English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The FCC is launching a new program to penalize references to sex, cursing, etc. on television. We are undoubtedly going back to the Will Hayes movie era, when married couples had twin beds and, if a male hero sat on a bed containing his wife, one foot had to be on the floor.
The question is, who is the judge of just what is immoral and what is not? Will that person, or persons, be expected to have a moral life? Does morality only include sex? Does it include White Collar immorality...like fraud, corruption, money laundering? What about the presidential candidates? Many of them have very speckled backgrounds. Should we monitor them, too? Or are they forgiven because they publicly claim they have asked God to forgive them? Would it help if, at the end of every television show, the producers would ask God for forgiveness? Then, would all indiscretions be forgiven?

If Conservatives believe in less Government, why try to monitor morality? Why not monitor corruption instead?

2007-10-25 01:35:49 · 12 answers · asked by Me, Too 6 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

12 answers

I'm white collar and don't believe the FCC should regulate TV.

Your question of morality is interesting because morality is subjective and often related to the level of comfort a person has with something.

Someone raised in a conservative home is not exposed to a great deal of things until they are put into the world on their own. I am not a Conservative, but should my "level" of morality be forced upon this Conservative person, no. But neither should theirs.

So whats the answer? What should be monitored is that society is a safe place to experience everything they choose without harm to another human. I would argue that seeing two people have graphic sex on TV is not harming another person. However, a conservative or bible thumper may be mentally traumatized by such displays.

Because the airwaves are public, like city streets, the government regulates the "flow". If we don't like it, vote for an administration that will change the regulations.

2007-10-25 01:47:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Morality should be for churches not for government however,there is a difference between morality and common decency.. unfortunately parents are no longer caring what their kids watch on tv or they have too little time to check on what their kids are watching.
In the 'olden days' of 3 channels, or maybe 4, you could pretty much monitor what your kids saw because you turned on the set and you told them what they could watch. There was an actual family hour where you can could watch tv between 7 and 8pm without worrying about embarassing or violent situations during the shows at that time. Most were variety shows or family sit coms.
But then they started to show commercials with so much nudity, sex and violence you can't turn the tv on without running into them. I think they should bring back a family hour.. I think that commercials should be toned down at that time period too.
Watch what garbage you want to; there is still plenty out there on cable but when it all seeps over that children are exposed to it day and night ..we will reap what we sow.
At least parents would have a worry free one hour a night and then the kids can be sent to bed and adults can watch what they want. The biggest problem is parents aren't being parents and basic common sense has left the room!

2007-10-25 01:47:55 · answer #2 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0 0

You get however morality you have greater often than not from mothers and dads, and then to a pair volume from human beings. A seven 365 days old newborn many times refrains from theft and different comparable behaviours, yet are you able to tell me what a seven 365 days old is familiar with approximately government? Does a seven 365 days old newborn study and understand the Bible, the Koran or the Vedas? Communism is in line with lies, evaluations provided as certainty and heavily ignoring actual data. in basic terms like numerous different faith.

2016-10-14 00:04:14 · answer #3 · answered by gayston 4 · 0 0

Morality is all related to human values.If a person is immoral it clearly indicates the lack of human values. Human values can't be imposed through any complusion it is all related to inner thoughts and ethics.
It is not possible to control corruption,fraud,dishonesty etc through penalizing immorals.It can be avoided only by inculcating moral values.
Take the example of Japan -people there are honest .It is only because they have moral values and ethics.

2007-10-25 01:54:57 · answer #4 · answered by jav 1 · 0 0

It's not "Conservative" issue. The solution to this problem is to sell the airwaves off so they become property of the station owners. Then there would be no strings the gvmt could hold to regulate the airwaves. This idea that the airwaves are public is pure BS.

Don't forget that liberals want to increase censorship control to cable as well. Gvmt always want to regulate more. That's a good reason to keep them out of our lives.

2007-10-25 01:50:09 · answer #5 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 0 0

I am glad the FCC is cleaning up the filth off of TV and media. We live in a Christan Conservative society, and our TV and media should reflect this. I would like to see draconian fines and penalties for those who break the new laws. This includes companies like Showtime, Cinamax, HBO, satellite radio, etc. that have been exempt from the FCC.

A big thanks to President Bush and the FCC!

2007-10-25 01:40:18 · answer #6 · answered by mustagme 7 · 0 1

immorality is a form of corruption! If the familys in this country won't teach values, someone needs to get the salient points across to thugs and ne'r do wells!

2007-10-25 02:17:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No they should not. I am an adult, I do not need a baby sitter. I can judge for myself what is appropriate for me to watch, listen to and read.

I should not be forced to pay for more government to monitor what i watch listen to and read, as I do find that offensive and invasive. By stronger "morality monitoring" the government is essentially saying you cannot be trust to mind yourself, we know better. It is one step closer to a nanny state.

2007-10-25 01:47:17 · answer #8 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0 0

The religious freaks who are trying to impose their ignorant mid evil superstitions on you are not interested in the quality of their imposition, just the power to do it. They are the simple minded failures who can achieve some measure of equality with their betters by grabbing power and using it to their own advantage. The first thing the Nazis did after gaining power was steal very thing they could lay their hands on. This is what motivates these religious freaks.

2007-10-25 01:46:26 · answer #9 · answered by sSuper critic 2 · 1 1

Doesn't that violate the first amendment? I dont understand how the FCC is suppose to be constitutional.

2007-10-25 01:39:04 · answer #10 · answered by I think I'm Dumb ~Amy~ 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers