Why is sex and language censored?

It is not, quite the contrary.

 

Oh I see... the government should save the parents the trouble and block indecency for them. Why should parents have to pay for childcare? The government should provide childcare. Why should parents have to feed their children? The government should supply food. Why should parents have to wash their children's dishes? The government should hire people to do that for them. Why should parents have to buy their children clothes? The government should provide clothes for them. Why should parents have to wash the children's clothes? The government should hire people to do that. Why should parents do ANYTHING to parent their own children? The government should do it all!

 

Oh I see...the government should save the depraved the trouble and use public space and public utility to make sure they never have to go a minute without seeing someone having sex or hearing someone scream obsenities. The rest of society has to cater to the every desire of the depraved. Yeah, that makes sense.

Hell, if someone has impulse control issues and wants to whip it out on a public bus full of children and the elderly and rub one out right then and there, the government should accomodate that desire. The hell with the values of society at large, right?

 

what would be gained from allowing this on tv?


this has nothing to do with parenting.....

 

Can you prove that?

 

i could rant the same BS....
you know thats not the issue....

why are there limitations on speech at all?

 

There sure as hell shouldn't be.

 

There is nothing "intrinsically good" about the objectification of human beings, the cheapening of human intimacy, and - most often - the glorification of violence, both real and symbolic, against women.


Of course you cannot "prove" your ridiculous claim beyond "I wanna, I wanna!"

 

HOLY CRAP. This is seriously worse than I thought. You don't just want to protect the children, you want the government to regulate what adults see and hear!!!

There shouldn't be, but you can't scream fire in a crowded building because if there really was a fire, everyone must know immediately so they can get out of there. The justification is that it could potentially save lives. Regulating indecency on the airwaves does not save lives.

 

So you think it would be ok to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, causing a rush for the exits creating a false panic and wherein people are injured or killed? You think it should be ok to eliminate all slander and libel laws?

etc, etc, etc

 

But people need to be objectified! It is only through the view that people are mechanical objects that we can control them with the government. You objectify me by calling me a 'deviant', a label that presupposes I will act predictably like other 'deviants' you have met. Without objectification there would be chaos!

Where would our society be without the glorification of violence? After all, aren't you proposing using an institution -government- whose only significance is its monopoly on violence, to regulate the depiction of it?

Violence is a great, beautiful thing, especially when used by US soldiers against enemy women.

 

There should be imposed limitations on speach. For example you should not be able to call other people into a hateful and prejudice view. Doing so is in itself discrimination which is illegal.

If you think you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want then I stick with my right to punch you in the face and get away with it too.

I would never want to live someplace were people can flap their mouths off about the most hateful and irritating (*)(*)(*)(*) and get away with scot free.

There is censorship because many people dont know when to shut the hell up and act appropriately.

 

What is appropriate?

 

Instigating abnoxious behavior.....

Im old school we deal with this with a punch or two.

 

What is 'instigating obnoxious behaviour'?

Well I'm new school and we like to bomb people before they get a chance to punch us.

 

More of your unfortunate views that you are eager to slop all over everyone else?

 

You bring bombs to a fist fight....you sound american.

 

over the public airways YES....YOU GOT IT!!!!!
just like in PUBLIC:
where there is LIMITATIONS on FREE SPEECH....
such as "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre because it endangers people....
eureka!!!!!
so there is limitations on free speech, and YOUR personal feeling on this is that this is OK as long as that speech could potentially save lives....
then you state that regulating indecency doesn't meet YOUR threshold, because it does not endanger lives.....
ask RFK junior how his life ended up as he saw (alone) his father's life be snuffed out on 6/4/1968, violence/pornography does have a dramatic influence on our impressionable youth, some might even say that it does "endanger" (your word)their lives, but even if it doesn't, the fact that pornography as described by the USSC is limited speech, violence or the intent to belittle through vulgar, indecent speech is also limited....
there are time, place and manner restrictions also.....
clear and present danger restrictions during crisis are also recognized,
sedition, libel and slanderous speech is also limited, surely not coming close to your threshold....
not all of these meet your threshold of endangerment, and/or probably meet my own personal threshold.....
language and sex has always been limited, this issue has nothing to do with parenting, this has to do with protecting our children....

 

Prviately owned and encrypted fiber optic cable networks are not public airways.

 

I'm real confused here, what part of the First Amendment says you can selectively limit speech over certain mediums? I always that that whole freedom of speech bit was pretty clear. What's funny is that it's the "liberty loving" republicans who oppose freedom here, not that "evil socialists." Consider that next time you're about to say anything close to "I like freedom" because you clearly don't and there's no reason for you to lie to yourself and others.

 

liberty loving republican- no S.....
you'd understand what i've been saying (i hope) if you read all the posts concerning my position on this....
if you come back, post reading and proclaim this is about parenting....we're done....
if you come back, post reading and proclaim that i'm all for increasing limitations on speech.....we're done....
but if you come back and proclaim that, ragu is right, there are restrictions on free speech, and freedoms are not absolute, and that viewing pornography/violence can harm 7 and 8 year olds, and that a society that doesn't protect its children is probably not worth a shiit, and that there's actually limitations on speech IN THIS VERY SAME FORUM, than you'd agree that your above post is clearly designed to contribute nothing to this debate....

 

So... use the V-chip in your TV. It's not the governments job to protect your children from the world. If you want them sheltered do it on your own time and stop trying to limit the other adults in society. I know people don't like to take responsibility for raising their offspring and all but this kind of laziness needs to stop. BTW please show me where in the first it says certain speech on certain media may be limited. I still can't find that part. In fact I'm almost certain it says something along the lines of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." That's most certainly does not allow for censorship, but hey what do I know, I'm just someone that reads and understands words.

 

once again, clearly that was the intent of my FIRST post on this, to try to debate whether or not it does....
but as this thread has been hijacked to question, capitalism, conservatism, my parenting or parents in general, lib and i are finally trying to pare this debate into, when and why there are limitations on speech and if the government has the right to limit it....

i have clearly stated that i believe it does, and has based on the current interpretations of the US SUPREME COURT
congress and the execution of those standards by the FCC....

your angle is capitalism, but you know that there are situations in which the free market does not work efficiently?
liberals would argue for regulation in industries where capitalism WOULD work effiently, but in this case not?( do you find that interesting?)
i believe because the gov't HAS ruled that TV is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN......
(that's not me making it up, that is where we are at....
if we are not please cite, because that is the only way my opinion of this would change.....)
because it is in the public domain, it is subject to limitations, just as if we were on an airplane,(shouting allah akhbar) or in the park((*)(*)(*)(*)ing bo derek on a park bench), or playing hiphop at 4am......

 

we're done....

 

Clearly you have a strong argument if you're not willing to debate it. Why bother posting?