What the F@%!

[United Dependencies]

That's not exactly true, the people who censor T.V. are forcing you to watch what they want, or rather not watch what you want.

Are not.

Isn't censorship against our right to freedom of speech anyway?

They're not censoring anything political last time I checked.

[Huntersunited]

I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.

Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.

Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.

Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.

You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.

Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.

Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.

Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.

But John Locke called them natural rights.

Which means the same thing.

Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.

[Conserative Morality]

Isn't censorship against our right to freedom of speech anyway?

Not if they insult someone, silly! Filth^tm is the ultimate evil and banned in the US Constitution! Somewhere. Right beside the right to keep foreigners out of our beautiful country!

[Smunkeeville]

I think you DO believe in censorship. I think you don't want to admit it. I think if I posted goatse right now you'd probably report me to your dear moderators.

Actually, I'd probably get out of the thread and wait for someone else to do it.

Why?

Yes. I want to know why you believe it's filth.

Why I believe what is filth?

[Schwabenreich]

I only support political censoring. People should be able to cuss up a storm on prime time or any time, even if the whole world hears.

[Conserative Morality]

Why?

Well, I'd get out of the thread because goatse...

Well, it's not pretty.

I'd wait for it to be removed because there's no sense in wishing off the inevitable.

Why I believe what is filth?

Don't play games.

[Huntersunited]

Isn't censorship against our right to freedom of speech anyway?

Not if they insult someone, silly! Filth^tm is the ultimate evil and banned in the US Constitution! Somewhere. Right beside the right to keep foreigners out of our beautiful country!

Well, I'm insulted by censorship, does that not count?

[Katganistan]

I'm tired of the FCC censoring Television. I believe the govt can't tell me what is good for me to watch or not watch. If parents don't like programs don't let your kids watch be a parent(Lazy adults).

So what do ya'll think.

There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.

If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.

[United Dependencies]

I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.

Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.

Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.

Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.

You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.

Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.

Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.

Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.

But John Locke called them natural rights.

Which means the same thing.

Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.

natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal

[Conserative Morality]

Well, I'm insulted by censorship, does that not count?

Filth^tm is naturally offensive, all those claiming otherwise are dangerous sociopaths who need to be locked up.

[Conserative Morality]

There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.

If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.

So that others don't have to be an adult all the time. I see.

[Huntersunited]

I'm tired of the FCC censoring Television. I believe the govt can't tell me what is good for me to watch or not watch. If parents don't like programs don't let your kids watch be a parent(Lazy adults).

So what do ya'll think.

There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.

If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.

If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.

[Katganistan]

The FCC was first made to prevent channels and radio stations from using the same frequencies. Now it's little more than the US department of censorship.

They should separate the two functions. With FCC going back to its original purpose, and a mixed governmental/academic/professional panel to check the contents and rate them.

Why introduce more bureaucracy so we can pay two completely different groups for doing what one does now?

[Conserative Morality]

If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.

I still remember freaking out the first time I saw cartoon network had an 'Adult Swim' program and I turned on in the middle of it.

[Huntersunited]

I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.

Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.

Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.

Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.

You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.

Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.

Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.

Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.

But John Locke called them natural rights.

Which means the same thing.

Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.

natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal

You can't trust wikipedia

[United Dependencies]

I'm tired of the FCC censoring Television. I believe the govt can't tell me what is good for me to watch or not watch. If parents don't like programs don't let your kids watch be a parent(Lazy adults).

So what do ya'll think.

There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.

If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.

If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.

So because some people get around it we obviously need to get rid of it?

[United Dependencies]

I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.

Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.

Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.

Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.

You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.

Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.

Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.

Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.

But John Locke called them natural rights.

Which means the same thing.

Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.

natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal

You can't trust wikipedia

I disagree.

edit:but just to appease you.

Natural rights - rights, freedoms and privileges which are such a basic part of human nature that they cannot be taken away. These are different from rights which are given to people by the law. According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights include "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/N.html

[Conserative Morality]

Why introduce more bureaucracy so we can pay two completely different groups for doing what one does now?

Good question. Why do we separate the Senate and the House? Because putting all the power in one government body, or one body of any kind, is not always a good thing.

In fact, it's RARELY a good thing.

[Katganistan]

yes.

...

So you support forcing your personal choice on thousands of other people because of a difference of taste? Wow.

because i dont like it, i support that it is restricted. im not creating restrictions that dont already exist. i appreciate that there are some outlets that are forced to obey some rules of decency.

And you get to define decency. How nice, Empress. Mind if I grovel as well, perhaps get the FCC to start censoring NSG to your tastes as well?

just as i appreciate that there are some outlets that can offer rougher mostly unregulated fare.

Uh huh. So if there's something that you don't like, you don't mind if it's banned from all but a few places? That's a very strange sentiment to be expressing on this particular day.

She supports the status quo. No need to get all nasty about it. You support change. Expect resistance.

[Conserative Morality]

She supports the status quo. No need to get all nasty about it. You support change. Expect resistance.

I expect it.

[Huntersunited]

I agree that other people's tastes shouldn't dictate the law, yes. Currently, my tastes ARE the law. It's other people's tastes that would change it at this point.

Call it a lack of confidence in the entertainment industry. Technically, I should trust the market's ability to provide censored channels for those of us who want them without government interference, and TBH I doubt most channels would change their formats to more vulgar ones even if those prohibitions were lifted. Even so, as I said, I think the more extreme sources of language, violence and sex in the media are a premium people should have to buy.

Charging people extra merely because you have a difference in taste with them. Wow.

Hi CM, how are you today? I'm not doing so well. I hurt my foot last night and I'm in pain and I have a really low threshold for bullshit. So, I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.

You do NOT have a right to entertainment. Entertainment costs money. You have to pay for it. If you want something that's uncommon you have to pay more. Such is life.

Well, we have the right of pursuit of happiness, and maybe my happiness is T.V. and censorship is stopping me from pursuing it.

Happiness is a difficult right to figure out. And it doesn't appear in the bill of rights.

Are you sure? It is one of our unalienable rights. (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Only according to Jefferson. According to Locke it is actually life liberty and property.

But John Locke called them natural rights.

Which means the same thing.

Not really, natural rights are the rights you are born with, while unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away.

natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal

You can't trust wikipedia

I disagree.

It can be changed by anyone

[Conserative Morality]

It can be changed by anyone

So can an election. But the chances of someone casting a vote for some crackpot candidate just for the hell of it without someone voting for a respectable candidate to even it out are about the same as someone messing up wikipedia without someone correcting it.

[Katganistan]

Their taste is more exotic, so they pay the extra price involved. It's like unlocking the full features of a trial version of software, or paying for a name brand product when generic is available. /shrug

It's more like buying Microsoft Word and only being able to use Times New Roman until you pay another ten dollars for every time you want to use a different font or font size.

So since you want to use fonts not included, pay for them? What's so tough about it?

Oh waaaah, I want what other people pay for for free?

[Huntersunited]

I'm tired of the FCC censoring Television. I believe the govt can't tell me what is good for me to watch or not watch. If parents don't like programs don't let your kids watch be a parent(Lazy adults).

So what do ya'll think.

There's a reason there is a watershed -- so that some shows that are on WILL be suitable (and I use that term loosely) for children.

If you want all adult all the time, there's cable, and there are DVDs. Be an adult.

If kids wanted to watch and find filth, they could easily on Google, so the good kids who don't just wouldn't watch inappropriate programs.

So because some people get around it we obviously need to get rid of it?

Well, if people get around it easily, and if it inconveniences people, and since it would be easier to catch your kid watching inappropriate things on T.V. then on a computer, then yes.

[Huntersunited]

It can be changed by anyone

So can an election. But the chances of someone casting a vote for some crackpot candidate just for the hell of it without someone voting for a respectable candidate to even it out are about the same as someone messing up wikipedia without someone correcting it.

I guess your right.