Protecting Children from Free Speec.. Indecent Programming Act

[m_huber]

I get alerts from the American Family Association, and they told me to call my senator to support this bill. I personally see it as an offense to Free Speech/Press.

S. 1780: Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act

A bill to require the FCC, in enforcing its regulations concerning the broadcast of indecent programming, to maintain a policy that a single word or image may be considered indecent.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1780

Isn't it the parent's job to protect their children from the vile evils of television? I know I wasn't allowed to watch certain shows when I was young and impressionable. And my parents never had to lobby congress to get that done.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What else would yopu expect from Sen. John "Spying is Great" Rockefeller, sponsor of the bill?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Don't be silly! It's unreasonable to expect parents to parent their own children. The public should be forced to do so by the government. At the public's expense, of course.

 

[Checkmite]

Isn't it the parent's job to protect their children from the vile evils of television? I know I wasn't allowed to watch certain shows when I was young and impressionable. And my parents never had to lobby congress to get that done.

The problem (as they see it) is that it's becoming more difficult to do that, because the standards of what is allowable over the public airwaves has actually become more liberal over the past little while. To wit: words like "ass" and "bitch", for instance, and frank discussions of sexual matters, are making it into primetime broadcast TV with something approaching regularity, on many popular shows. Sure, such shows often have a "viewer discretion advised" disclaimer at the beginning, but the number of such shows is getting bigger and bigger. Parents who choose (as it their right) to not allow young children to view such things are finding their viewing options surprisingly and increasingly limited, and that is the catalyst behind bills such as these.

 

[tsg]

The problem (as they see it) is that it's becoming more difficult to do that, because the standards of what is allowable over the public airwaves has actually become more liberal over the past little while. To wit: words like "ass" and "bitch", for instance, and frank discussions of sexual matters, are making it into primetime broadcast TV with something approaching regularity, on many popular shows. Sure, such shows often have a "viewer discretion advised" disclaimer at the beginning, but the number of such shows is getting bigger and bigger. Parents who choose (as it their right) to not allow young children to view such things are finding their viewing options surprisingly and increasingly limited, and that is the catalyst behind bills such as these.

I call BS. I have two kids (one seven, one three) and have no trouble finding age appropriate television programs for either of them. Noggin et al run children's programming all day.

"Bitch" and "ass" are a) not new to television; Saturday Night Live was using them back in the early eighties ("Jane you ignorant slut" predates that) and b) if more prevalent in prime time, are the result of a less prudish society. As far as "frank sexual matters" are concerned, well, I never understood why that subject should be taboo at all. My seven-year-old asked me the sex question just the other day. I had to tell him "when you're older", not because I didn't want to have to explain it to him or because I didn't think it appropriate to discuss with a seven-year-old, but because I didn't want to have to deal with the other parents when he explained it to his friends at school. I'm not so sure I made the right decision.

The world is changing folks. Change with it or get left behind. But either way, I'm not going to limit my viewing choices because you aren't comfortable with some subjects. You don't have to watch and neither do your kids.

 

[Fnord]

It depends on one's definition of "Indecent." To me, it has more to do with graphic violence and intimidation than with nudity or "sexual situations." But that's just me.

Odd, isn't it, how a bill is introduced to suppress "indecent" programming, yet no similar bill is introduced to make "decent" programming mandatory and/or in greater quantities.

Why don't they just pass a law that requires all programming to be more like "Veggie Tales," "Davy & Goliath," and "Care Bears?"

 

[m_huber]

I personally find it perplexing that shows like "Jail Break" and CSI go on without any religious groups raising a concern over them, even though they display murder and illegal activity on a nightly basis, but when someone says the "F" word, it all goes to pot. It's just another example of how Christians value words over actions.

And as far as nudity, perhaps we should also restrict children from seeing Christian artwork.

 

[RandomX]

Isn't this why they insisted on the V-chip in all T.V.s a decade or so ago? It was supposed to put control into the hands of the parents.... Well, they got it, so why don't they learn how to use it and leave the rest of us alone?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I agree, I think they should just make filters a mandatory option for parents.

I think any definitions of obscenity would be unworkable in a multicultural society.

Also, the idea of "bad" words is just dumb. But blocking "adult" content from children I could understand.

 

[fuelair]

The problem (as they see it) is that it's becoming more difficult to do that, because the standards of what is allowable over the public airwaves has actually become more liberal over the past little while. To wit: words like "ass" and "bitch", for instance, and frank discussions of sexual matters, are making it into primetime broadcast TV with something approaching regularity, on many popular shows. Sure, such shows often have a "viewer discretion advised" disclaimer at the beginning, but the number of such shows is getting bigger and bigger. Parents who choose (as it their right) to not allow young children to view such things are finding their viewing options surprisingly and increasingly limited, and that is the catalyst behind bills such as these.

The problem is you are then trying to control my viewing - I do not argue your right (though I know what the effects of your using it will be) to control your children's viewing but it stops when it affects mine.

 

[TX50]

I found it bizarre when watching the film "Lethal Weapon" on TV in California
some time ago. The film includes many scenes of graphic violence and
torture, yet whenever the actors uttered an expletive the word "airhead"
was (clumsily) overdubbed in a totally different voice from any of the actors.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't this why they insisted on the V-chip in all T.V.s a decade or so ago? It was supposed to put control into the hands of the parents.... Well, they got it, so why don't they learn how to use it and leave the rest of us alone?

Because you might not be restricting your viewing to their standards. Why else is the FCC trying to regulate cable? To say nothing about planning to get porn reclassified as obsenity again.

 

[tsg]

It depends on one's definition of "Indecent." To me, it has more to do with graphic violence and intimidation than with nudity or "sexual situations." But that's just me.

The Christian Bible is all about graphic violence and intimidation.

 

[Ladewig]

The Christian Bible is all about graphic violence and intimidation.

Exactly. Fratricide, infantcide, ethnic cleansing, torture, murder. If people knew what was in the Bible, then it would be a crime to give a Bible to a young child.

 

[Bikewer]

My wife had an experience years ago when she attempted to take our then-young son to the movies; she wanted to see "Love Story". They wouldn't let the kid in...

However, the next week, her aunt took the kid to see "Mark Of The Devil", a torture-porn item set during the Spanish Inquisition. No problems.....

 

[Fnord]

The Christian Bible is all about graphic violence and intimidation.

But the Christian Bible is not covered under the aegis of the FCC.

 

[Fnord]

My wife had an experience years ago when she attempted to take our then-young son to the movies; she wanted to see "Love Story". They wouldn't let the kid in...

However, the next week, her aunt took the kid to see "Mark Of The Devil", a torture-porn item set during the Spanish Inquisition. No problems.....

... supports my assertion.

I'd rather that my kids get a peek at some healthy relationship that features a little nudity and affection than to have them watch body parts explode all over the screen.

 

[Checkmite]

The problem is you are then trying to control my viewing - I do not argue your right (though I know what the effects of your using it will be) to control your children's viewing but it stops when it affects mine.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

 

[Beerina]

I found it bizarre when watching the film "Lethal Weapon" on TV in California
some time ago. The film includes many scenes of graphic violence and
torture, yet whenever the actors uttered an expletive the word "airhead"
was (clumsily) overdubbed in a totally different voice from any of the actors.

Maybe America gives off idiot vibes. BBC-America broadcast an episode of the Dr. Who spinoff "Torchwood" last week, where the lead character and his Asian (Oriental, I believe in UK-speak, i.e. not Indian) sidekick go back to WWII London or some suburb during a blitz. Someone sees the girl and says something like, "What's with the Jap?"

They blanked out "Jap", which makes no sense since the point of that part was to show the discrepancy between then, when this actually happened, and now. The sensor needs a public slap in the face for terminal cluelessness.

 

[DouglasL]

My parents had a effective means of controlling what I watched on TV as a child, they changed the channel. Of course, the family only had one TV in the house, and that TV only picked up five channels so the problem of what I watched was a little easier then, than the same problem today.