Censorship

[Platypus]

#3.

Little kids shouldn't be exposed to anal sex, and nobody should be exposed to hate speech.

[??????????]

#3.

Little kids shouldn't be exposed to anal sex, and nobody should be exposed to hate speech.

Hate speech is to broad of a term to expect to ban it.

[John Dibble]

Remember when people bitched about wanting a V-chip and when it was finally released nobody used it?

[??????????]

Remember when people bitched about wanting a V-chip and when it was finally released nobody used it?

I think my TV has one but I never use it.

[Platypus]

I think it has a slightly dfferent connotation in our countries. Here, it is used to mean a violent and inciteful,usually unwarrented, and completely unaccepted attack on a person or group of people. I'm not sure what it is in america, but here, saying something like (and this isn't my opinion AT ALL)

"The in' chinks are invading our land! We need to murder them all, bomb their houses, slash their children, destroy their businesses and eradicate their poisonous scent from our country"

is considered hate speech, and nobody should be exposed to thatkind of thing. Can you imagine if you were an 8 year old chinese girl and you heard that on the radio?

[John Dibble]

Remember when people bitched about wanting a V-chip and when it was finally released nobody used it?

I think my TV has one but I never use it.

Exactly - television comes standard with them nowadays(by law if I'm not mistaken) and yet people still complain about their children being exposed to stuff. All they have to do is open their television manual and find out how to use it. There was a series of add lately in my area on FOX informing people 'go here to learn how to use your v-chip', sadly I don't think anyone listened.

[Bono]

None.
Sure, the people own the airwaves. And they delegated the power to control them in the FCC. YOu remember when you delegated it, don't you?
And if the people own them, the FCC should be sending  them a dividend.
The fact is the people don't own the airwaves. The government does. Some of you might have read the article I posted here, about just this, by Harry Brown. Noone commented it tough.
Oh well.

[Nym90]

Option 8. No speech should be censored at all other than something that can be proven to be an outright lie.

[??????????]

Option 8. No speech should be censored at all other than something that can be proven to be an outright lie.

Can we censor Michael Moore then?

[Akno21]

Option 8. No speech should be censored at all other than something that can be proven to be an outright lie.

We can't censor lies. People have a right to say that stuff. Anyway, several whole channels would have to shut down if we censored lying.

[Nym90]

Well, I'm saying something that is proven to be a lie. If you can prove that he flat out lied about things that he claimed to be facts (not merely advocated an opinion with which you disagree), then sue Michael Moore for libel and slander. I feel that there should be laws against slander and libel. If someone truly believed in no censorship, they would have to favor repealing laws against libel and slander.

[Nym90]

I also should point out that this only applies to things that the person knew at the time were false. If someone makes a false statement, which they themselves believed to be true, that's not a lie. Lying is by definition deliberate deception.

[cwelsch]

Short of libel-slander, copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit a crime, we shouldn't censor.  Libel and copyright infringement are just assault and theft in spoken words anyway.

Anyway, if you don't like naughty words, gross pictures, violent scenes or anything else then don't watch.  The networks hate that stuff anyway because they lose the middle class.  There will always be warm and fuzzy channels like CBS, PAX and so forth for Mormons and grandparents to watch.

[TeePee4Prez]

Nothing should be banned.  Welcome to America!

[English]

Nothing.
Let people decide for themselves.

[Bogart]

In general, nothing should be censored by the government. Markets and social values will determine what is and isn't appropriate speech. The few exceptions which must exist are where one's words cause or incite harm to another; i.e. shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Newspapers, radio and television censor themselves all the time based upon their advertisers.  Look at some of the shows back in the day like "All in the Family." We will never see a show like this anymore because it would be deemed too offensive, I believe, to make the cut.

[KEmperor]

Nothing should be banned.  Welcome to America!

Here is a direct quote from the BBC's website about American freedom of expression.  Is it just me, or does it sound like they disapprove?

"Freedom of expression in the US is guaranteed by the constitution, and some stations give airtime to extreme hues of political - often right-wing - and religious thinking. Elsewhere, outspoken radio "shock jocks" push at the boundaries of taste."

[Platypus]

well it's true

[raggage]

Just hate speech. That way Santorum won't have much to say.

[dazzleman]

Just hate speech. That way Santorum won't have much to say.

Neither would much of the Democratic "base" in that case.

[Josh/Devilman88]

none, you have a right to turn it off if you don't want to watch it..

[raggage]

Just hate speech. That way Santorum won't have much to say.

Neither would much of the Democratic "base" in that case.

The democratic base is far more accepting of all walks of people (gays etc) than people like Santorum, who launches into scathing diatribes against people based on something as unimportant as sexual orientation.