The FCC

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by NateDogg2, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. jeremiah.l.burns

    jeremiah.l.burns Callo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -0
    While I agree that free-speech is a corner stone of American politics and way of life, it must be understood that cornerstones are nothing without an organized structure.

    Free speech means you can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a penalty for it. You may have to pay a fine.

    Censoring shows such as Howard Stern is rediculous, because he's been around so long, stopping it now would be a bit hypocrytical. But that doesn't mean we can't make an effort...perhaps play him in a later time slot? We have prime time television, why not prime time radio?

    Finally, parents need to take some damned responsiblity, and the government needs to let them do just that. We're far to fast in this country these days to take responsibility out of the hands of parents, and governmentally raise their children through new rules guidelines and restrictions. Case in point: "Let's get violence out of video games." I'm not trying to start a different thread, that's just an example. What I'm saying is, don't shoot the person selling a product (Howard Stern, for example, is selling his personality) that they are legally allowed to sell. Instead, give the parents responsible for the child a poke to the ribs...make them more aware and decisive. As adults we can more easily choose what we subject ourselves to...it's our job to protect our own children as we see fit.
     
  2. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    While I am the first to agree that parents have to take a more active interest in what their children do, and I believe I do with my own children, you have to concede that you cannot conceivably monitor your children 24/7.

    Case in point:

    When I was in high school in the early '80s, our school bus driver used to play the local rock radio station during the 40 minute bus route between home and school.

    Now, if that was today, that trip into school would have been the HS show. Do you really think that HS's material is suitable for a 13 or 14 year old? I don't. Now is it the bus driver's responsibility to choose an appropriate channel? You would hope so, but if it came down to brass tacks I'm sure that he'd unlikely get more than a slap on the wrist, if anything at all, for playing the show.

    I don't want the govenment to raise my children, however, I do want the government to help make for a safe and "decent" environment for me to raise my children in. Not that HS's show is the downfall of mankind, but it sure takes away more from society than it gives to it. IMO.

    Like I said, I don't know the specifics of why he is being targeted this time, it may very well be unfair; I can only speak from what I've seen of his track record.
     
  3. jeremiah.l.burns

    jeremiah.l.burns Callo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -0
    You make excellent points, and I 100% agree.

    Is it the bus driver's responsibility? Yes. He/she is being paid for the care of those children.

    Should he play Howard Stern? No. But should HS be banned? No. This is why I sugest the prime time radio slot for such shows.

    And I agree...HS's show does little to add strenghth to the fabric of society.
     
  4. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    No Sky, Im objective, trying to find arguements why things shoodn't be broadcasted. Porn in broad daylight is the only thing I could come up with. You see, personally I have no problem whatsoever with porn at any time but it would be an educational flaw for kids under say 11.

    Furtermore, manual control on what Kids watch isn't wat I call practical. Think about it: always watching TV when your kids do, no TV's on bedrooms, including your own, hiding the remote. It is pretty complex. And then again, what is your kid doing at a friends home. It just isn't watertight. Alternatives? Tell your kids: "If there are naked people on, making funny moves, zap away"? You know it doesn't work that way.
     
  5. NateDogg2

    NateDogg2 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA. USA
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Just to clarify what is happening with the show for Sky. The charge of indecency has been leveled against the show for a comment by a caller two years ago. The show is being fined about a half million dollars. There is no appealing the charges either. The show either has to pay up, or cancel HS. I believe his is in a way being forced off of the air. I feel this will be the beginning of a large censorship campaign that will ruin a lot of entertainment.

    HS is now saying that he will go to satellite radio and help destroy the industry that brought him up. He wants to sell tons of the satellite radio units and make a ton more people switch over to it. A great point if he could pull it off.
     
  6. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Satellites, cable, and even televisions come with blocking mechanisms for certain channels or for shows with material that the owner lists as objectionable. sorta like the child filters on the internet, only way more effective. these are to help parents. but ultimately it is their responsibility. if your kid is permitted to watch stuff at other people's homes that you dont think they should, that is something you have to take up with those people or not let your kid go there. just because a kid might come across something on the internet that their parent doesn't think they should see, this does not mean that no one else should be able to view it. I understand it is difficult for parents to control what their kids are exposed to, but this is the job they signed up for when they chose to have kids. the government does somethings to help, which is great. Its just that its complex trying to balance that aid with other citizens rights.
     
  7. jeremiah.l.burns

    jeremiah.l.burns Callo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -0
    <at a loss for words>
    ...um...bravo? Yes! Bravo! Fantastic! Well said! Rock on!
    While it's alright for the government and the industry at large to lend parents a helping hand...taking the responsible approach by offering parents tools to aid them...it's ultimately the parents responsibility. Bingo. The head of the nail has officially been struck.
     
  8. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Sometimes I wonder how porno falls under free speech. I guess they are kind of talking under the moans and such.

    I just think some of these celebrities need to be regulated. Some just seem to be pushing the envelope just to get attention. For a long time (and probably still) Janet Jackson's boob has been the most Googled picture in history.

    There was a time when showing a husband and a wife in bed together was unacceptable, and showing real money on TV was too. For some reason. That was too harsh. But forget about children being "harmed" by seeing a boob or hearing an F-bomb, the fact remains that the FCC is only doing their job, it's the people on TV who broke the law.

    It's kinda like drugs. Many people think they should be legalized. But own or do them, you'll still get in trouble.
     
  9. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    We live in Utopia called TFF, we can discuss such things; the question is not whether it is or isn't legal, but whether it shood be. In the US, these things are illegal, but that doesn't prevent us from finding arguements with it or against it and discuss them.

    Oh and by the way, I owned drugs and did them... LEGALLY! nice topic for another discussion.
     
  10. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    My point it, legalize it, then do it, not the other way around.