(Richard Cranium) wrote in
m:

Nobody has the right to impose their view of what is "right" or "good"
on anyone other than themselves. Public censorship is what smallminded
people resort to.

Is that so? Then I guess the government has no right to tell us that it's
wrong to murder somebody.

What you call "public censorship" used to be known as "common decency."
People who wanted trash and garbage could always find it, but a person
could watch TV with their 6 year old and not have to worry about what the 6
year old was exposed to in advertisements.

These ads are aired almost everywhere, and one never knows when they are
going to pop up.

I happen to be sick and tired of you and YOUR ilk trying to force indecency
and smut on everyone whether they want it or not. Then you put on the tired
whine about "Puritans" and "narrowminded control freaks." The government
has (finallY) made it illegal for smokers to pollute my air in public
places. I have the same right that my public media not be polluted by
filthy language, graphic scenes of sex & violence, etc. And no, I
shouldn't have to turn off my TV in order to have it.

Yes, I can choose what to watch, but I have NO control over what might show
up in a commercial block. It's not uncommon to see ads for sex enhancement
in the middle of shows that would be classified as "family viewing," even
on Nick At Night and TV Land.

"Richard Cranium" wrote:

So find something that doesn't offend
you so much or turn it OFF. Or is that
too much to ask of you? (snip)


Yes, it is indeed too much to ask. Why should I turn off my television, or
anyone else turn off their televisions, just so you can watch what you want?
I'm a citizen also, hopefully with the same rights as you. The same with the
others you might ask to turn off their televisions. So please tell me why
you have a right to watch what you want but I don't have that same right? Or
why they don't have that same right? Indeed, when I ask for decent
programming, it is described as censorship and puritanical by people like
you.


You'd hate TV in Europe, I can assure
you; why they even show full frontal
nudity. And nobody thinks anything
about it! (snip)


Sorry, that might fool someone who hasn't been there, but I've been to
Europe. In fact, I've spent about half of my adult life there. And, while
they do have nudity on television, it is neither explicite sex scenes or
childish, so-called "adult," humor. And the Europeans do very much think
about what they watch - which is exactly why so many American movies and
television shows have been banned in one or more European countries.


Stop trying to impose your outdated
Puritanical views on the rest of us.


I'll do so just as soon as you stop imposing your perverse and depraved
views on the rest of us.


You have the right to vote with your
dollars and not go to the sleazy movies,
you know. Or is that too much to ask?
You pay your money, sit thru a crappy
film, then whine about it on the
UseNet? Gee, I'm impressed.


Is it too much to ask you to read what is said before responding? I've
said nothing about movies at paid theaters, instead talking only about
movies and programming shown on television.


So you agree that you're trying to
impose your uptight so-called "morals"
on others? (snip)


No, I most certainly don't agree with that. You sit there ranting like a
madman about my views and morals when you have absolutely no idea what they
are. I'm not opposed to all nudity or adult content on television. Instead,
I simply think there is a time and place for everything and people should be
given a choice when and where that is. People do not have that choice now.
When I sit down to watch, I have no idea what is going to be on that
television two minutes from now. Likewise, I do think there should be some
limits on what is shown, while there are very few now.


(snip) Why shouldn't you turn off
your TV if you don't like what you're
seeing? (snip)


And why shouldn't you go to the adult porno rental store to watch what you
like to see?


Nonsense. There's no evidence that
what I watch affects you in any
way.


Well, certainly none you would agree with.


Certainly everyone has the same rights,
but show me in the Constitution of the
United States where it says that if YOU
don't like something, I can't hear or see
it. (snip)


Show me where in that same Constitution it says that if you want to watch
something, it must be shown on public television broadcast into the living
rooms of everyone else. Or where it says that if you want to watch
something, we must, without objection, allow it to be shown. You're not the
only one with rights here, Richard. But you're trying darn hard to claim
your rights supersede mine or those of anyone else who objects to what you
want to watch.


Incidently, thee's no constitutional guarantee
that you'll never be offended or bothered.
Get used to it.


No, but there is a guarantee that gives me a right to advocate laws
against whatever offends me. I would suggest you get used to that, but you
probably never will.


Sounds as though you would have enjoyed
living in Nazi Germany or the former Soviet
Union, Dwight. If you can't handle the
freedom we have here in the USA, maybe
you should consider emigrating somewhere
else. Singapore might fit the bill; there ain't
no freedom in Singapore.


Ah, so there are no limits to what you would allow and watch on
television, including the previously mentioned videos of victims taken by
sex offenders or videos by murderers showing torture of their victims - what
you described as "the freedom we have here in the USA." Clearly, any
extremist who would spout rhetoric about others "emigrating somewhere else"
if they object to what is shown on televison is not capable of having a
serious discussion about this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"-=jd=-" wrote:

We should simply have a mandatory
(required by law) "Tag" inserted in the
Closed-Caption stream that classifies
the content of programming and/or
ads. Then we could build a box
(standalone or integrated) that by end
user selection mutes, blanks or
otherwise screens the objectionable
content? (snip)


The biggest problem I see with that is it would give the television
industry a virtual green light to show whatever they want throughout the
day, while claiming there are "protections" for those who don't want to see
it. If that happens, there will be no decent programming left to watch.
Think about television now. If one wanted to block out so-called "adult"
material in movies, shows, and commericals, that blocking device would be
blocking out material most of the day. And I assume only a blank screen
would be shown while that blocking device is actively blocking content.

Instead, there is a much simplier, and I think acceptable to all,
solution - restrict so-called "adult" programming to fixed hours throughout
the day with it automatically blocked until a user-programmable code is
entered into the existing cable or satellite boxes. If no code is programmed
or entered into the box, the so-called "adult" segments remain automatically
blocked. And each segment must be unblocked individually, with "adult"
content returning to a blocked state at the end of each segment.

Cable and satellite boxes already have this capability (not that unlike
"pay-per-view"), so there would be no need for Gore-like chips in
televisions or anything else on the part of the consumer. Instead, it would
be left to the television industry to truly rate their programming and local
cable companies to fit that "adult" programming into the "adult" segments
(with severe punishments for those cable companies who fail to do so).

By the way, "adult" programming would include any show or commercial
featuring real, simulated, or cartoon-like, sex, nudity, adult language,
adult products (including intimate hygiene products, lingerie, or intimate
apparel), extreme close-ups of the human body, or intimate behavior which
might be considered out of place in a conventional store or restaurant.

This system would easily allow everyone to watch this programming whenever
they want (no censorship), while allowing everyone else to scan the channels
without worrying what might be on any specific channel they stop on.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/