Printable View
A compeling argument.
"Its justification for existence was weak 70 years ago, but advances in technology since then have eliminated whatever arguments remained. Central planning didn't work for the Soviet Union, and it's not working for us. The FCC is now an agency that does more harm than good."
It'd be more compelling if he provided the detailed explanation behind each of the FCC's decisions.
Simply providing the decision and assuming a facial expression of horror isn't enough.
Failing to provide those details serves to lead the reader to the writer's desired conclusion, but it doesn't necessarily lead us any closer to the truth.
This is a typical Michael Moore tactic, although here I believe it's a result of lazy writing rather than overarching liberal evil.
I would rather have censorship than listen to all that trash that Stern and his croonies broadcast.
the only censorship should be a finger changing the radio/tv station.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Choozoo
Remember why the latest round of whining started. We were watching a sports event when we had a nipple shoved in our kids faces.
Should our censor fingers known about that?
i could've changed the channel with her nipple
I for one didn't think the Janet Jackson thing was a big deal.
I would rather see the American consumer censure or punish a TV station or radio station by boycotting them and their advertisers products than some Orwellian agency declaring what is decent or indecent.
That is a slippery slope I don't think we care to tread.
mmmm Nipple...
the Nipplegate incident didn't bother me at all... it was just a show of how much MTV has ruined our society.. so when they did that on National TV (not the safety of their cable).. they got called out. Or something like that.. I don't think my brain has quite turned on yet..
It didn't bother me, but I can understand the exasperation. Even if you want to "protect the younguns" and exercise good parental judgement and control, they slip the nip in anyway.
It's becoming harder and harder to moderate what your kids see.
As far as that goes I have been watching a movie with my kids the night before on HBO to turn the TV on in the morning to more than a nipple from 1000 yards being shown. You quickly change the channel or cover their eyes or take whatever you deem to be the appropriate action. This year its a nipple next year football could be too violent and I know you would just love it if they censored NFL games from being shown :)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
I think the point is you should have the freedom of choice not an organization making those decisions for you based on ideals that are outdated to some extent. People don't have to watch tv at all that is their choice, with that choice they have to accept the potential to see something that offends them or someone else to soe degree, personally I hate all the tampon commercials that are on lately.
Well start a boycott and stop buying them! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Gunny Highway
Again, I'm all about freedom of choice, but what if they slip a nipple unannounced in an episode of "Dora the Explorer" or something that should be completely innocuous. You've exercised your freedom of choice, but they've gone ahead and overruled you.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Gunny Highway
THAT is what I'm complaining about. This is more of a philosophical stance than anything, as I'm pro-nipples-out at all times anyway.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. You would not expect that on a kids show. But in a half-time show where even BEFORE the wardrobe malfunction you had half-naked chicks and shirtless men writhing about exotically youmight expect something like this to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
Think about this. Even if there were no FCC levying there fines and no Congressional committees lynching network executives it's my belief that the American public was outraged enough that the NFL and the network would never think of airing a half-time show like that again.
Next year I expect something a bit more wholesome and family friendly.
Maybe Madonna.
There's a difference between girls showing their arms and abs and one showing her nipple. It's reasonable to expect that you won't be subjected to nudity during that broadcast.
The Dora example was purposely extreme, but once you've opened the door you get it all. Watch 5 minutes of European or South American television and you'll see what I mean.
I can't help it, working with you guys, and your always acting like your on the rag I figured that I better keep a good supply handy just in case you run out:)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bribo
I agree Squid, the "surprises suck". If I chooz to listen to Howard Stern, I know what I'm getting into. I thought I knew what I was getting into with a halftime show...
I can understand the reprimand, and a fine, but not the entire decency movement.
I agree. It was unfortunate that it happened, but it should not have caused this mass "censorship" or decency crusade because of this incident. At least from my understanding, that episode was not planned - at least certainly not by the network or the NFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Choozoo
Not to mention, I happen to like Michael Powell.