access to the public airwaves to show their product?
It isn't just about their rights. It's a slippery slope. First they go after drunk topless coeds, then they block people from holding up signs at political rallies and require "loyalty oaths" of attendees, then they go after books by foreigners that mock our idiot-in-chief, next it'll be other forms of dissent.
I'll save a seat for you at the "re-education camp" and we can discuss this further.
Den, it's kinda funny, 'cause except for the minimum decency thing, we're on the same side of the argument.
I agree, a few years ago there were fewer restrictions on expression. Or at least, the government was unresponsive to complaints, so it seems. And that Bush's prevention of opposing views during his campaigning *was* censorship, and that it went too far.
That slippery slope is more like a teeter totter. Or the more common analogy is a pendulum. Rights are always balanced against other rights, none are absolute. That process is going to swing back and forth, often in reaction to one right taking precedence over another. It's no surprise that this current administration is continuing to push an agenda that effectively curtails the rights of individuals. They've been doing it for 4 years.
The hope is that we can reign them in before we end up in adjoining Clockwork Orange Rehab chairs.
But if we do, I'll bring the beer....
And that Bush's prevention of opposing views during his campaigning *was* censorship, and that it went too far.
Kingbobb, what are you referring to?
Jim in Iowa
Bush only allowed campaign supporters into his rallys. At least some (I'd say all, but I can't verify that) of his rallys only allowed known supporters, or those who were willing to sign an oath of loyalty or support for Bush. There was at least one instance in Flordida where the audience was asked to stand and repeat and oath to promise to help Bush get re-elected.
None of which by itself is bad, but when people interested in seeing the President speak can't get in because they are undecided, I take that as a form of censorship.
I know of one man who received his ticket from a a client, and tried to yell questions from the crowd. He was escorted out, and fired. His client knew the man was anti-Bush when he gave him the ticket, yet the boss decided to fire him anyway.
I don't know the full efforts that Kerry made to essentially seed his audience, but I do know that Kerry-opponents made it into his rally, and were allowed to make some noise or yell questions.
So, Bush didn't just suppress opposing views, he prevented them. The fact that our president would avoid a sector of the population that disagrees with him is unsettling at best.
I'm sure than in the 1930s, the Jews of Central Europe told themselves that things will swing back again.
I'm not so optimistic.
Oh, and this country outlawed beer before, too.
And reversed that beer decision. Swiiingingg baaaccckkkk....
Hitler was allowed to rise to power. Which, now that I think about it, *is* scary, because Bush was elected...I think.... Ohio still seems to have some doubt, even though the electoral college voted Monday.
Maybe this is just one of those times when we have to trust in the Constitutional process, and hope that the next 4 years don't bring about catastrophic change for the worse.
Novafan wrote:
"There are some things you don't want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage)."
When you are kidnapped, forcibly taken to a gay wedding and made to watch the entire thing at gunpoint maybe I'll feel your pain but the idea that to even talk about the issue of gay marriage is somehow indecent is kinda stupid.
And reversed that beer decision. Swiiingingg baaaccckkkk....
The point is, they can swing in that direction again, often with disastrous results.
BTW, the last time the GOP controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress after two elections was the 1920.
Remember how that decade ended?
When you are kidnapped, forcibly taken to a gay wedding and made to watch the entire thing at gunpoint maybe I'll feel your pain but the idea that to even talk about the issue of gay marriage is somehow indecent is kinda stupid.
Kinda?
There's nothing "kinda" about it!
So, Bush didn't just suppress opposing views, he prevented them. The fact that our president would avoid a sector of the population that disagrees with him is unsettling at best.
Thanks. I would disagree with your perspective, but now I understand what you are talking about.
By the way, I went to a Bush rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I did not have to pass a loyalty test. I was not asked my party affiliation before they gave me a ticket. So I can say that what you described did not happen at every event.
I personally have no problem with not allowing heckling at a political rally, whoever the candidate is (Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Perot, etc.). That is not stopping free speech, it is simply allowing the majority there to actually hear the candidate speak. When I left the Cedar Rapids rally, I heard at least 10 minutes of the opposition outside the event sharing their perspective on Bush as I walked down the street to my car.
If Bush made sure he *never* heard what the opposition says, you would have a point. But I guarantee that he had heard before everything a protester would have said that day if he or she was allowed in the rally. The fact that he rejects what they say may be a problem for you, but avoiding a pointless debate is a totally different matter.
Bottom line, he did not truly prevent any dissenting views, he just avoided hearing the same things repeated over and over and over. I would have no problem with a Democrat doing the same thing.
Jim in Iowa
I have a hard time believing that a man who brags about never reading a newspaper has "heard before everything a protester would have said."
The man lives in a bubble surrounded by yesmen who just tell him what he wants to hear, where sycophants are rewarded and the honest and competent are punished.
Omigod! We have Charles Montgomery Burns for president!
So, the command to launch the attack in Iraq went something like this?
"Excellent. release the robotic Richard Simmons."
"Um, Mr. President, the Robot Richard Simmons is being repaired."
"Poppycock...oh, very well...release the US Marines...."
So I can say that what you described did not happen at every event.
Maybe not at the end, but I recall a variety of stories during the summer about people who, when going to the door, said they were not Republican (whether Democrat or independent) and were thus turned away.
Regardless, I think it's pretty obvious that Bush didn't give a damn what those outside of his party thought of him - he didn't try and get their vote, nor reach out to them in any way, shape or form.
I should add: in these reports I read, there was nothing to indicate that the only reason people were there was to protest or whatnot in the middle of the rally.
If you're an independent, and you want to make up your mind by going to a rally, yet you're turned away because you're not already a guaranteed vote for the candidate holding the rally, what does that leave you to think?
So I can say that what you described did not happen at every event.
I've heard and read enough reports to know that it happened at least some of his events, which is bad enough.
I personally have no problem with not allowing heckling at a political rally, whoever the candidate is (Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Perot, etc.).
We're not talking about heckling, we're talking about people quielyt holding up a simple sign. People were ejected from rallies of both paries for that.
More like:
Bush opens a cage, releasing flying monkeys.
"Fly, my pretties! Fly!"
The monkeys jump out the window and plummet to their deaths.
"Rumsfield, continue the research. In the meantime, send in the marines!"
Regardless, I think it's pretty obvious that Bush didn't give a damn what those outside of his party thought of him - he didn't try and get their vote, nor reach out to them in any way, shape or form.
Of course, I would disagree, but that is your opinion/belief and not worth rehashing. I must say his approach was effective since he did get the majority of the votes.
I can understand both sides about the signs. It would have ended up being a huge distraction as people around them "attacked" the sign holder. (And that would have been true at either party's rally.)
I did not agree, however, with "loyalty" tests for the reasons mentioned, unless it was a paid event to raise funds. But an open rally should be open to whomever wants to come, provided they behave in a courteous manner. So we agree on something at least. :-)
Jim in Iowa
From the letters section of "The Nation":
TWENTY-FIRST (-CENTURY) PSALM
Brooklyn, NY
A fool is my shepherd. I shall not think. He maketh me to bog down in a quagmire. He leadeth me beside dirty waters. He destroyeth my ozone. He leadeth me down paths to the extreme right, for his lobbyists' sake.
Yea, though I walk through relatively safe streets, I do fear evil (the threat level is orange), for thou hast scared me. My assault rifle comforteth me. Thou anointest my car with oil. My deficit runneth over. Thou preparest my table with fast food in the presence of my television.
Surely paranoia and resentment will follow me all the days of my life. And I will dwell in this Empire of Fools till I die, uninsured.
LAWRENCE SWAN
"BTW, the last time the GOP controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress after two elections was the 1920."
"Remember how that decade ended?"
What, the Cubs are gonna get to the World series again? Sweet!
Finally, the FCC does something RIGHT!
I'm thinking that the FCC is viewing satellite radio like cable tv.
-----
FCC Declines to Censor Satellite Radio
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) rejected a request Wednesday to begin imposing indecency standards on satellite radio, where frequent agency target Howard Stern is taking his show.
The FCC (news - web sites)'s media bureau turned aside a radio station owner's request that broadcast indecency regulations apply to subscription satellite services.
Saul Levine, who owns three radio stations in California, asked the commission in October to modify its satellite radio rules to include an indecency provision similar to the one that governs broadcast stations using public airwaves.
In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a "level playing field" in protecting the public interest. "Indecent programming has been and continues to be an ongoing problem — as clearly evidenced by the number of monetary sanctions over the past few years," he wrote.
The agency, in a letter from media bureau chief Kenneth Ferree, declined Levine's request.
"The commission has previously ruled that subscription-based services do not call into play the issue of indecency," Ferree wrote.
Levine, who is president of Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters Inc. in Los Angeles, says the dismissal amounted to a double standard by the FCC.
"The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions," such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview.
Stern, who has repeatedly railed against the "censorship" of the FCC, has been involved in the two biggest radio fines imposed by the agency. That includes a record $1.75 million settlement reached over the summer.
In October, he announced his move to satellite radio and said "the FCC ... has stopped me from doing business." He debuts in January 2006 on Sirius Satellite Radio.
Levine, who is president of Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters Inc. in Los Angeles, says the dismissal amounted to a double standard by the FCC.
"The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions," such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview.
Actually, the FCC already fought this battle in the Supreme Court and lost. In 1996, The FCC "adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-84) establishing interim rules to implement Section 505 of the 1996 Act. The interim rules established the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as those hours when a significant number of children are likely to have access to and view the programming. However, before the rules could take effect, Section 505 was challenged in the courts and the Commission was subsequently prevented from enforcing the rules because of a temporary restraining order and a number of stays granted by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 24, 1997, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision to deny the request for a preliminary injunction of section 505. Thus, on April 17, 1997, the Commission adopted an Order establishing May 18, 1997 as the effective date of our rules implementing section 505. However, on December 28, 1998, a federal court in Delaware issued a decision (Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S.) which determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission's rules based on Section 505 could not be enforced. An appeal of this decision was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court also determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Thus, the Commission’s rules implementing Section 505 cannot be enforced. However, persons who wish to prevent the viewing of such programming may do so by obtaining a “lockbox” or by exercising the options provided in Section 504 of the 1996 Act."
And just in case you're wondering what Section 505 of the 1996 Cable Act stated...
Section 505 states that cable operators or other multichannel video programming distributors who offer sexually explicit programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel(s) primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming must fully scramble or block both the audio and video portions of the channels so that someone who does not subscribe to the channel does not receive it. Until a multichannel video distributor complies with this provision, the distributor cannot provide the programming during hours when a significant number of children are likely to view it.
"I'm sure than in the 1930s, the Jews of Central Europe told themselves that things will swing back again."
Oh, I can tell you of a certainty that they did. When my grandfather was preparing to pack up his wife and child (my father) and get out of Berlin, all the neighbors told him he was crazy. That things would improve, and he was overreacting.
He and his family left anyway. All the neighbors died in the camps.
pAD
PAD:
>Oh, I can tell you of a certainty that they did. When my grandfather was preparing to pack up his wife and child (my father) and get out of Berlin, all the neighbors told him he was crazy.
You recently shared this story with us and after hearing it the second time you have me very curious....... (only if the question isn't too personal) did you ever have the opportunity to meet your grandfather?
Regulating public airwaves is not censorship.
Yes it is.
No, it isn't.
Censorship is when you prevent an idea from being expressed.
Which is what the FCC does.
No, they don't. they don't stop ideas, just certain ways of expressing them. For instance,
you can say, "You stink, you moron." You just can't say, "You f***ing stink, you f***ing moron." Same basic idea, expressed in a less "colorful" way.
You don't have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it.
According to the First Amendment, I do. The only exception is shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which isn't expressing an idea, just making an exclamation.
From Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, in Schenk v United States: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
Basically, it boils down to what you say, why you're saying it, and when you're saying it.
For the record, there are some who believe that Holmes overreached the courts authority with this decision.
And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there's no censorship.
Bullshit. If I tell you that you can't hold a sign up to protest a particular candidate during a rally in a public place, but I tell you that you can hold your sign at a "free speech zone" on the other side of town where nobody is paying any attention, I've censored you.
Actually, that one's kind of tricky. After all, you didn't censor the content, just where the message is heard. I guess that's still suppressing the message, but then again, you're only guaranteed the right to speak, not be heard.
Historically, the Courts have granted more protection to political speach than to commercial speach.
PAD and Craig Ries,
RUSS SAID:
"Just the other day I was watching some old show that featured Lucille Ball in a...I don't even know if I can say this...a "motherly way". This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarrassed."
PAD SAID: "Why? I mean it. My God. Why? How can people be embarrassed about human reproduction? Show of hands: Anyone reading this arrive on this planet by some means other than human reproduction?"
CRAIG SAID:"Well, heaven forbid you ever have another child and the mother, being 8 months along, forces your child to ask that question again. Then you can be embarrassed all over again for nothing. It sounds like you need to be a parent."
And it sounds like you both need to reread the post in question. It was a post by Russ, in response to Jim In Iowa, and it was undeniably SARCASTIC. Read it again. The stuff about "those trampy Brady parents are often shown SLEEPING IN THE SAME BED not to mention those sluts talking about their periods in tampon commercials."
Closing with "What chance do the kids of today have. It's good to see the FCC finally taking up the slack for my role as a parent" should have been dead giveaways.
I'm guessing you both
A.) Are not familiar with Russ's posts
or you
B.) Mistakenly though it was Jim In Iowa and he was being serious.
Honestly, though, I know of no consistent poster on this board who is that much of an over-the-top conservative.
And actually, I agree with your points, epecially yours, PAD. We should be more relaxed about the human body.
I think you both just misinterpreted what was said and who said it, though.
Derek: And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
Novafan: There are some things you don't want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
Luigi Novi: What in the world does this have to do with what Derek said? Derek was talking about the woman Fred spoke to who never saw Desperate Housewives, but developed a litany of criticisms about it, a clear case of someone whose conclusions were completely misinformed. What does this have to do with gay marriage?
Moreover, gay marriage isn’t something that anyone is trying to “force” on anyone. They’re trying to make it legal for those who want it, which they should do. Nothing is being affected on you one way or the other, so the idea that something is being “forced” on you is bunk. The only way this wording works is in euphemism. If you want to call the desire to recognize a basic human right of a group to whom it’s currently being denied an “agenda” with the negative connotation with which you seem to be doing, so be it, but to refer to this as “forcing” (when it is in fact opponents of gay marriage who are the ones trying to force gays to live without a basic component of the pursuit of their happiness), is such a blatant distortion of words that it essentially functions as a lie.
Novafan: That's one thing I wouldn't mind being censored. Keep it in the bedroom and out of the news.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? You’re saying you want to censor news about the gay marriage issue? And what does this have to do with the bedroom? Since when do people get married in bedrooms? You seem to be having a bit of trouble staying on point, first confusing censorship with gay marriage, and then confusing gay marriage with gay sex, which is so far off the relevant topic of discussion here that one must wonder if you majored in Going Off on Tangents in college, or something.
eclark1849: No, it isn't.
Luigi Novi: Yes it is. When someone tries to control what you say, forbid you from saying it, and punish you if you do, that’s censorship.
eclark1849: No, they don't. they don't stop ideas, just certain ways of expressing them. For instance, you can say, "You stink, you moron." You just can't say, "You f***ing stink, you f***ing moron." Same basic idea, expressed in a less "colorful" way.
Luigi Novi: Same thing. It is not the place of the government to decide the manner in which you express yourself. That’s for the speaker to decide. Not the government. Here, you’re just splitting hairs. Inherent in freedom of expression is the freedom to convey your ideas in the manner of your own choosing, not the manner in which someone else considers appropriate. Telling someone that they can’t say “pregnant,” and that they have to say “in a family way,” is certainly censorship. Where you get the idea that it is somehow the place of government (or anyone) to tell a speaker how “colorfully” he is allowed to express an idea, I don’t know. If I want to use “fucking” to denote my emotional emphasis in a given statement, it is wrong to presume to tell me that I’m not legally allowed to do so because the government is somehow entitled to decide issues of “colorfulness.” Expression isn’t limited to meaning of content. It also includes the medium or methodology by which content is expressed. It is for this reason that I don’t buy the argument (one which I’ve actually seen advanced by more than one person) that freedom of speech only pertains to written opinions, and not to photographs, movies, posters, satire, etc.
kingbobb: You don’t have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it.
Luigi Novi: To the extent that I cannot do so on someone else’s property, or do so in a way that causes harm to others, you’re right. Beyond that, I most certainly can.
kingbobb: And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there's no censorship.
Luigi Novi: A speaker chooses his or her venue. Not others.
So, I've been looking a little harder at the Free Speech/First Amendment issue.
First off, the First Amendmend (with the 14th Amendment) only prevents the passage of laws that abridge the "freedom of speech, or of the press...." So private individuals can clearly control what they allow, or don't allow, expression on their property. This also extends (as discussed in relation to the Twist v Mcfarlane case) to the use of a person's likeness.
I think the problem here is that the concept of the right of free speech is misunderstood. by its addition in the Bill of Rights, it's clear that the people held back from the government the ability to pass laws that restrain the public's ability to engage in the free expression and conversation of ideas and thoughts. What is less clear, is whether other rights retained by the public can in fact operate in ways to restrict free epxression.
As I just mentioned, it is pretty undisputed that a property owner has full power to restrict and control the use of his property when it comes to banning expression. You can't go around planting signs on your neighbor's yard without his permission. Niether can you just walk into his house and start reading The Lorax under the guise of the First Amendment. Clearly, certain other rights retained by the public trump the First Amendment.
And here's where we get standards of decency from. The three pre-eminant rights listed by the Declaration are "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
This is the basic bundle of rights that our government was formed around. And all other rights must, at some point, submit to these rights.
The Constitution offers protection from goverment regulation of the freedom of speech. But your right to free speech ends when it interferes with someone elses's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of hapiness. And having the government step in and enforce that intersection isn't so much a violation of the First Amendment as it is a reinforcement of more primal rights, also retained by the people, which without governmental protection run the risk of being subjecated by lesser primal rights.
As to the FCC in particular, eclark has mentioned that you need a license to broadcast over public airwaves. And just like any other license, you agree to abide by the restrictions of the licensing agency, the FCC. The FCC isn't banning any particular form of expression. No one has gone to jail for running afoul of the FCC, unless it was for failure to pay fines, which isn't a free speech issue so much as it is a contemtp issue.
Likewise, no one has a right to broadcast over public airwaves without a license. It is a privilege granted to those that agree to abide by, and demonstrate an ability to maintain, a minimum level of decency determined by the public opinion of the day.
So, say what you will about fines issued by the FCC, but no one forces networks to broadcast shows. They aren't mandated by any law to provide programming. They do so for a profit, and operate voluntarily under the supervision of the FCC. If they want to exercise their right to free speech, they are free to do so in any number of venues not regulated by the FCC.
In this case, at least, it's not a case of unconstitutional censorship, as the alternate venues available for unregulated transmission are still capable of reaching the intended audiences.
kingbobb, BULLSHIT!
Religion attempts to convince people to get laws passed restircting other rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (like the attempted gay marriage ban.
Religion is trying to restrict others pursuit of happiness, ergo, by YOUR definition, religion MUST be banned and/or censored.
The problem with your standard as you presented it is that in a country of over 250 million people, EVERYTHING is offensive to someone's "pursuit of happiness". It's a question of degree.
A gay getting married in NO WAY WHATSOEVER affects YOU. Therefore your ignorant susperstitious belief the it's wrong has no bearing because you are not harmed by it.
Someone coming on your property or in your house and reading/speaking/posting signs is NOT a free speech issue, it's called TRESSPASSING ON and/or VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Let me repeat that for you mentally impaired viewers (the rilgious "wrong" and im-moral "majority") It's NOT a free speech issue.
Also, the declaration is NOT the legal document portion, the Amendments are.
BULLSHIT #2, the FCC DOES force the networks to broadcast shows. They require limits on certain commercials during childrens programming, they require stations to carry shows in the "public interest" (usually the garbage on at 2 or 3 am on a Sunday...), and they ridiculously unnecessary "tests" of the Emergency Alert System.
What are they doing testing this shit during Prime Time anyway, and on cable no less?
The constitution doesn't say SHIT about "Speech shall be abridged by "community standards" or "indecency" when on TV or Radio.
I hate to agree with Bladestar, but he is right about the trespassing issue.
And here's where we get standards of decency from. The three pre-eminant rights listed by the Declaration are "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
This is the basic bundle of rights that our government was formed around. And all other rights must, at some point, submit to these rights.
Uh, no. The Declaration of Independence, while a wonderful statement of principles, was the document our founding fathers used to announce that they were severing ties with Great Britain. It is not the basis of our government and those three inalienable rights do not superceded anything in the law or the Constitution.
As to the FCC in particular, eclark has mentioned that you need a license to broadcast over public airwaves.
This is where I strongly agree with the current legal thinking. Just because the government declared that you airwaves are public property, does not mean that they have the legal authority to regulate content. Imagine if the government passed a law stating that all paper products were public property and only those people with a license from the Federal Bureau of Newspapers could publish one. How long do you think that arguement would stand?
And just like any other license, you agree to abide by the restrictions of the licensing agency, the FCC. The FCC isn't banning any particular form of expression.
Again, no. The ability to fine somebody for an action will prevent them from engaging in the action, or, like Howard Stern, they will get fed up with being fined and quit the medium altogether. The whole purpose of a fine is to discourage that action. Why do you think several ABC affiliates declined to air "Saving Private Ryan"? Because they were afraid of being fined.
So, say what you will about fines issued by the FCC, but no one forces networks to broadcast shows.
Once again, incorrect. The FCC requires all licensees to include programming that's in the public interest. In addition to the EBS that Bladestar mentioned, they are required to have broadcast things like weather alerts, traffic reports, and school closings. And, TV stations are also required to have a certain percentage of their programming be child's programming that has some kind of "educational value." And, like many of these mushy FCC terms, what is considered "educational value" changes with each administration.
If ignorance was bliss, you would think that Bladestar was the happiest person on the planet, not the most bitter.
First, Kingbobb's post said NOTHING about gay marriage or religion. The first part talked about how some "rights" conflict with other "rights". The second part talked about the FCC and regulations.
"Someone coming on your property or in your house and reading/speaking/posting signs is NOT a free speech issue, it's called TRESSPASSING ON and/or VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Let me repeat that for you mentally impaired viewers (the rilgious "wrong" and im-moral "majority") It's NOT a free speech issue."
Sooooo...are you saying that if an individual or group rents a building for a gathering, people not invited show up and start protesting or trying to drown out the speaker, are trespassers, and their freedom of speech rights aren't being infringed on when they are asked to leave or prevented from attending in the first place?
Next, the FCC in no way forces networks or even local channels to broadcast shows. You think that Michael Powell went to CBS and, under penalty of death or losing their liscenses, to air CSI?
But, you did somehow manage to get a couple of points correct. Commerical time is limited on ALL broadcast programs, not just children's programming. Also, stations are to air local "interest" programming. Stay with me here, it get's complicated. This is to make sure the local stations stay local. It's bad enough that more and more stations are becoming part of a megacorp and all start looking the same. Stations liscenses are dependent on local conditions, so local programs (even when aired at times no one other than the operator on duty is watching) are a necessity.
Finally, the EAS (Emergency Alert System) is not tested during primetime hours. Weekly tests are run during daylight hours (mornings/afternoons) and monthly tests are run either during the same daylight hours, or after midnight. Also, if you're seeing these tests on your cable system, they are originating coming from that cable system.
Oh, and the EAS system is entirely voluntary to stations. There isn't a requirement to be a member, although probably 90% of all stations (television and radio) participate.
Bladestar, no where did I say that any right was unlimited. Neither did I say that the basic rights ennumerated in the Declaration were ultimate trumo rights, always taking precedence over others. What I did was was "other rights must, at some point, submit to these rights." Meaning that there is some intersection of rights where basic rights take precedence of ennumerated rights, such as free speech.
"Someone coming on your property or in your house and reading/speaking/posting signs is NOT a free speech issue, it's called TRESSPASSING ON and/or VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Let me repeat that for you mentally impaired viewers (the rilgious "wrong" and im-moral "majority") It's NOT a free speech issue."
I think I said this, and it's a good example of the intersection of rights. You're absolutely correct. Tresspass is a common law concept based upon the idea that property ownership trumps other's rights, including liberty, the pursuit of hapiness, free speech, and in the case of Texas, even life. That doesn't stop people from trying to invade another's property under the guise of the First Amendment. To the tresspasser, they are trying to exercise their right of free expression. But their right ends at the property line of another. It IS a free speech issue in that there's a clash of rights, and free speech loses out to the right to use your land as you desire.
"Religion attempts to convince people to get laws passed restircting other rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (like the attempted gay marriage ban.
Religion is trying to restrict others pursuit of happiness, ergo, by YOUR definition, religion MUST be banned and/or censored."
Um, whatever? Where did I call for the censorship of someone interfereing with someone's basic rights? As I just mentioned, no right is unlimited. If it were, we'd not have incarceration, economic fines, capital punishment, or ownership. As such, each and every right, even those retained by the people, can and are limited in the interests of the general welfare. Religious based activist groups are just as free to attempt to influence the government as any other group.
"The problem with your standard as you presented it is that in a country of over 250 million people, EVERYTHING is offensive to someone's "pursuit of happiness". It's a question of degree."
So? That's why the 50s were a very restrictive period, followed by a very liberal period through the 60s and 70s, and now we're swinging back conservative. Public opinion changes over time, and the extent to which the public will allow the government to regulate the retained rights is an indication of that opinion.
"A gay getting married in NO WAY WHATSOEVER affects YOU. Therefore your ignorant susperstitious belief the it's wrong has no bearing because you are not harmed by it."
I'm going to assume that this isn't directed at me, since I didn't mention anything about restricting marriage. But for the record, I think we should abolish all tax and inheritance laws and concepts regarding marriage, and place such unions totally and wholly within the purview of religions. If two people want to enter into a contract to deal with all that stuff about who gets what property when they die, or granting the power of attorney or health care decisions in the case of mental incapacitation, contract law can deal with that very nicely.
"Also, the declaration is NOT the legal document portion, the Amendments are."
True, to a point. But much Constitutional analysis starts with an examination of the Declaration. And the Consitution is explicitly a constructive document. The only powers granted to the government are those listed in the Consitution. All other rights and powers are explicitly retained by the people. So, if the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness are enumerated in the Declaration, and not explicitly restricted in the Constitution, the effect is that those rights are still existant and in force.
Besides which, the First Amendment does not grant or discuss a right of free speech. It merely foribs the passing of any law that abrdiges "freedom of speech."
"BULLSHIT #2, the FCC DOES force the networks to broadcast shows. They require limits on certain commercials during childrens programming, they require stations to carry shows in the "public interest" (usually the garbage on at 2 or 3 am on a Sunday...), and they ridiculously unnecessary "tests" of the Emergency Alert System.
What are they doing testing this shit during Prime Time anyway, and on cable no less?"
Well, you're right, in a way. Those agents that opt to broadcast over public airwaves must abide by all the terms and restrictions of the regulating and licensing agency. To that extent, the networks are required to provide a certain amount of programming as determined by the FCC/goverment.
But the basic point is that no one makes ABC broadcast over public airwaves. HBO is under no obligation whatsoever to provide X hours of children's programming per week. It's only those agents/networks that voluntarily opt to use public airwaves to reach a larger audience that must abide by the FCC's determinations.
The emergeny alert system? It's there to warn you of an emergeny situation, dumbass. Networks test it during primetime to make sure, that in the event of an emergency, it works. So that when they spot a tornado bearing down on the Bladestar household, they know the system works, so they can broadcast an emergency warning so you can get your butt into a shelter. How much would it suck if they didn't test it during prime time conditions, an emergency arose, and you didn't get the warning because you didn't want to see Desperate Housewives interrupted?
Again, it goes the concept that they are broadcasting over public airwaves. One use that public airwaves must be kept free for is the rapid dissemination of emergency information such as extreme weather situations and worse.
"The constitution doesn't say SHIT about "Speech shall be abridged by "community standards" or "indecency" when on TV or Radio."
It also is strangely silent as to radio and television entirely. Maybe we can take from that that the Constitution isn't intended to apply to TV or radio at all, only "the press," since that's specifically mentioned? The Constitution doesn't need to say anything about it, because there is a fundamental understanding that when two or more rights clash, one will trump the other. And that's what our court system is for.
For good or ill, our country has decided that broadcasting access on the public airwaves should not be available for everyone. If your problem is that you disagree with that, it's a more fundamental issue that I don't think we can really argue about.
Let's look at the actual 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
True, to a point. But much Constitutional analysis starts with an examination of the Declaration. And the Consitution is explicitly a constructive document. The only powers granted to the government are those listed in the Consitution. All other rights and powers are explicitly retained by the people. So, if the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness are enumerated in the Declaration, and not explicitly restricted in the Constitution, the effect is that those rights are still existant and in force.
Again, you're reasoning is faulty. The Declaration is a statement of principles, not of law. The Declaration is not binding on the federal goverment.
Besides which, the First Amendment does not grant or discuss a right of free speech. It merely foribs the passing of any law that abrdiges "freedom of speech."
These statements are contradictory. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to state which rights were to protected. So, the basic purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect to right of free speech and freedom of religion.
Den, pretty much none of my arguments re: the FCC apply if you're stating that the basic principle of public airwaves should be reformed. I view that as a totally different discussion, one which I'm ambivilent to. But, under our current structure, I think I'm hitting the right notes.
You're technically correct about the Declaration: you won't find any lawyers citing to it exclusively when defedending their positions. However, in depth Constitutional discussions ofter use the Declaration as a starting point, especially when discussing the fundamental rights held by the people. The right of privacy, not mentioned at all in the Constition, leans heavily on the enumeration of life, liberty, and hapiness found in the Declaration.
Heck, the right to own property is only tangentially mentioned in the Constitution, yet its one of the most powerful rights we retain. The rights of the people are one of those things that is so ingrained that we just assume that people understand them, and listing them in any document was not necessary. The Declaration is one of the few examples contemporary with the Constitution that lists any rights held by the people.
Legally binding, no. Highly persuasive, yes.
We're both right about forcing broadcasting, depending on your point of view. Once an agent accepts a license to broadcast over public airwaves, you are correct in that certain types of broadcasting are required. My point was that the FCC isn't going into ABC's offices saying "your license is about to expire. Renew NOW, or we're going to fine you. OH, and don't wait till the end of the season to air why Mary Alice was killed on Desperate Houseviwes, air it in March. And for crying out loud, show us what the monster is on Lost!"
The FCC can only control those networks that choose to brodcast over public airwaves. The government isn't coming to the Kingbobb house with an edict that I have to develop the New Seasame Street.
Den,
I have to concede that you're correct on the First Amendment. It is faulty to say it doesn't state there's a right to free speech, it's implied in the purpose of the Bill. My bad.
While the Declaration is not a legally binding document, that does not mean that the rights listed within it are invalid or waived. Nor does it invalidate any legal discussion that includes an examination of the Declaration.
Bullshit Jeff.
They ran a test at 9:27PM Tuesday, I was watching Poker Royale on GSN at the time they ran it.
Don't lie and say they don't run the tests during Prime Time.
So Bladestar, reading comprehension is still not your strongest point?
Like I said, your local cable system might have originated the EAS test. The federal and state ageincies that send EAS messages do not send tests during primetime.
Jeff, it's you who lacks reading comprehension, and reasoning skills, the whole point was that they're required by the FCC to test it period. Tests should be mandated to commercial time rather than program time. ALthough if you're too stupid to pay attention to your surroundings, you don't deserve the "Alert"...
While the Declaration is not a legally binding document, that does not mean that the rights listed within it are invalid or waived. Nor does it invalidate any legal discussion that includes an examination of the Declaration.
Perhaps, but to say that the Phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" supercedes that legal protections of the Bill of Rights is incorrect.
You're technically correct about the Declaration: you won't find any lawyers citing to it exclusively when defedending their positions. However, in depth Constitutional discussions ofter use the Declaration as a starting point, especially when discussing the fundamental rights held by the people. The right of privacy, not mentioned at all in the Constition, leans heavily on the enumeration of life, liberty, and hapiness found in the Declaration.
Actually, it leans heavily ont he enumeration of life, liberty, and property in the 14th amendment and protections against search and seizure in the 4th.
Heck, the right to own property is only tangentially mentioned in the Constitution, yet its one of the most powerful rights we retain.
Actually, it's expressed pretty clearly in the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
My point was that the FCC isn't going into ABC's offices saying "your license is about to expire. Renew NOW, or we're going to fine you.
Actually, each of ABC's affiliates have to renew their licenses and every complaint about things like "Saving Private Ryan" is a black mark against their renewal.
No, they won't tell dictate to them specific plot points for shows, but they do evaluate whether the shows that each affiliate serve the "public interest." Another ill-defined term in the law.
I think Heinlein had a rather strong point concerning the "inalienable rights" in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His basic point was that "life" is not inalienable; consider, for example, two men stranded in a distant mountain range. There is nothing there to eat, except each other. The only way for either one to survive is by killing the other. Which one's "right to life" is "inalienable"? And is it "right"?
"Liberty", similarly, is frequently restricted, and those of us who enjoy reading Jhonen Vasequez' Johnny the Homicidal Maniac should be very happy - it's one of the factors that keeps JTHM from becoming a biography...
The "pursuit of happiness" is the only truly inalienable right in that list. It cannot be taken away. Chain me as you will, torment my flesh, pour whatever drivel you like into my television; I can still pursue happiness in whatever form is available to me at the moment. However, neither can that happiness be guaranteed. Nothing can ensure that I will ever capture happiness for more than a few moments at a time, but nothing can keep me from pursuing it, either.
Bladestar, I work with the EAS system on a daily basis, so I do have quite a bit of knowledge on how it operates. When your cable system ran a test, it went over all of the channels I'm guessing. At least that's how it works where I am. There's nothing like just about falling asleep with the TV on and the cable system sending out an EAS test. However, they are NOT required to. Just about the only dealings cable operators have with the FCC are about "must carry" complaints. That is, a cable company must carry a small station in your market, when if they actually bumped it in favor of a national cable service, they could make more money.
Your local broadcast stations do schedule their tests during commerical breaks. The weekly tests are scheduled by each individual station and are generally scheduled for weekday mornings or afternoons. Monthly required tests come from the originating station (sent by the local authorities) and your local station has up to an hour to run the test. These can occur anytime except during primetime viewing hours, and on weekends. This way, the test can be put pretty much anywhere during that hour. It used to be a 15 minute window to run the monthly test, but changed a couple of years ago. Most stations (including mine) will take the commerical loss to run the test, but some will air the test over programming. Remember though, in commerical television, programs are just filler material between commericals.
If an actual alert comes thru, the alert gets run as soon as possible. This is because they are mostly weather related and very time sensitive.
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigationfbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
Den, the 14th amendment isn't about the right to own property, it's about the right to due process. The right to own property is one of those unmentioned rights, like life and liberty, that is so ingrained in our legal heritaget that there was no perceived need to include it in the Bill of Rights, because none of the framers could conceive of a time where it would need to be.
The right of privacy is located, as described by the Supreme Court, in the "penumbra" of rights enveloped by the Constitution, but not mentioned in it. While that discussion does also draw upon the Bill of Rights, it likewise scrutinizes the statements made in the declaration.
And are you suggesting that the right of free speech is greater than the right to life? Doesn't it make more sense that, if there is an unlimited right retained by the people, that it would be the right to life? If free speech trumped life, then it would be OK to shour "fire" in a crowded theater when there was no such fire. Our system clearly falls on the side that free speech is not absolute, and that other rights, including ones not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, supercede the right to free speech under some circumstances.
Kingbobb, read some legal precedents SC rulings. When the SC talks about the "penumbra" that encompasses the right to privacty they are specifically talking about the 14th Amendment.
You have a point that the right to ownproperty is ingrained in the common law, but the 14th Amendment codified the idea that a person's property cannot be taken away from them without "due process." In other words, the government can't just seize your home for back taxes without following the proper procedures described in the law. And 4th protects your property against unreasonable searches and seizes, thereby ensuring that your personal property remains secure and yes, private.
And are you suggesting that the right of free speech is greater than the right to life?
There's that reading comprehension problem again. No, what I'm saying is that just because something is mentioned in the Declaration does not mean that it automatically "trumps" something the Constitution.
Repeat after me: The Declaration was a statement of principles. The Constitution is the basis for our government.
Yes, the old "shouting fire in a theater" example is not protected speech, but not because of anything in the Declaration. It is because common law and common sense says that you can't create a situation that recklessly endangers other people. If you want to say that the "right to life" of people trumps freedom of speech in this case, fine, but use the correct reasoning for it.
Zap2it has a report on the supposed contents of the Olympics complaints to the FCC. http://tinyurl.com/65jv4
Den, after you've attend law school for a few years, then come back and talk to me about what reasoning the Supreme court uses. Until then, I'll just have to brush up on my reading comprehension (and typing, since it's taking me like 5 tries to get this sentence out correctly) skills so i can get your meaning.
'cause when you say
"Perhaps, but to say that the Phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" supercedes that legal protections of the Bill of Rights is incorrect."
it pretty much sounds to me like you're saying that the Bill of Rights has some legal superiority over other unnamed rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Which is why I posted a question to you, because you're meaning wasn't very plain to me, and it's through no fault of any reading comprehension difficulty on my part.
This is the second or third time you've made an attempt to level an attack against me, rather than discuss the points I bring up. You have some interesting points, but I'm afraid they get lost when you have to resort to attaking me, rather than my statements. sod off.
1) I've seen more disturbing boobs on the beach, on the hairy backs of overweight men than I have ever seen on TV...
2) "Somehow nude black women in Africa (refer to the following movies Shaka Zulu, or Roots) is deemed acceptable due to the fact that the indigenous people are not seen as civilized."
---By that statement, one would assume that JJ's breast would have been "deemed acceptable" - unless her brother's skin pigmentation disorder is genetic, in which case she may not qualify as "black" under those rules.
3) Except for a certain hostile, dry, oil-rich region of the planet, America seems to be the only country afraid to admit that people have either a "penis" and/or a V A G I N A and BREAST! (or both, in some cases), and that they are used FOR PLEASURE, and (even) FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE!
I remember when I was 6 y/o hearing about "rubbers" (the condom, not the boot) from a classmate. I also met a teacher of KinderG who once told me one of her female 5-y/o students approached her and announced, "Billy has a penis and I have a pussy" Point being, the sooner you can introduce your kid to the Birds & Bees, the better off you will be, especially if you get to do the educating/creative control. Nothing worse than a kid learning that kissing can get you pregnnt or worse...
The added benefit is that anything that should happen to "pop" up - or - out will not require an explanation or an eye-covering, since it won't be anything he/she's not already familiar with, (hard-core pornography, notwithstanding -hopefully).
Besides, if any station(s) or programs should be investigated, the FCC shoud start with the hispanic channel(s) and program(s)!! There is so much thong-wearing, ass-cheek-showin', daisey-duke-short-wearin' going on there, I can't even begin to mention! AND, to top it off (so to speak) this is on kid-programming! Ever see that one chick's variety show, "SHUSHA" or "SHOOSHA" (or something like that)?? Talk about T & A for DAYS! Hers is a show that Dad is happy to sit with the kids and watch!
I've actually seen - AREOLA - for an entire song! And the cameraman/director/mc did nothing but make certain tv land could enjoy it!
I agree with taking off the commercials that advertise tampons, birth control, femenine sprays, etc. That's got to be embarrassing for women, and is absolutely something with which little, imature boys like to torture little girls, who are just getting their 1st period!
I also think if you are gonna ban breasts, then ban spandex, because it can be pretty unsightly seeing someones junk swinging back and forth as he clears a hurtle and, worse, fat rolls in what is supposed to be one-size-fits-all (myth - one size does NOT fit all, so stop fooling yourselves)
By the way... My background is in special FX - the male statues are not wearing "penis pants" that's the real deal! Look, Ma! I'm on TV!
J/K - They are "penis pants"! Well done, I might add! They are probably "snaps" (a quick mold/casting)taken from someone of larger body mass, then molded/cast up in polyurethane or latex, and painted, and then worn by someone a few sizes smaller. I'd say what you are seeing is about as naked as you can get, if you count a mold taken from the real deal...
Den, after you've attend law school for a few years, then come back and talk to me about what reasoning the Supreme court uses.
Why? Not having a degree in science or engineering or even a basic grasp of the scientific method doesn't stop Bush from having an opinion on things like global climate change, space-based missile defense, or evolution. :-P
For the record, I did take a graduate level course on the law and I did have to read and understand Supreme Court rulings. It was enough to convince me not to become a lawyer.
Den, are you sure you really want to use Bush as a role model?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a graduate level course on law, even one that includes Supreme Court rulings, isn't going to give you enough exposure as, say, a full term of Constitutional law in law school.
I'll say again, you are correct when you say that the Declaration is not a legally binding document. However, since you mentioned common law somewhere, I'll take that to mean that you also understand that not everything in our legal system is codified. It's becoming more that way, but we still have a legal system that is evolved from a common law system, which means that there are legal principles, including basic rights, that are binding and in force despite the fact that they are not written down explicitly. The principles stated in the Declaration embody these concepts, which is why the Declaration is (or maybe I should say was, as it's less common today) often consulted when such discussions as basic rights are discussed.
See Kingbobb, now you're actually saying something that makes sense, rather than before when you were just saying that the Declaration trumps the Bill of Rights. :-P
Sometimes it takes me a lot of babble to get to the stuff buried underneath. one of those "that sounded a lot better in my head" things.
Drives my wife crazy.
I had to check the White House page to get the scoop on Bush. For some reason, since he was a Nat'l Guard pilot, I thought he had some engineering background. but other than whatever he was supposed to learn in pilot school, he's got...
A History degree...
How can someone with a degree in history keep making such blunders? Maybe he skipped the first day, when the prof. goes over the basics of the course. That would be a good place for the "the point of studying history is to learn from past mistakes so as to not repeat them" statement.
