Decency and "the children"

[toddjh]

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.

That's a nice idea, but I think it's unworkable in practice. I don't see how you could give a definite answer without taking away the discretion of the juries and courts in certain cases (e.g. "does this speech have socially redeeming value?").

Or rather, I think you could get a definite "yes" about completely and obviously legal acts, but not a definite "no" about anything. It would be "yes" and "maybe" -- and you'd hear "maybe" a lot more often, I'd wager.

Jeremy

 

[Graham]

That's a nice idea, but I think it's unworkable in practice. I don't see how you could give a definite answer without taking away the discretion of the juries and courts in certain cases (e.g. "does this speech have socially redeeming value?").

Or rather, I think you could get a definite "yes" about completely and obviously legal acts, but not a definite "no" about anything. It would be "yes" and "maybe" -- and you'd hear "maybe" a lot more often, I'd wager.

Jeremy

Plus there will always be new issues raised, especially in the area of new technology (cf the Microsoft example earlier)

Graham

 

[Tmy]

That's a nice idea, but I think it's unworkable in practice. I don't see how you could give a definite answer without taking away the discretion of the juries and courts in certain cases (e.g. "does this speech have socially redeeming value?").

Or rather, I think you could get a definite "yes" about completely and obviously legal acts, but not a definite "no" about anything. It would be "yes" and "maybe" -- and you'd hear "maybe" a lot more often, I'd wager.

Jeremy

What are you talking about. THats how the law works now. Juries dont decide the law, they decide the facts. Were you driving over the speed limit of 55 or not. They dont debate whether 55 mph is fair or not.

 

[toddjh]

What are you talking about. THats how the law works now. Juries dont decide the law, they decide the facts. Were you driving over the speed limit of 55 or not. They dont debate whether 55 mph is fair or not.

Juries are asked to interpret vague statements which will determine whether or not a law has been broken all the time.

To extend your speed limit example, think of the state (Montana, was it?) where the speed limit used to be "safe and reasonable speeds." The jury not only has to agree on the speed the defendent was going, but whether or not that speed was safe and reasonable.

That being the case, could a driver in Montana ask the government, "Is 75 mph too fast?" and get a reliable answer?

Jeremy

Yes, I'm aware the Montana speed limit thing was found to be overly vague. It's just an example.

 

[Tmy]

That vauge speeding law was struck down by the Montana Sup Ct. because it was........well vauge!!!

I wish someone would take the FCC to court. Id like to see them put in their place.

Imagien the EPA running around and randomly deciding who was polluting.??

IRS arbitrarily decideing who didnt pay enough taxes?

Thats what the FCC is doing.

 

[toddjh]

That vauge speeding law was struck down by the Montana Sup Ct. because it was........well vauge!!!

Yes, but there are literally hundreds of laws that have similar wording -- anything containing "obscene," for starters. Or "public drunkenness" -- is there a firm number that specifies when a person is "drunk?" How about "indecent exposure?"

I wish someone would take the FCC to court. Id like to see them put in their place.

Imagien the EPA running around and randomly deciding who was polluting.??

IRS arbitrarily decideing who didnt pay enough taxes?

Thats what the FCC is doing.

I'd much rather leave matters like that, which are about personal taste rather than science, up to individuals with some discretion (ideally, the viewers themselves, but failing that a jury or judge) than let a bureaucratic government demand compliance with arbitrarily-defined absolutes.

Jeremy

 

[nightwind]

decency

Ha, ha. Oh me. This decency thing and the FCC is getting pretty hysterical.

This is just another attempt to appease the usually hypocritical and quite fanatical religous fundamentalist, who believe pretty much everything is evil, except for what they participate in.

And of course, I know that there is the "child saver" group who does not believe that they have ever met a child who hasn't been or isn't being abused in some way by some one.

I really believe that this is a little bit of an over reaction to something that probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and I sincerely doubt that Howard Stern or seeing Janet Jackson's nipple is resulting in real harm to anyone.

If you are going to censor anything, then censor something like professional "Rastlin" or "the Three Stooges". The inspiration that these give young people proably results in more harm than just about anything they watch. Boy do I remember those double knee drops my brother used to put on me, and he succumbed to my "reverse blockbuster" many time. No wonder he has a bad neck. Now those hurt. And now, I can look back and see why I always had to play Curly, and my brother always said he had to be Moe. Gosh my eyes still hurt. However, as I remember, sneakin a peek at the Playboy or Penthouse, I don't remember as being particularly painful.

On the other hand, please don't censor Rastlin and Stooges, as those were some fun times.

So never mind.

 

[LFTKBS]

This all brings up a good point.

Everyone interested in the infantilization of America won the battle. Now all new TVs have V-chips in them. Remember that?

Why doesn't anyone remember that?

To Jesusites and others who think that we should all only watch [/i]The Happy Little Elves Learn About How Liberals Ruin America[/i]: sit down, take five minutes to read the V-chip instructions, and you can protect your kids from the horrors of daytime television while also leaving the rest of us the hell alone.