Posted on 05/01/2006 3:07:48 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
In McLean, Virginia, a young mother named Silvia began channel-surfing, looking for something that would amuse her 4-year-old daughter. Up on the screen popped something called “Girl Next Door.” It was a photo shoot for a Playboy centerfold, and it showed women in sexual poses, completely nude, except for portions that were blurred.
“It was very clear what was going on,” Silvia relates. She grabbed the remote—but it was too late. Her little girl was already asking questions.
The program was not a cable or satellite offering. In fact, Silvia did not even subscribe to those services because she knew it was hard to control their content. However, even over-the-air broadcasts have hit a new all-time low.
It’s just as bad on the radio. Another mother, this one in Seattle, was in her kitchen with her 5-year-old son, searching for her favorite music station. But instead of classical music, guess what: She heard a DJ using a vulgar term to describe the female anatomy. As Robin put it, “My son learned a new word that he wasn’t ready to learn, and I wasn’t ready to explain.”
These moms are not alone in their disgust. Overwhelmingly, Americans loathe having their children exposed to profanity and sexual vulgarity every time they turn on the TV or radio. The networks don’t seem to care. In fact, they recently filed suit against the FCC over its decision to fine networks that ignored community standards of decency. In their view, nobody has a right to tell them what to do. Even during “family hour,” they insist on airing programs containing the “F” word. If parents don’t like it, too bad.
This in-your-face attitude is indicative of how far our society has traveled along the path of radical individualism—especially when it comes to anything related to sex. Anything else can be restrained—smoking in public, driving without a seatbelt—all on the grounds that it’s good for society. But restrain sexual expression? No way—especially if it makes money.
And this is not without consequences. Just yesterday, I was advised by the head of a juvenile court services unit in a large suburban county that sex cases among juveniles are beginning to dominate their court dockets.
All of this is in contrast to the Judeo-Christian view that dominated our culture for most of its history. The view says innocent children should be protected from things that might harm them—especially ugly distortions of human sexuality. If adults wanted to consume filth, they had to go to grubby little theaters and bookstores to do it—places that kept children safely out.
What can we do today to clean up the airwaves? We can ask our lawmakers to support the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. This bill would increase fines and hold networks accountable if they break the rules.
The House overwhelmingly passed this bill a year ago. But it’s gone nowhere in the Senate. Yesterday, members of pro-family groups bombarded their senators with calls. They reminded them about the networks’ lawsuit against the FCC. And they asked them to get behind the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act—ASAP.
If you didn’t call yesterday, I hope you’ll call today, and get your friends to call, too. We’re working hard on Capitol Hill for this cause.
In reality, the networks are not declaring war on the FCC; they’re declaring war on our kids. Are we going to put up with it—or are we going to fight back?
Seems to me that if someone would like to avoid hearing gutter language and the Lord's name taken in vain ... that is their right.
AE, how many children do you have?
None, I am engaged. However, my parents raised me with careful supervision, and from their guidance I know that children are mature enough to recognize clear moral principles when explained in a manner they can understand. I believe art is not intended to be safe, to be easily digested. People used to cry murder at the works of Marcel Duchamp at the Armory Art Exhibit in New York, but now he is considered the greatest influence in art.
Eliminating a perceived cause of anti-social or inappropriate behavior will simply allow it surface somewhere else. I watched "R"-rated movies as a child, but my parents watched them with me, explaining a character's motivation, what drives them, whether they were good or evil (as relevant to the plot) and didn't simply leave me by the television in hopes it would babysit me.
Oh yeah, those "R"-rated films were authored by perverts like Antonioni, Godard, Kubrick, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Franju, Welles, Cameron, Spielberg and Truffaut.
Just because you feel that television or film or music is corrupting your youth does not make it so. It is a tired and unproven argument. In my record collection, I have an original LP of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" (a gift from my father). When three young men were accused of murder in West Memphis, TN in lieu of physical evidence, the defense presented the same album as evidence of clear anti-social behavior.
Obviously, since these three youth listened to an album about youthful independence and the brief period of time we call mortality, they clearly must be bent on homocidal madness. They are still in jail because of a flawed belief system. I dare you to puruse the archives of magazines from the 1950s and 60s, and read articles about rock and roll and R&B's "troubling influence" on the youth at the time. All you have to do is replace the words "Beatles" or "Led Zeppelin" or "Cream" or "Muddy Waters" with today's modern artist, writers, actors, television shows and you will have the an exact model of today's critiques on culture.
"someone based their decision on whether to go see it or not based on the number of profanities in the film"
Yes, it is their right. What is not their right is to demand that these films be removed from theaters for the enjoyment of others simply because they do not agree with the content contained in the film/television show/album/book/etc.
When a small group of critics are allowed to say what is safe, appropriate, clean and suitable for consumption by the masses you will see the death of culture.
I don't think I've ever heard the F word on broadcast network tv, at least not since Guns N Roses won a grammy. But of course, I have this awesome device called a remote, and it turns off the television.
yep....with the most important "parental controll" being the Power button.
Sooner or later, we're gonna hear of children suing their parents for not allowing them to watch the latest Slutney whore-a-thon (the ACLU already thinks that kids have the right to watch anything with no restrictions), or we'll hear of kids suing any company which puts parental control features that coung "infringe on their 1st Amendment rights".
I think one of these two situations will happen :
1. The FCC decency regulations are declared unconstitutional, which results in the FCC being reduced simply to a federal organization which hands out TV/radio licenses.
2. Far-lefties are appointed to the FCC. In this case, the far-lefties running the FCC would change the definition of broadcast indecency to "politically-incorrect speech" ("politically incorrect" according to the far left, of course). This results in Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Bill O'Reilly, and Alex Jones being kicked off the radio. Then the FCC would expand its jurisdiction to cable (which means Fox News either goes far-left or goes off the air, and Hannity, O'Reilly, and Dobbs would be kicked off the air) and satellite radio (affecting Fox News Radio) and finally the internet (which means goodbye FreeRepublic.com, and since PeTA is a far-left organization, all anti-PeTA websites such as Consumerfreedom.com would be shut down as well).
I frankly felt it was a bit inappropriate for you to be lecturing us on "maturity and common sense" when you've never had to struggle with whether or not it is safe to let your little girl (or boy) walk around the block.
Further, I do not apologize for believing that the dramatic increase in sex crimes and other debauchery is at least partially linked to the cultural debasement and exploitation of the sacred gift of sex being daily promoted by what you are calling "art."
Fact is, you were mocking someone for taking into account the profanity in the movie in deciding whether or not to see it ... or let their children see it.
I'm saying that is a perfectly legitimate consideration ... and most parents would agree.
The American people do have a say in what's aired. If no one watches, they cancel the show. That's how our voices are heard. Your complaint is that the free market isn't to your liking so you want government to step in and grind freedom under its heel.
Sure, that's what I want.
I was just saying to my wife the other day ... wouldn't it be great if the government would step in and grind freedom under its heel?
I wish we could discuss this a little more rationally.
As soon as you admit that the American people control what the networks air, by tuning out the shows they don't like, we can discuss this rationally. Last season was repleat with shows that the public just didn't buy. Before we can have a grown up conversation about this issue, we first have to admit that you want to do an end run around the market, because you're not happy with the choices the people have made via the market.
"Further, I do not apologize for believing that the dramatic increase in sex crimes and other debauchery is at least partially linked to the cultural debasement and exploitation of the sacred gift of sex being daily promoted by what you are calling "art."
Please link me to studies which back up your statement as fact, otherwise you have made a statement of general moral disgust phrased as a strawman.
Social conservatives too often bring up shows like "Leave It To Beaver" or "The Andy Griffith Show" as a model of a "simpler, more proper" time in American society. These shows were fabrications, just like their assumption. My mother was not born in Mayberry. Her parents divorced in 1955, and she was beaten and sexually assaulted by an alcoholic stepfather. How is that any different from today? Kids had just as much sex in the the back of a '57 Chevrolet as they do in a Scion xB in 2006. We as a society have just become more open about what makes us human beings. People like Lieberman and Clinton demonize video games for being dangerous influences on youth. Have the not noticed that it also increases development of hand-eye coordination at a younger age? Tell me, what episode of "Leave It To Beaver" drove Charles Whitman to climb the University of Texas tower in 1966 and kill 15 innocent people?
I will agree with you, the world can be a dangerous place. Your feelings and actions should be directed elsewhere if you truly want to solve a problem. Preventing Americans from watching material which you do not find suitable is not any kind of solution.
Today it is not.
You presumably have your theories about why that is. And I have mine.
I have merely tried to state the problem from a parent's perspective ... and to explain that "just-turn-it-off-if-you-don't-like-it" doesn't make the problem go away.
By the way ... I apologize for the tone of my last post ... there was no need for the sarcasm.
I'm a parent, and a grandparent, and I don't share your perspective of the problem. See, here's the deal. We disagree, and only one of our views can and will prevail. By the looks of things, it's my view. In either event, one of us is going to have to just accept the fact that we can't get our way.
This is not the kind of "barstool opinion" popularized recently in debates like intelligent design.
There is right and there is wrong. There are facts and there are lies. You have made statements which I do not believe can be backed up by proven fact. I have. Until you can back up your claim that television has led to a dramatic rise in sex crimes you are wrong. Therefore, you are lying. This is not some type of debate on CNN where the anchor gives up and says, "Well, I guess the debate continues." WRONG.
Until you can back up your statements with hard, ascertainable truth supported by facts, you are lying.
Lying?
Yes, when you cannot back up such a statement with PROOF. You are the model of "truthiness".
I would suggest that highest purpose of art is not to "disturb," as you suggested, but to uplift man and glorify God.
The highest art appeals to our nobler, not our baser, instincts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.