TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: You are missing the point completely. If they loosen the rules, it could be any show or commercial. What about watching a Disney movie and one of those provocative dial soap commercials comes on with totally nude actors? What if a condom commercial decides to show more? If they change the rules, all shows could become "the type of show that shows full frontal nudity". It's not appropriate.

Yeah, I think the world would be worse for it if my and others' daughters and sons saw these things.

I will say this, that for all the nudity seen on French TV, and it is by no means continuous or constant, there isn't male frontal nudity that I have ever seen anyway. Almost nobody cares about that.

Jallen,
I lived in Italy and Germany for most of my adult life and yeah...nudity on TV was really no big deal.

I'm not so much against the restrictions being lifted on TV as responsible parents can utilize TV ratings to appropriately screen what is on. Thus, no need for further government control over our lives. Radio on the other hand has no way to easily screen what one may hear aside from trusting the integrity of the show, so I can see how it would be inappropriate to open it up to more objectionable material. Networks also have sponsors to appease and want to hold up a certain image, so it's not like anything and everything will be ok. As mentioned above, if we were at risk of that all cable stations would be filled with it already. Ham radio/TV I really know nothing about, but for open communications to be free for all is a harder decision IMO. Either way, I don't think it is something to take lightly or without real thought, as any government imposition on our life should be.

SF18C wrote:

mojo84 wrote:You are missing the point completely. If they loosen the rules, it could be any show or commercial. What about watching a Disney movie and one of those provocative dial soap commercials comes on with totally nude actors? What if a condom commercial decides to show more? If they change the rules, all shows could become "the type of show that shows full frontal nudity". It's not appropriate.

Maybe the condom commercial includes graphic instructions.

SF18C wrote:So why isn't that happening now on USA, A&E, AMC, Discovery, the Food Channel, Syfy, TLC, etc, etc, etc

See my comment above:

jimlongley wrote:I do get a kick out of people equating cable with broadcast.

Some of those are doing that sort of thing now, but despite their forbearance, the FCC only gets to rule over the BROADCAST spectrum.

Here's a thought. Suppose you take away ALL of the FCC rules, which seems to be what you're saying, and your neighbor, a long time but covert, member of NAMBLA decides to start broadcasting 24 hour videos from his home. Up goes the tower, on goes the transmitter, and right over the top of channel 11, you get videos that YOU don't want to see, much less your kids. Who do you complain to then? Are you not overruling his first amendment rights? What if ALL the videos show nothing but adults? What if, instead, he is just an anime freak and shows that grotesque stuff?

mojo84 wrote:

SF18C wrote:Mr. Cotton, I don't think anyone feels more smut should be on the airways just that we don't need to govt to mandate that to us.

If our society is going to fail, I am sure its not because of NBC.

So, I'm sitting with my 11 year old daughter watching tv in the afternoon or evening and some guy walks out of the shower full frontal nudity. Would the world be a better place?

I don't think so.

I agree, and the audience will vote through the marketplace if they too agree.

The tenants of Capitalism are still valid.

I go with less regulation.

steveincowtown wrote:The Internet, ham radio, local tv, FM, AM,and XM all have an on and off switch. If you don't like what you are seeing...turn it off or change the channel. No one is forcing you to watch or listen.

So your version of "freedom" is you get to listen to and watch anything you want, but I have to turn off my "ham radio, local TV, FM, and AM" equipment to keep my grandchildren from hearing or seeing what you want. That's not freedom, that's greed, a complete disregard for the rights of others. If the decency rule is changed, then one is likely to hear profanity or see nudity at any time, such as commercials someone else mentioned. It's not just a matter of not switching to the Playboy channel.

I hardly feel that forcing people to deprive themselves of access to the sharded airwaves to avoid profanity and nudity is promoting freedom and a constitutional government. Take the time to read the body of constitutional caselaw and you will see that the constitution does not authorize, much less protect, and "anything goes" approach to any protected right.

Chas.

This is an unending argument. What you consider decency is not necessarily what I consider decency even though at age 70 I grew up with Ozzie and Harriet, Our Miss Brooks and all of the other true family oriented series. I wish life was still like that even though we know that was artifical.If we have to err on the side of more government control or less government control I move for less. If the government sets the standard then only what is "safe" for a 13 year old to see will be where the bar is set. If they show what an adult might want to see Charles will have to shut it off to keep his youngsters from watching but at least if I want to see it I could. You know, they have those rating things at the beginning of the show, most tv's will not display shows if you set them up to not show adult content, etc. I just can't believe that on a site such as this we want more government control of anything. I am capable of switching channels, setting up the rating profile of my tv and whatever else is necessary to keep objectionable material away from my 7 year old grandson. I don't need a kinder gentler government person doing that for me.

rotor wrote:This is an unending argument. What you consider decency is not necessarily what I consider decency even though at age 70 I grew up with Ozzie and Harriet, Our Miss Brooks and all of the other true family oriented series. I wish life was still like that even though we know that was artifical.If we have to err on the side of more government control or less government control I move for less. If the government sets the standard then only what is "safe" for a 13 year old to see will be where the bar is set. If they show what an adult might want to see Charles will have to shut it off to keep his youngsters from watching but at least if I want to see it I could. You know, they have those rating things at the beginning of the show, most tv's will not display shows if you set them up to not show adult content, etc. I just can't believe that on a site such as this we want more government control of anything. I am capable of switching channels, setting up the rating profile of my tv and whatever else is necessary to keep objectionable material away from my 7 year old grandson. I don't need a kinder gentler government person doing that for me.

You're completely missing the point. Charles would have to sell his TV because it would become unusable. Just because a show is "G" rated doesn't mean the commercials would be. And how's he supposed to know that? Do you seriously think a "G" rated show is going to warn about the commercials that they don't choose, have no control over but fund their show?

You have hundreds and hundreds of cable shows and the internet to watch anything you want. You can download pornographic movies if you want and watch them at your leisure. You can listen to rap music that is laced with profanity. But, in the name of less government control, you're willing to shove smut, porn and profanity down the throats of anyone who wants to do something as simple as watch a football game on broadcast tv without being offended. As Charles points out, that's not freedom. It's greed. The broadcast airwaves belong to all of us. As such they should be viewable and listenable by all of us, not just the adults who like to see the envelope pushed. If the FCC rules are changed, you will deny television viewing entirely to millions of people who don't have access to anything but broadcast tv and still have standards of decency because they could never be certain that they wouldn't be offended while watching a show. Sounds a lot like the liberals' approach to free speech. Anything goes. If you don't like it, crawl into your backward hole and shut up.

Should we allow naked people to walk down the street of our towns? If not, why not? Isn't that "speech"? (Some have argued it is and should be allowed.) When it comes to the public square there must be decency rules or you will exclude a large percentage of the population. There's still plenty of us left who take great offense to the filth that passes for entertainment, even on public TV. I can't tell you how many movies I have stopped watching because of the foul language, which is inappropriate, done gratuitously and doesn't contribute to the story. You should be able to watch them if you want. That's your business. But I should not be forced to turn off my television because I can no longer find anything decent to watch.

This is as I said an unending argument. The blocker built into tvs would block commercials that would be considered too explicit as well. This boils down to the old argument that because I can watch it on cable why do I have to watch it on regular tv. Why do I have to have a rifle that holds 30 rounds, why can't I just hunt with three rounds, etc. etc. etc. My answer is simple- because I want to. I respect your opinion to not agree with me. Again I find it almost like Alice in Wonderland that we are asking the government to censor something for us. Fortunately most people on this site agree on the big issues and we should not consider this as a personal argument but more an academic debate among intelligent people.

rotor wrote:This is as I said an unending argument. The blocker built into tvs would block commercials that would be considered too explicit as well. This boils down to the old argument that because I can watch it on cable why do I have to watch it on regular tv. Why do I have to have a rifle that holds 30 rounds, why can't I just hunt with three rounds, etc. etc. etc. My answer is simple- because I want to. I respect your opinion to not agree with me. Again I find it almost like Alice in Wonderland that we are asking the government to censor something for us. Fortunately most people on this site agree on the big issues and we should not consider this as a personal argument but more an academic debate among intelligent people.

What blocker is that? Two out of three TVs in my house don't have one, and there is no requirement for one, or are you going to make a rule so that ALL TVs are required to have blockers so that people can broadcast whatever trash they want to? And who would enforce THAT rule, or the rules concerning the codes broadcast by every show and commercial? Blockers are NOT the answer, just as magazine bans won't work either.

Yes, the argument is unending, because you make it so, throwing out straw man arguments like comparisons between magazine capacities and such, while not even acknowledging the very real differences between broadcast over the airwaves and subscriber services like cable and satellite, or do you think we should be like Britain was where everyone had to have a license to have a receiver and the government owned all the broadcast stations?

We are not "asking" the government to censor for us, we ceded that right in 1912, 1934 and so on, the only way to stop them is to disband the FCC, and good luck with that. We, commonly, own the airwaves, and various rules have been agreed upon for the use of same, and the FCC is the administrative and enforcement arm of the government established to do that for us, and again, if you want porn to be broadcast, go ahead and submit your comments to the FCC.

jimlongley, watch whatever you want. Perhaps this is not a civil debate anymore. Certainly not worth argueing about.

baldeagle wrote:You're completely missing the point. Charles would have to sell his TV because it would become unusable. Just because a show is "G" rated doesn't mean the commercials would be. And how's he supposed to know that? Do you seriously think a "G" rated show is going to warn about the commercials that they don't choose, have no control over but fund their show?

While I have no issue with your larger argument about decency in the public domain, I think the portion about ads and shows is marginally flawed. Television as a whole can be likened to a consumable good and can be turned off, unlike someone parading around naked in public. (And yes, this perhaps means limits on people displaying tv programming in public.) The networks would certainly have control over both the shows they pick up and the advertisements they allow. It's the same old free market argument: If enough people are outraged about indecent ads on family programming and stop watching, the network will need to bend to maintain profitability for those shows. If not, the is a niche awaiting another to come and fill. Just playing devil's advocate from a libertarian perspective.

ETA: I think the larger airwaves the are part of the public space, but not the commercially licensed sectra owned/leased by television networks. That would began the basis of a retort to my response.

I think this is one of the disadvantages of a multicultural society. Nations used to be more homogeneous, and tended to share the same values, religion, manners, even appearance to a certain extent. In such a society, what is acceptable, tolerable is much more tightly defined, I would think, and behaviors that don't comply are dealt with somehow to bring the perpetrator into line.

Look at the cultures and countries of Europe. The French are different from the Spanish and the Germans and the Italians, Poles, etc. They are separate countries, maybe for a good reason. If you mixed them all together, I think there would be a lot more unhappiness. Some of the traits of one culture rub those of another culture the wrong way, and that causes hard feelings and worse, sometimes.

A great deal of the unhappiness and misery here is due to the imperfect assimilation of different groups into the "melting pot" that America is supposed to be. We seem to have given up on the melting pot idea, and anyone who can get here just keeps on like they were, different manners, different expectations, different values, and conflict is inevitable.

We emphasize religious freedom, tolerance etc. The different values of morality, decency clash as we have been discussing. Of course, everyone feels their way is the only right way, and those who differ are deviants.

I wonder if it is such a good idea. Look at what happens when you try to bring outsiders to Texas. It takes awhile to rid them of their foreign mannerisms attitudes, weirdness, with incomplete success. Send 'em back to Oklahoma, maybe!

J Allen, I would suggest that this was one of the balances the framers sought when promoting limited national regulation through federalism. When decisions such as this are more regional, they can better represent the local populous -- which might be less diverse than a national snapshot. Of course, we've long since left that balance and it's arguable that these principles could ever be applied to radio/television broadcasts which naturally transcend state boundaries.

I have to be on the side of less regulation here. Just as I'm free to NOT go to a strip club, I'm free to NOT turn on my TV if there's objectionable content on it. And I believe that the people running the stations should be free to put on whatever they want, at the risk of losing viewers or subscribers.