"230 channels, all blocked out." ;-)
Posted on 06/02/2005 1:17:06 PM PDT by freepatriot32
The Danger.
No bill has been introduced yet, but Senator Stevens has promised one, and when it arrives it is likely to come straight out of the Commerce Committee he chairs and move directly to a vote with little time for public comment. The time to act is now.
You can read more about this at...
Center for American Progress: Think Again: The New Content Commissars
Jammed.com: Transcript of Sen. Stevens' remarks on Internet "indecency" laws
DownsizeDC.org commentary
This bill would deny you the right to watch mature programming on cable TV for the sake of parents who are too lazy and irresponsible to bear the burden of doing their jobs as parents. Those parents who object to cable TV programming already have several ways to deal with this problem:
They can buy a reduced set of cable programming (this is the approach used by DownsizeDC.org President Jim Babka who has three children under 10).
They can no have cable at all, but rely on broadcast TV only (which is now heavily censored).
They can restrict cable to only one part of their house and not allow their children to watch TV there.
They can block cable channels they consider inappropriate for their children. But some parents, rather than take any of these responsible steps, want Congress to do their parenting for them, at the expense of everyone else who wants to be able to watch mature programming.
And, we might add, Congress has no constitutional authority for such censorship, something that should concern every American who still cares about constitutional legality.
Many Americans have excused broadcast censorship because the government supposedly owns the broadcast spectrum, but no such excuse exists here. Congress can make no claim to own cable networks, local cable providers, or even the TV sets in your home. They simply don't have the authority.
Why Take Action?
Please help us stop the growth of the nanny state.
Please help us stop the Congressional urge to turn the entire country into Disneyland.
Please help us preserve the benefits of adulthood. Please help us preserve the First Amendment.
Please don't reward the busy-bodies who think they know what's best for you and your family.
Please stop the political habit of using children as an excuse for extinguishing American freedom.
Please don't let Congress reward the whining of irresponsible parents who want others to do their job for them. To send your message to Congress opposing this censorship click here.
In economics terms, morals are an externality. Libertarians don't like to talk about externalities because they would rather focus on transactions in which all costs are paid by the buyer only. But in the real world that doesn't always happen.
That's scary. TV is a public health service? You're kidding right?
You don't have to watch TV. You can throw it out. Don't put a TV in your kid's room. There is the v-chip to censor what your kids can watch.
I don't think this debate is about what is on TV, this debate is about control.
Indeed. In fact FR is arguably *more* of a public transmission than cable, since there are many ways to get online that don't cost anything. Those of you who want the federal government censoring cable should think about what Hillary would do to the Internet given the opportunity.
It's not enough for them to control their own lives. It's about controlling yours as well.
"Ok, so the a society's moral values are an externality. Now the only question is this: how do we deal the external costs?"
I don't know about your house, but here in the SoVa house, when the kids are exposed to something we don't approve of, we tell them--loud and long. We tell them what the consequences will be should they emulate that behavior of which we don't approve. We tell them what we think of people who behave in such a way. And as a result, we have two exceptionally well behaved kids. They know what's out there, and they know not to look or imitate.
Why in the world would you rather have the government be in charge of protecting your kids? What else has the government done well that helps families. Please.
Good points, but you might be banging your head against the wall here.
I for one am thankful we have a government who spends it's time, energy and my money on trying to ensure I and my children are moral people. Without them we'd certainly be watching the porn network 24/7. Thank God for a caring concerned government which is addressing the major issues of our day and not wasting time.
the one thing you all have said is the government need to regulate cable to get obscene and pornographic programming off the air.What you all are missing is the fact that what you consider obscene and pornographic is not what hillary is going to consider obscene and pornographic and when she appoints janet reno to head the FCC you all are going to be in for a hell of a shock by what gets yanked off the air and what gets mandated to view.
I watched the outdoor channel and outdoor life network the other day and for 5 hours they showed nothing but guns, target shooting, and hunting.I saw a 12 year old boy shoot and kill an elk with a high powered rifle ther is no way janet reno will allow that on the air because her and hillary consider guns obscene and hunting pornographic (they sorta have a point when i saw the new smith and wesson 50 caliber handgun I got a little turned on I must admit :-D )so they will fine all the outdoor network 500 000 dollars for every bullet that is fired on one of thier shows until they all go bankrupt but nude lesbian jello wrestling will be on abc Friday nights at 8 pm so that hillary and janet(the only lesbian in history to never need a artificial strap on)can get turned on enough to have a snuggle all nightlong and rut like weasels until dawn.It would be thier Viagra So it would be mandatory viewing. Sunday mornings however when the local channels show the televised mass everyone knows that is just the opiate of the masses so thats gotta get a 500 000 dollar fine until lthey go off the air.Because speaking the lords name unless it is used as a profanity is just so obscene and lets not forget every preacher is a hate crime perp look at how many of them preach from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin we cant have that going out over broadcast tv or cable or satellite it might make people uncomfortable.Better to just yank it off the air using the extortionist tactics that were pushed through a republican congress and signed into law by a republican president dont you think?
I would much prefer to see paris hilton eating a hamburger in a bathing suit then I would like seeing big bird and burt and ernie in a three way in order to show 5 year olds that every alternative lifestyle is as normal as heterosexuality and grover putting a condom on a banana to show kids how to do it on the playground without getting a std would be a bit much too.But when you put the dems in charge after al l the big government statist garbage is getting passed by republicans thats what you are going to end up with because they dont consider it obscene.They will think its there moral obligation to broadcast it and they will think its there moral obligation to take everyithing remotly conservative off the air for the children.
So why not instead of leading the cheers for this bill oppose it on conservative principles and then if you are one day subjected to seeing dana delanys butt flash on screen for 3 seconds on a rerun of nypd blue on tbs you can just whip out your ned flanders brand eye soap(the burning is love) and everything will be fine
You should ask yourself why. Nobody is compelled to subscribe to cable programming. The last time I checked, HBO, Showtime, etc, which are the ones that contain this kind of programming were all optional. You feel the government should tell someone to what they can and cannot subscribe? Yes, there is some content that is unacceptable regardless, such as child pornography. However, normal mature programming is a choice for the consumer.
you misread the intent of my post, but rant on.
That's right. When my 11 yr old nephew is watching TV Land at my house, it's right next to Howard Stern on the E channel. The pervert's show should be on HBO, which I don't subscribe to.
"230 channels, all blocked out." ;-)
I very well understand your reservation about libertarians calling for voters not to throw their vote away by voting straight a republican ticket. I also understand that when combining this reservation with the libertarian stand on open borders, taking them seriously can be a difficult step. What I don't understand is your claim that you "defend them in most threads," and then turn around on this thread attacking what is generally held as pretty fundamental to all libertarians as well as most all Americans. That is respecting other's right to freedom of speech.
Our society has reached the point where you essentially have to pull a Timothy Leary, drop out, and live in a bubble in order to raise children with a decent morals. And yet the sex, drugs and libertarianism crowd wants us to make it even more difficult to raise healthy children.
Its always been difficult to raise children with decent morals. I don't understand however why you think one has to "drop out, and live in a bubble in order to raise children with a decent morals." I also do not understand why you toss the libertarians in with the sex and drug "crowd." Nor do I understand why you think any of them want you to make it more difficult to raise children.
Libertarians as I see it, want to make it easier for you to raise your children to be decent moral citizens. It seems to me that your unsupported claim otherwise, is not much different than your claim that you "defend" libertarians on "most threads." I am not just questioning your honesty here, but am also questioning your morality.
I commonly defend libertarians on economic grounds, and I even defend them on moral grounds because many of the moral problems in today's society are created by the moral hazard effect of the government's safety nets. However, as this thread has demonstrated, libertarians don't like to think about external costs in transactions (costs that are paid by third parties and not buyers or sellers).
I don't understand however why you think one has to "drop out, and live in a bubble in order to raise children with a decent morals."
My friends at dinner last night were telling the story about their daughter. They make sure that she dresses modestly, but she gets teased by the other girls for doing so. She wants to buy clothes like all the other girls her age are wearing: short skirts, tight hiphugging pants in which thongs peak out of the top, and midriff-baring tops. This girl is twelve years old!
No other parents in American history have had to face these pressures, and the out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades. And yet the libertarians on this thread are content to tell our parents "Be good parents and block that channel and you'll be fine!"
I've searched through you replies at FR and I do not see where you commonly defend libertarians on any grounds. The fact that you like the communists, socialists, fascists, monarchist, democrats, republicans, can find some areas of agreement from time to time does not prove that you "commonly defend libertarians" as you claim. As far as your original claim goes, that I responded to, that you "defend them in most threads" --- I don't see it. On the other hand libertarians do not need to be defended, and your claim of such accompanied with an attack on such a libertarian fundamental as the First Amendment is as hollow as it is dishonest.
However, as this thread has demonstrated, libertarians don't like to think about external costs in transactions (costs that are paid by third parties and not buyers or sellers).
Of course most libertarians are well aware of the external costs of living in a free society. You have not demonstrated one example on this thread otherwise. They well recognize that freedom is not free, which is something that you obviously have not quite internalized as yet. The second most common quote I've heard libertarians use over the past 30 years is that "utopia is not an option." Interestingly enough, the common measure over the past 15 years used to attack them is that they fail to measure up to the standards of a utopia. Which is precisely the form of attack you use.
It is true that problems faced by todays parents are different than those that past parents have had to endure. But they are no more severe, nor unendurable. You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply. Nor did I see any of them say that by blocking the channel "you'll be fine," as you also claim. I think they all would agree that a parent needs to do more than block channels on the TV set. Some would even say, don't block the channel, instead teach your children. But that kind of discourse didn't arise here as the topic of the thread was not how to raise children.
As far as causes for out of wedlock pregnancies among teenage girls goes, you already identified a primary cause that could be solved with of out interfering with the First Amendment. Maybe you recall it. Back on May 31st you wrote in We Must Not Pay Teens to be MUMS - #26" that:
...this behavior is a rational economic response to subsidizing out-of-wedlock childbirths. Parents can shift some of the burden of raising children to the state, and the girl gets a decent career. ...we really need to attack the root and get rid of these family-destroying subsidies.
But now it seem that you want to shave off some of our First Amendment rights to end teenage out of wedlock child births. In other words you want to immorally impose your private morality on others at the expense of the greater public morality.
Well, my pro-libertarian comments were most recently removed by the moderator in the "A libertarian constitution" thread. I have no idea why because I do not use profanity. But here is the response to my post. Hopefully it should make the context clear. And my posting history is pretty consistent with wanting to get back to a pre-FDR size Federal Government.
You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply.
Sure they are, posts 42, 81, 89, 97, 104 and plenty of others in this thread a few examples. I think they all would agree that a parent needs to do more than block channels on the TV set. Some would even say, don't block the channel, instead teach your children. But that kind of discourse didn't arise here as the topic of the thread was not how to raise children.
My wife was raised in a Christian household and her mothers solution was to watch MTV with her children. But again, we have to face the choice to either isolate our children socially, or to give in to the corrupting influences of society. I don't want my daughters to have to come home crying because the other girls tease them for not dressing fashionable (read: like a prostitute). But I know plenty of parents that face that every day.
You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply.
This comes from what libertarian economists such as the Austrians often refer to as "What is seen, and what is not seen." We don't have two independent trends in the United States: liberal economics and liberal morals. We have one trend towards liberalism and they reinforce each other.
As far as causes for out of wedlock pregnancies among teenage girls goes, you already identified a primary cause that could be solved with of out interfering with the First Amendment. Maybe you recall it. Back on May 31st you wrote in We Must Not Pay Teens to be MUMS - #26"
Good research! But like it or not, there are parents that are out there raising kids in a hostile environment today. There are daughters that today are being socially isolated from their peers because they don't dress like the girls in a booty video.
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.