squinney wrote: I must say, OBill, that given your stance on abused women, this really surprises me.
Then, I connect the low self esteem, overly sexual behavior suggesting lack of self respect, and inability of men to listen to "no" to over exposure to things like porn and GGW being in our faces.
You're confusing two issues here, Squin. I personally think the commercials have no place at 8:30 pm during Scrubs and were I the Station Manager they wouldn't be aired then. That doesn't mean I don't object to government censorship. Personally, I don't like seeing Tampon commercials, Stiffy Pills, Herpes Meds, ANY Anti-Depression pill ads and am terribly offended by those cartoon guys that like to get under your nails. So what. It's not my place to make that decision for others... and it damn sure isn't the government's job, either. Protection of the First Amendment takes precedence over my objection to materials I don't like. It doesn't work any other way. See "The people Vs. Larry Flint". Just like freedom of speech, you have to accept, in a legal sense, that which you personally find objectionable, or you're standing on a very slippery slope. I do not want my personal choices limited by an arbitrary consensus. That's not FREEDOM.
squinney wrote: I'll ask again - do you want regular porn on basic cable at 8:00? Shall we go ahead and start advertising strap-ons during American Idol?
No, and No. However, while I have no objection to requiring warnings of Adult Content, I don't want big brother making these decisions. Offense-free Television is not a constitutional right and Television itself is hardly a necessity. My sister chose not to have one in her home for well over a decade, because her standards of acceptability for her children are more stringent than most. She's since lightened up, but to this day her and her husband generally watch TV with their children, mute out ALL commercials and change channels when what they deem inappropriate appears. Pain in the A$$, you betcha
but I'd wager neither would support censorship, even for their own benefit.
squinney wrote: And, gee, we never see male privates advertised, now do we?
Here you see an example of the slippery slope of censorship. What one arbitrary consensus finds inappropriate; strikes another as a ridiculous distinction. I agree with you that the male/female acceptable/unacceptable standards are beyond absurd... but they only exist because of censorship in the first place. In "The People Vs. Larry Flint", the Flint character played by Woody Harrelson puts on a slide show comparing various degrees of pornographic material against various degrees of violent material, while repeating the question "Which is more offensive, this or this?" He made his case in spades. Now, do you wish to see violence censored in the same manner? And who should decide where the line is? Do we start with the slapstick violence of the 3 stooges or Tom and Jerry Cartoons? Or should we limit our censorship to Faces of Death
or somewhere in between? Who decides? Our government? Not if I can help it. I'll make that decision for myself, thank you.
How about Drugs? Again; who decides where to draw the line? Sponge Bob, Beavis and Butthead, or Cheech and Chong?
My answer to every one of the preceding questions about who should draw the line is ME. Just as you think it should be YOU. The only way to find harmony is if we both respect each other's right to decide for ourselves.
As offensive as I personally find practically every Horror film since Vincent Price stopped appearing in them; these films can not be adequately addressed by Big Brother, beyond a warning label IMO. EVERY attempt to regulate them beyond that represents an unacceptable reduction in my FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
