Ban Girls Gone Wild Commercials?

In this business, we cover a lot of great stories and a lot of really tragic ones. A story I just did on child prostitution falls into the latter category and -- I must say -- made me sick to my stomach.

Here's why: In the city of Atlanta, girls as young as 9 years old are being sold for sex, according to interviews with the girls themselves and the women who try to help them.

Amazingly, pimping a minor wasn't even a felony in Georgia until 2001 - it was a misdemeanour.

Mantra Films Inc. pleaded guilty in the federal case. The Santa Monica, Calif., company admitted violating record-keeping and labeling laws while distributing its videos.

I would have never suspected him of such nefarious behavior.

Ticomaya wrote:

The government has a compelling interest in the well-being of children, and a safe-harbor time frame for children to not be exposed to indecent programming is valid.

Prove that governmental compulsion has protected the so-called "well-being of children" in such a manner that if can be conclusively demonstrated the "well-being of children" who did see the equivalent of GGW were harmed, and the extent of that harm logically meant the reduction in freedoms to show the equivalent of GGW.

Where exactly is your concrete proof of this presumed harm in children who did see equivalent of GGW? Did these children end up in insane asylums more often? Did these children become wards of the state more often?

Surely covering the last 1,000 years you should easily be able to argue myriad concrete, well documented examples of definitive harm to children who did view the equivalent of GGW, as opposed to those children who did not view the equivalent of GGW and as such you would logically demonstrate then led much healthier lives.

Tico, you are stretching the known truth to make your points. The commercials are obviously no more graphic than the Law allows; or we wouldn't be debating whether or not they should be banned in the future tense, now would we? Likewise, Cyphercat must have gotten bored reading my list, because somehow she only saw one Ad. Further; I didn't duck your time restriction; I questioned the content of and reiterated the time slot for the program in question... 8:30pm.

... The public's desire to single GGW out, for promoting more directly the exact same image that's being promoted everywhere is simply unfair. You cannot single this product out without writing a law that covers the attributes that are considered regulatable, and design a bill that covers every other product that meets the criteria. In this case; many commercials for soap, shampoo, razors, perfume, suntan lotion, beer, and a large variety of Movie adds would equally qualify... once you work with criteria, rather than illegally focusing on a single product you disdain.

When it comes to protecting the first amendment; you have to go to bat for the worst crap out there to preserve it. That's the way the system works.

Prove that governmental compulsion has protected the so-called "well-being of children" in such a manner that if can be conclusively demonstrated the "well-being of children" who did see the equivalent of GGW were harmed, and the extent of that harm logically meant the reduction in freedoms to show the equivalent of GGW.

Where exactly is your concrete proof of this presumed harm in children who did see equivalent of GGW? Did these children end up in insane asylums more often? Did these children become wards of the state more often?

Surely covering the last 1,000 years you should easily be able to argue myriad concrete, well documented examples of definitive harm to children who did view the equivalent of GGW, as opposed to those children who did not view the equivalent of GGW and as such you would logically demonstrate then led much healthier lives.

What the courts have deemed, or not deemed from a socio-legal-normative perspective is irrelevant to the underlying fact that you have in no way made your case as per your claim of harm.

Likewise, Cyphercat must have gotten bored reading my list, because somehow she only saw one Ad.

Out of your plethora of examples, this was one of the few that had any meaning

I didn't attempt to make a case by scientific standards.

I find it entirely sufficient to point out I don't need to make my case because the courts agree with me on this issue.

If you are going to argue your precept from the myopic socio-legal-normative perspective great! hen let's hear you make a good case for the Inca's, Apartheid, Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism as these systems (just as well as any other) adhere to your arguments.

......I think it's quite relevant that the courts have deferred to the hordes of parents and teachers who believe such content is harmful.

Since the courts defer to parents, and it is a legitimate governmental purpose to support the role of parents, I submit it is you, sir, who would need to make your case.

Ticomaya wrote:

I didn't attempt to make a case by scientific standards.

That is because you cannot do it and you are dodging.

The FCC doesn't have a team of observers watching television, looking for violations of the Public Telecommunications Act -- they act on complaints, and fine accordingly.

Here's some information on effects of porn on people, including children.

PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT THEY SEE
Some Americans strongly hold the belief that pornography, while it may be vulgar and tasteless, is still essentially harmless and has no real effect on the viewer.


However, for someone to suggest that pornography cannot have an effect on you is to deny the whole notion of education, or to suggest that people are not affected by what they read and see. If you believe that a pornographic book or film cannot affect you, then you must also say that Karl Marx's Das Kapital, or the Bible, or the Koran, or advertising have no effect on their readers or viewers.


Astute businessmen do not spend billions of dollars a year on advertising if their visual and verbal messages and imagery did not motivate people to buy deodorant or diapers or automobiles. The key question is, not whether, but what kind of an effect does pornography have?

Here's some information on effects of porn on people, including children.

squinney wrote:

Here's some information on effects of porn on people, including children.

... on an anti-porn advocacy website, by a psychiatrist with a business interest in portraying porn as a big deal.

Thomas wrote:

squinney wrote:

Here's some information on effects of porn on people, including children.

... on an anti-porn advocacy website, by a psychiatrist with a business interest in portraying porn as a big deal.

Except that if he is advocating that porn does have negative effects, and porn is then limited in access due to his advocacy, he actually has fewer clients and less money. What he is saying is not beneficial to his practice.