Democrat Prudes

Ken McCracken • July 22, 2007

The Democrat-contolled Senate Commerce Committee is considering legislation called (it’s for the children!) the “Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act,” legislation which was introduced by Jay Rockefeller.
Isn’t it usually the left giving the right hell over stuff like this?

It would reinstate the FCC policy making broadcasters liable for a $325,000 fine for a slip of the tongue. A committee vote on the indecency measure is expected Thursday.
Earlier this year, the federal appeals court in New York tossed out an FCC indecency ruling that said a fleeting obscenity reference gets broadcasters a fine for indecency, telling the commission that it failed to give a good reason for its decision and likely could not find a good reason if it had to.
The committee members are likely to approve the legislation, as it has the support of the committee’s leaders and is something that is politically difficult to oppose.
“It looks like it’s getting the support that it needs to go through the committee,” said Steven Broderick, spokesman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. Rockefeller is the chief sponsor of the legislation and a senior committee member.
Commerce Committee chairman Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, and the ranking member, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, both support the legislation.
Rockefeller also is preparing legislation that would give the FCC the authority to regulate “excessively violent” content on television — be it cable, satellite or broadcast TV.

We need this legislation…because apparently Americans can be counted on to just change the channel (or turn the radio station) when confronted with content they find offensive. We need this legislation…because we need a bunch of bureaucrats at the FCC to tell us what is and is not “excessively violent” content on television.
Republicans are always cast by the left/media as the uptight, moralizing busybodies who get upset at television content, yet this happens on the left too. But Democrats get a pass for it. Just like the Gores got a pass for inviting Madonna and Snoop Dogg to Live Earth despite Tipper Gore’s crusade against suggestive music lyrics back in the early 1990′s.
I, personally, have long looked forward to the day when technology (the internet, satellite/cable television, satellite radio, podcasts, etc.) makes the FCC and all of its rules and regulations about content irrelevant, but what’s scary is that Rockefeller is trying to extend the FCC’s powers to those mediums as well. Which seems unfathomable given that the only tenuous authority the FCC has to regulate content on broadcast mediums is the idea that the “public” owns the airwaves. Unfortunately, the public doesn’t own the satellites. Or the internet servers.
So what possible justification does Rockefeller have for using government power to control what content Americans choose to watch/listen to in their own homes?
What’s particularly depressing about all this is that it will undoubtedly get bipartisan support. Because like it or not, there’s busybodies on both sides of the political aisle who love telling other people how to run their lives.

Tags: Cultural Marxism, Domestic Issues, Nanny State, Politics

http://Array 2Hotel9

HG, you are surrendering control of Television, radio, cable, satellite, and the internet. You can claim it is only to “help the children”, in the end you are surrendering control to a government bureaucracy. And it will spread like cancer, Democrats always do. And the FCC is an entirely Democrat Party controlled entity.

And again, this is not about decency. This is a matter before the Commerce Committee. They do not give a fuck about decency or your children. They only care about siphoning of as much money from other people’s businesses to stuff their pockets with, Republicans and Democrats.

It is YOUR job to control what YOUR children see and hear. Period.
redwolf

gee, whatever happened to free speech?
http://bullwinkleblog.com/ Bullwinkle

Notice that they are calling for the restrictions to be placed on cable too? Broadcasters are calling for their own regulation if they can get it extended to cable because people liked the Sopranos on HBO much more than they like it A&E. Instead of trying to air something good that can compete they’d rather just not have the competition. I don’t much care what they do with network broadcasts but when they start regulating cable with some of twisted ‘fairness’ doctrine because CBS, ABC and NBC put out crap I start caring real fast.

I pay for satellite service because broadcast TV sucks. When it’s a pay service the viewers should regulate the content themselves with their checkbooks. Goverment has no business being involved in it.
2Hotel9

Sphyncter and English’s offices have got to be getting tired of me emailing and calling.
http://ewebsmith.com/ ews48

Unbelievable.

Greed is what is driving the media to present increasingly shocking and indecent content. The more indecent, the higher the ratings. What does that say about the American public?

What does it do to the American public? It creates a nation of trash that worships trash and wants to grow up to be just like them. It turns the whole country into a bar with a whore house out back. It’s no wonder that our government no longer respects its citizens.

Don’t you really expect the President of the United States to be intelligent enough to express himself without the use of profanities?

People have the right to expect their children to be able to turn on the TV or log on to the Internet and not be exposed to filth.

To interpret the First Amendment, from a Constitution that is no longer in effect, so that it gives you the right to talk like a piece of filth is not what the founding fathers had in mind. They naively anticipated a level of respect that the citizenry would hold for themselves and each other.

Or just maybe, they anticipated a nation of respectful citizens that would eventually say that enough is enough.
2Hotel9

Just as with socialized healthcare, it is all about control. They do no give a shit about people’s children or decency! They have run into a wall in their attempts to shut down talk radio and open interaction on the web, and this is the secondary offensive in that new campaign.

This,”People have the right to expect their children to be able to turn on the TV or log on to the Internet and not be exposed to filth.”, is the tactic right here. “What about the CHILDREN?!?!?!”. It is the parents job, not the Government’s. Remember the V-chip? It was proclaimed a failure, because Government could not force people to use it.

Now they will approach it from another direction. Shutdown the flow of information that moves freely through different segments of societies, at national level and international, create “official channels” and register every single person in them.

You don’t like what is on radio and TV? Change your settings or shut yours off. Period.
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/ Bruce

Unfortunately, the public doesn’t own the satellites. Or the internet servers.

Not yet, they don’t.

But don’t think it’s not on the Dems’ radar. These are the same people who think giving the UN control of the internet isn’t too bad an idea.
Neiman

I hate it when I or others resort to cursing, using foul language, and I wish there were a lot less of it in our world; but I do not understand how the Left can get all worked up about bad language and passionately fight for the right to kill innocent human beings in the womb. Talk about have your priorities a little out of proper proportion.
http://icallbs.net/ Elisa

We need this legislation…because the government knows what’s best for the children, not their parents.

We need this legislation…because the Dems need to control what the public hears. They’ve lost the clout of the MSM due to the internet, so they’ve got to get it back somehow.

At least Rockefeller’s spokesman is up-front about what they are trying to do: “the two bills seek to give the government more say over the TV shows people watch…”
HG

So you’d still let the show air, it’d just have to conform to your personal and subjective definition of decency.

Not my personal standards, the FCC’s decency standards. The standards imposed today are not necessarily to my own, but I still think they serve society.
LoadTheMule

Always remember: Beneath the very thin skin of every liberal lurks a commissar yearning to be free…

Regards,
hg

ews48,

HEAR, HEAR!
HG

Decency laws serve the public and the culture well IMO. If they are inhibiting the right to free speech, then why do we have decency laws in the first place? Why is public nudity indecent and not a threat to freedom?

We have laws at the local level which prevent indecent behavior in public (public nudity for instance) and restrict indecent behavior in private. Foul language is offensive to a large portion of society, and most parents prefer their children not use it, and that they hear it as little as possible.

What is really bugging some is that our society has been desensitized to behavior and indecency progressively over the past 50 years in large part through the efforts of those our society should not look to for social or cultural norms — Hollywood. Hollywood has continually pushed to move the cultural and social boundaries to the left politically and morally. That so few of such questionable character have been so culturally influential is disturbing to many Americans.
2Hotel9

And yet, the Democrat Party has been at the heart of tearing done our moral code, and they are now saying there is a problem. The same people who have personally benefited and profited now say they should be in charge of cleaning things up? Fuck that shit.
HG

But when it comes to television and radio, why is it more reasonable to expect TV producers and radio show hosts to restrict the sort of content the public actually wants all because a small group of prudes don’t want to have to change the channel?

Rob,

If we are talking about the use of profanity, I find it hard to believe the vast majority, (Americans – small group of prudes) prefer profanity in the regular vocabulary of their entertainment. To many Americans, restricting the use of profanity in entertainment broadcast on public airwaves is reasonable.

I wonder though, what offensive language do we accept and what do we restrict? Is the “N” word off limits? What about the new “F” word that so offends the small minority of homosexuals? And, if one cannot be limited, then how can others?
HG

And yet Americans watch movies and television shows that feature profanity in droves. They also buy music with profanity in it in the millions.

Rob,

I personally purchase dvd’s, movie tickets, and watch television programs which feature an acceptable amount of mild profanity. That doesn’t mean that I prefer said profanity in my entertainment, just that it the only entertainment offered for the most part. Nor does the fact that most entertainment contains profanity prove that the majority prefer profanity in their entertainment.

I don’t understand why we need to restrict any language?

At least you’re consistent. I don’t think the entertainment industry would agree judging by the extremely limited use of the two words I alluded to in television programming. In fact, I cannot remember the last time said words was ever used on television.

but outside of that why should you get to decide what I can and can’t watch on my television?

Have network decency standards restricted you from watching what you want on your tv? Has your entertainment suffered due to these network standards?
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

lol, and thank you for that kind lil’ tid bit 2Hotel9
I for one do care what other kids watch because they share the society I live in and it is difficult enough to tolerate most of them now … perhaps we can hold out hope by the little we can do.
If there is a time when all media is uncensored that could very well mean concerned parents will need to preview everything their kids care to watch.
HG

It is your job as the parent to control what your child is exposed to from TV and internet and printed media. Period.

Very true. That doesn’t answer the questions though.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

Northamptonshire in the UK:

A secondary school is to allow pupils to swear at teachers – as long as they don’t do so more than five times in a lesson. A running tally of how many times the f-word has been used will be kept on the board. If a class goes over the limit, they will be ‘spoken’ to at the end of the lesson.

I wonder how this lovely idea worked out? :O
HG

The problem, HG, is who gets to define what is and is not “offensive?”

I thought we both agreed that profanity and children don’t mix.

By the way, you started this thread talking about obscenity regulations for all mediums (cable, etc.) not just broadcast.

I did? Can you point that out for me? You may be right but I don’t recall that.

It means there’s largely nothing but dumbed-down crap on when I’m up to watch it.

I fail to see how profanity would somehow raise the intellectual quality of programming.

I, again, cannot wait until technology puts television and radio out of the reach of controlling, moralizing busybodies like you.

Have you always felt this way about our parties stance?

Rob, decency standards have been a republican issue for quite some time, maybe from the start of broadcast media.
This you acknowledge in your post:

Isn’t it usually the left giving the right hell over stuff like this?

It already has in a lot of ways, which is a good thing. I agree much good has come from the internet, more good than bad, but not all good.
HG

Rob,

I happen to agree, cursing is unbecoming of a child.

But, if profanity is not somewhat restricted, then its presence in children’s programming is something you or I, anyone but the programming content creators, have no say in.
Personally I find the possibility of such a scenario clearly indecent and such “free speech” should be restricted for it is highly offensive and can negatively impact children.

I don’t need the government to make that choice for me.

Such could be said for any and all decency restrictions on society. But if we are to have acceptable norms, then our society and culture are served well by decency standards. Or, we could let the PC crowd define the standards and impose them in the same manner they have censored the offensive words mentioned earlier, demonizing the one who speaks all the while approving, applauding and glorifying the voices of profanity.
2Hotel9

Anna, you should preview everything your kids watch. That is the point.
2Hotel9

Yes, it does answer the question. My child’s programing does not have profanity. Because I am the parent. It is not the place of “government” to tell anyone what they may watch,listen to, or read. Period

You don’t want your child to see, here or read something? Then you stop them.

“That said I appreciate your committment to liberty on the issue, but think there are much bigger fish to fry than decency standards.” If this is how you feel, why are you defending the government being given control of all media and information exchange? If the control of what people see, hear and read is so irrelevant and unimportant as to be handed over to the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Spectors, Clintons, and Robertsons, why are you concerned about it?
HG

Do you not know your own positions?

Yes, but I thought to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I’m a conservative first, Republican second. I didn’t know I was supposed to toe the party line on every issue.

I didn’t either, nor do I.

But something tells me you busybodies are going to be trying to lay your hands on it too soon. …I think most people like you can’t avoid trying to tell other people how to live their lives.

Personally I think the internet content could be addressed within the framework of the internet. A unique address allows for indecent content to be easily filtered. I don’t really care about cable and satellite restrictions since programming packages have begun to address the decency issues. I currently subscribe to dish network’s family package. It’s cheap, provides family programming, and includes fox news.
2Hotel9

I mean come on! This is an issue in front of the Commerce Committee! They don’t give a fuck about your children.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

Umm yeah 2Hotel9, no one can tell me anything about screening kids show. I have a good many hours in the presence of a variety of characters. Believe me. I habitually tie my own shoes in double knots, I not only know “In the Neighborhood” lyrics I actually answer Mr Rogers when he asks a question. I have taught at least 100 kids that it isn’t Ert and Bernie, I can spot a swiper fox faster than any of you, I believe Wendy is more masculine than Bob the Builder, and I can top any adventure the BackYardigans have or ever will do. Trust me, parental near lethal insanity is not a pretty sight. Repetitive learning is the #1 teaching technique for children but when adults partake in that technique the results do tend to be quite merciless.
LOL, when I close my eyes and dream I want human characters not animated, puppets, muppets or old men wearing dorky sweaters.
I do not want to preview every episode of children’s favorites shows and you can’t make me. I won’t, I won’t, I won’t…
HG

That’s one instance, and I wouldn’t react to a children’s show with profanity in it by calling for it to be banned as you would.

(I meant to respond to this but missed it.)

Banned? No, just require the show conform to decency standards. This could be done by simply removing the indecent content from the program.
Bat One

LTM,

A truly profound, and disturbing, thought… although I’d question whether freedom is really what all these self-anointed commissars are yearning for.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

Yes … Bat you are correct but, it is nice knowing that there are still programs available that do not allow it.
2Hotel9

It is your job as the parent to control what your child is exposed to from TV and internet and printed media. Period.
skh.pcola

They probably disregard public opinion on most issues, as public apathy can be assumed most of the time. A few concerned constituents aren’t enough to sway power-hungry politicians.
HG

If this is how you feel, why are you defending the government being given control of all media and information exchange?

I’m arguing in favor of decency standards which limits the use of profanity over public air waves. Decency standards do not give the government control over all content just offensive content as I understand it.

If the control of what people see, hear and read is so irrelevant and unimportant as to be handed over to the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Spectors, Clintons, and Robertsons, why are you concerned about it?

This sounds a bit alarmist to me. We have had decency standards for tv and radio programming since the start. Is there something specific about the new standards that extends beyond what was already in place and struck down by the Scotus?
HG

A couple of questions:

Should children’s programming feature profanity?

Why, or, why not?
HG

But we do have a say in whether or not our children watch it, right?

But it can only impact your children if you let them watch it.

Yes.

There’s a difference between decency standards that require people to wear clothes in public and decency standards that tell me what I can and can’t watch in the privacy of my own home.

I think you’ve taken the intent of censoring profanity way, way to far. TV veiwing isn’t affected by limiting profanity as has been done for some time now. You are still free to watch whatever you want to in the privacy of your own home. I’m not saying you can’t watch it, just that it shouldn’t be broadcast over public airwaves during specific times so as to protect young viewers from what many consider indecent content.

Personally I see decency standards as a conservative issue. It is morally conservative, and socially conservative to expect society to be temperate in excercising liberty when one’s liberties may give unnecessary offense and actually harm another as is the case with profanity around children.

That said I appreciate your committment to liberty on the issue, but think there are much bigger fish to fry than decency standards.
2Hotel9

You got to earn my respect. ews, you and the Government are both woefully lacking in credit, or currency for that matter.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I’m arguing in favor of decency standards which limits the use of profanity over public air waves. Decency standards do not give the government control over all content just offensive content as I understand it.

The problem, HG, is who gets to define what is and is not “offensive?” Because something tells me that my definition of “offensive” and yours might vary wildly.

You are still free to watch whatever you want to in the privacy of your own home. I’m not saying you can’t watch it, just that it shouldn’t be broadcast over public airwaves during specific times so as to protect young viewers from what many consider indecent content.

So broadcasters should have to modify their broadcast schedule so that you don’t have to monitor what your kids are watching on television.

Wonderful.

Anything else we can do for you while we’re at it?

By the way, you started this thread talking about obscenity regulations for all mediums (cable, etc.) not just broadcast.

And yes, “decency standards” do effect my entertainment. It means there’s largely nothing but dumbed-down crap on when I’m up to watch it.

I, again, cannot wait until technology puts television and radio out of the reach of controlling, moralizing busybodies like you. It already has in a lot of ways, which is a good thing.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Not my personal standards, the FCC’s decency standards.

Same difference. You’re still taking the choice out of the hands of the writers and the viewers.

I thought we conservatives were against letting the government make choices for us.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

If we are talking about the use of profanity, I find it hard to believe the vast majority, (Americans – small group of prudes) prefer profanity in the regular vocabulary of their entertainment.

And yet Americans watch movies and television shows that feature profanity in droves. They also buy music with profanity in it in the millions.

Maybe you, personally, don’t like profanity. That’s fine. I don’t make any judgments of you based on that, but don’t assume your position is the majority one, because it’s just not. The numbers prove it.

I wonder though, what offensive language do we accept and what do we restrict? Is the “N” word off limits? What about the new “F” word that so offends the small minority of homosexuals? And, if one cannot be limited, then how can others?

I don’t understand why we need to restrict any language?

In terms of radio or television shows, I’d think it would behoove them to do ratings and such to warn listeners/viewers about the type of content to follow, but outside of that why should you get to decide what I can and can’t watch on my television?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Decency laws serve the public and the culture well IMO. If they are inhibiting the right to free speech, then why do we have decency laws in the first place? Why is public nudity indecent and not a threat to freedom?

I think we can draw reasonable limits when it comes to free expression. Obviously, I can’t be free to express myself by driving around my block and honking my horn at 4:00 in the morning. That just wouldn’t work. So it’s not unreasonable to curb that kind of free expression.

Same with public nudity. Enough of our society finds that sort of the objectionable to the point where we can say that it’s reasonable to require people to go about clothed.

But when it comes to television and radio, why is it more reasonable to expect TV producers and radio show hosts to restrict the sort of content the public actually wants all because a small group of prudes don’t want to have to change the channel?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Should children’s programming feature profanity?

I personally don’t think so, because I don’t think my little girl should curse when she’s still a kid. But that’s my personal choice, and I can make that on my own.

I don’t need the government to make that choice for me.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I thought we both agreed that profanity and children don’t mix.

That’s one instance, and I wouldn’t react to a children’s show with profanity in it by calling for it to be banned as you would. I just wouldn’t let my kids watch it.

I did? Can you point that out for me? You may be right but I don’t recall that.

Do you not know your own positions?

I fail to see how profanity would somehow raise the intellectual quality of programming.

Your personal opinion, and not one I share. Cursing for cursing sake is clearly juvenile (IMHO), but I like shows that reflect reality, and reality is that people curse. I don’t think TV or movie writers should have to refrain from that reality to protect your delicate sensibilities.

Have you always felt this way about our parties stance?

Rob, decency standards have been a republican issue for quite some time, maybe from the start of broadcast media.

I’m a conservative first, Republican second. I didn’t know I was supposed to toe the party line on every issue.

So yes, I’ve always felt this FCC decency stuff was crap, and I’m glad to have the internet as an open medium. But something tells me you busybodies are going to be trying to lay your hands on it too soon.

Because just like the leftists, I think most people like you can’t avoid trying to tell other people how to live their lives.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

No, just require the show conform to decency standards.

So you’d still let the show air, it’d just have to conform to your personal and subjective definition of decency.

Let freedom ring.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

The problem with ews’ rant is that he doesn’t trust the people to be in charge of their entertainment. Listen to his disdain about what the public wants to watch.

Clearly, ews would like to be the commissar in charge of determining what sort of entertainment is suitable for the public.

He also pushes the canard about deteriorating social values. As though the Romans didn’t watch gladiator fights. The Victorians didn’t watch bear baitings. Or ancestors here in America didn’t watch cockfights.

I’m not endorsing those things, just indicating that human nature isn’t any more or less brutal than it’s ever been.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

But, if profanity is not somewhat restricted, then its presence in children’s programming is something you or I, anyone but the programming content creators, have no say in.

But we do have a say in whether or not our children watch it, right?

Personally I find the possibility of such a scenario clearly indecent and such “free speech” should be restricted for it is highly offensive and can negatively impact children.

But it can only impact your children if you let them watch it.

Such could be said for any and all decency restrictions on society. But if we are to have acceptable norms, then our society and culture are served well by decency standards.

There’s a difference between decency standards that require people to wear clothes in public and decency standards that tell me what I can and can’t watch in the privacy of my own home.

You talk of the PC crowd, how would you feel if they took your favorite Christian Rock Station off the air because some Muslims were offended by it?

Allowing the government to set decency standards for us is a slippery slope. I would think that conservatives, who cherish limited government and lots of personal liberty, would be the kind who’d want to just change the channel rather than letting bureaucrats determine what is and is not ok to watch/listen to.

But this is the problem with most social conservatives: They’re not actually conservative on certain issues like this one. They’re kind of just like the liberal commissars, who love telling everyone else how to live their lives.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Democrat Prudes

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments