Quote:
Originally posted by Dagnabit
OK, that's the story, now here's what gets me.
An Oprah show featuring explicit discussion is considered "decent" because it "serves a legitimate purpose", while Howard Stern is "indecent".
Is the entertainment of millions NOT a "legitimate purpose"?
If 15 million people enjoy the show, and 3 out of 5 appointed FCC commissioners find it obscene, whose votes actually count in a country founded with the words "We The People"?
|
Me thinks you muss the point... so what if 15 million people enjoy the show, they aren't the only ones listening... the 3 out of 5 is not the majority that decided this, the American public is!
In general, I happen to be a very strong proponent of free speech, I'd like to believe that any reasonable person can change channels so as to avoid something that is objectionable. In an ideal world, this ought to be enough.
But we aren't talking about reasonable people here (go ahead and count the resonable people, it seems do-able), we are talking about people who might not have the resources to change the channel, or who may not have the experience required to understand that a show like Stern is a big put on.
Once again, in an ideal world parents would watch their children and prevent them from being influenced by something that the parent finds objectionable. (don't waste your breathe arguing that this affects the children's rights, parents have a right and a responsibility to provide a foundation for their children!)
Anyway, the problem is that not all parents are responsible. This leads to children seeing and hearing things that their own parents might not approve of. Now this is going to happen anyway, and the resourceful parent can, as often as not turn the potential problem into a learning experience, but guidelines that make it more difficult for children to be so exposed can't be all bad.
Examples??? OK...
I'd really rather not have my 12 year old daughter watch a movie that glorifies sex for fun or drugs for recreation or violence for kicks. I can't protect her from such things forever, but for now it seems prudent to minimize the impact. Last summer she saw a movie about a boy who seduces girls for sport, and she wanted to know if such a thing were possible. We used this as an opportunity to explain that all teenage boys are pigs (seemed too early to tell her that all males are pigs<G>), and that she needed to understand that teenage boys needs and teenage girls needs did not always coincide.
But we'd have discussed this without the movie, and I think that would have been better.
Fortunately for me she thinks Howard Stern is stupid, an opinion that I would never try to argue, but there are other outlets that she likes that are beyond me. We'll deal with them as the arise, hopefully in an honest and respectful fashion (what planet?), but if the broadcasters and programmers want to help me out a little I'm all for it.