|
|
Post by Elfie on Dec 9, 2004 12:03:33 GMT -5
*waits for Piñata to explode*
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 9, 2004 12:07:11 GMT -5
Yeah, they should really do away with it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Dec 9, 2004 13:01:22 GMT -5
*prods further*
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Dec 9, 2004 17:16:13 GMT -5
Because its very existence is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Dec 9, 2004 19:01:47 GMT -5
Not true. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are certain things that do not fall under "Free Speech." Slander and libel are the two instances I can think of off the top of my head. My problem with the FCC is twofold - they've gotten overzealous about what they're censoring and they're trying to censor the wrong things. A naked breast isn't that bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Selvo 4 on Dec 9, 2004 19:12:56 GMT -5
Definetely not bad, I live off softcore porn. But yeah I really don't like the FCC. Sometimes their overzealous and other times unfair, Like when they fined the Howard Stern Show for discussing something that was also discussed on Oprah. Oprah did not get fined.
There is a good Monty Python song about the FCC.
|
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jun 27, 2005 1:38:11 GMT -5
Not true. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are certain things that do not fall under "Free Speech." Slander and libel are the two instances I can think of off the top of my head. My problem with the FCC is twofold - they've gotten overzealous about what they're censoring and they're trying to censor the wrong things. A naked breast isn't that bad. It's called the Clear and Present Danger Clause. If what you are doing or saying in any way shape or form presents a clear and present danger to yourself or those around you it is not protected by the first amendment. The example that is generally used is yelling fire in a crowded theater, but it extends much much further than that. It can also be applied to anything that would cause psychological damage as well. In addition, anything that is accesible to children but not deemed to be developmentally appropriate is not protected. There are others standards that are applied to any form of speech to determine whether or not it qualifies for protection under the First Amendment, and in no way shape or form is my list of examples exhaustive. |
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jun 27, 2005 8:07:26 GMT -5
How is porn "not developmentally appropriate"? Kids need to learn about sex somehow eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Jun 29, 2005 21:25:22 GMT -5
"Eventually" does not mean "Whenever they press channel 563." I'll agree they have to learn, and porn is a surprisingly good way for kids to learn the mechanics of it (it's how I did). That doesn't mean we should be showing 7 year olds pornography.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jun 30, 2005 7:51:14 GMT -5
It doesn't mean the government should parent people's children for them either, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Sept 28, 2006 17:53:31 GMT -5
*super bump*
But the government isn't raising their children. If a parent wants their kid to see porn they can specifically order pornographic channels for their children to watch. Its the parents choice to have those channels accessible or not.
Censorship, although very annoying, is also very important when it comes to broadcasting. If I had a 5 year old kid I wouldn't want them turning on the TV and seeing anything that may have a long term effect on them. Its better to censor things and be on the safe side rather than 'let it all hang out' ...and risk developmental issues.
|
|
