Defending the Truth

Gives me the shivers when they describe legislation as "sweeping" and "general".

Check these out...

Howard Stern Faces the FCC Chairman

Four more years of this guy?

On Decency & Common Sense

Say NO! To Censorship... Contact Your Congressman Now.

Network television and radio belong to the people. As such what it broadcast has to be appropriate for all listen or watch. A parent in this country should not have to worry about what their children may see or hear on television and radio. Parents cannot always be there, and seeing how since the 1960's one-third of all children are now born into out of wedlock homes, and single-parent homes, they cannot always be there.

Cable television, premium channels and satellite radio are all paid subscription programming, and thus should be allowed to have more freedom in what they air. Howard Stern is not a poster boy for the 1st Amendment, far from it. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but not on the public airwaves. Society has a right and has often estalbished mores, well we have seen the decline in our mores over the years, and we have also seen the decline in society, perhaps if we stiffen our mores once again, we will see a country we are more proud of, and a society we are safer in once again.

dmk

First I will assume that by 'mores' you meant 'morals'.

Now, I was raised in a single parent home, and it was great. And my mother always knew what I was watching, plus she disciplined me to where I knew what was & was not appropriate. It can be done. When the overwhelming majority of people want freedom of speech, we can not allow that to be repressed by the 'moral' minority. The simple fact of the matter is that 'morals' are very subjective, and laws should not be based off of 'morals'. What you think is moral and what I think is moral is clearly two different things, which one of us is right? We both are. Every T.V. and Radio ever built has come with a built in device carefully designed to allow you to censor out programs which you find objectionable, it's called the power switch.

uhhhh.... ummm... NO!!!

No the word is mores, look it up.

The point over the Janet Jackson fiasco was that it was on prime time family viewing, it had no place. Many a fathers and sons sat to watch the game together, not for a sneak peak of a breast.

Howard Stern broadcasts during the morning during the drive to and from work and/or school. There is nothing wrong with demanding a standard behavior that should be appropriate for the listening and viewing public during the day.

dmk

Seeing a breast isn't going to hurt anyone. The unnatural christian reaction to the breast is what creates more damage than the breast itself.

Exactly. Christians are the only ones who thought it was perverted. There were very few complaints. Less than 1% of the viewing audience in fact.

A breast is beautiful, and it is natural. There is absolutely noe reason we should not be able to show it.

Christians are the same people who put a pair of boxers on the statue of David. They are sick, perverted people, and they want the rest of us to suffer with them.

What?!? Ok, it was a tit..get over it. Little boys and fathers alike don't mind seeing breasts on TV. You make it sound like they turned it on in the 3rd quarter and they saw Janet Jackson's boob on screen. It was the half time show. Who watches the half time show? The only times I have were when U2 did the 9/11 tribute and last year because Paul McCartney is a legned of music. Every other year I watch something else. And for the last time, it's a body part. Did you know that breasts on TV is perfectly legal for shows with medical backrounds/intents (i.e. plastic surgery, breast cancer)? What's the big difference? Oh yeah, you can show those tits because she's getting them enlarged but not those ones because she's just taking off her shirt have sex with a guy. The only reason there is a so-called difference in appropriateness with those two situations is because of CHRISTIANITY. Stop letting the religious values of a group dictate policy for an entire country.


You can take that comment and shove it up your tight ass. There is EVERYTHING wrong with "demanding a standard of behavior." It's called free speech. Grow up and change the station. I don't give two shits what's appropriate, that's up to the parents. People say whatever they want and it's my choice whether I listen to them or not. Not to mention the fact that it's not like he's standing on an all-mighty soap box and all everyone can hear is his voice. It's called the tuner...change the station.

And I don't want to hear anymore, "Well, what about when there's no one to supervise what they watch or listen to?"
Why don't you just be a better parent and tell them that they are not allowed to listen or watch that? If they are not obeying you in the first place, then you've been doing something wrong the whole time you've been raising them. Most people have done over a thousand things their parents told them not to do, so you can at least sympathize with that. I demand parents who are not lazy not "standards of behavior."

which is not to see a tit. I didn't care that I saw one, nor did most people I know. The "sweeping legislation" is bull and was blown up because of this. Personally, I'm happy Howard is going to Satellite. Public broadcasting is still paid for by the people who hate profanity, so they do have a say. I think the censorship is over-blown but there's not much you can do. I have cable and the FCC doesn't regualte that. I don't care if ABC, CBS, and NBC are not allowed to do things. Big deal.

Howard on Satellite means he can do whatever he wants, which I see as a plus. And stop acting like it's all Christianity's fault. People blame too much on it.

What pissed me off is that the FCC is looking to get legislation to regulate cable and satellite TV/radio as well. Of course, they can't since it's subscription-based. But Congress can change that. That, I see, as utter BS. There is too much regulation, and the Janet Jackson thing was a mistake but I could understand some parents having legitimate concerns about it. Still, 500 000 (the number of complaints the FCC recieved) is not a lot of people. It is, but the population of NYC is 2 million. Eh?

Either way, both sides have valid points, but the left screaming "It's Christianity's fault" is pointless. The Senate approved it 99-1 if I remember. From what I can remember, more than one person on that Senate is a Democrat...So clearly it's not just "the religious right"