|
Web Site Created to Counter FCC's Charges of Radio "Indecency"
PNN - Richmond,VA,USA In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to "indecent" radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has been ... http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=5177&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 |
"Mike Terry" wrote in
: In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to "indecent" radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has been ... Wow. A non profit organization to defend smut peddlers on the airwaves. I, for one, am sick of turning on the TV or radio and being bombarded with ads for natural male enhancement, sex drugs for those who no longer can, condoms, feminine strips, etc. Talentless "entertainers" like Stern, Mancow, and their ilk stoop to the lowest common denominator (sleaze) because they know it sells and that the intelligence level of their audience is barely above that of pond scum. I think the FCC is finally headed back in the right direction. |
scroob wrote in message ...
"Mike Terry" wrote in : In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to "indecent" radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has been ... Wow. A non profit organization to defend smut peddlers on the airwaves. I, for one, am sick of turning on the TV or radio and being bombarded with ads for natural male enhancement, sex drugs for those who no longer can, condoms, feminine strips, etc. Talentless "entertainers" like Stern, Mancow, and their ilk stoop to the lowest common denominator (sleaze) because they know it sells and that the intelligence level of their audience is barely above that of pond scum. I think the FCC is finally headed back in the right direction. YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! |
"scroob" wrote: (snip) I, for one, am sick of turning on the TV or radio and being bombarded with ads for natural male enhancement, sex drugs for those who no longer can, condoms, feminine strips, etc. Talentless "entertainers" like Stern, Mancow, and their ilk stoop to the lowest common denominator (sleaze) because they know it sells and that the intelligence level of their audience is barely above that of pond scum. (snip) Absolutely right. I'm also fed up with the sleazy garbage on TV and radio. In my opinion, the FCC hasn't gone nearly far enough. They should also go after the cable companies too - all are using satellites regulated by the FCC to distribute their programming nationwide (something that industry seems to be trying to avoid drawing attention to). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
I can't stand people like stern and I wish they would boot rush too.
that is why I listen to shortwave and not the pathetic american media "Mike Terry" wrote in message ... PNN - Richmond,VA,USA In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to "indecent" radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has been ... http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=5177&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 |
"the captain" wrote in message om... I can't stand people like stern and I wish they would boot rush too. that is why I listen to shortwave and not the pathetic american media LOL! Hey captain -- ask the navigator where the "off" button is! -- Stinger |
"Richard Cranium" wrote:
Every single radio and television set I've ever seen has two controls built- in for personal censorship: An OFF switch and a tuning knob or channel selector. Use them if you don't like what you hear or see. Nobody FORCED you wo watch Janet Jackson bare her shapely breast, after all. (snip) Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was watching (without warning, parental or otherwise). Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language). The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes. Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality, the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television entirely. And I see no reason why I should be forced to turn off my television without objection just so others can entertain themselves by endlessly watching this garbage. Finally, this isn't just a personal matter. My family has the potential to be directly impacted by the sleaze and violence watched by the family next door or down the street. I would like to go about my day without worrying about the violence each person I meet enjoys for entertainment. I would also like my wife and daughter to be able to go about their day without concerning themselves with the filth and sleaze each person they meet enjoys for their entertainment. Nobody has the right to impose their view of what is "right" or "good" on anyone other than themselves. Who said? Every person in this country has a right to their views and a right to advocate those views. Show me anything that says otherwise. Likewise, if the majority accepts those views, show me anything that says those views cannot be imposed through law. Free speech has never been absolute in this country and, based on what I see now, I dread the very thought of what might happen if it ever does. Public censorship is what smallminded people resort to. Utter nonsense. It's small-minded, and downright foolish, not to have some level of censorship. For example, do you believe videos of victims taken by sex offenders should be shown on television - not by the perpetrator, but by those who don't believe in censorship? What about videos by murderers showing torture of their victims? Clearly, the issue isn't about no censorship, but about where the line on censorship should be drawn. At this point, the line is way out there on the side of filth, violence, and other such garbage. BTW, I don't like Howard Stern, so I don't listen to him. I also don't like Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Libby, so I don't listen to them either. If I'm intelligent enough to think of that, why didn't you? Then why were you not also intelligent enough to notice I said nothing about Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Libby, or anyone else. Instead, I commented about sleaze and garbage on radio and television in general. Howard Stern is only one small example of a very much wider problem. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: "Richard Cranium" wrote: Every single radio and television set I've ever seen has two controls built- in for personal censorship: An OFF switch and a tuning knob or channel selector. Use them if you don't like what you hear or see. Nobody FORCED you wo watch Janet Jackson bare her shapely breast, after all. (snip) Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was watching (without warning, parental or otherwise). Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language). The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes. Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality, the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television entirely. "In reality, the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television entirely." Yes that's the answer. You won't miss much. All you will miss is the lowest common denominator entertainment. No great loss. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Richard Cranium" wrote: Every single radio and television set I've ever seen has two controls built- in for personal censorship: An OFF switch and a tuning knob or channel selector. Use them if you don't like what you hear or see. Nobody FORCED you wo watch Janet Jackson bare her shapely breast, after all. (snip) Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was watching (without warning, parental or otherwise). So find something that doesn't offend you so much or turn it OFF. Or is that too much to ask of you? You'd hate TV in Europe, I can assure you; why they even show full frontal nudity. And nobody thinks anything about it! Stop trying to impose your outdated Puritanical views on the rest of us. Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language). The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes. 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. Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality, the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television entirely. And I see no reason why I should be forced to turn off my television without objection just so others can entertain themselves by endlessly watching this garbage. So you agree that you're trying to impose your uptight so-called "morals" on others? No two people are exactly alike; no two people will enjoy the exact same thing. Why shouldn't you turn off your TV if you don't like what you're seeing? Is your life so boring that all you have to do is stare at the boob toob and then whine about what "other people" do? Finally, this isn't just a personal matter. My family has the potential to be directly impacted by the sleaze and violence watched by the family next door or down the street. I would like to go about my day without worrying about the violence each person I meet enjoys for entertainment. I would also like my wife and daughter to be able to go about their day without concerning themselves with the filth and sleaze each person they meet enjoys for their entertainment. Nonsense. There's no evidence that what I watch affects you in any way. Nobody has the right to impose their view of what is "right" or "good" on anyone other than themselves. Who said? Every person in this country has a right to their views and a right to advocate those views. Show me anything that says otherwise. Likewise, if the majority accepts those views, show me anything that says those views cannot be imposed through law. Free speech has never been absolute in this country and, based on what I see now, I dread the very thought of what might happen if it ever does. 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. Incidently, thee's no constitutional guarantee that you'll never be offended or bothered. Get used to it. Public censorship is what smallminded people resort to. Utter nonsense. It's small-minded, and downright foolish, not to have some level of censorship. For example, do you believe videos of victims taken by sex offenders should be shown on television - not by the perpetrator, but by those who don't believe in censorship? What about videos by murderers showing torture of their victims? Clearly, the issue isn't about no censorship, but about where the line on censorship should be drawn. At this point, the line is way out there on the side of filth, violence, and other such garbage. 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. BTW, I don't like Howard Stern, so I don't listen to him. I also don't like Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Libby, so I don't listen to them either. If I'm intelligent enough to think of that, why didn't you? Then why were you not also intelligent enough to notice I said nothing about Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Libby, or anyone else. Instead, I commented about sleaze and garbage on radio and television in general. Howard Stern is only one small example of a very much wider problem. The only "problem" is that people like YOU want to impose their views and beliefs on everybody else: Your taste, your type of entertainment. You didn't have to, personally, mention Howard Stern. He's the topic of the thread, remember? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
"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/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com