|
Bush signs into law indecency bill (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
The whole lets get conservative movement means nothing. Once our generation starts taking over seats of influence you can bet you won't hear things like preserving the sanctity of marriage. In that Gen I, Y whatever you want to call it, has a much looser view on what is conservative.
|
Ha ha ha ha that is funny, I remember when I use to think like that...
then I started to live on my own, make my own money, had kid, got a divorce then turned 30 lol that makes me the Generation X and we will hold the POWER AND HOLD IT LONGER THAN ANY OTHER GENERATION!!!! (insert evil laugh here)
the older you get, the little more conservervtive you will get. Now mind you I am nothing like Bush and his right wing christian Fox News Puppets, but yeah, your post made me smile and remember the way I use to think,,,,, then I grew up.
Plus your Generation Y is used to a plush, give me want I want life, I forsee the Y generation a bunch of welfare mothers and fathers that cruise the internet, take the time to paint thier face like smilies and post on internet boards.. :haha: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
American society has been becoming increasingly liberal. Each passing generation is more liberal, more tolerant, and more accepting than the previous. I can even go so far as to say there has never been a generation that was more conservative than the previous. |
oh come on. who/where are the peaceful bong-smoking hippies of the 60s? theyre your corporate bosses, middle-managers & government employees. people get conservative as they get older. its just how it works. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
so concerned families have nothing to do with this? that's what they would like us to think, but really it's just old men that want the status quo? delusional argument that i'm actually suprised your trying to make. what status quo? according to you there is none. every year it gets worse. your right! |
They have a lot to do with it, but not as much as you may think. I agree with this law, the FCC should be able to impose fines on networks that break the rules. The fines should be large enough so that the networks actually would care about receiving them. However, there is no sentiment in America that extraordinary measures are needed to counter the level of indecency on the airwaves. If anything I'd say the majority of Americans are apathetic about it. Politicians like to highlight these issues to make it look like something is being done about them but in actuality very little will be.
So the fines are bigger, its not going to make much of a difference. An increasingly large number of Americans are getting their television through cable anyway. What middle class American family actually uses broadcast as their primary source of viewing? Not very many if any at all.
| quote: | | answer me this. what exactly are "generations" getting increasingly "tolerant and accepting" of? thats a rhetorical question btw because we all know the answer. however your argument seems to assume all American families fall into a catagory that has no limits of tolerance and acceptance. |
Of course they have limits but those limits have become much less than they used to be. Compare the limits of an average 1950s family to the limits of an average modern family and the differences would be obvious.
| quote: | no one is trying to bring back anything. my guess is you haven't read the law. the law makes certain content, that you concede is becoming more and more risque', punishable by higher fines.
substantially higher because paying the previous fines were basically an afterthought of multibillion dollar broadcasters. |
I'm aware of what the law is. I was referring to a general conservative movement that's gone public since the Bush administration.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh come on. who/where are the peaceful bong-smoking hippies of the 60s? theyre your corporate bosses, middle-managers & government employees. people get conservative as they get older. its just how it works. |
Yes that's true but it isn't true to assume they'd be more conservative than their predecessors. |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Haha, I bet he would be shocked to see what's on European TV, but he's never travelled in his life, so - ignorance is bliss :p :cool: :D |
:haha: :haha:
Yup, he has never traveled in his life. :stongue: |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
The whole lets get conservative movement means nothing. Once our generation starts taking over seats of influence you can bet you won't hear things like preserving the sanctity of marriage. In that Gen I, Y whatever you want to call it, has a much looser view on what is conservative.
This stuff is a futile attempt by some old farts that want to believe theres still a chance to turn the tides. |
I hope this is so, but unfortunately people do become much more conservative as they grow older. What became of the 60's generation?
edit: ffs i really should read the entire thread before posting because i'm always repeating other people :D |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you sure it doesn't have anything to do with millions of families that have children? |
You know what? the children. If seeing an exposed breast traumatises or warps them, then I'm not sure they ever really had much chance of making it in the real world in the first place. Besides, if parents are so concerned with what their children are watching, then why don't they actually try doing some parenting for a change instead of dictating to other adults what they can and cannot watch on TV? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
i'm always repeating other people :D |
yeah, much better people too :rolleyes: :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
You know what? the children. |
sounds like renegade really has started up that party we were joking about the other day ;) |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
sounds like renegade really has started up that party we were joking about the other day ;) |
Well it's not so much a political party as it is me just having sex with school-girls for fun... IS THAT SO WRONG???? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
They have a lot to do with it, but not as much as you may think. I agree with this law, the FCC should be able to impose fines on networks that break the rules. The fines should be large enough so that the networks actually would care about receiving them. |
well okay then. your ambiguity up until now was fairly alarming. | quote: | | However, there is no sentiment in America that extraordinary measures are needed to counter the level of indecency on the airwaves. If anything I'd say the majority of Americans are apathetic about it. Politicians like to highlight these issues to make it look like something is being done about them but in actuality very little will be. |
see, again, you are making some pretty bold assumptions of just what exactly the today's average American family does and does not tolerate. i politely suggest you refrain from that. thats exactly how the Democrats keep losing election after election
...and that is not to say that this is a partisaned issue. absolutely not. on the contrary. you brought up the notion that this is somehow pertinate only to today's discussion being that Bush and the conservatives cooked this up. read the Communications Decency Act of 1995. >>CDA<<
that was Clinton's baby. something he took much credit for but didn't actually introduce. why? cause he's slick as (but thats another story). his Justice department failed defending it from the Supreme Court.
| quote: | In Philadelphia on June 12, 1996 a panel of federal judges blocked part of the CDA, saying it would infringe upon the free speech rights of adults. The next month, another US federal court in New York struck down the portion of the CDA intended to protect children from indecent speech as too broad. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the Philadelphia court's decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, stating that the indecency provisions were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because they did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children, extended to non-commercial speech, and did not define "patently offensive," a term with no prior legal meaning. (The New York case, Reno v. Shea, was affirmed by the Supreme Court the next day, without a published opinion.)
In 2003, Congress amended the CDA to remove the indecency provisions struck down in Reno v. ACLU. A separate challenge to the provisions governing obscenity, known as Nitke v. Gonzales, was rejected by a federal court in New York in 2005. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed that decision in 2006.
Congress has made two narrower attempts to regulate children's exposure to Internet indecency since the Supreme Court overturned the CDA. Court injunction blocked enforcement of the first, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), almost immediately after its passage in 1998; the law was later overturned. While legal challenges also dogged COPA's successor, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000, the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional in 2004 |
| quote: | | So the fines are bigger, its not going to make much of a difference. An increasingly large number of Americans are getting their television through cable anyway. |
can't argue with that, but lets not count out the middle class American family's desire to raise their children the way they want them to be raised. because no matter how cynical you view this issue, whether you believe this is just a conservative movement brought on by the current administration or an inevitablity on the part of society, families and family values are what ultimatly determines the advancement or retreat of this country's ability to raise decent children. legistlation will always reflect that, not the other way around.
| quote: | | What middle class American family actually uses broadcast as their primary source of viewing? Not very many if any at all. |
Seinfeld, American Idol, The Olympics, Freinds, 24, Saturday mornings, Sunday nights, The Super Bowl, Everybody Loves Raymond, CSI, Monday Night Football, Desperate Housewives, One Tree Hill, Survivor, Lost...ect...ect...ect. you get the picture? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
You know what? the children. If seeing an exposed breast traumatises or warps them, then I'm not sure they ever really had much chance of making it in the real world in the first place. Besides, if parents are so concerned with what their children are watching, then why don't they actually try doing some parenting for a change instead of dictating to other adults what they can and cannot watch on TV? |
say you had a 6 yr. old daughter. (from that post it's a safe assumption you don't) you walked out of the kitchen to see her watching Michelle Phillips going down on Jason Van derBeek on an episode of "Dawson's Creek". do you let her finish watching the scene? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
say you had a 6 yr. old daughter. (from that post it's a safe assumption you don't) you walked out of the kitchen to see her watching Michelle Phillips going down on Jason Van derBeek on an episode of "Dawson's Creek". do you let her finish watching the scene? |
No, but that's exactly my point - it should be me taking responsibility for monitoring what my kids watch on TV, not the government. Besides, I'm not exactly sure how the example you provided would be particularly threating to the mental health of the child: if she doesn't understand the concept of oral sex then she won't understand what's going on and it won't affect her, but if she does understand oral sex, then what exactly am I protecting her from?
To be honest I think the "won't somebody please think of the children!" excuses used to censor television are really quite spurious. I don't think conservatives are so much scared of children being corrupted by "obscenity" as they are scared of having to actually face "obscenity" themselves. It's not children they want to prevent from being exposed to swearing and sex, it's everyone. If you think television is harmful, then don't buy one - just don't think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot watch. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
No, but that's exactly my point - it should be me taking responsibility for monitoring what my kids watch on TV, not the government. |
i f**kin totally agree, but that was just one instance. say every time she turns on the tele she sees something else you object to her watching...and not just by herself either. say both you, your boyfriend (i'm kidding) and her are watching TV and you constantly see stuff that you would rather her not see? your not a bad parent. on the contrary, you would rather want to deal with those objectionable issues on your own terms, not just because you want to relax with your family in front of the tube.
| quote: | | Besides, I'm not exactly sure how the example you provided would be particularly threating to the mental health of the child: if she doesn't understand the concept of oral sex then she won't understand what's going on and it won't affect her, but if she does understand oral sex, then what exactly am I protecting her from? |
you've been around kids right? they're quicker than you may credit them. it all has to do with what you can control as a parent but you can't control everything. i have one and question my ability to control anything. i'm lucky though.
| quote: | | To be honest I think the "won't somebody please think of the children!" excuses used to censor television are really quite spurious. I don't think conservatives are so much scared of children being corrupted by "obscenity" as they are scared of having to actually face "obscenity" themselves. It's not children they want to prevent from being exposed to swearing and sex, it's everyone. If you think television is harmful, then don't buy one just don't think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot watch. |
fine. say what you will about why you think obscenity is important or non-important the point is tv, any media for that matter, isn't going anywhere. if it's going somewhere then i can guaranty you that your children will be a constant repository for it's influence no matter how good a parent you think you may be. |
|
|
|
|
