Posted on 04/23/2004 4:32:12 PM PDT by freepatriot32
I think perhaps the discussion boils down to two things:
1. Do we draw a line
2. If so where?
Which leads to, if 1 is yes, what criteria do we use to decide 2?
2. If so where?
Which leads to, if 1 is yes, what criteria do we use to decide 2?
Simple. Always has been. Officials are elected who have the authority to enforce the wishes of the population and who share their views on what is, or is not acceptable. The population can change the equation easily by changing those who get elected. That formula works very well for a whole bunch of important things. Censorship is no more difficult, nor less important.
This issue is one of those "be careful what you wish for" deals.
Liberal claptrap. We elect people to perform all sorts of functions on our behalf, and who we expect to reflect our views and desires. It is no more difficult to achieve that goal with censorship, than it is for any other areas of civil law.
It is not necessary for me to give up any "freedom" in order to aviod having to live in the sewage of others. It was never my "right" to impose my sewage on others. So I am not relinquishing any rights in order to secure protection from theirs.
They aren't passing laws for everyone, or even setting up legal structures, they provide for one another in an environment where you are free to escape to the outside world and do the things those people do.
Take kids out of the schools, don't watch tv (unless it's fox news or foodtv), pour your money into land and your own culture where those who are like minded can exist together and grow. This way one could prove their way is better as there would be less crime, nicer people, and better educated people.
Of course, just hope and pray Janet reno does not get back in power!
The pesky First Amendment is no more about protecting pornography, than any other part of the Constitution is about protecting a mother's right to kill her unborn baby.
Hey, freepatriot,besides being very young, you need to learn some American history.
Okay gang,here's the skinny on American censorship....
From colonial times, until the late '50s,when the damn broke, THERE WAS PERVASIVE,BLANTANT, AND A GIGANTIC AMOUNT OF CENSORSHIP IN AMERICA,RE BOOKS, SONGS,MOVIES,PLAYS,T.V.& RADIO PROGRAMING,AND MAGAZINES!
Rather than "harm" anyone,it actually was a good thing.It forced writers to be more clever,it kept pordnography and obsencities out of the public arena.Was there also ADULT fare? Of course there was.Could people get their hands on porn?Yep, they could,but it wasn't IN YOUR FACE,children were NOT exposed to it all of the time,and that really was a food thing.
BANNED IN BOSTON, IS NOT JUST THE NAME OF SOME OLD BAND! For those of you,who are completly uneducated about this subject,Boston used to be NOTORIOUS for it's " BLUE LAWS" and many movies,books,plays,andx paintings USED to be BANNED IN BOSTON!
Think that New York,often referred to as " SIN CITY", in times gone by,was removed from such behavior/having Blue Laws? WELL,THINK AGAIN!In 1927,during its run on Broadway,May West was pulled into court,her play,"SEX", shut down,and so were two others..."VIRGIN MAN" and ' THE CAPTIVE",whoich was about the seduction of a married woman, by a lesbian.
Books,such as "LADY CHATERLEY'S LOVER",were banned from being published,imported,and sold in the USA,until 1959/60 band that's a pretty "bland" book."NAKED LUNCH"? You couldn't openly buy that book,anywhere in America,until the end of the 1960s.Even Ben Franklin's lurid books,which WERE published in France, were FORBIDDEN on our soil!
Mario Savio,on the Berkley campus, started the " FREE SPEECH" movement in the mid 1960s.Free speech? Well, he and his compatriots wanted everyone to go around saying the F word and more.He won, which opened the floodgates and THAT didn't make this a better nation to live in.
Okay, it may be the height of silliness,that the word " pregnant" was NOT allowed to be used,especially NOT in connection with an unmarried woman,in the movies And it might make some of the younger people reading this thread shudder at the idea that Clark Gabel saying " FRANKLY MY DEAR,I DON'T GIVES A DAMN",in 1938's "GONE WITH THE WIND",was shocking beyond belief and almost caused people to boycot the movie because such horrible language was used;but,that's a fact.
Some censorship IS a good thing.
Or, how about a more rational, very "time-tested" and effective approach.
How about if I am able to live in a normal community, in which I have the right to expect that I, and my children are not exposed to things which are considered immoral or repugnant by me, and most of the other people in the communtity in which I have chosen to live (as have they). And the we, collectively, have the right to decide what is acceptable. And that we create laws to define that. And we elect people to enforce it with the authority of law.
It's really very simple.
Amen to everything you just said.
Do you have any children?
Why do YOU think that pornography,vile language,and salaciousness is just fine and dandy for ALL...including children?
The issue is not "government" deciding what people can and cannot read.
The issue is if people in a community deciding for the government what they want to allow to be pervasive in their environment. And to use THEIR government to enforce their desires.
It's an absolute red herring that all forms of censorship are somehow extremely dangerous to the rights of the people. The opposite is true. It is needed to protect the rights of people.
I understand what you're saying, and it has been my argument in the past that when a community comes together and agree to certain things (such as allowing prayer in their public school) that should be respected - sadly though such is no longer the case in this country. Not saying to give up the battle, my point is if you want something you can have it now and fight at the same time for how you want it to be. No need to wait, have all you want in that sense now. It may not be a fair way to do it (they will still take your tax dollars for things you don't support) but if the goal is a better place for family and such make it happen at a micro level and hope it takes seed and grows to a larger level.
How we wish things to be and how they are are different, so we make things relative to ourselves how we want them while making changes in the broader spectrum for how we want them relative to the community level on a legal field. The evolution of an idea in a capitalistic society (ie one where ideas compete, not just regarding money) can be nutured at a smaller level and grow to overtake the larger because it is superior in design (much like the early christians who lived in extremely oppressive societies, the ideas from the faith grew and expanded until they overcame the inferior ideas).
I prefer more power to the states and communities, and hope someday we acheive that.
As far as censorship and TV - the airwaves are not owned and setting standards is a good goal which should reflect the wishes of the share holders (we the people). We will allow company X to use them, but they have to abide by certain rules in doing so. Contrasted to a privately run art gallery.
It is not only impractical for everyone who doesn't like porn/pervesty/PCism/foul language/etc. to pull their kids out of school,nolt watch T.V.,and go off and live like reculeses,far away from the madding throng.The government,Fed,state,and local,used to have plenty of laws, which kept most of the garbage away from America's populace in general and from children completely.There's NO good reason NOT to go back to that.
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.