• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Censorship (1 Viewer)

LiberalFINGER

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I really do not think this is a reaction to censorship. This is political backlash tied directly to the result of the election. It is very systematic of those folks on the liberal side to create their own reality for show. This movie has shown nationwide uncensored for two years on ABC without FCC action or even a threat of action.

When a soldier in a war drama that is historically founded uses the "F" word that is far different than when Howard Stern uses the "F" when he talks about what he wants to do to Carmon Electra. Any person who can not see and understand how those are different and how one is more destructive than the other to dignity then I can't help those people.

ABC knew that there was no danger of action from the FCC that is why they told all affiliates that they would pay any and all fines. The liberal media is pissed and they well go to any lengths to create their own reality so they can legitimize their flawed logic.
 
You're right. This isn't a reaction to censorship. This is a fear of being censored. There has been such a back-lash from morally conservative individuals not wishing to have their sensabilities offended that things we would normally accept as being all well and good are now being scrutinized to make sure they won't offend.

True that Saving Private Ryan may have been broadcast in the last couple years, but the tolerance level in our country for borderline broadcasts have significantly dropped in the past 6 months or so.
 
When a soldier in a war drama that is historically founded uses the "F" word that is far different than when Howard Stern uses the "F" when he talks about what he wants to do to Carmon Electra. Any person who can not see and understand how those are different and how one is more destructive than the other to dignity then I can't help those people.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The "F" word is the "F" word is the "F" word. By allowing this broadcast it even more desensitizes us to the word - regardless of context. In 2...5...or 10 years it will be in commericals. "But the naked lady stubbed her toe... in context is was appropriate to use the F word. The coffee made it all better."

I am not saying that stubbing toes and loosing limbs in battle are the same. I am saying that Speilberg could have used more constructive language in his film. In WWII, the use of the "F" word was not as abundant as it is now. It was not as accepted.

If I want to see this movie (fine one it is) I will rent it, download it, buy it, or take it from someone who isn't looking. Please do not make it easier for my children to see extream violence and language on public broadcasting.

In a capitolistic society they have the right to choose. We do as well. If they do not want to put a particutlar show on the air - that is their choice. It is mine to change the channel.

I think this is really just something the extream left want to play with. Reverse psychology. I am having non of it.
 
I am not supporting the use of the "F" word at all. I don't think the use of the word is glamorized in "Saving Private Ryan" I think when Howard Stern uses it in his tongue-in-cheek cutesy way it is glamorized. It is the glamorization of the word that builds it's popularity and its acceptance in social exchanges.

All I know is that if I was taking a beach on d-day or dodging bullets in Italy. It is very likely that I would be using a few words myself including... but not limited to... "F" and "Sh". My grandfather spent 2 1/2 years fighting in WWII and he has commented to me before... that tough language was a big part of the testosterone ritual of war. The term.. "cuss like a sailor" came from WWII FYI.

I am not saying that this movie should be shown on Saturday morning or even marketed to kids. But ABC did have warnings about content at the begging and the end of each segment.

I will say that I am more likely to agree with you as far as having more restraint instead of less restraint when it comes to these matters. The free use of cuss-wards is not a freedom of speech issue because it doesn't limit one's ability to express their ideas. Profanities tend to be used as a road-block to speech rather than to encourage the free exercise of speech.
 
But ABC did have warnings about content at the begging and the end of each segment.
Click to expand...
This, I did not know. With those warnings and late night programming, I can see no 'real' issue. But, I think it is in very poor taste to even broadcast it.

I still believe that it is up to the station itself as to if they should broadcast or not. Just because one station shows it does not mean that all stations have to show it. They have free excercise of speech as well as any other radio/TV station. They have proven that by not showing it - regardless of motivation.

If indeed they feared repercussions from the FCC, I applaud them.
 
I think this is mainly a problem because of the whole Super Bowl incident with Justin Timberlake. However, if you want to talk about the things you see on TV, just turn to Nip/Tuck, which is basically softcore porn. TV is starting to trend towards this kind of TV mainly because networks believe that most American homes have filters and parental blocks for shows and channels that have "inappropriate" material. However in the topic at hand, I think it would be very benefical for a child to see the horrors of WWII and fighting in battle. Sure it might not be completly historically signifigant (who walks towards a tank with a pistol?), but the idea gets across nicely.

One always has the choice to watch what they want, when they want, and no FCC group will stop them from doing it. It really shouldn't be an issue.
 
It really shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...
:yt It was the choice of the station not to play it for whatever reason.

Yikes! I am agreeing with a liberal! :eek:
 
Yeah everyone agrees it was their choice but I am curious as to why? I still think it is a political move to over react to the present environment. They are trying to force a point that can not really be made. They are trying to sow fear... that fear of censorship that was spoken of earlier.
 
They can fear the FCC all they want, it's not going to change anything. There will still be trashy TV on, no matter what we say or do. (see Real World).
 
True. Very true.

And that's part of why I tend to get frustrated when I see people getting up in arms over something that has minor infractions like the "F-bomb", but still has a poignant message.

Some people will not watch schindlers list because of nudity. Others won't watch Saving Private Ryan because of the violence. They will speak out about these things being inapropriate while at the same time, we have scantily clad women shaking their cookies at the camera while a guy raps about capping hos.

We cannot allow censorship to squelch quality ideas from flowing. The simple idea of censorship already starts to erode the channels of communication. I have absolutely no use for "The Real World", but I would not censor it. If I were to censor one thing, then I would introduce questions about censoring others.
 
"Real World" is cable television. Different genre.

The FCC does not monitor as tightly - only "adult" content cannot be put on there unless it is purchased and scrambled. Then it HAS to be unscrambled with a descrambler (cable box). If Cinemax wanted too they could put XXX porn on there, but that might not cater to thier audience. MTV could not, because it is considered basic cable package and not scrambled.
 
Well, yes, I was just referring to bad tv in relation to Real World. :p
 
MSR said:
Yeah everyone agrees it was their choice but I am curious as to why? I still think it is a political move to over react to the present environment. They are trying to force a point that can not really be made. They are trying to sow fear... that fear of censorship that was spoken of earlier.
Click to expand...

I know. It's totally illogical!

I say we comend their CYA "principles" 100% and then when they undoubtedly show something else questionable in nature, we all shout "Hypocrite!"

It'll be fun.
 
You're right Vauge, it's a different genre (would transmission medium be more accurate) but, the effect that you fear will be same. If crap is being broadcast, your child can still go over to someone elses house and view it.

So, would you like the FCC to regulate subscription based programing as well?
 
So, would you like the FCC to regulate subscription based programing as well?
Click to expand...
No. Hopefully, I am smart enough to guess at the quality of people my child hangs out with. Again, hopefully, they would have thier parental controls turned on as I would.
 
Another issue is, why shelter your kids? They are going to find this stuff out regardless if you put parental controls on your TV. Plus, you can never know the children your child hangs out with and what they do, trust me.

Plus, as a parent, if you tell your child that he cannot hang out with his new friend because YOU don't approve of him, you'll only encourage him to do whatever his new friend does. Its a lose lose situation
 
Another issue is, why shelter your kids?
Click to expand...
So that when my kids are older they trust thier parents. Trust leads to honesty. Honesty leads to effective communication. (as if it was really that easy)

They are going to find this stuff out regardless if you put parental controls on your TV. Plus, you can never know the children your child hangs out with and what they do, trust me.
Click to expand...
LOL, even though I am ancient doesn't mean that I wasn't smoking pot and dropping Acid when my parents weren't watching. Or even when they were, without noticing! My parents definatly did not like my friends. They believed that it was 100% the friends I hung around that made my 'attitude'. On the contrary, it was mostly me just trying something new because of something I heard about or watched on television - or somethign I didn't even know was wrong.

They did not know that I was 'active' at a pretty young age. Nothing different that the norm. But now, that age is at 11 and 12 rather than 15 & 16. Sometimes MUCH younger.

I realize that my young one will lie his ass off to me at some point. Hopefully, I can instill some values while he is younger to trust his old man and minimize this.

I did not trust my parents at the time... and I believe that is key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom