i agree, censorship is unconstituional and not needed. we have the right to read, watch, hear, see, etc. whatever we want and it's not anyone's business to stop us. we can flip the channel if we see something we don't like, we can switch the radio station if we hear something we don't like, we can avert our eyes if there's something we don't want to see.

Censorship... I think that censorship should be an option. There are many people out there who do not want to hear the unattractiveness of the people unable to use their education to find more expressive words instead of words that could mean just about anything based on their context.

On the other hand there are people who appreciate not having to hold their tongues when the previously mentioned type of people are around. These people have the opinion that freedom of speech means that they can say whatever they want.

I believe that Free Speech is only to a cerrtain extent. People need the right to get their thoughts and feelings across to others, but they need to be respectful to those other people in the way that they go about it. That is, watching what comes out of their mouth.

I often wonder if **** ******* **** etc would "corrupt childrens minds if they wernt regarded as soo evil

We have freedom of speech and I think that means that we can say what we want without bleeps or any form of censorship. For those of you who say what if a small child sees this? OH NO! I don't want my 7 year old son/daughter to know any cuss words! (I don't know about you but when I was 7 I certainly knew cuss words!! AND ALL WITHOUT MTV!) Face it the more you try to protect the more you can mess your kid up...V-CHIPS SUCK! F.C.C. SUCKS! AND CENSORSHIP SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

In a way, censorship is wrong. It's taking away our freedom of speech. You can't censor out life, so why censor out a few bad words?
But on the other hand, censorship is a good thing. If young kids are watching mature things on tv, or listening to a song with cusses in it, that young kid will think he/she is more mature that he/she actually is and they will shadow the things they sees on tv.

3 letters: PBS

Matt-
Why, may I ask, do you feel that way? Even mild censorship is a constitutional violation. I think censorship always has been a part of society. However, it was not government blackmailing networks for censorship. Its the mom who turns off the TV when something "bad" is on. Its turning off the radio when you dont want to hear the Olympic results for that night. Thats fine with me. Thats your choice. It just shouldnt affect me.

What about this- religion? Should we not allow Christians to talk and preach on TV because Jews might not want to watch? Of course not. Just change the channel- its that simple.

Oh where oh where is NuShoes?

Bushism of the day:
"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers."—Houston,Texas, Sept. 6, 2000

It's weird how the people on these boards don't realize how mild censorship is in most cases. I can't really think of something to help prove my point off the top of my head.

Do you all think censorship shouldn't manifest itself in today's society in any way?

Censorship is 100% unconstitutional. As if anyone in the government actually thinks they have the right to censor what I see, hear, or read. Parents are usually the ones complaining about it. Can they take time out of thier day to monitor what thier own kids watch? If they can't, then they shouldn't have children. Parents are supposed to monitor what they don't want their kids seeing, I'm pretty damn sure that it's part of the job.

I think censorship is totally wrong! Especially when it comes to television, they can say everything but the big 'F' word...ohhhhhhh scary......younger children are eventually going to hear all of it, if not from friends then from the parents or siblings...I know thats where I learned it all from...my big brother...

say whatever you want to say!!! censorship is wrong. sometimes cussing makes it easier to vent yerself, and easier to communicate. why should you spend so much money trying to stop somthing like so??

quote:

---

Commonlaw privacy rules, for one, dictate what I can and cannot allow into my home, including that which I pay for except by contractual agreement.

Now, what law says I must accept swearing, violence, porn, etc. to be able to watch TV?

---

No law says so, and no law should. No one is forcing you to watch this stuff, why dont you understand that? No one is sticking a gun to your head and saying: WATCH THIS!! You chose to. No one else. You are only offended by something if you choose to watch it, so it is your choice to be offended or not.

quote:

---

Not in all cases. It doesn't matter anyway; the public has the right to determine what goes over them, regardless of who owns the content.

---

This is what is being determined with censorship. And this is why ratings are such a big thing. The public DOES determine what goes, and stays, on TV. If enough people are watching something, then it will stay on because of its popularity. If something is offensive, then by all means, turn it off, affect its ratings. But if only a few people are offended by something that so many more enjoy, it is not fair to the masses for it to be changed.

quote:

---

Actually, we do. We can legislate what people are and are not allowed to do - it's even done with respect to civil rights (e.g. gun ownership) as well as priviledges, like driving. Particularly, the people can call for laws to regulate particularly dangerous or obscene content; that fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

---

This is the issue here. None of that, however, has to do with Freedom of Speech. Gun laws can be limited because they still uphold the Constitution as long as people get to have guns, even with restrictions. However, freedom of speech does NOT exist if it has exceptions. Like I said, it cant be freedom of speech- except if kids or watching, or freedom of speech- except if someone is offended. It is freedom of speech under all circumstances.

quote:

---

It is my right to not be forced out of having one and making use of an essential tool of modern society by others. Even contract law and commonlaw - which is pretty liberal - limits onerous and unreasonable burdens on contractees.

---

A TV is not an "essential tool." An essential tool is an oven or a light. A TV is a choice and a privelige, and many people choose to live without them or cannot afford them. It is not societies burden to keep you happy all the time, to keep you content and unoffended. That is your burden. It is societies burden to make sure happiness is a possibility, not necessarily your reality.

quote:

---

Reducing the influence of media violence is my primary concern, as that is so highly correlated to real-life violence.

---

Violence has always happened. Even before TV (Gasp- what a shocker). You dont seriously think that removing it would somehow make it extinct? Violence is a part of society. Should we ignore the war in Iraq because it is violent? Should we allow it not to be on the news? Little boys grow up playing army men, maybe training to someday be sent off to war somewhere. Should we ignore this possiblity? Should we try to hide from reality, because it might scare someone?

quote:

---

For some, controlling the influence of sex is a concern. I agree to a point - there is way too much - although I am not overly concerned about it.

---

This is again where ratings systems come in. TV and movie producers, writers, etc, are not responsible for you or your childrens well being, just your entertainment.

quote:

---

A major reason is to limit the influence of media in general, which already dictates many people's lives. In some respects, it is a drug: Some people feed off of certain kinds of entertainment. And just as we can regulate the sale of Oxycontin, we need to regulate the media.

---

How, may I ask, does censorship limit the media? They will still report, except with out the use of cusswords. And what if something deemed offensive just so happens to be in the news? Like the Abu Ghraib prison scandals. Should people not be able to report that, even though it is happening and is a major part of our political society, just because a little kid may be watching? You cant just hide from reality like that. And regulating the media is EXACTLY what the signers of the Constitution were talking about. It is strictly unconstitutional.

quote:

---

Let me guess...except the Second Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Most of the Articles, particularly Article II Section I, the latter part of the Fifth Amendment, or the First when it criticizes John Kerry, or the Fourth Amendment when it concerns same, or ...

Well, pretty much the whole thing.

---

These are whole different issues. Why you need to bring them up I dont understand, especially since they have nothing to do with the issue.

Bushism of the day:
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

quote:

---

Which law says this? Which amendment in the constitution? Please tell me, because I dont think this is true.

---

Commonlaw privacy rules, for one, dictate what I can and cannot allow into my home, including that which I pay for except by contractual agreement.

Now, what law says I must accept swearing, violence, porn, etc. to be able to watch TV?

quote:

---

The airwaves may be public but their content is privately owned.

---

Not in all cases. It doesn't matter anyway; the public has the right to determine what goes over them, regardless of who owns the content.

quote:

---

You have the right to tell them, but they also have the right not to listen to you. And by all means, if they dont listen to you, then dont subscribe to them anymore. Thatll show them.

---

Actually, we do. We can legislate what people are and are not allowed to do - it's even done with respect to civil rights (e.g. gun ownership) as well as priviledges, like driving. Particularly, the people can call for laws to regulate particularly dangerous or obscene content; that fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

quote:

---

It is not your right to have TV at all. This is why many people dont have it, because they cant afford it. It is a privelige and an choice to have it. If you dont like what you see, dont choose to have it.

---

It is my right to not be forced out of having one and making use of an essential tool of modern society by others. Even contract law and commonlaw - which is pretty liberal - limits onerous and unreasonable burdens on contractees.

quote:

---

What are you accomplishing by censoring TV and radio? What do you get from that?

---

Reducing the influence of media violence is my primary concern, as that is so highly correlated to real-life violence.

For some, controlling the influence of sex is a concern. I agree to a point - there is way too much - although I am not overly concerned about it.

A major reason is to limit the influence of media in general, which already dictates many people's lives. In some respects, it is a drug: Some people feed off of certain kinds of entertainment. And just as we can regulate the sale of Oxycontin, we need to regulate the media.

quote:

---

THERE SHOULD NOT BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION!

---

Let me guess...except the Second Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Most of the Articles, particularly Article II Section I, the latter part of the Fifth Amendment, or the First when it criticizes John Kerry, or the Fourth Amendment when it concerns same, or ...

Well, pretty much the whole thing.

"Actually, it IS my right to have TV free of cuss words or whatever else. "

Which law says this? Which amendment in the constitution? Please tell me, because I dont think this is true.

"The "public airwaves" are just that - public. They are not owned by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or anyone else - they are owned by US. And this is why broadcast licenses can be given and can be taken away."

The airwaves may be public but their content is privately owned.

"For the record, this is also true of cable or satellite, which I PAY FOR! So, yes, I have the right to tell my broadcaster what gets broadcast into my home and what does not."

You have the right to tell them, but they also have the right not to listen to you. And by all means, if they dont listen to you, then dont subscribe to them anymore. Thatll show them.

It is not your right to have TV at all. This is why many people dont have it, because they cant afford it. It is a privelige and an choice to have it. If you dont like what you see, dont choose to have it.

I have a question for all of you:
What are you accomplishing by censoring TV and radio? What do you get from that?

THERE SHOULD NOT BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION!

"I think he was referring to the Democrats; they are experts at f---ing up this country."

Thats a whole different subject, child. One that I would be happy to debate with you on a different thread. However, I dont see what keeping in tact the Constitution is doing to
"f---" up the country.

Bushism of the day:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

ha ha, i have no censors on my TV....

quote:

---

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

---

I think he was referring to the Democrats; they are experts at f---ing up this country.

Actually, it IS my right to have TV free of cuss words or whatever else. The "public airwaves" are just that - public. They are not owned by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or anyone else - they are owned by US. And this is why broadcast licenses can be given and can be taken away.

For the record, this is also true of cable or satellite, which I PAY FOR! So, yes, I have the right to tell my broadcaster what gets broadcast into my home and what does not.

"That is fine...

Loudpacifist, I understand...I was just commenting, not upon your message, but upon the "Whole picture". Because I think when we use "Speech freedom" (or bad language, lol) I think that has a tendency to lower our standards, because if we are flippin' people off for no reason,or yelling obsenitys at them, then they think to themselves "Gah, another obnoxious teenager that doesn't know anything about life!" Well, I think there is a difference between Using "Speech Freedom" in a car with your close friends or at a party with people you know than standing in line at a grocery store where people can't get away and saying things that other people may think to be inappropriatte real loud."

Its not encouraging people to cuss. I understand that people get offended by these things. However, you should not blame the TV for spitting out bad words because they make little Jonny and sweet little Sally cuss because they think its cool. Instead you need to make sure that Sally and Jonny dont cuss themselves. Face it people, kids can hear cuss words anywhere. Making sure they dont hear them on the TV is wrong. Thats like ripping out the tongue of someone who cusses, just so your kids wont hear it again. They are going to hear it eventually, and most likely often. You cant help that no matter how much you shelter them. Thats why you encourage them not to use those words. And if they still do, that is YOUR FAULT. Not the TVs, not anyone elses. Don't blame personal issues on the TV.

" Because, most adults don't like being around people who say things that they consider to be innappropriatte, because of their children. Alot of children have a tendency to think "Those teenagers are so cool, and I want to be just like them!" So, they end up saying words in school or doing actions that are considered inappropriatte in our society because they have seen the "Cool Teenagers" doing it...Does that make sense??? "

I get that. But what does that have to do with censorship? Are you saying we should make cussing illegal? Wait that is what censorship is. I mean in public places, just between a few people, should we make that illegal? Because your kids are just as likely to hear it there as they are to hear it on TV.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"The old argument, "if you don't like it, change the channel", is a phony dodge. You can't "just change the channel" anymore, since violence and sex is on pretty much EVERY channel, constantly. Trying to dodge inappropriate content these days by just "changing the channel" is like trying to walk across a 12-lane highway at rush hour."

You are confused about this. It is NOT YOUR RIGHT to have TV without cuss words, or other things deemed offensive. It is a choice and a privelidge to have TV at all. It is however, the people who are on TV's right to say those things. If you don't like them, and you can't find anything else to watch, then dont watch it at all. Or subscribe to a satelite thing, with hundreds of channels. If you cant find anything on that, dont watch it at all. My TV should not have to be affected because you dont like whats on your TV. That is like saying you should "dumb-down" CNN or something because some people dont know what they are talking about. Its not fair to the rest of us.

Bushism of the day:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Ok aprilgirl I get ya. But it was just that I don't wanna be controled over every action i do. If you know history almost every tyrant was overthrown. I think censorship is the first step. and I was just yelled at by a mother in a car when i was on a sidewalk with my bike and she yelled from the car so i know about sterotyping tenns and I am not one cuz I could be 'label' like 12 different things. I don't believe in sterotyping people or some people call it 'labeling'.