The Politics Test: #3

[ElectionsGuy]

Keep voting on proposition 1
Keep voting on proposition 2

Disagree. At first, this seemed somewhat logical, but I was reminded that such regulation almost always leads to censorship by the state. Besides, tv and radio companies allow adults to decide what's on board with their children. Using the state to carry a blanket "protection" seems very inefficient to me.

[YaBoyNY]

Strongly disagree. Little Johnny and Sarah are going to grow up and enter the real world one day. You can't bubble them forever.

Unless you're in a small Baptist town where one never leaves.

[DavidB.]

Strongly disagree (literally normal). If you think your children shouldn't be exposed to offensive content on television then you shouldn't watch such tv channels if your children are there, and if you think your children shouldn't be exposed to offensive content on the radio then you should probably listen to another station and skip Wiz Khalifa/50 Cent. It's literally that simple.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think advertising and other such influences should be limited in its influence on young undeveloped minds. Does that count?

[DavidB.]

The Dutch summer hit of 2015, "Drank en Drugs", contained supposedly offensive content, including lyics like (translated): "All teenagers say yes to MDMA", "Your mother is crazy, she loves sex", and "If your btch wants to chill then it's no problem (...) because I have booze and drugs."

One of the most important radio stations brought these rappers over to the studio and made them rap a child-friendly version, called "Chips en Cola", including lyrics like "If your kids want to chill then it's no problem (...) because I have crisps and coke", "Your mother is crazy, she loves snacks", and "All kids say yes to lemonade". The entire "new" track was hilarious and it gained the rappers much sympathy (without really affecting their "street cred" because the "new" version of the track was so obviously tongue-in-cheek).

All without government intervention.

[Goldwater]

Strongly Disagree (supports free speech)

[VPH]

Disagree. I mean not showing porn on daytime TV makes sense, but generally censorship is bad within reason.

[Bigby]

Strongly Disagree. It's the job of the parents to monitor what there children see, not the state's.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

This is a tough question in a broad sense.

On one hand, I disagree because of free speech and censorship concerns, and do think that the media (especially American media/entertainment) is over censored in the SQ in terms of content.

On the other, I do support the government stepping in against pernicious corporate advertising aimed at kids. Cigarettes and alcohol are a no brainer; fast food commercials ought be regulated to the same standard as well.

[Intell]

Strongly Agree, you can't show excessive violent things in a kid's show, nor can you have a porn ad during ads. Censorship and regulation is needed.

[Goldwater]

Strongly Agree, you can't show excessive violent things in a kid's show, nor can you have a porn ad during ads. Censorship and regulation is needed.

How much is excessive, though? I trust the combination of viewers and broadcasters to answer that question more than I trust the government. If you think a show is too inappropriate for your kids, don't let them watch it. It's really that simple.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Strongly Disagree. It's the job of the parents to monitor what there children see, not the state's.

This.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Strongly disagree (literally normal). If you think your children shouldn't be exposed to offensive content on television then you shouldn't watch such tv channels if your children are there, and if you think your children shouldn't be exposed to offensive content on the radio then you should probably listen to another station and skip Wiz Khalifa/50 Cent. It's literally that simple.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Strongly disagree (literally normal). If you think your children shouldn't be exposed to offensive content on television then you shouldn't watch such tv channels if your children are there, and if you think your children shouldn't be exposed to offensive content on the radio then you should probably listen to another station and skip Wiz Khalifa/50 Cent. It's literally that simple.

[Mr. Smith]

Strongly Agree, you can't show excessive violent things in a kid's show, nor can you have a porn ad during ads. Censorship and regulation is needed.

Not to mention it's extra tools to help the parent parent.

And there's of course corporate subliminal marketing as well that needs to be reigned in.

[Intell]

Strongly Agree, you can't show excessive violent things in a kid's show, nor can you have a porn ad during ads. Censorship and regulation is needed.

Not to mention it's extra tools to help the parent parent.

And there's of course corporate subliminal marketing as well that needs to be reigned in.

All true.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Just wondering (I'm not the sort of prude that cares if kids see a nipple or what have you) but you guys do know that the vast majority of parents don't have the time to screen or regulate their children's media intake. Perhaps that's terrible, but it's the reality of the world we're living in. I hardly see it as an egregious act of 'censorship' to regulate media targeted at children - the most susceptible, vulnerable members of society.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Strongly Disagree. It's the job of the parents to monitor what there children see, not the state's.

This (I'd also include the Internet, with the obvious exception of child porn and very few other illegal acts)

[TDAS04]

Disagree

[dead0man]

Strongly disagree (parent)

[Crumpets]

Disagree. Content should not be regulated under any circumstances, but I don't have a problem with using a rating system (TVM, Y7, Y14, etc.) or disclaimer at the beginning of shows about "mature subject matter."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Just wondering (I'm not the sort of prude that cares if kids see a nipple or what have you) but you guys do know that the vast majority of parents don't have the time to screen or regulate their children's media intake. Perhaps that's terrible, but it's the reality of the world we're living in. I hardly see it as an egregious act of 'censorship' to regulate media targeted at children - the most susceptible, vulnerable members of society.

What do you have in mind?  Who do you trust with the decision as to what is allowed, and how do you determine what constitutes media targeted at children?