I think Stetsons ought to be censored on TV. They tend to correlate with shootouts on dusty streets in 19th century Western towns. Teenagers shouldn't have to see this kind of Stetson-related violence.
Thomas wrote:I think Stetsons ought to be censored on TV. They tend to correlate with shootouts on dusty streets in 19th century Western towns. Teenagers shouldn't have to see this kind of Stetson-related violence.
Ok, I lied, Finn had stated that anyone wearing a Stetson is incapable of reasoned thought and everyone knows Finn is the noted authority of reasoned thought.
dyslexia wrote:Thomas wrote:I think Stetsons ought to be censored on TV. They tend to correlate with shootouts on dusty streets in 19th century Western towns. Teenagers shouldn't have to see this kind of Stetson-related violence.
Ok, I lied, Finn had stated that anyone wearing a Stetson is incapable of reasoned thought and everyone knows Finn is the noted authority of reasoned thought.
Now this didn't make any sense at all.
That logical chain certainly had nothing to do with reasoned thought.
Good night, Dys.
Ticomaya wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:squinney wrote:For those overseas who find this acceptable, I take it porn commercials showing girls making out and masturbating pop up regularly in the middle of morning cartoons or other family programing and that's okay with you?
For those in the US that find this acceptable, how many have kids and would be okay with having GGW commercials pop up on the screen as your family eats at Applebee's?
Squinney; you're trying to hard not to get it. No, I'd rather they didn't pop up at all. I have no shortage of sources to get that material if I wanted it. That doesn't mean I want the government to censor it. I like my neighbor better sober, too. But I don't want the government to take away his booze.
I couldn't disagree more strenuously with your POV here O'Bill -- as I understand it. The point, as I see it, and as I think squinney has articulated it, is the inappropriateness of these commercials when they can easily be viewed by minor children. I called a local station a few months ago because one of these "infomercials" (GGW, or something similar) was broadcast IMMEDIATELY following a children's program -- thankfully, my kids weren't watching the program at the time. I have small kids, and do not want them to be exposed to this stuff. This isn't about unreasonable censorship, it's about regulating time and place so as to minimize the exposure of this stuff to minor children.
Sorry Tico. I understand yours and Squinney's POV, really I do. But, at the end of the day; you are responsible for what your children watch. By all means; boycott the station... organize a rally in front of it and I'd be proud to join you... but don't ask the government to regulate someone else's viewing to suit your desires. That slope is too slippery and it ultimately is not worth it.
I agree that it's the job of parents to make sure that what their children is watching is suitable, but the problem is that this situation makes it too difficult for parents to DO their job.
If I turn on PBS at 11:30 AM, I expect that my daughter will be watching a show that is age-appropriate, and that I don't need to crouch over her with my thumb on the "off" button of the remote. If Sesame Street suddenly featured the Girls Gone Wild, I'd be pissed.
Similarly, the commercial was on at a time and during a show that was suitable for teenagers. I don't think the commercial should be banned entirely, even though I don't like it at all -- I agree with Thomas' and Bill's points there. But I do think there should be some way for the commercials to be about at roughly the same level as the shows they appear with. That would give parents the tools to be able to realistically monitor what their children watch, without the trigger-finger remote.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Ticomaya wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:squinney wrote:For those overseas who find this acceptable, I take it porn commercials showing girls making out and masturbating pop up regularly in the middle of morning cartoons or other family programing and that's okay with you?
For those in the US that find this acceptable, how many have kids and would be okay with having GGW commercials pop up on the screen as your family eats at Applebee's?
Squinney; you're trying to hard not to get it. No, I'd rather they didn't pop up at all. I have no shortage of sources to get that material if I wanted it. That doesn't mean I want the government to censor it. I like my neighbor better sober, too. But I don't want the government to take away his booze.
I couldn't disagree more strenuously with your POV here O'Bill -- as I understand it. The point, as I see it, and as I think squinney has articulated it, is the inappropriateness of these commercials when they can easily be viewed by minor children. I called a local station a few months ago because one of these "infomercials" (GGW, or something similar) was broadcast IMMEDIATELY following a children's program -- thankfully, my kids weren't watching the program at the time. I have small kids, and do not want them to be exposed to this stuff. This isn't about unreasonable censorship, it's about regulating time and place so as to minimize the exposure of this stuff to minor children.
Sorry Tico. I understand yours and Squinney's POV, really I do. But, at the end of the day; you are responsible for what your children watch. By all means; boycott the station... organize a rally in front of it and I'd be proud to join you... but don't ask the government to regulate someone else's viewing to suit your desires. That slope is too slippery and it ultimately is not worth it.
I understand your concern about censorship, but reasonable regulation of time and place of these commercials does NOT constitute censorship on any level ... and that's all I'm talking about. I don't agree with an outright ban, although I think those commercials toe the line. Regarding the responsibility of parents for what their children watch, I agree ... but I also agree with what soz just said. It is unreasonable to expect a parent to be sitting with their thumb on the remote at the conclusion of a children's show, in order to prevent children from watching a surprise GGW infomercial.
Which value is more important ... the protection of children from viewing this stuff, or the interest of allowing GGW commercials to be shown at any time and on any channel? If you don't think it's important that little kids not be exposed to this crap -- which seems to be Thomas' view -- you will probably lean in favor of showing GGW commercials, even if it is possible -- or likely -- that children might be watching. And I would suspect that one's value system in this regard might evolve upon one becoming a parent.
The slippery slope
I see, is the opposite .... when are we going to see XXX porn teasers on prime time TV commercials, because some folks don't care the effect same might have on children ... all in the name of free speech?
Slow down there big fella. You quoted me, not Thomas. I have no objection to a rating system for commercials, nor a requirement that adult content not be pushed on child programming. However; your value equation is a false dilemma. You are inserting your own value of GGW commercials instead of the larger issue of freedom of expression. That's convenient, but not accurate. As much as I'd probably trust your moral barometer, I wouldn't allow you to legislate it, given a choice. Only my moral barometer qualifies for me. Furthermore, I don't believe 8:30 at night alphabet channels and PBS anytime have much in common. What time does Desperate House Wives come on? Should this too be banned as offensive, or is that not far enough over the line? According to whom? Your denial of this being a slippery slope, I believe, is clouded by your desire to protect your children. Noble, but nonetheless out of place. By all means; ask legislation for a rating or warning system... but don't presume to be the arbitrator of what's acceptable for anyone else to watch.
Weeps, just lost long post. Back later.)
dyslexia wrote:While I rarely watch the telly when in Europe, I have noticed there is a great deal more of nudity and sexuality on the telly over there. Doesn't seem to have caused any harm. I, of course, have no data to back that up.
Odd, when I was in the States, I was perplexed at the number of channels they had in the hotel broadcasting porn or softporn.
Though its true that that was a long time ago, and European television's changed a
lot since then.
nimh wrote:dyslexia wrote:While I rarely watch the telly when in Europe, I have noticed there is a great deal more of nudity and sexuality on the telly over there. Doesn't seem to have caused any harm. I, of course, have no data to back that up.
Odd, when I was in the States, I was perplexed at the number of channels they had in the hotel broadcasting porn or softporn.
Though its true that that was a long time ago, and European television's changed a
lot since then.
Yes yes I think that's quite true. The times i spend in hotels/motels I notice many pay for view channels of hard/corn porn availiavable however I don't that's ture of most homes. We have ordinary cable in our home with none of the extra-ordinary channels.
OCCOM BILL wrote: I have no objection to a rating system for commercials, nor a requirement that adult content not be pushed on child programming. However; your value equation is a false dilemma. You are inserting your own value of GGW commercials instead of the larger issue of freedom of expression.
How the heck do you propose a rating system or decision as to what is adult content, which you say you do not object to, without someone inserting a value?
I think the whole concept of the video and the ads are insulting to all humans. Doing battle with such predators on a specific basis is futile. We'll never get everyone to agree on what types of things are appropriate at what time for what age group.
Rather than having to fight each time to ban these things on an individual basis, I'd like to see society open up this discussion more often with the kids and talk about respect for one's body and self, peer pressures to not do so, exploitation of those pressures and yearnings to either fit in or go against the tide for shock value. Help our kids to learn how to analyze a situation for both instant and future ramifications for both sexes by doing some roleplaying with them. Help our kids recognize exploitation and manipulation techniques by asking questions and making a game of seeing who can spot the most blatant and subtle methods during a TV show or paging through magazines.
This will help remove both the audience and willing participants for all such predators, and give an even broader lesson in critical thinking that kids and adults need in a lot of circumstances for the rest of their lives.
squinney wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: I have no objection to a rating system for commercials, nor a requirement that adult content not be pushed on child programming. However; your value equation is a false dilemma. You are inserting your own value of GGW commercials instead of the larger issue of freedom of expression.
How the heck do you propose a rating system or decision as to what is adult content, which you say you do not object to, without someone inserting a value?
I don't. Apparently I was unclear. By all means, set up a rating system, arbitrary as it may be, and let a consensus decide what the ratings should be based on their collective values.
The false dilemma I was referring to was Tico's alone; when he compared the relative value of protecting kids from smut, to the right to show
this smut... as opposed to the larger issue of choosing to censor what
some people find offensive.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Slow down there big fella. You quoted me, not Thomas.
Yes I did. Does that mean I can't refer to Thomas?
Quote: By all means; ask legislation for a rating or warning system... but don't presume to be the arbitrator of what's acceptable for anyone else to watch.
Morality has been legislated since the beginning of history. I mean, there's a reason rape is considered a crime. But I'm not suggesting banning GGW infomercials, which you seem to be ignoring.
But I also question whether we're talking about a pure moral question, where -- as here -- the concern is with the effect such programming has on children who are likely to see it. This is precisely why I -- who have concerns with general efforts to ban smoking in public places -- do not oppose legislation to prohibit smoking in automobiles carrying children. Such laws do not legislate morality, but health & safety. And while adults can choose whether to patronize a restaurant that allows smoking -- or to change the channel if they don't like the program -- children are captive victims of the smoking in the car ... and victims of the GGW infomercials if they are exposed to them. We can have another discussion about the harm viewing such programming might have on a child, but I do not think this is merely a subjective worry of a concerned parent.
Where would you draw the line? I mean, most reasonable people would agree there is a line, the question is where and how it ought to be drawn. Would you think it is acceptable for NBC to show a XXX porn movie opposite Desperate Housewives? What about explicit rape scenes? Kiddie porn? Are you suggesting there should be no limitations because of the First Amendment?
The key here is the possibility of harm to children. I would support a ban on these commercials prior to 10 p.m., after which time it is far less likely children might view them. It appears we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I didnt answer the poll, cause I didnt know how to..
I wouldnt want to ban these ads.
But I do think it wholly reasonable to have some regulations in place that determine at what times high extents of sex and violence is shown.
That goes for programming as well, by the way, but for ads it is more relevant still, because the argument that "it is the parents' responsibility to watch what their children see" doesnt reasonably apply -- there is no announcement in the TV listings what ads will pop up in between otherwise child-friendly programming.
I do not agree with the implication that any regulation amounts to "the government imposing its judgements on us". I dont know, in Holland we have the famous/notorious "poldermodel", which basically comes down to having all the different actors talking things out until some reasonable compromise results. This succeeds, when it succeeds (and overall it does pretty consistently), because the government does not issue its verdicts top-down upon the masses. It establishes, and then usually follows the results of, consultation bodies with representatives of all the relevant sectors.
OK, not to get too abstract - and unhindered by actual knowledge of what the Dutch regulations currently are exactly - this is what I'd imagine a "polder" solution could be in this case.
You set up a collaborative committee. It has a representative or two of the main broadcasters (in the US, I gather, the alphabet channels and Fox, for example) - because without their collaboration, you wont get anything achieved short of sending the prosecutors out anyway. It has a representative or two of the advertising industry (I dont know how it is in the US but in Holland most industries have an umbrella organisation that promotes its interests on a general level), because ideally, you'd want to encourage them to take their own responsibility, and in any case you'd rather have them thinking with you than railing at you. It has a representative of media consumers (listeners/viewers assocation) and one or two experts from relevant professions/NGOs - some child health care specialist, some mainstream NGO for child protection.
Then you set them a deadline to come to a rough compromise agreement - not necessarily too detailed, but an overview of sorts - of what limits could be set on the times some advertising is broadcast. No (non-cartoon) violence before x o'clock, no sexual activity / making out / nudity before x o'clock, to start with the two issues most people are concerned about. What they will arrive at will be a watered-down, wishy-washy compromise, and thats just fine. The contrasting perspectives will mean that no controversial content will be banned altogether, the regulation wont be overly prudish, and at the other hand, it'll sure be better than anything popping up anytime. The government could limit its role to a "stick behind the door" policy, eg, if you dont come to a draft compromise within [timespan] we will lay down a regulation ourselves instead. Usually does the trick here.
Consultation, compromise, consensus - sure it means a lot get bogged down a bit, and the results are watery - but it also means that all those involved tend to actually stick by the results, the whole issue doesnt get judicialised with endless, big-$$$ lawsuits and countersuits, and its not the government simply laying down the law top-down. Plus, the middle of the road solution is generally, in this kind of things, not the worst solution by far.
Pay TV is another matter - anything goes, I suppose. Public TV is another matter also - I'd personally prefer to see it run without commercials, financed by a licence fee or (long-term set) state funding instead, like with the BBC for example.
On the other hand, though, I'm sceptical about the warnings that girls who are tempted into making out on camera when they're 18 or 20 or something will be terribly hurt later, 'when they have to look for a job'. I mean seriously, who will remember? Who will care, five years later?
Not to say that these GGW guys, judging from Cypher's post, aren't obvious creeps, or that some of the girls wont come to regret it. But I dont really see how its going to terribly bite them in the back from the outside.
And all this sexual experimenting thats going on now much more in high school and college than twenty years ago, hetero bi or homosexual -- apart from the safe sex issue (STD and pregnancy), I'm sceptical about how much long-term harm it will do, on average. Bunch of bisexual experimenting aint gonna spoil no hetero (or gay) for later marriage. Bunch of experimenting itself wont hurt, period - sure beats stumbling into your first serious relationship without having a clue what to do. I mean, when someone comes home with someone new every weekend for a year in a row, theres stuff to worry about, but that holds up for any age. I think if anything, the kids today will be more world-wise (still) than previous generations, and that aint a bad thing.
THere is always DVR commercial skipping.
As I said previously, the channels my child is watching (with me in
the same room) there never was a sexual explicit commercial ever!
Yeah CalamityJane, but what is your kid watching when you're not in the room - or, rather, when your kid's hanging out with friends?
Sure these things are the parent's responsibility eventually - mostly in educating their children in how to process the images and messages they're gonna be confronted with anyhow. But you also got to acknowledge that parents can't police their children non-stop, and it would be bad even if they were actually gonna try - bad for the kids. So you should be able to let your kids go hang out (and perhaps watch TV) with their friends or the neighbours or whatever without needing to worry about what extreme stuff they'll come across.
Again, I'm actually quite sceptical about how much harm seeing people on TV make out does to kids (not much, I'm guessing - definitely not half as much as some parents probably suspect). But I dont think its unreasonable for citizens to say, look it - we want to live in a country where you can safely let your child out of sight for a minute in the assurance that they wont be confronted, for random example, with explicit sex and violence on daytime TV. Thats a perfectly legitimate request.
nimh, do you know that GGW is more than just kids making out?
Ticomaya wrote: Where would you draw the line?
At drawing a line short of crime. If no crime is being committed, a warning system and available blocking device should suffice.
Ticomaya wrote:I mean, most reasonable people would agree there is a line, the question is where and how it ought to be drawn. Would you think it is acceptable for NBC to show a XXX porn movie opposite Desperate Housewives?
Unfortunately, yes.
Ticomaya wrote: What about explicit rape scenes?
This answer plagues me bad... but yes. This is so against my grain that it drives me crazy, but it is the only correct answer. People are murdered on television routinely... is that somehow a lesser crime to depict?
Ticomaya wrote:Kiddie porn?
Requires a crime, so no friggin way.
Ticomaya wrote: Are you suggesting there should be no limitations because of the First Amendment?
Accept for crime, yes. Everything short of this rationale is an entry onto a slippery slope IMO. I would like to think that even the ACLU Lawyers that defend the scum that create some of this crap are equally disgusted by it, but I nonetheless agree with them that it's work that has to be done.
Ticomaya wrote:The key here is the possibility of harm to children. I would support a ban on these commercials prior to 10 p.m., after which time it is far less likely children might view them. It appears we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
No, I don't think it's the governments job to keep offensive but legal programming away from your kids. I think it is your job to keep your kids away from it... if indeed you think it necessary. There will be no agreement as to where to draw the line on sexual content anymore than there will ever be agreement on where to draw the line on violent content. Your desire to let the will of the many override the rights of the few is a fundamental error when contemplating the protection of constitutional rights.
I am equally disgusted that groups like NAMBLA and/or the KKK are allowed to exist, gather and promote their putrid ideologiesÂ… but nonetheless recognize the greater good inherent in defending their constitutional rights to do so. It is precisely the hideous degree of unpopularity that demands recognition in a free society.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
littlek wrote:nimh, do you know that GGW is more than just kids making out?
We also should mention that these commercials are only shown at
pay channel stations.
