Why the FCC crackdown was a bad thing

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree the V-Chip is great, but even then someone has to make place the ratings and they have to make sure the stations adhere to them and their programming schedule.

Sure, but that's different than forcing them to keep the number of times they say "shit" under 10, or forbidding them to use "FUCK", or nudity, or whatever.

It's the same thing with video games. I'm so fucking sick of all of these idiot politicians (tipper gore, hillary) trying to say violent video games make people violent

I've been playing FPS since I was young, started with Wolfenstein, and I haven't killed anyone. Except that once, but it doesn't count. But my point is, they're full of shit.

The real problem is that parents and people aren't taking responsibility for their own actions and so they want the government to do it for them.. thereby restricting my ability to make decisions on my own by limiting what's available for me to make a decision on.

How hard is it to make sure that while your child is at home, he's playing only video games you find acceptable? Listening to music you find acceptable? Watching programs you find acceptable?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well take the Superbowl. We all thought we were gonna see a few hours of football and some funny beer commercials. Instead we got someone's boob. That would have changed the "rating" yet it aired on national television. So what do we do then?

With information only, that would possibly happen on live television occasionally. But, as previously stated, it was very brief (they cut away nearly instantly) and the networks would WANT to keep instances like that to a minimum since they are providing a service to their viewers. The delay thing fixes it anyway, so it's all moot.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think we need some form of content management on public airwaves. Cable is another story. I think the FCC has gone overboard, but I think there is a need for such an organization.

To a degree, yes, but a nipple isn't "bad".

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well take the Superbowl. We all thought we were gonna see a few hours of football and some funny beer commercials. Instead we got someone's boob. That would have changed the "rating" yet it aired on national television. So what do we do then?

I don't think it would have been worthy of changing the rating. If there were naked girls dacing, yes, or some sort of sex scene yes, but a few second slip, not worth it

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

As a parent, I can honestly say Janet jackson's boob did not bother me.

If a child, even as young as 4 or as old as 12 gets freaked out by 2 seconds of Boobage, then that kid has problems.

my son was in the room, and he didnt even notice. i noticed, but figured it was an accident. either way...its a joke that it went to this level.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

my son was in the room, and he didnt even notice. i noticed, but figured it was an accident. either way...its a joke that it went to this level.

But it's like, let's say one of our kids is like...7 or 8. and let's say for arguements sake, they saw her boob and said "Was that her boob?" Why is that a hard question to respond to?

"Yeah, it was." Why does it need more discussion?

OK let's say he presses, "Why did that guy rip her shirt and show her boobie?"

"Because they were dancing and it was an accident I guess."

Why does this need to be more complicated than that?

[motivez]

Because you're supposed to be ashamed of your body and the human body, you sinner!

[Kytro]

On a side note.

The FCC is supposed to regulate content on the premise that many people don't have alternatives choices. That is why newspapers do not fall under the juristiction of the FCC, because there used to be more papers.

Now days there is plenty of choice, and the FCC shouldn't no longer be regulating content