Stop The FCC

[Oh8ch]

Many of those 'lazy and horrible' parents are out lobbying for censorship of public ariways.

We all want to pound on parents because they can't raise their children. Yet we want to fill the airways with profanity and sexual innuendo. The lifestyles presented on a typical tv program rarely correspond to those many parents would support. We have billboards advertising strip clubs and an Internet with no holds barred (don't EVEN bring up those lame parental control packages).

None of this stuff offends me personally, but I do believe in the idea of community standards. Children are not raised in a home they cannot leave where the tvs are unplugged and radios are forbidden. Yet folks seem to be arguing that the full time job of the parent should be to review with their children the myriad of information they encounter each day and help them interpret it.

What is so wrong with the idea that children should be raised in an environment where you at least have to seek out objectionable material rather than have it thrust at you?

Sears asks:

once the ball starts rolling with tighter guidelines and regulations, where's it going to stop?

The same question can be asked the other way. If there is no backlash to Janet Jackson's ugly breast (my only personal objection to that particular sight) where does that stop?

Public standards for decendy have been a swinging pendulum since the dawn of recorded history. It has swung to the left a bit to far for the taste of many, and I for one welcome the swing back to the right - just as I will shudder to watch it swing too far in that direction (which it surely will - and for some already has).

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

buckiprof: It is ironic that a classic rock station now may not be able to play Pink Floyd's "Money" because of the line "..do goody good bullshit".

Not really...radio stations can do what they did when the song came out in 1973 when I was in high school, and that was to mute the word "shit".

BuckinMichigan: Part of applying what's "for the common good" is a baseline of acceptable public speech. Remember the guy in Michigan who was cited for yelling obsceneties in public and children overheard him? He arugued in curt that he had a right to do so and that the city (or county...can't rememebr) profanity violated his free speech rights. Well, the judge trashed that argument, and I don't think the guy appealed it higher. I don't have a problem if the FCC says, "OK, here are some general guidelines public stations must follow". It's not really all that different than movie theaters enforcing the ratings standards (kids under 17 not getting into R movies without older supervision, etc.).

 

[buckiprof]

ashlandbuck - I listen to Howard for roughly 15-20 minutes on my commute. That is when I listen. And you would be surprised what 6th graders talk about nowadays.

oh8ch - When something comes on TV or in a movie or on the radio when my boys are with me that I think is not appropriate for my sons (ages 7 and 9) I do not freak out and over-react to the situation. I am well aware that they are watching and taking a cue from me. So when they hear a "son-of-bitch", or a "g-damn" or whatever profanity, they giggle and I reinforce that language like that isn't appropriate. When at the beach last summer, we saw a topless female sunbather (it is legal in Ohio) they saw and giggled and I saw but did not make it a big deal.

I don't think it is a full-time job to review with my children all the information they encounter each day. As they get older I am sure that we will need to visit the issue of trash on the Internet.

But if I ever feel that objectionable material is being thrust at me I can always change the channel, turn off the radio/TV, or disconnect the computer from the Internet - a powerful message for my kids. I would not go out and try to get it banned because that is a lesson I would not want to teach my kids.

 

[Nixon]

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that it tends to be those on the left who want strict government controls over who can own how many TV stations, and such, and had a fit when the FCC loosened ownership rules. Then they have a fit when the FCC enforces "public decency" standards--all after they demanded that the FCC regulate in the name of "public interest".

Personally, I'd like to see no government restrictions on who can own stations and no government restrictions on what you can say on them. But I find it funny that people want the government to regulate OWNERSHIP in the name of "public interest", but then get all upset when the government regulates CONTENT in the name of the "public interest". Either the FCC can regulate the airwaves in the name of the public interest, or not in my book. And I say no--but not just for what Howie Stern can say, for what Murdoch or Clear Channel or Time Warner or Disney or Viacom can own.

 

[buckiprof]

I think that the ownership issue can and would influence the content issue and that would be a bad thing! If all media outlets were owned by, say, Bill Gates and he supported a certain politician, then the content on the airwaves would be propaganda. I do not see irony at all since one can influence the other. What I see is consistency.

 

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

But if I ever feel that objectionable material is being thrust at me I can always change the channel, turn off the radio/TV, or disconnect the computer from the Internet - a powerful message for my kids. I would not go out and try to get it banned because that is a lesson I would not want to teach my kids.

What about the billboards for strip clubs, the magazine rack at the gas station or even the grocery store, the album covers, the strip club on the way to church, etc.? Attempting to "turn off" the influence of popular culture is nearly impossible without going to an extreme (joining the Amish, etc.) Attempting to slow down or control the onslaught seems a much more practical solution.

Standing up for my beliefs is precisely the lesson I want to teach my kids.

BTW I was much more offended by Janet's stunt than I am by Howard Sterns. I have every expectation that HS will provide content I am not wanting my kids to see/hear and as such I can turn it off. A reasonable parent, however, might assume that a FOOTBALL GAME should be relatively safe to watch with the whole family.

 

[BuckBackHome]

Mili,

Your "baseline of acceptable public speech" is exactly what the federal courts have ruled on. Of course, new laws are written every day and new court decisions are coming down the pike all the time. We are entering a time when this discussion may end up back before the Supreme Court for them to render a decision. (Maybe VP Cheney can educate Justice Scalia on this issue on one of their vacations - oops, did I say that?). That "baseline" is being set again.

I have to admit I am very disappointed in you that you are now using the state of Michigan for examples :) The community I live in has a local ordinance that says you cannot swear on the phone. I don't believe it has ever been enforced. MI is also the state where it was legal, at least in the mid-90's, to procreate with your own children. I had just moved here and there was some discussion about a local family on Ricki Lake or some similar show where the father had kids with his daughter. There was nothing illegal about it. My personal MI favorite was the judge who said the husband was allowed to beat his wife. This judge is no longer on the bench and he even sprayed himself with pepper-spray in a court room. He did not know what it was and asked a deputy to let him see the bottle. It discharged in his face and the entire room had to be emptied. The joke was what would he do with a gun. Just some examples of the geniuses in this state. Don't get me started on the militia.

Personally, I am not crazy about the limitations they are placing and the fines they are setting. I have two little ones and although they are 1 and 3, my wife and I are already explaining things to the 3 year old regarding what he sees and hears versus what it really is. I prefer to be able to teach my children without the government dictating what is right and wrong. I know you have two older kids and went through the same, if not worse since I believe you have girls. You know it is a hell of a challenge being a parent, but I am ready and always trying to stay prepared.

 

[buckiprof]

What about the billboards for strip clubs, the magazine rack at the gas station or even the grocery store, the album covers, the strip club on the way to church, etc.? Attempting to "turn off" the influence of popular culture is nearly impossible without going to an extreme (joining the Amish, etc.) Attempting to slow down or control the onslaught seems a much more practical solution.

Attempting to control the onslaught is akin to having everyone join the Amish. All of the items you rattled off are not a big deal to me, nor my kids. So what if they see those items? I would rather they see them and ask what it's about. That provides a teachable moment. Kids take cues from adults and specifically their parents.

At times it seems this country is so obsessed with sex and I honestly do not understand why. Jackson's tit was exposed, big deal. Honestly, could you really see anything? The overall reaction to it reminds me that this country does have Puritanical origins.

I understand where you are coming from Boro since it is a challenge raising kids today for many reasons. Like you, standing up for my beliefs is precisely the lesson I want to teach my kids as well. At the same time, I also try to teach them that my beliefs are no better than our next door neighbor. In the grand scheme we probably have more to worry about with our children being offered drugs in the 7th grade than some of this other stuff.

 

[BuckeyeInTheBoro]

All of the items you rattled off are not a big deal to me, nor my kids.

Am I correct in assuming you are raising boys? I have real issues with the message these things I listed are sending my daughters about their worth in society. If a strip club exists, but is looked down upon as not quite socially acceptable, I am cool with that. If I am supposed to say, "well it's OK for some people" then I do have a problem with that. It's the people arguing against it that keeps it from becoming "the norm". If they stop arguing then the next thing down (or up depending on your perspective) the "socially acceptablity ladder" moves up to take it's spot. I recognize that I can't stop the shift away from the morals and values that I hold... but slowing the shift down is still the right thing to do.