I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, as i didn't see it on this page, and I don't visit GD, so here goes.

As most of us know the FCC was never intended to regulate content, it was formed to regulate frequencies of transmissions and establish a standard that electronics would operate on, anyone who's used electronics has operated under the jurisdiction of the FCC, from things like computer speakers to TV's, radios, phones, etc, content control should not be the FCC's job, nor should regulating said content necessarily be in the hands of the Gov't. That power is held by the individuals, Howard Stern was pulled from the airways for a number of reasons (decency has been cited, as well as his lack of support for Pres Bush -> Clearchannel radio is a very strong Bush supporter) Janet Jackson's Superbowl actions have also been cited.

The knee jerk reaction is "Why hasn't someone protected me from this indecent attack against me" the answer is that that power rests with you, you have the power to turn off your tv, radio, internet, if something offends you, get out and do something about it, don't call for the government to regulate it, get involved in your hometown, start a petition to boycott offensive programming, write the networks, and get your friends to write as well, hell sue the networks for exposing you to such offensive content, letting the government legislate morality to us is wrong, as wrong as doing nothing when something is wrong. Personally the government has enough power, and is already bloated and inefficient, to grant more power to a beuroctacy that isn't already designed for this type of thing will only make the problem worse.

After granting the power to regulate what is decent on TV or radio what's to stop small but vocal groups from bringing other things into question as immoral, or indecent. I play AD&D, many religious groups consider it to be satanic, what's to stop them from twisting a loophole in the law (and there always are loopholes in any law) to say that my printed (or pdf) copies of gaming material is indecent and should be banned? or to stop them from banning anything that a small but vocal group finds intolerable.

The following site is an online petition to stop the gov't from granting those kinds of regulatory powers to the FCC. http://www.stopfcc.com/

thank you for your time.

I agree! A little bit of cencorship is fine, but they're going too far! They just want to take away freedom of speech!

Not only is THAT link against cencorship, there's also www.eff.org

Fight for your freedom of speech!
[img]graemlins/braveheart.gif[/img]

What?!

There's nothing about the restriction of rights and freedoms that has any aspect of acceptibility. I don't understand what you mean. Clarify?

What?!

There's nothing about the restriction of rights and freedoms that has any aspect of acceptibility. I don't understand what you mean. Clarify? </font>[/QUOTE]Just a pinch. You know, not TOTAL cencorship...just enough to keep Porn out of the hands of minors and kick the crap out of racism.

Going TOO FAR is at the point where you can't say what you want without some piece of crap saying "You can't say that."

Or denying religious groups their freedom of speech. Does anyone recall when they ripped out that statue of the Ten Commandments? Taking it out of there was a prime example of too much cencorship.

Ok, so what if I were to say "All niggers must die! Give porn to children!"? Then by your censorship standards you would tell me "You can't say that!". You would censor my racist and pro-porn remarks, wouldn't you? You censoring 'piece of crap'! ;)

No, censorship is absolutely counter-faced to freedom of speech, you can't advocate both. Which do you stand for?

As a side note, I'm interested as to how censorship would "kick the crap out of racism". How would restricting what people are allowed to say stop racial prejudice? Explain, and make it good.

[ 03-20-2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Not supposed to debate religion here. But for the record, the 10 Commandments incident was not censorship. The statue could have been placed anywhere on private property - not on Government property. Ever heard of the separation of Church and State? The momument could be construed as support of one form of religion by that court which is illegal.

My 2 cents.

Mark

Ok, so what if I were to say "All niggers must die! Give porn to children!"? Then by your censorship standards you would tell me "You can't say that!". You would censor my racist and pro-porn remarks, wouldn't you? You censoring 'piece of crap'! ;)

No, censorship is absolutely counter-faced to freedom of speech, you can't advocate both. Which do you stand for?

As a side note, I'm interested as to how censorship would "kick the crap out of racism". How would restricting what people are allowed to say stop racial prejudice? Explain, and make it good. </font>[/QUOTE](( People with Heart Conditions, watch out! I'm about to get nasty! ))

You got me there. I guess the only way to stop this racist bullcrap without cencorship is to shove firecrackers up their nazi/kkk asses! That works too!

Thanks for clearing that up, Heirophant. My head was up my ass on this issue until you came along. [img]smile.gif[/img]

MY MESSAGE TO THE FCC:

Kiss my Greasy Red-and-White Ass, Commies! [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

Not supposed to debate religion here. But for the record, the 10 Commandments incident was not censorship. The statue could have been placed anywhere on private property - not on Government property. Ever heard of the separation of Church and State? The momument could be construed as support of one form of religion by that court which is illegal.

My 2 cents.

Mark </font>[/QUOTE]Oh.