Why is sex and language censored?

you lost me....

your close to seeing my point.....
transmissions of "indecency" that are broadcast on tv are "pushed" (so they must be blocked)
whereas
internet indecency available on the internet must be "pulled" (searched for)that is a HUGE difference!!!! HUGE!!!!
2nd- because those tv transmissions are transmitted (theoritically) throught the PUBLIC DOMAIN; point A to point C; via point B, they CAN be LIMITED!!!!!

just like swearing in public and public nudity is ALSO limited in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.....

you accept limitations of free speech based on "DECENCY STANDARDS"?
how can this be?
you still have choices, government does not regulate what is on "PAY TV", those programs are purchased, therefore "rival" and "non-exclusive" market choices.....
also indecency standards loosen after 10pm, which is also an alternative for adult viewing....

if the same material; Girls gone wild is "pushed' via tv, as opposed to "pulled" via internet, there is a huge difference....see BOLD ABOVE

you want to make this a parental issue, which it is not....

"not big" into limitations is neither here nor there, THEY EXIST, which was my contention ALL along....
limitations are necessary, and these limitations of speech are not an imfringement of free dialogue....just as the limitations and guidelines of this forum....
our inability to use vulgarity does NOT limit our free speech!!!!

they are not going to air them at all, because there are FCC standards protecting our children!!!!

 

Stated differently: justifying a belief merely because is the law is not legitimate for us highly-intellectual PF members, no?

So because there is a difference, one of those differences must outlawed?

So the government forces me to pay extra if I want to hear free speech from 6:00AM-10:00PM. Where's the justification for that?

Again, a difference in transmissions means one must be outlawed? I'm still not understanding your logic. The material is the same either way.

I'm merely suggesting that if it is the government's duty to protect children from language and nudity, that means parents cannot show their children language and nudity. You disagree?

According to the courts, it does. And when I said "not big into" I was referring to pornography, not indecency. Indecency is protected by First Amendment, that's why the FCC can't ban it entirely. I don't understand how they can ban it at all. Either it's speech or it isn't; if it's speech, government cannot regulate it.

See above.

I'm merely suggesting that if it is the government's duty to protect children from language and nudity, that means parents cannot show their children language and nudity. You disagree?​

 

of course it is, it is accepted, recognized, that speech is limited....
there are numerous cases expressing antiquated and recent rulings on what is, and what is not acceptable limitations on speech....
my opinion, has been stated time and time again....
it is supported by statute and case law, i see no reason to parry opinion....

i do, big ragu time, tv is broadcast INTO your home,if it is indecent/vulgar and is still something you do not want, it is still "PUSHED" into your home....
the closest example won't work, and i'm not rebutting based on this example, but its like having music or lights broadcast into your home.....
to stop it, we have to "defend" the broadcast by closing doors and windows e.g.

that is....different than you going on the internet, google searching; girls gone wild and viewing away....
p.s. that was your comparison tv v. internet and that is the major difference....

so you want free pornography at the expense of all of us who do not....
what is the justification for that?

public nudity is not allowed, pubilc indecency is not allowed, pissing on your neighbors bushes or pool is not allowed, even though that is a form of free expression, using vulgar language in public is also limited, you'd be arrested for among other things....disturbing the peace....correct?
tv is transmitted through our PUBLIC DOMAIN and it is also limited....

the gov't already protects adults and children from public nudity and indecency....once again this has nothing to do with parenting, why do consistently try to make it so.....

indecency is also limited by these same courts.....
you said so yourself, although you apparently disagree with it, which is also neither here nor there....
violent speech, speech intended to harm is limited, lets call that indecency and put an end to this altogether....

 

Are you saying that adults need to be protected from public nudity and indecency? You're saying they can't just look away, change the channel, etc? I don't agree, I find adults to be pretty capable. Besides, some of us like nudity and aren't extremely offended by the human body.

BTW you might want to look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

You seem to be stuck here:


Conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Those who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.[7][8][9]

(Stage 3 left out)

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[2]

I say this because multiple times you've eluded to the belief that because the law is the law it must be enforced. This isn't justification for a law at all. Feel free to challenge the views of society. It's depressing to know you're still ruled by people who don't bother thinking but at least you move beyond the "it's the law thus just" stage.

BTW it's not societies job to shelter your children from the world, that's your job should you choose to do so.

 

This point is devoid of reasoning. Not that I think people should be sheltered from the world, but it really sounds like a knee-jerk point on your part.

 

It may be a little blunt but I think the point is obvious; it's the job of the parent, not society or the nation as a whole, to raise their kids. Society and the nation may help via schools and services, but it is still on the parent to raise and shape their kid outside of these public services. These services can even be completely avoided, they are just there to help. Suspending a constitutional right helps nothing and worse there are simple solutions that can be performed by the individual so that they won't have to be burdened with seeing stuff they don't want themselves or their children to see. The solution lies with the individual, there is no need to 'interpret' our rights to mean something other than what is plainly written to 'protect' people from words and images.

 

Parents are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. Let's throw in a police man.

 

The vast majority of people are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid but they still deserve rights and liberty. I mean 50% of people have an IQ of at or below 100, and 100 is (*)(*)(*)(*) stupid.

 

IMO, nudity and foul language shouldn't be on during the day time. But after like 10, kids shouldn't be up anyway. Like comedy central. Censored in the day. Will curse on late night movies. But I must also add, I think what is right should be a decision of the channel owner, the local carrier and the consumer. Money will dictate what happens. I don't trust the government to make the right decision with anything at this point.

With all that said. Too much of our society caters to the kids. The majority of people's lives are during the age of adulthood, and you can barely get an R rated movie in the theaters anymore. They're all pg-13. It does get annoying. The only way to get shows like spartacus: blood and sand is to get the pay channels like starz and HBO. That's lame.

 

I agree, it should be entirely up to the channel owners and yeah, boobs at noon, probably not a good idea. Still the government should not be involved at all. If channel 6 has boobs at noon, and parents don't want their kids watching boobs at noon, it's up to them to deal with that situation. If they have a TV bought anytime past, what, 1990 or so, they'll have the ability to block channels if not outright block programs based on ratings. It's on the parents. If the legislators really need to pass some law regarding TV content, it should be requirements put on TVs to allow users to block content thus giving people the option to block content if they choose to do so, not to limit our rights as a whole.

 

Sure, just not rule over their own progeny. That would be cruel.

 

I agree 100%..We cater too much to children. And because of that the entertainment industry is in shambles.

 

I'd have to say that's actually the best option. I mean what else are we going to do, turn our kids over to the government run by people elected by idiots in a nationwide popularity contest? I doubt that would give better results.

 

That and they haven't had an original thought since, well I don't even know anymore. How many remakes are going on now? I mean the only reason I goto movies anymore is the possibility of getting laid afterwards. Who really wants to sit down in some dump for 2 hours watching CGI with half a plot and really loud sound?

 

Absolutely not. I preach legalistic meritocratic totalitarianism. When the officials do badly, you demote/mutilate/shoot them, depending on which form of punishment makes a more profitable law.

 

Well I guess that's where we're headed anyway. Then again maybe I'm reading this wrong. Are you saying we do this with a dictator or with the will of the people. The latter might not be a bad idea. I certainly wouldn't run for office though, too many idiots.

 

Oh both, if they're both profitable. And obviously you wean the idiots out; and you don't run for office, you are selected by means of strict procedure.

 

Sounds quiet complex. Maybe we should just have some robots run everything. Then again the Reptilian masters might get pissed.

 

No, I don't think that really disrupts they're schemes. You can always just have the robots kill everyone if things get too dicey. And it's really not that complex. People work so they can pay to be in office, and then you fine them whenever they do something wrong. And so you make the rich poor and the poor rich.

 

That would require a system where money is taken from the rich and given to the poor in the form of fines. While our tax system is set up that way our system of fines seems to be set up to supplement local taxes (city, county, state). Going to be a lot of change done. Hopefully our reptilian masters will be able to figure out the best way to do it, but then again the enslavement of humans should be coming along soon enough. I mean how much more docile will humanity really get?

 

Don't be silly, you don't give the money to the poor, you give it to the treasury. The poor become rich by means of hard work which we lay out for them.

 

Wait, you're going to pay the laborers? Why?

 

They sometimes work harder when you do that.

 

I suppose but that's what the giant labor pool is for. Also the whips and such.



Not surprisingly that's about the best image I can find of a girl with a whip that isn't nude. Ah, I love the net.

 

My Fing ID is completely correct... you're stuck in "it's the law thus it's just" stage of morality.

Give me a reason, besides from "it's the law," that indecency should be outlawed from the airwaves.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over without answering the question. I understand there is a difference: why, I ask you, why is it that material that is pushed should be regulated but material that is pulled should not?

You keep going off into pornography. Let's stick to indecency, here. As you are the one purposing the law, you are the one who needs to come up with a justification. Do you believe that the federal government should be able to make laws without justifications to those laws?

These are all state laws, as they should be. Why should the federal government outlaw indecency?

Obviously, adults have never seen anyone naked, heard anyone swear, or engaged in coitus. Otherwise, they would die. Good thing we have the federal government to keep us safe of such things!

Sarcasm aside, using your logic that the government must protect both children and adults from language and nudity, language and nudity should be completely outlawed, along with sex, of course. No? (Screw humanity... it's about time it died off.)

What type of speech should be limited? Why should these types of speech be limited? According to you, language and nudity should be limited, but only on the airwaves. I have a hard time understanding your logic to this.