🚀 go-pugleaf

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>Who are any of us to judge the value of such programming for anyone else?

Bearclaw, you have it ass-backwards.  I was risking arrest by showing
films like "Midnight Cowboy" when most people reading this had no
conception of what the issues were, or weren't even conceived.  The
argument that was used then that no censorship is acceptable was a
rallying cry to allow _adults_ who actively wanted to see X rated
material to be able to do so.

There is censorship now, there always has been, and in many cases it
has been for the good of both the individual and the community.  The
availability of adult material does not mean it has to be so blatant
that it drags society into the gutter, nor that it has to be available
to children.  Even within the adult film community, there is
censorship, both imposed and self-imposed.  Even that inherently
liberal community has limits to what it considers acceptable.

>Supposing I *want* my kids exposed to these voices and the reality they 
>represent? Why should I have to get them up after 10 PM simply to 
>satisfy some bluenose?

Now that is a debate point that has absolutely no merit.  You can
videotape and time shift a show like that and make it available at any
hour of the day or night.  There is a big difference between the ideas
of being available, in-your-face, or censored.

> If they were to win a court case, all it would mean is more lowering 
> of the already low standards of television, because the door was 
> re-opened.

>Whose standards, Harry? Walt Disney? Your local Concerned Women for 
>America? The Conservative Baptist Association? Al Quaida? The American 
>Nazi party? Elmer Fudd?

Without controls, any industry in a capitalist society is duty-bound
to provide the least product at the greatest profit they can achieve.
Sinclair Lewis pointed that out years ago.  The food and drug act is a
form of censorship.  Certain products are censored for the general
health of the public.  Try to walk into an ice-cream shop and order
cocaine in your soda.  Try to buy unpasteurized milk that hasn't been
rigorously tested.  Try to have a 12 year old go to a store to buy you
cigarettes and beer.  That is all censorship without the politically
charged label.

You ask who should set the standards.  The proper standards are
community standards that are set by the local communities and states.
Did you know it is illegal in Florida for a kid under 18 to attend an
R-rated film when not accompanied by a parent?  The film industry set
the rating as a _voluntary_ rating at age 17.  The community of
elected representatives in Florida made following that rating system
mandatory and stricter.  Does it make sense to me?  Nope, but I can
understand the concern and had no problem enforcing that law.
Standards are set whether you have censors or not, it is simply that
censorship isn't as obvious if there isn't a group "in charge" of it.
Do you really expect the media to be any less biased that any other
censor?  

>Whose standards, Harry? Walt Disney? Your local Concerned Women for 
>America? The Conservative Baptist Association? Al Quaida? The American 
>Nazi party? Elmer Fudd?

Nope, the local community via complaints and kudos.  You already know
that some individual stations refused to air, or went out of their way
to air, politically slanted programs prior to the last election.  Are
you suggesting that the censorship of the public airwaves is under
absolute control of the station owner, without any regard for the
community?  The law is against you.  The use of the public airwaves is
based on a license granted, where the licensee in turn agrees to
uphold community standards and maintain a certain percentage of
program time for public interest programming and education.

There is very little mass media material that isn't edited or censored
in some way, even if it is only the censorship of a biased film-maker.
The movie "JFK" contains glaring historical inaccuracies, yet it made
it to the screen.  The Moore films contain some nutcase associations,
yet they make it to the screen.  Rush Limbaugh lies out his ass and
yet his program makes it over the air.  In my own mind, these are all
propaganda pieces and should be immediately followed with independent
verification or rebuttal by a group of scholars with opposing views
and facts.  Censor, no.  Bring back to reality, yes.

BTW, Ever wonder why the good guys almost always win in the end, when
watching a Hollywood film or a tv show?  Censorship can be adding as
well as subtracting.

As for �The War,� Ms. Drain called it �the perfect test case for the
F.C.C., because who�s going to take on veterans of this country who
put their lives at risk for an honest, just cause?�

�It�s not pornographic; it�s not scatological,� she said. �It�s an
emotional expression of a reality they experienced, and it�s part of
the historical record.�

And it is not about relating the historical record, but providing a
wedge for other programs with less merit.  Face it, how many films and
"documentaries" have you seen about WWII that weren't one-sided?
Where are the documentaries that show any sympathetic side to German
citizens or soldiers?  Where are the documentaries that show the
events leading to war in any fashion other than as a brief prelude to
Hitler's rise to power?

For that matter, how many films and documentaries do you see on the
civil war that attempt to reconstruct the point of view of a
southerner without dismissing those views?  Censorship is inherent in
the system.

What goes over the airwaves has to meet the intent of the director,
the vetting of the production company or producers, the standards of
the network buying the production, and the community standards clause
from the FCC.  And you're complaining about the removal of curse
words, required only if the show is before 10 PM???  Methinks your
priorities are mixed up and your anger vented in the wrong direction.