Censorship on television

[Chrobalta]

In America, a lot of what is on TV is currently censored, words, and explicit images to be precise. I am just wondering where everybody stands on the censorship of these.


Personally, I am not a fan of the "morality police" and am against such censorship.

[Neo Art]

oh noes, you can't show tits on network television!

[Nation of Quebec]

I say that the FCC needs to be scrapped. It's due time we ended this morality crusade on our freedoms.

As I've said before on other censorship threads, if you don't like it, don't watch it and don't show it to your children. People getting offended over depictions of the human body or those evil "dirty" words is hardly an excuse for censorship. It's no reason you have to ruin it for those of us with more open minds.

The only thing that should be censored on television is speech advocating hatred and violence towards specific groups.

[JuNii]

I'm of two minds.

there are things that shouldn't be shown. while not necessarily tits, but hardcore porn or hardcore violence should be censored. same with some words.

however... On the other hand... you can't coddle kids. at some point they have to learn that yes, there are bad things out there and that freedom does come with responsibility.

[Dododecapod]

Censorship of images on free-to-air has a certain logic to it. Words does not; walk by any local playground and you'll hear f-bombs popping everywhere.

[Allbeama]

Down with the FCC! Destroy them! TV needs to be free of censorship!

[Goath]

The idea that there are words that can't be said on TV- words every single person in the country has heard at the Mall or just walking down the street on a random Tuesday- is ridiculous. It isn't polite language, and it's never going to be on Sesame Street, but there's no reason an adult on an adult program can't us the f-word.

As to images- the only thing you can't show on American TV today is sex. Nothing else is taboo. I have no problem lifting that taboo. Again, it isn't ever going to be part of kiddie shows, and if you don't want your kid to watch it, don't let them. I'm of the mind it won't hurt them to watch, but, you know, whatever.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

They should show scat porn on children's television networks during times when children are highly likely to be watching.

[Allbeama]

They should show scat porn on children's television networks during times when children are highly likely to be watching.

Yes! Yes!

[Helgrin]

The internet renders censorship useless anyway.

[Wilgrove]

oh noes, you can't show tits on network television!

Actually

[Redslavia]

Images I can understand, but the words - let them free.

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

I hate censorship. I think that the only person who is capable of censoring what I read or watch is me.

I voted end censorship of words. I would have liked to vote to end censorship of images, but what I think I would really like to see is a modified version, that of putting the images on at a specified time, on a specified channel - so it's there for those that want it but can be conveniently blocked by parents who don't want their kids seeing it.

[Meridistan]

I say that the FCC needs to be scrapped. It's due time we ended this morality crusade on our freedoms.

As I've said before on other censorship threads, if you don't like it, don't watch it and don't show it to your children. People getting offended over depictions of the human body or those evil "dirty" words is hardly an excuse for censorship. It's no reason you have to ruin it for those of us with more open minds.

The only thing that should be censored on television is speech advocating hatred and violence towards specific groups.

I'll have to double-check to make sure I've got my federal agencies right, but unless I'm mistaken the FCC does a great deal more than censoring things, some of which are rather important. So, completely scrapping it doesn't necessarily seem to be in our best interest.

I'm all for ending censorship, of course, but so far the situation isn't bad enough that I feel the need to do anything about it.

*Edit*
Okay, just checked on the FCC. As I thought, censorship, while irritating, is not the FCC's only function. They are responsible for regulating broadcast signals to make sure stations aren't overpowering each other, ensuring that each signal not already in use by the federal government is used by a licensed operator, preventing discriminatory pricing practices among telecommunications companies, determine the purpose of the new white-spaces within the radio frequency spectrum, and ensure net neutrality in the US. One could delegate those functions to other agencies, but I really see no reason as to why one would do that just to end censorship; it'd be easier just to modify the FCC's rules on indecency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Co ... Commission

Wikipedia ftw

[Kantria]

oh noes, you can't show tits on network television!

You can—they just can't be attached to anything resembling a human body.

[Omnicracy]

I say that the FCC needs to be scrapped. It's due time we ended this morality crusade on our freedoms.

As I've said before on other censorship threads, if you don't like it, don't watch it and don't show it to your children. People getting offended over depictions of the human body or those evil "dirty" words is hardly an excuse for censorship. It's no reason you have to ruin it for those of us with more open minds.

The only thing that should be censored on television is speech advocating hatred and violence towards specific groups.

The FCC does more than say what can and cannot be said on tv or radio. They also keep brawed (tried five times to spell it right, sorry) cast power regulated and stop people from compeating over the same chanal. (i.e. you can't go in your back yard, put up a radio tower, and bawed [again, sorry] cast so strongly that no one can get a station you dont like in a five block radius)

(adendum: hadn't gotten to the point where someone else said the same thing with more examples... still true though.)

[Omnicracy]

I'm of two minds.

there are things that shouldn't be shown. while not necessarily tits, but hardcore porn or hardcore violence should be censored. same with some words.

however... On the other hand... you can't coddle kids. at some point they have to learn that yes, there are bad things out there and that freedom does come with responsibility.

But if you legaly let hard core porn/violence be shown, private organizations will still keep it off the air. At least to the stations that care about them as consumers. And theres always the v-chip for those that dont care.

[Omnicracy]

I hate censorship. I think that the only person who is capable of censoring what I read or watch is me.

I voted end censorship of words. I would have liked to vote to end censorship of images, but what I think I would really like to see is a modified version, that of putting the images on at a specified time, on a specified channel - so it's there for those that want it but can be conveniently blocked by parents who don't want their kids seeing it.

If your in the US: the time; 2am, the chanels; any cable that feel like it.

[Rolamec]

The United States has a paradox in this issue of some sorts. We take our beliefs, political or religious, literal speech, organized protests, etc. to heart by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has continually upheld this. Now with television and the radio, its heavily (in comparison) censored and upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Kantria]

Why won't any of you think of the children?!

[Rolamec]

Why won't any of you think of the children?!

Shoot. I heard every single curseword on tv before my 10th birthday and saw my first tri-boobs from Total Recall at the age of 8. And aside from the random twitching, my involvement in the Bloods, and my addiction to LSD, I turned out fine

[Omnicracy]

The United States has a paradox in this issue of some sorts. We take our beliefs, political or religious, literal speech, organized protests, etc. to heart by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has continually upheld this. Now with television and the radio, its heavily (in comparison) censored and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Its because you can say what you want, write what you want, and be as perverted as you want, but you can't do it in an elementery school. (oversimplification of acctual reasoning, not saying I agree or dissagree)

[United Russian State]

Censorship is a good thing.

[Kantria]

Censorship is a good thing.

Vague statement is—wait for it!—vague.

[Rolamec]

The United States has a paradox in this issue of some sorts. We take our beliefs, political or religious, literal speech, organized protests, etc. to heart by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has continually upheld this. Now with television and the radio, its heavily (in comparison) censored and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Its because you can say what you want, write what you want, and be as perverted as you want, but you can't do it in an elementery school. (oversimplification of acctual reasoning, not saying I agree or dissagree)

No I agree. Sometimes I think we go too far. I've read stories in the paper talking about how people write 'fictional' stories on pedophilia, or how some crazy baptist church harasses funerals for fallen gay soldiers. And as much as I hate and dislike both, I wonder, if we didn't allow that to a tolerable extent, where would the line be to say what you can do and can't. Remember it was censorship of magazines like Playboy and Hustler in the 60s-70's that led to going so far to the otherside in allowing people to write on pedophile stories. It was the attempt to push down protests in that same era as well, that resulted in a few nutcases who spew hate at a fallen soldier's funeral simply because he is gay today.