Decency and "the children"

[Elio]

Commander Cool :

Well, deciding what a child will watch on TV, especially a younger child (under 10), should be the sole prerogative of the parents (or whoever is designated as the guardian).

I'm not advocating non-stop parental supervision, I realize that is both not plausible and not a desired practice. I am simply saying that there are alternatives to television, and part of being a good parent is taking interest in what your child is watching on the boob tube, rather than just letting the state worry about that. The less control we relinquish to the state to decide what is 'decent', the better. This is just a personal opinion.

We seem to agree...

I don't see why the government should tell you what to do if it's not the will of the majority of people. And it's your responsability to supervise what your children are watching on televison as well as encouraging them to have other activities...

I simply don't see why all this is incompatible with the fact that not everything should be broadcast any time of the day.

My opinion as well...

Elio.

 

[Tmy]

Foget the Sterns for a moment.

Heres whats happening: A govt AGENCY filled with unelected individuals is targeting specific people who they levy fines on for what they deem to be wrong doings, things that happend literally years ago. Mind you there are no clear rules by this Agency on what is right and wrong. And there are equal examples of similar acts by others that go unpunished.

Sounds uamerican to me.

 

[toddjh]

I thought it was the thread's subject...

It was...that's why I want to keep the thread on track. Talking about public porn displays (as much as I personally would enjoy them ) shifts the focus away from children and into the realm of public vs. private. I was only ever talking about private viewing, so the giant porn screen is a different subject entirely.

As long as people can actually choose and control what their children are watching at home, no problem.

If you can't/won't control your kids in private, how is that my responsibility? This is always the part of the argument where I get lost.

Maybe it's different on the other side of the fence. For myself, I don't want kids. I've taken steps (including one very painful one ) to make sure I never have any. So when I hear people say that it's my responsibility to make sure their kids don't see things that they don't like...well, the mind boggles. It makes me wonder why they think I'm more qualified or willing to do the job of raising their child than they are.

I would say you have the right to say what you want, but not to anyone, anytime nor anywhere.

That's fine. The part where I get concerned about censorship is when you propose some government body to tell me what is and isn't "proper" for me to hear. If it were voluntary (like it largely has been in the U.S. up until now), then I don't have a problem with it. Voluntary restrictions are subject to market forces and will adapt to fit societ; government fiat will not.

Jeremy

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Elio,

I read my posts again and found no trace of references to nudity and bad language....
I agree with you on both those issues.

Note that those were just two examples of things which people try (and succeed) to get
censored. My point was that unless the material can be demonstrated to actually be harmful, and not just objectionable to some people, that there is no justification for censoring it. You did not specify what you, specifically, were advocating censorship for on the grounds of it being unsafe for children to watch.

"Who makes the judgment ?" Well there are a lot of laws that are left to discretion. Libelling, for instance. That doesn't mean they must not be legiferate...

That is quite a bit different. Libel is well-defined. The discretion comes into the enforcing of it. What I am talking about is the judgement that something is unsuitable for children to see. Who decides? Do we make it popular vote, in which case any views found objectionable by the majority get censored?

Why do you raise the "Christian group" argument ?

It is primarily Christian groups advocating censorship. At least it is in the US and Europe.

Are you trying to discredit me by association ?

I am not trying to discredit you at all. As I said, I agree that censorship of demonstrably harmful material is justified. I just think that most of the people screaming about how TV and radio should be "safe" for their kids aren't really talking about safety from harm, but rather safety from what they find to be objectionable.

And restricting televisions and radios to broadcast specific material during specific hours is not censorship. They are allowed to broadcast what they want during other hours.

Of course it is censorship. It is just a very limited form of censorship.

If and when somebody can produce evidence that a particular kind of content poses a substantial risk to our children, then I would be perfectly happy to entertain the idea that some sort of (limited) censorship is justified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I won't wait for evidence that seeing people beeing disemboweled or burnt alive poses a substantial risk to our children to restrein those things for being broadcast anywhere and anytime.

Well, I disagree. I see no reason why the government should legally forbid it, unless it can be objectively shown to pose an actual risk. Note that in cases of extreme graphic violence like you describe, I think that there is enough psychological evidence to justify such action. You don't have to wait for such evidence. It is already there.

Who's talking about puritanical and irrational religious based stigmas ?

I am. The topic of this thread was the FCC, and the judgement they have been making. If you were not talking about this, then that part of my post does not apply to you. Again, I am not claiming that you are advocating censorship on religious grounds. I am pointing out that the people actually implementing the censorship, are.

I say if you don't want your kids to see it on TV, that is your problem, not mine, ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highly debatable... If we have all decided to live in community... ( No, I'm not a communist !

We live in communities which claim to value freedom of expression, and freedom from being forced to live according to other people's religious views.

and certainly not the government's..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course not.

But if you live in a democracry. Then the government simply represents you ...

Take care.

Fortunately, I do not live in a democracy. I live in a constitutional republic. In a democracy, the majority tells everybody else how to live. No thanks.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Elio]

Stimpson,

Well, it seems we agree about a lot of things.

My remarks concerning that law were only about material that can be demonstrated to be actually harmful.
I couldn't care less about "objectionable" things based on irrational principles.

That is quite a bit different. Libel is well-defined. The discretion comes into the enforcing of it. What I am talking about is the judgement that something is unsuitable for children to see. Who decides? Do we make it popular vote, in which case any views found objectionable by the majority get censored?

Yes indeed ! Better that than the representatives or the legislators telling you what "objectionable" is.

Of course it is censorship. It is just a very limited form of censorship.

If you want. But censorship, in my view, concerns only adults and in this case I'm totally against it.

Well, I disagree. I see no reason why the government should legally forbid it, unless it can be objectively shown to pose an actual risk. Note that in cases of extreme graphic violence like you describe, I think that there is enough psychological evidence to justify such action. You don't have to wait for such evidence. It is already there.

Agree. 100 %. That's what I was ironicly trying to say.

We live in communities which claim to value freedom of expression, and freedom from being forced to live according to other people's religious views.

I totally agree again. And only you know why you keep on raising the religious issue...

What I meant was that living in communities is also caring about others rather than simply saying : "What can happen to other people's children is not my problem". I meant some kind of utilitarism... maybe...

Fortunately, I do not live in a democracy. I live in a constitutional republic. In a democracy, the majority tells everybody else how to live. No thanks.

Wether you live in a constitutional republic, federal republic, constitutional monarchy, federal parliamentary democracy, laws are just that : telling everybody else how to live.

Now who ultimatly aprouves the laws ? Decide whether it's going to be unicameralism or bicameralism ? Centralized and unitary government ? Decentralized and federal government ? The majority telling everybody else how to live or not ?

Well, the majority decides. Better that than anything else.

Take care.

Elio.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Elio,

That is quite a bit different. Libel is well-defined. The discretion comes into the enforcing of it. What I am talking about is the judgement that something is unsuitable for children to see. Who decides? Do we make it popular vote, in which case any views found objectionable by the majority get censored?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes indeed ! Better that than the representatives or the legislators telling you what "objectionable" is.

How is that better? Better is to have a constitution which prevents the legislators from passing laws which infringe on the rights of minorities, only to satisfy the whim of the majority. For example, in the US, the first amendment prevents the government for censoring material simply on the grounds that some group finds it offensive. It doesn't make any difference whether the majority wants it censored or not. At least, not in principle. Unfortunately, the US Congress does not seem to understand the Constitution very well, and keeps passing unconstitutional laws that the Supreme Court then has to throw out.

Of course it is censorship. It is just a very limited form of censorship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want. But censorship, in my view, concerns only adults and in this case I'm totally against it.

Short of locking children up in sensory deprivation chambers, I don't see how this is tenable. You can pass all the laws forbidding certain material from being available to children all you want, but unless you actually prevent that material from being available to anybody, they are still going to be able to get ahold of it.

Wether you live in a constitutional republic, federal republic, constitutional monarchy, federal parliamentary democracy, laws are just that : telling everybody else how to live.

Now who ultimatly aprouves the laws ? Decide whether it's going to be unicameralism or bicameralism ? Centralized and unitary government ? Decentralized and federal government ? The majority telling everybody else how to live or not ?

Well, the majority decides. Better that than anything else.

The majority does not decide. Not in a constitutional republic. The legislature decides, based on both what the people they represent want, and on what the constitution allows. The constitution protects the rights of the minorities, and the representatives do their best to see that the will of the people is served, within the limitations of what the constitution allows. It is a delicate balance, but the only way to prevent democracy from becoming "majority rules", which is just another form of tyranny.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Flame]

Its rediculous to block out 80% of the waking day because some child might hear somthing "bad". THe reason Stern is on in the morning is to entertain all the adults stuck in traffic.

If little Jonny hears the show........too f'n bad. Its not like his head will explode.

Can someone even give me an example of what Stern has done that would warrent a fine?

I only have one problem with your post:

'If little Jonny hears the show........too f'n bad. Its not like his head will explode.'

That statement implies that there is no harm in children being exposed to subject matter which is clearly beyond their ability to properly assess and deal with.

When you have children exposed to material or situations that they are not mature enough to process they have to process it nonetheless.
Not being able to properly understand and place things in the right context etc is a serious disadvantage that they are not aware of. Unfortunately, they must do something with the newly accquired knowledge and it becomes warped and twisted with a child's immature logic.

This is not harmless! At that point a reasonable adult must address the issue and clear up any misunderstandings as well as aid the child in dealing with issues which may be distressing and/or confusing.

Too often there is either no such responsible adult, or it is not noticed by anyone for various reasons and the knowledge remains, however twisted and misunderstood.

I have often believed the news (papers and television) to be completely unsuitable for young children. There are certain sensationalistic photos which do not need to be included but for the sake of selling product.
Also, newsreaders delight in using horrifying catch-phrases to draw in the listener...

As far as the FCC goes, I've always believed it to be complete idiocy - They're way to happy to quash, squash and stomp things into the ground based more on moral high-ground than reasoned thought

I think that the parents have the ultimate responsibility to screen what their children hear/see according not only to age but also maturity level.

The only issue that remains IMO is that there are many children out there without responsible parental figures to watch out for them... As a society do we not have a responsibility to look out for these future adults who will be running the place in a few years time?



I do agree with an evening program schedule, because at least in that way there is entertainment geared towards adults available.


So to recap:

1. FCC is crap.

2. Children can be harmed by exposure to knowledge beyond which they have the maturity to process.


Toni

 

[Graham]

More to the point, if a parent doesn't like television programming, the option always exists to turn the TV off. Surely there is something else a kid can be doing besides wasting away in front of a TV. Or, at the very least, they can pop in a video for the kid to watch instead.

I'd like to repeat this very good point.

When my children watch TV (they're all under the age of nine), they either watch:

a) One of two "Graham-approved" kids channels, that only show suitable programming

or

b) Videos or specified TV shows on other channels

I don't let them channel surf and I don't let them watch the regular channels unless there's something specific they want to watch.

Keep control of your kids - it's really not that hard.

Graham

 

[Elio]

Stimpson,

Short of locking children up in sensory deprivation chambers, I don't see how this is tenable. You can pass all the laws forbidding certain material from being available to children all you want, but unless you actually prevent that material from being available to anybody, they are still going to be able to get ahold of it.

OK. Then we definitely disagree...

I think there must be laws forbidding certain material from being available to children. Even knowing that some might still be able to get ahold of it...


About our respective views about goverment types, I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing using good english versus bad english, or if we simply have different tastes... (Hope it not off topic, by the way.)

Let me try again :

Better is to have a constitution which prevents the legislators from passing laws which infringe on the rights of minorities, only to satisfy the whim of the majority.

It's the majority who approved the constitution and decided what are the competences of the legislators.
It's the majority who decided there cannot be laws which infringe on the rights of minorities....

For example, in the US, the first amendment prevents the government for censoring material simply on the grounds that some group finds it offensive. It doesn't make any difference whether the majority wants it censored or not.

Did the people approved the first amendment ? Could that amendment be modified if that's the people will ?
If yes, I agree.

The majority does not decide. Not in a constitutional republic. The legislature decides, based on both what the people they represent want, and on what the constitution allows. The constitution protects the rights of the minorities, and the representatives do their best to see that the will of the people is served, within the limitations of what the constitution allows.

The legislators decide based on the rights that the people granted them.
What the contitution allows or not was decided by the people.
And the representatives do what the people decided they are supposed to do during their mandats.

It is a delicate balance, but the only way to prevent democracy from becoming "majority rules", which is just another form of tyranny.

Ist it ? We certainly all belong to at least one category of minority, temporarily or permanently (handicapped, poor, rich, unemployed, very tall, very short,..). "Majority rules" would in fact benefit no-one and it's very unlikely that, given the choice, people would favor such a system....

I believe tyranny (whatever its form) is less likely to happen when people have tied control of what their representatives are doing.

Take care.

Elio.

 

[Samus]

Elio: I simply don't see why all this is incompatible with the fact that not everything should be broadcast any time of the day.

It is incompatible because some people may deem something perfectly fine to air during the daytime hours, while others may find that same material objectionable and inappropriate for children.

So, the question becomes: who should be the final arbiter of what is considered decent?

In the case of the U.S., that arbiter is the FCC, which is a non-elected, independent regulatory agency with essentially very little Congressional oversight, because no elected official wants to be considered "anti-decent", "anti-children", or "anti-family". This is exactly how they would be painted if they spoke out against the censorship of certain material during the daytime hours.

Part of the responsibility of living with liberties is taking an active role in raising your own children. I do not have children, and perhaps I will see things differently when I do. But for the time being, I simply cannot accept the state, especially a non-elected committee with an ever-changing standard, should be telling me what I, or my [future] children, can watch on TV.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Elio,

Short of locking children up in sensory deprivation chambers, I don't see how this is tenable. You can pass all the laws forbidding certain material from being available to children all you want, but unless you actually prevent that material from being available to anybody, they are still going to be able to get ahold of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. Then we definitely disagree...

I think there must be laws forbidding certain material from being available to children. Even knowing that some might still be able to get ahold of it...

I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is preventing adults from having free access to such material, on the basis that only by restricting adults access to it, can we enforce our laws restricting access to it by minors.

For example, if it has been determined that graphic violence is harmful to children, then there is nothing wrong with passing laws that forbid people from providing children with such material. There is also nothing wrong with forbidding such material from being publicly displayed in such a way as to produce the "captive audience" problem, where they have no choice but to be exposed to it. But it is not ok to say that television channels cannot broadcast such material. That should be their choice.

Let me try again :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better is to have a constitution which prevents the legislators from passing laws which infringe on the rights of minorities, only to satisfy the whim of the majority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the majority who approved the constitution and decided what are the competences of the legislators.
It's the majority who decided there cannot be laws which infringe on the rights of minorities....

Yes, but the point is that the majority does not have the power to simply pass any law they like, regardless of how it infringes on the rights of minorities. Even if 80% of Americans think that it should be illegal to say "God does not exist" in public, they cannot (legally) pass a law forbidding it.

Sure, they can change the constitution, but that requires much more than just a simple majority. The point is that majority rules is not the best way to handle things, and simply letting the majority decide what is decent and what is not, and giving them the authority to censor anything they consider indecent, is a very bad idea.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Flame]

*snip*

...The point is that majority rules is not the best way to handle things, and simply letting the majority decide what is decent and what is not, and giving them the authority to censor anything they consider indecent, is a very bad idea....

Just wanted to say that this statement can and should be applied to most situations.

There are many examples (religion, racism in certain areas, etc ... )
which show this.

Well said on that point alone.

I don't necessarily disagree with all forms of censorship though...


Toni

 

[Tmy]

But majoritry does rule when it comes to decency. How else do you get the community standard of acceptable behavior.?? Its the vocal minority thats causing all the problems. Stern has great ratings and has been on the radio for years, same goes for soap operas.. Now they are being targeted. Not by the majority, but by some well connected jesus freaks. The same people who cry about too much gore and violence, are the same ones taking kids to see the Passion. Hypocrites.

 

[Flame]

But majoritry does rule when it comes to decency. How else do you get the community standard of acceptable behavior.?? Its the vocal minority thats causing all the problems. Stern has great ratings and has been on the radio for years, same goes for soap operas.. Now they are being targeted. Not by the majority, but by some well connected jesus freaks. The same people who cry about too much gore and violence, are the same ones taking kids to see the Passion. Hypocrites.

Just because the largest (vocal) number says something is right does not make it so...

I strongly feel that something having a majority backing does not make it right or 'best' simply based on the numbers.

Who says the 'community standard of acceptable behaviour' is the right way to go?
I have lived in a few communities where there was a terrible manner of behaving.

I don't agree that majority should rule when it comes to decency at all.

 

[Tmy]

Who says the 'community standard of acceptable behaviour' is the right way to go?0.

I think that was the Supreme Court?


Were talking a bout decency, which is not a black n white subject. There are no clear line tween right n wrongs. Sure we can agree on extremes but thats it. How can you let a minority decide whats decent? THere will always be someone who is oversensitive. You cant account for everyone.

 

[Graham]

I think that was the Supreme Court?


Were talking a bout decency, which is not a black n white subject. There are no clear line tween right n wrongs. Sure we can agree on extremes but thats it. How can you let a minority decide whats decent? THere will always be someone who is oversensitive. You cant account for everyone.

I tink the point is not that the minority should decide what's decent for everyone but that each minority (i.e. each individual or group of like-minded individuals) should decide what's decent for them (and their children) and leave everyone else alone.

That way, no on ehas to account for anyone and no one has to be offended.

Graham

 

[Dancing David]

Stimpson's Surgical Strike

So who makes the judgement? Who decides what is, and is not, indecent? Personally, I not only think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with public nudity, but that the stigma such a view puts on nudity is extremely psychologically harmful. I also find the kind of superstitious, hate-filled, fear-mongering rhetoric that the various Christian groups pollute the air-waves with, to be extremely indecent. But if I got to decide what was decent or not, everybody would be screaming religious intolerance.

Says it all.

It is okay to fake rape in prime time and show people being blown up, put the women's breasts in the center of every shot but don't bare it.

It is okay to poison the airwaves with the lies of the right wing nut cases but goodness forbid that JJ show her breast.

 

[asthmatic camel]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone give a fix on the time of life when childhood ends ? Is emotional or physical maturity the guideline ?
I must say that I've met some 10 year olds who act far more maturely than several 40 year olds I know.

Personally, I dislike censorship but I'm not sure that it isn't justified when it comes to, say, child porn, bestiality or snuff movies. As with most things, it's a matter of judgement. Should parents be allowed to judge or the government ? I've also met plenty of irresponsible parents. Irresponsible and misguided politicians are not too uncommon either.

I doubt that a real answer exists to solve this problem. Most people just muddle through as best they can.

Regards,

AC.

 

[Elio]

Stimpson,

I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is preventing adults from having free access to such material, on the basis that only by restricting adults access to it, can we enforce our laws restricting access to it by minors.

For example, if it has been determined that graphic violence is harmful to children, then there is nothing wrong with passing laws that forbid people from providing children with such material. There is also nothing wrong with forbidding such material from being publicly displayed in such a way as to produce the "captive audience" problem, where they have no choice but to be exposed to it. But it is not ok to say that television channels cannot broadcast such material. That should be their choice.

And Tony,

I don't necessarily disagree with all forms of censorship though...

I would say that I disagree with all forms of censorship regarding adults. As I said earlier the only compromise I find acceptable, is where and when.

Parents may have a point in saying that material obviously harmful to children freely broadcast is somehow "publicly displayed" and that It make their job as parents more difficult.

For that reason I find nothing wrong if channels are not allowed to freely broadcast "Nekromantic" at any hour of the day, as long as they can do so some other time (or at any time with some kind of protection. e.g. decoder).

That is a perfectly acceptable compromise. And certainly not the first step towards Big Brother...

Tony,

Just because the largest (vocal) number says something is right does not make it so...

No, but it would make it more legitimate...

Take care.

Elio.

 

[Beerina]

Foget the Sterns for a moment.

Heres whats happening: A govt AGENCY filled with unelected individuals is targeting specific people who they levy fines on for what they deem to be wrong doings, things that happend literally years ago. Mind you there are no clear rules by this Agency on what is right and wrong. And there are equal examples of similar acts by others that go unpunished.

Sounds uamerican to me.

Reminds me of Microsoft's position regarding bundling Explorer and/or Media Player with the operating system. They asked the government, "Can we do this?" and the government said, "Well, we'll decide after we see its effect."

Wrong answer in a free society. Anybody should be able to go to the government and ask, "Is this act I want to perform legal or illegal?" and get a definite answer beforehand. So, too, Howard Stern and various expressions he might use.