An Alaskan senator want to wipe out indeceny on cable and satellite radio.

"U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said Tuesday he would push to apply broadcast decency standards to subscription television and radio services like cable and satellite."

Link Here

If ya don't like it, don't watch it or listen to it but don't tell me I can't!! Can't these people figure out that there is an on/off button or a channel selector on their tvs/radios. Better yet, unsubscribe if you are paying for it and don't like it.

~Rob

 

I disagree with you I dont want my kids sujected to it on the streets. If everyone was reasonable and didnt crank the stereos full blast you may have had a point.
I cant turn someone elses radio off.
I find Howard Stern very ofensive and am assaulted with it from other people radios, So I shoud
1. Plug my ears?
2. Move?
3. bust a cap in the morons stereo?
4. Make them listen to Michael Savage 24x7?

 

The problem isn't that the government (or at least certain people within the government) are trying to regulate it. The problem is that people want to watch it or listen to it.

At least that's the way I see it.

 

OOOOHHHHH, OOOOHHHHH, Ramlovingvet, The answer is number 3, RIGHT????

 

But what you're talking about isn't really a problem with the content per se, it's a problem with the behavior of the individuals who have no manners and turn it up too loud. Different problem, seems like.

So the answer is "whichever one makes you happy," I guess. When the yahoos three houses over play rap and R&B too loud, too late at night, I find that some Bill Monroe or Bob Wills blasted back at them works wonders...

 

The problem is a breakdown in the moral sensitivity of all of us. We get blasted with others ideas of right and wrong (mostly that nothing is wrong) and it then slowly desentizes the population into thinking that any kind of garbage is normal and OK. Starts in the home and the heart, then continues into our actions. We have some real problems when all you see on the boob toob is everyone wanting someone else's wife or husband, lousy language, sex and violence. It is impossible to miss it anymore. Our TV is staying on less and less.

 

A few months ago Alaska tried to legalize marijuana. Now they want to take indecency off of the TV. I think that they are smoking to much of something up there and don't know what they want.

Usta

 

Good post Brakesmart Bob.

 

This upsets me a little. I pay good money for satellite TV and for the extra movie channels and I don't like being told what I can and can't watch. If you don't want your kids watching something on tv, then make them change it. On satellite, you can block certain channels. I'm pretty sure you can do that with digital cable to.

 

This upsets me a lot. I don't want you or ramlovingvet or some senator or anyone else telling me what I can watch or not - especially if I choose to pay for it.

Now, blasting it too loud is a different story. But that goes for anything... country music (for me), rap, whatever. You could probably get a plate number and report them to the cops; there's gotta be something illegal about driving with stuff playing that loud.

 

Senator Stevens, don't tell me what I can and can't watch or listen to. You guys meddle too much with our lives already, and I don't need or want your personal moral codes imposed on me. If you were in touch at all with technology, you'd know there's something called a "parental lock" found on most cable and satellite systems that disables a channel deemed by the PARENTS as unsuitable for children. Whether the parents use it or not might be a subject for another debate, but I assure you that I am quite capable of flipping the channel if I what I see on it offends my personal moral standards.

 

once again... i've never understood anyone trying to force their values on someone else.

if you don't like it CHANGE THE CHANNEL! simple as that. but don't try to tell me what i can and can't watch. i'm not telling you what to watch.

britt

 

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they didn't think a bill of rights was necessary or might even be construed to mean "these rights and no more". They felt that since the constitution placed strict limits on the powers of the federal government that the common natural rights of the citizens would be adequately protected because the government could only do a few very limited things. (Article 1, section 8)

However the faction who wanted a bill or rights won out and the first and most important right they drafted reads "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."

Now freedom of speech is something we all value, as long as we're the one speaking. But whenever somebody says something we don't like or makes a **** movie or shows a [EDITED] or HEAVEN FORBID! shows a [EDITED] on TV during the Superbowl, we get all up in arms and cry for the government to DO SOMETHING!

Well, folks, there is nothing in the constitution, specifically Article 1, section 8, which gives the federal government the power to even create the FCC or regulate the broadcast medium at all. The first amendment outright prohibits the federal government to "abridging the freedom of speech". This means the government cannot limit ANY speech however unpopular or detestible. After all it is the unpopular which MOST deserves protecting. Nobody wants to prohibit popular speech.

The second amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Is necessary in case the government, as governments are likely to do, becomes to big and oppressive and disregards the rights of it's citizens. It is placed second for this reason.

The usual progression of things thus goes, Soap Box - Ballot Box - Cartridge Box.

This means that when government starts infringing on our rights we first complain about it, then we start voting them out of office (but usually we simply replace one set of rascals with another) then we must resort to armed rebellion. Thus it has always been throughout recorded history.

Incidently, those who were afraid the Bill of Rights would put a limit on things included the 9th, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is simply reinforcing the common knowledge that our rights are not a creation of government (As stated in the Declaration of independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") but our rights come from God. The GOVERNMENT is supposed to PROTECT our rights, not take them away in little increments and drips such as with the FCC regulations and the completely misnamed PATRIOT ACT. Some people think that seeing/showing ******* makes them happy.

Those people who wish to ban FLAG BURNING are the most ignorant of the history of why this country was formed in the first place. Burning a flag is one of the most POLITICAL of statements saying "I disapprove of my (or your) government." This is EXACTLY what the first amendment was written to guarantee! The right to disapprove of ones government and to do it in a public and attention getting way.

When we allow agencies such as the FCC to determine what's indecent or what's fit for us to see on our TV, what's to stop them from determining that anything displeasing to "King" George ought to be prohibited as well.

Edwin

 

amen to that!

good post edwin.

britt

 

Whether one is a Christian or not, starting down the path of having the government tell us what we can watch is a slippery slope. The next logical step is having the government tell us what we can read, etc. The concept of free moral agency enters into this - I may choose not to watch the dirty movies and may even block those channels and/or ratings out on my satellite receiver, but that's my choice. Am I willing to give up constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights so that the government can impose my particular moral code on others? No, I don't think so.

The issue isn't pornography - it's government regulation of the rights of citizens.

Rusty