SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Rykaird · 04-03-07, 06:34 PM

The reason people defend almost anything in the name of free speech is because there is no universal standard of what constitutes "crap."

Simple example - the tv show South Park. The only episode I saw, someone hid a nuclear bomb in Hilary Clinton's private parts, and the Queen of England stuck a gun in her mouth and blew her brains out all over the wall. I found it pretty vulgar, and won't watch the show again. But should it be banned? There are millions who think it is hilarious. Who's right? Who decides? For me, I'd rather just elect to change the channel rather than cede to the government the right to decide what is "crap."

Should the Bush government decide for the American public what is "crap" and what is "educational"? Are you SURE that's the model that you want - that the government decides, as the Italian government just did on reality shows?

You can wail about declining standards (by the way, I happen to think the quality of tv programming is at an all time high right now - please revisit the 1970s and tell me that tv was so much better then) - but it still comes down to a question of power and authority.

With the exception of certain known social standards, I would rather use rating systems and market pressures to determine publishing standards. You talk about educating the public - OK, but who decides what they get educated on? There's an entire army of folks who think we should be teaching young children that homosexual relationships are a good thing. I disagree. Who decides?

One day a liberal government mandates educating children on homosexuality and four years later a conservative one eliminates discussions of evolution. Sorry, I just don't want them to have that control. You can say we aren't talking about such key issues - that this is just about crap tv - but there is no way to divide that level of authority so finely. You can't give the government the right to ban tv shows that are deemed to be not helpful to the masses, but only if they don't discussions on science, or education, or religion, etc. Sorry, the lawyers will then jump in and re-label anything the way they want it.

Your entire argument hinges on this idea that you happen to know what's best, that it is so obvious that reality tv is crap and should be banned. But you aren't the person making the call - its the government. There's no ballot measure where the majority gets to decide. Tomorrow (and they have certainly tried to do this) a liberal government bans conservative talk radio as "hate speech". If your a liberal, this is a wise and prudent move. If your a conservative, you just woke up in a totalitarian government.

What I want is less intrusive government. Period. Fix the roads and defend the shores, and stay the hell out of my personal decisions.

04-03-07, 06:34 PM	#10
Rykaird Weps Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 356 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	The reason people defend almost anything in the name of free speech is because there is no universal standard of what constitutes "crap." Simple example - the tv show South Park. The only episode I saw, someone hid a nuclear bomb in Hilary Clinton's private parts, and the Queen of England stuck a gun in her mouth and blew her brains out all over the wall. I found it pretty vulgar, and won't watch the show again. But should it be banned? There are millions who think it is hilarious. Who's right? Who decides? For me, I'd rather just elect to change the channel rather than cede to the government the right to decide what is "crap." Should the Bush government decide for the American public what is "crap" and what is "educational"? Are you SURE that's the model that you want - that the government decides, as the Italian government just did on reality shows? You can wail about declining standards (by the way, I happen to think the quality of tv programming is at an all time high right now - please revisit the 1970s and tell me that tv was so much better then) - but it still comes down to a question of power and authority. With the exception of certain known social standards, I would rather use rating systems and market pressures to determine publishing standards. You talk about educating the public - OK, but who decides what they get educated on? There's an entire army of folks who think we should be teaching young children that homosexual relationships are a good thing. I disagree. Who decides? One day a liberal government mandates educating children on homosexuality and four years later a conservative one eliminates discussions of evolution. Sorry, I just don't want them to have that control. You can say we aren't talking about such key issues - that this is just about crap tv - but there is no way to divide that level of authority so finely. You can't give the government the right to ban tv shows that are deemed to be not helpful to the masses, but only if they don't discussions on science, or education, or religion, etc. Sorry, the lawyers will then jump in and re-label anything the way they want it. Your entire argument hinges on this idea that you happen to know what's best, that it is so obvious that reality tv is crap and should be banned. But you aren't the person making the call - its the government. There's no ballot measure where the majority gets to decide. Tomorrow (and they have certainly tried to do this) a liberal government bans conservative talk radio as "hate speech". If your a liberal, this is a wise and prudent move. If your a conservative, you just woke up in a totalitarian government. What I want is less intrusive government. Period. Fix the roads and defend the shores, and stay the hell out of my personal decisions.