Why is sex and language censored?

Unless you believe those things I find it hard to justify what you believe.

 

Because the Puritan influence still holds sway in the U.S. today.

 

If that were the case, censorship wouldn't be required because nobody would want to put anything on the airwaves that he disagreed with in the first place.

The whole problem you guys have is that your values aren't the same as everyone else's. You want to change everyone else so they have to agree with you -- or at least act like they do.

 

1.) I should note that I don't agree with the law that you can't scream "fire" in a crowded area; I was simply stating the current justification and why you cannot use that argument to apply the same principle to the indecency argument.

2.) Violence/pornography is not indecency. Indecency is language and nudity; nothing more, nothing less. You can't die because your friend said the F word; nor can you die by going to the bathroom (which requires you to look at your own junk).

3.) You still have not answered why indecency should be banned from TV; so far, you have only said that there are some limitations and indecency is included within those limitations. Of course, I could say the same about businesses. Businesses should not be able to steal from people; there are some limitation to capitalism. But businesses should not have to deal with useless, excessive regulations simply because "there are some limitations." There must be a justification to every law -- what is your justification to outlawing indecency on the airwaves?

4.) Of course it is about parenting. People can legally swear in front of their children while walking around in the nude. "this issue has nothing to do with parenting, this has to do with protecting our children...." is this stupidest thing I've heard you say yet. In order to be consistent, you would advocate that swearing in front of your children and walking around in the nude in front of your children should be illegal.

 

of course i can, because it is the LEGAL interpretation of current law that applies these same standards which ARE limited.....
what?
you don't believe that speech which could directly lead to injury is not limited?
that is irrational.....and simply not true in our civilized society!

of course violence/pornography is indecency!
you accept the limitations of free speecch at this web-site,yet you still post here?
if the purveyors of this very web-site believed ass you, then all forms of speech would be allowed....yet you accept those limitations....why?
is it because those standards are acceptable to enable better, civil debate?
have you been out lately, people are getting capped for wearing the wrong colors in some of our neighborhoods......
swearing and nudity doesn't injure, but it may do HARM to our impressionable children....
when i go to the bathroom, do i invite the neighbors, or do i close the door, out of respect for others?

its NOT MY justification, it is the law.....
liberals scream for limited the free market because of perceived inequities, i.e. banks/stocks/businesses,, and i'm TOTALLY against most intervention.....
in this case we have government regulation of speech, perfectly and legitimately established by law and upheld by the courts....
you want to change the law, vote for congressional leaders who'll pass legislation that porno/violence should be broadcast without regulation....
that is how civilized people "change" law....
i am simply re-stating fact, that speech is not absolute.....
i've answered your question continuously, you don't like my answer.....

it is absolutely NOT about parenting, its about society protecting our children from the violence/pornography that is prevalant.....
parents should parent, vile and disgusting behavior in front of your own children is vile and disgusting, why then allow this filth into every living room.....
you've thrown in the towel, given in to our lowest common vilest humanity....

you argue that we should allow this vile, because we'll be more consistent?
wow, if that's not an indictment of our society....

well, i haven't given up, i have three very successful children, who were raised properly, and protected from this immoral undercurrent that you acquiesced to, and hopefully they'll give me many grandchildren, (later not sooner).....
i'd like to thank you for the debate, there seems to be little more i can say, to assuage your argument, i fear for all of our impressionable tykes,especially after reading some of your counterparts callous disregard for what is civil!!!!!

 

I accept the annoyance of the limitation of this forum because is funny discuss and is a minor harm. But it is harming, for example.

And more, it's stupid, totally stupid this censorship, and ass one said, what is the difference between the using of butt, ass, arse or anus? All them are the same meaning. Or talk about a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*); and the worst (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)((vagina)) is censored, and if I'm refering to a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-cat?

LOL, ass isn't censored and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(vagina) yes? LOL

So I can say, kiss my ass

It is stupid. But the defenders of the censorship of this words and sex, would have to justify me why the violence is seen more normally? Because many series for children have some violent content, much more strong than the acceptable while all the sexual references are censored, that's hipocresy. While what is worse? Sex or violence.

The sex is something natural, normal, funny and also is good for your health, while the violence never is normal, funny or good for your health.

 

This issue absolutely is about parenting, especially if a lack of it is the excuse for censorship. Some swearing and nudity isn't going to destroy a kids mind, certainly not more than what is already acceptable. Even today it is up to the parent to keep their children from watching nasty TV. Violence is everywhere as is. How is it that the human body and arbitrary words are somehow worse than a show based around child sex crimes and violence (Law and Order SVU)? Society does not need to be the babysitter of your children. You had them it's your responsibility. This is a non-argument for censorship, the solution is already there, you.

 

Nudity won't affect a child, for them is normal.

To give an example, a child of four years old will have nudist tendencies. The clothes for them are annoying, many times(summer time). They don't have the concept of nudity as something bad, it comes later from the influence of the parents or the society.

So the excuse of the children isn't more that the intention to hidden the real intent of the people that want to censor that. They want to censor that because for them is disturbing, not for the children; the children doesn't give any importance to that, and if you don't tell that nudity is something wrong, bad, dirty... they will never thing that.

And the reality, nudism isn't bad, dirty...

 

Irrelevant to the conversation. I'm simply trying to find out why you think indecency as defined by the FCC on the airwaves should be outlawed. You still have not given an answer.

... and, because it's a legal interpretation? I'm guessing you think the SCOTUS got Roe vs. Wade wrong, which is a legal interpretation, but that would be completely irrelevant to this conversation.

I'm still talking about the FCC, here. Violence is not regulated on TV and pornography is defined as "obscenity," not "indecency" (it's worse than indecency, according to the FCC). Indecency, as defined on the FCC, is language and nudity. Indecency is protected by the First Amendment, as ruled by the SCOTUS, so they only regulate it from 6:00AM to 10:00PM. I'm asking you why you think indecency should remain illegal on the airwaves between these time frames.

Oh, and I go on this site to debate politics, not to exercise my free speech. Indecency is not regulated on the Internet, so I could just as easily go to "Argue With Everyone" and swear all I please. Personally, I don't mind having swears blocked. I just want to have civilized political debates; I don't want to swear at everybody. Now, the law allows me to make that choice. I chose this site, but many others prefer free speech, so they go to those other sites. That's what's great about a free society... each individual can make their own choices. Now, if I were forced to go to this site and those other sites were outlawed, I'd be extremely angry; not because I want to go to those other sites, but because everyone should have the choice to do so. If you want to tune your channel to the clean network while other people watch the dirty network, that should be legal! You prefer the clean network, but that is no reason to force it upon everyone else. Everyone should be able to make their own choices, as long as it isn't harming anyone else.

No, I don't like your answer one bit. Why am I on this site? Why are you on this site? To say that political issues should not be debated because they were "perfectly and legitimately established by law and upheld by the courts"? And you recommend for the people who disagree with the law: "you want to change the law, vote for congressional leaders who'll pass legislation"? Why are you on this site? Come on, give me a reason why indecency, as defined by the FCC, should be banned from the airwaves.

You keep saying "violence/pornography." Please, can we debate language and nudity (indecency)?

I'm just trying to understand your logic. If the government has a duty to not allow children to hear swears and see nudity within a family's living room, that means that swearing in your living room and being naked in your living room should be illegal. It would not make any sense at all that nudity and language on TV should be illegal as a means of keeping other people's children safe while allowing parents to show nudity and language to their children in real life... don't you agree? (Note: this is not what I'm advocating for.)

Good for you and your children. I absolutely think you should raise your children the way you want. Now, why should the way that you raised your children be the law?

 

With the website censorship thing lies a good point. Personally I'm not a fan of censorship at all. None the less I support this site because it provides me with entertainment. That it censors is its choice; it was not forced to censor itself. This is not true of TV and radio. There is a big difference there. If NBC doesn't want to broadcast 'bad' words or nudity then that's fine, but when the government tells them they cannot broadcast such content that is not fine.

 

i use liquor to loosen up the kiddies. should we go back to prohibition? simply because some people, are overly concerned about the tactics of pedophiles?

you do know they sell porn by the ton and millions of hours of porn is available online? i don't want daytime bestiality, i just want a little reality...which includes nudity and sex.

 

self censorship is even worse than the official.

 

How so? The self censorship of this site doesn't prevent me from swearing elsewhere where as a law would.

 

You're not American, so you've probably never heard of MPAA. I suggest you do a little research on the subject.

MPAA ratings carry no force of local, state, or federal law anywhere in the United States.

 

i have given you several answers already?
because it has been "defined" by the FCC, which is the instrument for executing law established by the congress....

i don't always agree with legal interpretations, and we know, sometimes the court gets it wrong....
but untill the law is changed through an act of congress, it is the law of the land....
it is not irrelevant, the courts have on numerous times outlined what is "indecency"...
and the courts have recognized that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not absolute!!!!!!

speech can and is limited......
girls gone wild is indecency as defined by the FCC, not pornography because it has redeeming value.....
would you want your 12 year old daughter watching that show?
NO
and you won't allow her to watch it, but what about her classmates, at some point, at the age of 12, your daughter will see that show, with or without your consent.....
my point:
1st- why do we want, as a society, to put your daughter, at risk...
that is why indecency should be regulated
2nd- limiting indecency does not limit dialogue, just as limiting profanity on this site, doesn't limit open dialogue....
3rd- indecency standards are in place in schools, in the workplace, at the store, on the bus, in this website......

you exercise free speech on this website, in china for example, this site would not be allowed....
thats all great about choices on different sites......

but our airwaves are PUBLIC, the pumping of programming comes into your home, where as the choices you seek on the internet is drawn into your home.....
one needs to be "blocked" the other needs to be "searched"(and found)
To me, that is an HUGE difference

we have.....here's a problem that i have with this....
you do not recognize ANY limitation of speech as legitimate, so seriously what is the difference, saying aass on tv today, gangbangs, rape, next week.....
and contrary to some of your friends....
THESE ARE HARMFULL TO IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN!!!!

it is the duty of the citizens and gov't to legislate and establish modicums of behavior that represent our civilization.
our children are our future, they should be protected from harming effects of pornography and violence, which the court has established as limited speech, at all costs!!!!
this isn't about parenting for the umpteenth time!!!!!
children are protected from verbal, sexual or physical abuse, if parents/adults abuse children they should be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing castrated!!!!

our children are raised in accordance with our laws.....

 

Until the first person singular is considered 'profane'.

Which first needs to be de-modulated by a superheterodyne receiver. If you don't want to watch that stuff, stop de-modulating it.

'Our' children? Excuse me, you aren't raising MY kids.

 

Sex has unintended consequences.

Many posters here know that. From personal experience.

 

Like that year that volcano erupted and I had three ... no, four abortions.

 

Parents should teach their kiddies to resist the temptations of drink.

Or at least teach them the virtue of egg noggs.

 

And clogged arteries.

 

That's not an answer as to why you think it should be illegal. You keep repeating "Well, that's the law," but I'm asking you why do you support that law?

Again, why do you think indecency should be illegal on the airwaves? Merely because it is the law and that's what the court said?

You could say the same exact thing for the Internet which is full of pornography.

She's at much higher risk with the Internet.

That's a reason to outlaw it on the airwaves?

Yes, all voluntarily (schools should be privatized, but that's another discussion). Why should it be the law that indecency cannot be aired on TV?

That's good that we're ahead of China on free speech, but is it a reason to keep the law that way it is?

There's also plenty of blocks for the Internet. People with kids can use blocks on their TVs, or uptight Conservatives can use blocks on their TVs, while loose people like me can watch TV without government regulation. Everybody's happy... where's the problem?

So you can block them from your children.

Yes, of course you shouldn't be able to verbally, sexually or physically abuse your children. Now, would you consider walking around naked in front of your children or swearing in front of your children in a light matter (this pork is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing delicious!) child abuse? Right now, those two things are banned from the airwaves, but doing those two things in real life in front of your children is perfectly legal.

And yes, pornography and violence is limited, but the SCOTUS has ruled the indecency is protected by the First Amendment.

You follow all the laws, yes, good... and if I swore in front of my kids or walked around naked in front of them, that would also be with accordance to our laws.

 

(think)....because we are a country of laws?

but we are not talking about the internet....
and there is a huge difference that i posted but you failed to acknowlege....so i'll do it again...
transmissions are pumped into our houses, tv is "pushed"
whereas internet must be sought out...internet is "pulled"
in other words, (and i guess theoritcally)
a tv program containing pornography is broadcast "pushed" from point A to point C, what it passes through, point B is the public domain, but also it is "pushed" into EVERY available receiver, so in a sense it is always there....

so education will be available only to a few?
do you understand the externalities of education,the positive affect imparted on society?

you missed the point....
you stated Oh, and I go on this site to debate politics, not to exercise my free speech. and i responded, of course you exercise free speech at this site, BUT YOU ACCEPT THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED....why?
there are plenty of other forums around.....right?
or do you enjoy the "civility" of this forum?

blocks yes, but as in football, that means "protecting" as in protecting brady from being sacked this sunday....thank you for making my point....
with the "pushing" of transmissions, these MUST be blocked as opposed to internet where information must be "pulled".....

nope....never, would you?
when a child is endangered, emotionally, physically and/or sexually, it is illegal

do you accept those limitations?

indecency is also limited, your speech is NOT absolute.....
"time, place, manner ring a bell"

and if you, the kids and there grandkids all go to the store in your naked, swearing selfs, how would the others at the store, especially the impressionable children view the lib family....

i can't keep on rehashing the same ole same ole. too FN time consuming...

 

What if we had a law that decreed that laws were illegal?

How do you know it contains pornography?

But TV signals must also be demodulated and interpereted. If you don't want to see naked ladies, why are you decoding your signals as naked women and not as something more appealing to you?

 

i never bought the game.

 

In that case, I suppose every law that is in place is the law of the land and should not need justifications... correct?

So if material are pushed rather than pulled, they are more likely to harm children?

That was off-topic... I never should have brought it up.

I don't mind the limitations because it's my choice to accept those limitations. I can go on this site while others go on sites that are not censored. Just because I don't mind the limitations, doesn't mean it should be the law that everyone must accept the limitations. Everyone should have a choice. Everyone goes onto the site that they enjoy most... everybody's happy. What's the problem?

But why is it that material that is pushed is more harmful than material that is pulled?

Exactly! So why should it be legal to expose your own children to language and nudity in real life, but illegal to expose your own children to language and nudity on TV?

I'm not big into those limitations...

Anyway, yes, indecency is limited according to the courts, even though "The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment" (citation). I think that's rather inconsistent... either material is speech or it isn't speech. The courts have held that indecency is speech, but speech can be limited if it's between 6:00AM-10:00PM, despite the fact that there is no mentioning of such an exemption in the Constitution.

Probably not very well, but this only shows why the FCC should be more lenient on regulations. If people are not ready for too much language and nudity, then not too many networks are going to air it.