Supreme Court takes up TV profanity case

[Texas53]

Supreme Court takes up TV profanity case
Networks battle FCC over celebrities' profanity during live broadcasts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27532414/

I don't agree with profanity on TV or in movies. However, people in general, don't bother to sit down and teach their kids proper behavior or anything else now days. In fact, some adults are clueless on proper behavior. (there is a very small segment of decent kids and parents that have not yet lowered themselves to such)

However, since this involves Freedom of Speech, it will probably be kicked out of the courts for that very reason. Its treading dangerously on that very right. JMHO

[SaberGal]

Supreme Court takes up TV profanity case
Networks battle FCC over celebrities' profanity during live broadcasts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27532414/

I don't agree with profanity on TV or in movies. However, people in general, don't bother to sit down and teach their kids proper behavior or anything else now days. In fact, some adults are clueless on proper behavior. (there is a very small segment of decent kids and parents that have not yet lowered themselves to such)

However, since this involves Freedom of Speech, it will probably be kicked out of the courts for that very reason. Its treading dangerously on that very right. JMHO

I don't know too much about this particular case, Texas....but on the surface of it, I tend to agree with you that this appears to be flirting very closely towards an infringement on free speech. The American people should be very wary of things like this and the Fairness Doctrine. Whether we agree with profanity or not, conservative or liberal radio talk show hosts, etc, the government should not be the final arbitrator of what is allowed or not allowed on the public airways.

JMHO

[Roamer]

No matter what is decided, how are they going to stop it?

[Texas53]

No matter what is decided, how are they going to stop it?

If we want it stopped, its up to us. Write the sponsors who advertise for these shows, write the companies that make the shows, people teach your kids whats wrong and whats right. Its not the courts jobs to make us civilized people.

I don't want a constitutional right take entirely away, because we as a nation are too lazy to get involved and do what we need to do.

When it comes to welfare, politicians having affairs, things in general and voting in the same old crap for 25 plus years and not making these same POS's responsible for what they do and accountable to the ones who put their sorry butts in office, we complain. But when it comes to profanity, abuse, whatever the flavor of the moment is, we're too busy to do anything about it and expect the government and courts to figure everything out for us.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGE AND BEING INFORMED.
I'm on a rant today because I have seen BOTH parties act like school kids with their lies and BS. I'm hearing and seeing people tear each other up because one side cannot force their views and beliefs on them. Behaving like this separates us from other radical countries in one way: we aren't stoning people to death, assassinating our oponents or behaving like animals. But we are close.

JMHO IMO IMHO :madranting94dp::madranting94dp:

[Roamer]

ITA, Texas. I've seen a lot of elections, but I can't remember one as dirty as this has been. It's really disgusted me with pretty much all of them.

[texanne]

Bump. I did not visit the board when this was being discussed. I would just like to add that it is a crying shame when profanity and filth is such a problem on prime time television. I do not let the grandsons watch when the program gets so nasty that I am embarrassed myself. What is wrong with the writers today that they cannot even create something that is entertaining without being drenched in profanity, body function jokes, sex, and graphic violence. Do we really need that junk to be entertained. Every kids movie is laced with profanity from children...and if there are no crude body function jokes, then you know you are not watching a kiddie movie. What is wrong with just a good, entertaining movie or story with creative writing and good dialog. Are all the good writers gone?

[Tracian]

I tend to believe if one does not like what is on TV, you have the option to turn it off, change the channel, get a V-chip, or deal with the reality, and explain and discuss with age appropriate children.

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, I remember when different groups focused on the Muppet Show, Sesame Street, Smurfs, Fragglerock, even Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.

Then there was the books, and classic Literature, such as Shakespeare, Mark Twain, more recently Harry Potter.

I don't want the government, the moral majority, or some other group to tell me what is acceptable, (of course that does not include obvious illegalities)

We each should have the right to raise our children the way we see fit according to our own moral compass...if you don't like what is being shown on TV, don't watch it; There are a lot of shows on TV that I find very offensive, but I know that there are a lot of people that would disagree with me, and that IMO, is the beauty about our country.

[SaberGal]

I completely agree, Tracian! Well said....

[packy]

I'm with Tracian.

[texanne]

I vote for the "change the channel" option also. I just do not trust government to make the decision. That being said, I think it is sad that it is impossible to watch television without being subjected to what I consider trash. Where are the writers that used to be able to tell a story without relying on off color humor, body function jokes, vulgarity, and sex scenes that add nothing to the plot? They are lazy because they realize that (apparently) the majority of the public is entertained by such. Oh well. Just keep on clicking.

[Mrs Robinson]

I disagree, the public shouldn't be forced to live in the gutter with the lowlife. If some feel the need to listen to profanity or view degradation let them change the channel or only allow it late night. Why lower the standards and let the moral compass of degenerates dictate what is shown on TV? Let decency control what is available for viewing and for those with a need for filth or depravity there are always the PPV channels. :0009:

[texanne]

I do not like gutter TV either. I just fear a government out of control. Our morals should not be dictated by whichever group is in power....it could turn out to be a very scary thing. No thanks. But, yes it is sad when so many need trash to be entertained. It does not mean I have to allow it in my home, or shut my mouth about it. I guess they have the freedom to have lower morals, and I have the freedom to mouth off about their values..LOL. America...you gotta love it.

[Alibar]

I mostly agree with Tracian, but, I wish a large percentage of shows did not feel the need to say AZZ on EVERY show. I never hear it in my personal life except, of course, when I say someone is an azzhol............................ :67302: And, I know the majority of parents don't tell their children to be sure and wash their azz. :blondblush113268230

[texanne]

I think the part that is the most disturbing to me is the fact that the low lifes are not content to just push their own values (or lack thereof) in our face, they seem to have an agenda to make sure that all children's and teenage shows have profanity, vulgarity, etc content. Sitcoms no longer hold children above such content....they use them for cheap laughs. I have actually grabbed my grandson's hand and walked out of a movie that I was enjoying (kids movie) when they just had to cheapen it with children uttering profanity or body function jokes. My point is that the story line was good...so why the need for the trash? But like I said...this is America. They have the right to make filth, and I have the right to walk out on it and spend my money elsewhere. Arggghhh!

[Mrs Robinson]

Maybe I'm just getting old but I preferred TV in the 50s and 60s to most of the garbage we have today. America was a much better place back then without the ACLU and all this political correctness although I do remember when June questioned Ward about being a little hard on the beaver the previous night.

[texanne]

For sure we were not confronted with the things we are today, but then there were other things that were accepted that were wrong. Those were the days of rampant discrimination. Women were subjected to sexual harrassment on the job, with the only way out was a loss of their job. I remember someone (in the late 60's) telling me that he moved his desk just so he could watch me walk across the lobby, etc. He was the president of the company's nephew, so there was nothing I could do but snub him. Schools were still segregated in some areas, people could whip their children with belts if they wanted to.....anyway...you get the idea. Yes, profanity and vulgarity were frowned on, but hypocrisy was rampant. And as far as TV and movies....women were portrayed as sweet little things that were content to meet the man at the door with his slippers and a martini. LOL...even then I knew that to be a pile of garbage.

[Tracian]

I disagree, the public shouldn't be forced to live in the gutter with the lowlife. If some feel the need to listen to profanity or view degradation let them change the channel or only allow it late night. Why lower the standards and let the moral compass of degenerates dictate what is shown on TV? Let decency control what is available for viewing and for those with a need for filth or depravity there are always the PPV channels. :0009:


Really? Okay...

I vote, and believe that the 700 club should be off the air...it speaks of bigotry...and against anyone that does not believe as they do...

I think that NBC, CBS, ABC and all those affiliates should also be taken off the air...Oppssss...and Fox...because they don't reflect my personal moral beliefs...

Hallmark should remove many shows, such as 'Little House on the Prairie' because Native Americans are referred to as 'Redskins' and hmmmm....should I go on?

Nawwwwww....you'll don't want me to do that...

[Mrs Robinson]

Really? Okay...

I vote, and believe that the 700 club should be off the air...it speaks of bigotry...and against anyone that does not believe as they do...

I think that NBC, CBS, ABC and all those affiliates should also be taken off the air...Oppssss...and Fox...because they don't reflect my personal moral beliefs...

Hallmark should remove many shows, such as 'Little House on the Prairie' because Native Americans are referred to as 'Redskins' and hmmmm....should I go on?

Nawwwwww....you'll don't want me to do that...There is no constitutional right not to be offended but there is a difference between being offended by the 700 club and Deep Throat or four letter gutter language on public airways, if you can't see the difference then there is no sense in discussing the subject.

[Tracian]

There is no constitutional right not to be offended but there is a difference between being offended by the 700 club and Deep Throat or four letter gutter language on public airways, if you can't see the difference then there is no sense in discussing the subject.

The only difference is what you or I preceive as lower moral standard. I don't want a group to decide for me what is right, no more than I would decide what is right for you.

No one is forcing anyone to watch or listen to anything. There are many channels that are 'family friendly' and I hardly think that saying 'azz' on TV is the same as out and out porn; the attempt to lump 'deep throat' into a discussion only underscores how easily issues like this tend to be a gateway for more and more regulations.

[wheezer]

Maybe I'm just getting old but I preferred TV in the 50s and 60s to most of the garbage we have today. America was a much better place back then without the ACLU and all this political correctness although I do remember when June questioned Ward about being a little hard on the beaver the previous night.

Having watched all those shows from the 50's and 60's through repeats on stations like Nick @ Night, I find just laughable and silly. But, that is my opinion. My kids will grow up and find something I watched laughable or silly. I personally do not find television offensive. If there is something on that might be a little to much, I turn it. Every generation is pretty determined that their generation and how they did things, what music they listened to, what shows they watched, are better. We tend to make the past/childhood, more romantic than it was.

[Mrs Robinson]

The only difference is what you or I perceive as lower moral standard. I don't want a group to decide for me what is right, no more than I would decide what is right for you.

No one is forcing anyone to watch or listen to anything. There are many channels that are 'family friendly' and I hardly think that saying 'azz' on TV is the same as out and out porn; the attempt to lump 'deep throat' into a discussion only underscores how easily issues like this tend to be a gateway for more and more regulations.A "group" decides now what taxes you pay, what you and your spouse earn, what is taught to your children, what is legal and what is not. What is shown on the airways has always been regulated, this is another attempt to remove some of that regulation. Should the Klan also have access to public airways to express their views, how about Rev Phelps and his lovely family?

Lump in deep throat, do you think that is not a possibility? I remember when the 2 piece bathing suits came out and there was a little outrage over it, now women have to get one of their most private of parts bleached so when they wear their thong at the beach the impulse for on lookers to hurl is kept at a minimum. Some may call that progress, I call it a path into the sewer and no one is better for this "progress".

Music is a reflection of the culture, listen to some oldies and then some current hits to see the progress we as a culture have made.

I read posts from a lot of people who don't want government telling them what to do, that is until they have become offended by someone else expression of "free speech".

Maybe we have different moral standards and I have no problem with that but I do not want to see the moral standard on the public airways become the lowest common denominator of morals. There are needs for regulation and this is one of them IMO. :zm1:

[Mrs Robinson]

Having watched all those shows from the 50's and 60's through repeats on stations like Nick @ Night, I find just laughable and silly. But, that is my opinion. My kids will grow up and find something I watched laughable or silly. I personally do not find television offensive. If there is something on that might be a little to much, I turn it. Every generation is pretty determined that their generation and how they did things, what music they listened to, what shows they watched, are better. We tend to make the past/childhood, more romantic than it was.I agree with much of what you say but is it progress? Yes, some of the old shows are a little corny now but was it bad for a student to respect his teacher and parents, a child to address an adult as Mr or Mrs? Young boys now wearing saggers or teenage girls with their exposed whale tails with a tattoo above, "A good time had by all", is this progress? Young newlyweds on their wedding night discussing their dozens of past relationships because they can't be intimate because of a herpes outbreak, more progress? A PE with all the media and older woman drooling over his pecs and he's on the nightly news in shorts wearing his ball cap backwards like a street punk, is this progress?

You're right Wheezer we do tend to make our past/childhood more romantic than it was but have we changed for the better?

[Tracian]

A "group" decides now what taxes you pay, what you and your spouse earn, what is taught to your children, what is legal and what is not. What is shown on the airways has always been regulated, this is another attempt to remove some of that regulation. Should the Klan also have access to public airways to express their views, how about Rev Phelps and his lovely family?

Lump in deep throat, do you think that is not a possibility? I remember when the 2 piece bathing suits came out and there was a little outrage over it, now women have to get one of their most private of parts bleached so when they wear their thong at the beach the impulse for on lookers to hurl is kept at a minimum. Some may call that progress, I call it a path into the sewer and no one is better for this "progress".

Music is a reflection of the culture, listen to some oldies and then some current hits to see the progress we as a culture have made.

I read posts from a lot of people who don't want government telling them what to do, that is until they have become offended by someone else expression of "free speech".

Maybe we have different moral standards and I have no problem with that but I do not want to see the moral standard on the public airways become the lowest common denominator of morals. There are needs for regulation and this is one of them IMO. :zm1:


You don't want to see what you consider the lowest common denominator of morals...

By what gauge do we measure 'moral standards?'

Nudist believe that they are moral.
Every religion believes that they are moral, that they are better or more moral than the other.
Democrats believe they are moral
Republicans think that they are moral.
Polygamists believe they are moral.

So again what gauge do we as a society base this universal morality?

Of course their are laws that we all must obey, but it is impossible to legislate morality.

[wheezer]

I agree with much of what you say but is it progress? Yes, some of the old shows are a little corny now but was it bad for a student to respect his teacher and parents, a child to address an adult as Mr or Mrs? Young boys now wearing saggers or teenage girls with their exposed whale tails with a tattoo above, "A good time had by all", is this progress? Young newlyweds on their wedding night discussing their dozens of past relationships because they can't be intimate because of a herpes outbreak, more progress? A PE with all the media and older woman drooling over his pecs and he's on the nightly news in shorts wearing his ball cap backwards like a street punk, is this progress?

You're right Wheezer we do tend to make our past/childhood more romantic than it was but have we changed for the better?

I would have to answer YES to your question. Just like with any generation there is bad, but the good always overrides. For every one thing that can be pointed to as "bad", there is a "good" that can be pointed to as well.

[Mrs Robinson]

You don't want to see what you consider the lowest common denominator of morals...

By what gauge do we measure 'moral standards?'

Nudist believe that they are moral.
Every religion believes that they are moral, that they are better or more moral than the other.
Democrats believe they are moral
Republicans think that they are moral.
Polygamists believe they are moral.

So again what gauge do we as a society base this universal morality?

Of course their are laws that we all must obey, but it is impossible to legislate morality.It's not impossible and it happens everyday. Most laws are statements of moral principle, the definition of marriage being a good example. Some may not agree with these laws but they are based on moral principle none the less.

When it comes to morals it is certainly ok to disagree with others but to make blanket statements like Every religion believes that they are moral, that they are better or more moral than the other.
I think is pushing it. When you said "every religion" were you including Wicca?

I guess we all gauge or base our moral standards on our personal experiences and upbringing, when it comes to the government or the voters I'm sure much of their actions are based on the same, of course some will not agree with their actions, we all fight for our own causes, you win some and lose some. :0009:

[Tracian]

It's not impossible and it happens everyday. Most laws are statements of moral principle, the definition of marriage being a good example. Some may not agree with these laws but they are based on moral principle none the less.

When it comes to morals it is certainly ok to disagree with others but to make blanket statements like I think is pushing it. When you said "every religion" were you including Wicca?

I guess we all gauge or base our moral standards on our personal experiences and upbringing, when it comes to the government or the voters I'm sure much of their actions are based on the same, of course some will not agree with their actions, we all fight for our own causes, you win some and lose some. :0009:


Yes, of course I included my own spiritual belief, because I feel it is moral, anyone that follows a spiritual path, believes they are morally correct.

[Mrs Robinson]

Yes, of course I included my own spiritual belief, because I feel it is moral, anyone that follows a spiritual path, believes they are morally correct.I would agree religions feel they are morally correct but I disagree with they feel morally superior.

[Tracian]

I would agree religions feel they are morally correct but I disagree with they feel morally superior.


Some do, others not so much. Several religious groups have used their idea of morality to change or block laws, remove books from schools, limit or eliminate on campus clubs and replace or change what is taught and how it is taught.

Just so everyone is clear, I think most movies and TV shows, are really mindless junk, meant to shock the viewer with sexual innuendo and a limited vocabulary. I think Howard Stern is a no talent jerk; however, as I said before, my solution to this problem is simply not to listen to him, and to turn the channel, or not view the movie.

[Mrs Robinson]

Some do, others not so much. Several religious groups have used their idea of morality to change or block laws, remove books from schools, limit or eliminate on campus clubs and replace or change what is taught and how it is taught.

Just so everyone is clear, I think most movies and TV shows, are really mindless junk, meant to shock the viewer with sexual innuendo and a limited vocabulary. I think Howard Stern is a no talent jerk; however, as I said before, my solution to this problem is simply not to listen to him, and to turn the channel, or not view the movie.
If you support a change in the law and it is unsuccessful, that doesn't mean the morality of those who were against the change was flawed or immoral. Of course the redefining of marriage would be the most recent example. While those on the losing side may be upset, they can't condemn their opposition because they don't share the same beliefs.

Remove books from schools, how about 'Heather Has Two Mommies', I don't remember the outcome but that book certainly has no place in a grade school classroom IMO. The social progressives who have had a jihad on Christians for years seem to have no problem with the Heather book but God forbid some teacher wanted to comment on creationism.

Yes Howard Stern is a no talent jerk but filth is in these days, the difference is HK is on Sirius which you have to pay for a subscription to listen to his garbage, if he was on the Public airwaves with the same product he pushes on satellite then I would want more than the option of changing the channel not because of what I might hear but what children might hear.

[Chrissy]

JMHO...freedom of choice is the lesser of the two evils; censorship throughout history and even today has the propensity to always go too far; granted your argument may be that this is extreme....the question is, where do you draw the line? Who should have the power to decide? To me, JMO, these two examples are frightening....as an individual you have the choice and the right to censor anything that you desire in you own family and life...I know our system is far from perfect...please suggest who has a better one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany

Censorship in Nazi Germany was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. All media -- literature, music, newspapers, and public events -- were censored. Attempts were also made to censor private communications, such as mail and even private conversation, with mixed results.

The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information. Punishments ranged from banning of presentation and publishing of works to deportation, imprisonment, or even execution in a concentration camp.

Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf:

"The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind."

[edit] West Germany (1945-1989)
Main article: Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany
During the post-war period the West German media were subject to censorship by the Allied occupational forces. Criticism of the occupational forces and of the emerging government were not tolerated. Publications which were expected to have a negative effect on the general public were not printed. A list of over 30,000 titles, including works by such authors as von Clausewitz was drawn up. All the millions of copies of these books were to be confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order in principle was no different from the Nazi book burnings.[1]

When the official government, the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland), took over, these limits were relaxed. The new German constitution guaranteed freedom of press, speech, and opinion.

An index of harmful materials listed those subjects and materials which are restricted in publishing and exhibition. These restrictions focused largely on material which could be harmful to minors, and included protections of personal dignity. Materials written or printed by organizations ruled to be anti-constitutional, such as Nazi organizations or the Baader-Meinhof Gang, were placed on the index.

The government also passed laws restricting the trade of materials considered Volksverhetzung and forbidding the public expression of Holocaust denial.[2]


[edit] East Germany (1945-1989)
Main article: Censorship in East Germany
Censorship in East Germany, the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) was widely implemented. Licenses were required to publish any material, and permission was required to exhibit or perform any visual art. In addition, journalists without government approval were not hired. Censorship was implemented both before and after publication of a work.

The primary goal of East German censorship was to protect the interests of Communism and its implementation. Works critical of the East German or the Soviet governments were forbidden, as were any works which seemed sympathetic to fascism.

Punishments were levied against dissenters to the censorship laws, up to and including deportation to West Germany.

This is Germany today...would you prefer to live under this regime and ideals???
[edit] After reunification (1989-present)
Main article: Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany
Because Germany kept the West German constitution after reunification, the same protections and restrictions as in West Germany apply to contemporary Germany. Continued globalization and the advent of internet marketing present a new host of complications to German censorship and information laws.

There are four reasons for censorship or information and media control:

A decision of a court, that assumes that a publication is violating another persons personal rights (a newspaper for example can be forced not to publish pictures of privacy anymore).
All forms of movie ratings (also for computer games but not for books) motivated by youth protection.
Media that is assumed to be very harmful to youth is indexed by the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons). These publications are restricted in marketing but not de jure censored in general. Indexing can grant publicity but is often tried to prevent. It should be noted that the reduced violence in some German versions of movies and games that carry a USK rating have in fact not been censored, but the companies releasing them have decided themselves to remove certain content in order to make the media available to a wider audience.
Publications violating laws (that restrict freedom of speech in general) can be censored; their authors can be penalised. Such restrictions are Volksverhetzung, slander and libel (which are in Germany Beleidigung, Verleumdung and Üble Nachrede). Especially Üble Nachrede (defamatory statement) scarcely causes censorship. Üble Nachrede (Defamatory statement) means violating personal rights by spreading gossip/news which are neither evidentially true or false.
Membership in a Nazi party, publicly advancing national socialist ideas[citation needed], and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany. Publishing, television, public correspondence (including lectures), and music are censored accordingly, with harsh legal consequences, including jail time.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union

Censorship in the Soviet Union was pervasive and strictly enforced.

Censorship was performed in two main directions:

State secrets were handled by Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press (also known as Glavlit) was in charge of censoring all publications and broadcasting for state secrets
Censorship, in accordance with the official ideology and politics of the Communist Party was performed by several organizations:
Goskomizdat censored all printed matter: fiction, poetry, etc.
Goskino, in charge of cinema
Gosteleradio, in charge of radio and television broadcasting
The First Department in many agencies and institutions, such as the State Statistical Committee (Goskomstat), was responsible for assuring that state secrets and other sensitive information only reached authorized hands.
Contents [hide]
1 Destruction of printed matter
2 Censorship of images
3 Translations
4 Control over information
5 See also
6 References
7 External links



[edit] Destruction of printed matter
Soviet government implemented mass destruction of pre-revolutionary and foreign books and journals from libraries. Only "special collections" (spetskhran), accessible by special permit from the KGB, contained old and politically incorrect material.

Soviet books and journals were also removed from libraries according to changes of Soviet history. Often Soviet citizens preferred to destroy politically incorrect publications and photos, because those connected to it were frequently persecuted.

After the arrest of Lavrentiy Beria all subscribers of the second edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia obtained a page to replace the one with Lavrentiy Beria article, instead containing Vitus Bering articles.


[edit] Censorship of images


Nikolai Yezhov, the young man strolling with Stalin to his right, was shot in 1940. He was edited out from a photo by Soviet censors.[1] Such retouching was a common occurrence during Stalin's reign.
Main article: Censorship of images in the Soviet Union
Repressed persons were routinely removed not only from texts, but also from photos, posters and paintings.


[edit] Translations
Translations of foreign publications were often produced in a truncated form, accompanied with extensive corrective footnotes. E.g. in the Russian 1976 translation of Basil Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War pre-war purges of Red Army officers, secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, many details of the Winter War, occupation of Baltic states, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Allied assistance to the Soviet Union during the war, many other Western Allies' efforts, the Soviet leadership's mistakes and failures, criticism of the Soviet Union and other content were censored out.[2]


[edit] Control over information
Main articles: Printed media in the Soviet Union, Television in the Soviet Union, Radio in the Soviet Union.

All media in the Soviet Union were controlled by the state including television and radio broadcasting, newspaper, magazine and book publishing. This was achieved by state ownership of all production facilities, thus making all those employed in media state employees. This extended to the fine arts including the theater, opera and ballet. Art and music was controlled by ownership of distribution and performance venues.

Censorship was backed in cases where performances did not meet with the favor of the Soviet leadership with newspaper campaigns against offending material and sanctions applied though party controlled professional organizations.

In the case of book publishing a manuscript had to pass censorship and the decision of a state owned publishing house to publish and distribute the book. Books which met with official favor, for example, the collected speeches of Leonid Brezhnev were printed in vast quantities while less favored literary material might be published in limited numbers and not distributed widely. Popular escapist literature such as the popular best-sellers, mysteries and romances which form the bulk of Western publishing was nearly non-existent.

Possession and use of copying machines was tightly controlled in order to hinder production and distribution of samizdat, illegal self-published books and magazines. Possession of even a single samizdat manuscript such as a book by Andrei Sinyavsky was a serious crime which might involve a visit from the KGB. Another outlet for works which did not find favor with the authorities was publishing abroad.

It was the practice of libraries in the Soviet Union to restrict access to back issues of journals and newspapers more than 3 years old.

[Tracian]

Awesome post Chrissy!!!!!

[Tracian]

If you support a change in the law and it is unsuccessful, that doesn't mean the morality of those who were against the change was flawed or immoral. Of course the redefining of marriage would be the most recent example. While those on the losing side may be upset, they can't condemn their opposition because they don't share the same beliefs.

Remove books from schools, how about 'Heather Has Two Mommies', I don't remember the outcome but that book certainly has no place in a grade school classroom IMO. The social progressives who have had a jihad on Christians for years seem to have no problem with the Heather book but God forbid some teacher wanted to comment on creationism.

Yes Howard Stern is a no talent jerk but filth is in these days, the difference is HK is on Sirius which you have to pay for a subscription to listen to his garbage, if he was on the Public airwaves with the same product he pushes on satellite then I would want more than the option of changing the channel not because of what I might hear but what children might hear.


The only arguement regarding marriage is a religious one, which has no place in law making in our country.

About the books in schools, 'Heather has two mommies' again, I don't see a problem teaching tolerance, anymore than when books were offered to children teaching about different kinds marriages, such as interracial, blended families, etc. IMO, the only parents concerned about such, are lazy parents that do not take the time to discuss with their children what they learned, see or are exposed to in the world. The reality is, that all of our children are going to at some point be around people that live differently from you or me.

What should a school do it a child does have two mothers or fathers? Not allow them to attend school functions because it is against the moral beliefs of other parents?

Religion does not belong in school, or as a basis for a creation of law, or the censorship of books, movies, or other media; the minute that religion is used as a reason for any of the above, it is clearly flawed, and against everything our country stands for, in my very humble opinion, of course :grin:

[texanne]

Yes, it was a good post. It is sad, but we have to defend the right of the gutter crawlers. A government that controls them, also controls us. That is the problem. Would I prefer some sort of standards of decency? Of course I would. The best we can do is to teach our young to be have high moral standards by setting a good example, and not allowing filth to be displayed in our home. The thing we do NOT want to teach them is to be judgemental. Judgement belongs to God, and our help is not needed (read the 10 commandments if you do not agree).

[Mrs Robinson]

JMHO...freedom of choice is the lesser of the two evils; censorship throughout history and even today has the propensity to always go too far; granted your argument may be that this is extreme....the question is, where do you draw the line? Who should have the power to decide? To me, JMO, these two examples are frightening....as an individual you have the choice and the right to censor anything that you desire in you own family and life...I know our system is far from perfect...please suggest who has a better one?

<snip>Freedom of choice? Then schools should offer classes on evolution give them the choice right? How about pornography or even child pornography, or maybe have books available in the schools about bomb making, building silencers, making crack, are you totally against censorship, let the individual make the choice or the parent censor what a kid has access to or is censorship ok in some cases? That is what we have now someone decides and we live with it. While I don't agree with all of it I find it far better than no censorship, the make everything available, let the individual choose approach. :0009:

Do you really feel some not wanting the 4 letter gutter words becoming a part of SpongeBob Square Pants equates to the censorship of Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s? :smiley_aasg:

[Chrissy]

Awesome post Chrissy!!!!!

Happy New Year Tracian! and thank you; I have always found this topic fascinating...sad, in many respects as texanne stated (and Happy New Year to you also!), but fascinating in that all that are extreme in their beliefs...be they religious, political, legal, whatever, damage their own credibility.

Legally the rights of criminals seems to far outweigh the rights of victims...again I believe, our legal system is far from perfect....and as texanne stated, it is a shame we have to protect the rights of the extreme hedonistic, immoral and unethical people in order to protect our own rights (i am paraphrasing here, but it was well said texanne)....please suggest a better legal system than ours???

JMO...I also feel if more emphasis was placed on home and family to teach children morality, right from wrong, etc...then the issue would be moot.

[Mrs Robinson]

The only arguement regarding marriage is a religious one, which has no place in law making in our country.

About the books in schools, 'Heather has two mommies' again, I don't see a problem teaching tolerance, anymore than when books were offered to children teaching about different kinds marriages, such as interracial, blended families, etc. IMO, the only parents concerned about such, are lazy parents that do not take the time to discuss with their children what they learned, see or are exposed to in the world. The reality is, that all of our children are going to at some point be around people that live differently from you or me.

What should a school do it a child does have two mothers or fathers? Not allow them to attend school functions because it is against the moral beliefs of other parents?

Religion does not belong in school, or as a basis for a creation of law, or the censorship of books, movies, or other media; the minute that religion is used as a reason for any of the above, it is clearly flawed, and against everything our country stands for, in my very humble opinion, of course :grin:I thought the mantra was that marriage was a human rights issue, IMO it is not a human rights nor a religious issue it is a civil issue.

I see no problem with a child attending 2 moms or dads, I have an issue when those moms or dads tell my child her parents are homophobes or bigots for their beliefs that might not coincide with Heather's mommies. They want tolerance, is it asking too much for the same?

Do you really feel any parent that teaches their child something that you are in disagreement with is a lazy parent, isn't tolerance a 2 way street?

[Mrs Robinson]

Yes, it was a good post. It is sad, but we have to defend the right of the gutter crawlers. A government that controls them, also controls us. That is the problem. Would I prefer some sort of standards of decency? Of course I would. The best we can do is to teach our young to be have high moral standards by setting a good example, and not allowing filth to be displayed in our home. The thing we do NOT want to teach them is to be judgemental. Judgement belongs to God, and our help is not needed (read the 10 commandments if you do not agree).I've never known anyone that is not judgemental, it is part of who we are and IMO not always a negative.

[Chrissy]

Freedom of choice? Then schools should offer classes on evolution give them the choice right? How about pornography or even child pornography, or maybe have books available in the schools about bomb making, building silencers, making crack, are you totally against censorship, let the individual make the choice or the parent censor what a kid has access to or is censorship ok in some cases? That is what we have now someone decides and we live with it. While I don't agree with all of it I find it far better than no censorship, the make everything available, let the individual choose approach. :0009:

Do you really feel some not wanting the 4 letter gutter words becoming a part of SpongeBob Square Pants equates to the censorship of Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s? :smiley_aasg:

Please see my response above Mrs. R....and Happy New Year! Of course I am not making the correlation between sponge bob and nazi germany....my point is extremists are the root of the problem; the more power you hand over to others as opposed to your own reasonable and good judgment, you may tip the scale to an outcome that you had not anticipated. That is why I posted the portion of censorship in Germany today and how censorship still exists. And I know you do not feel I am defending the other extreme...how to make crack 101...nahhhhh! I do respect your choices and beliefs very much, but at what price? and how far do we go? no extreme either way is the answer.

[Mrs Robinson]

Happy New Year Tracian! and thank you; I have always found this topic fascinating...sad, in many respects as texanne stated (and Happy New Year to you also!), but fascinating in that all that are extreme in their beliefs...be they religious, political, legal, whatever, damage their own credibility.

Legally the rights of criminals seems to far outweigh the rights of victims...again I believe, our legal system is far from perfect....and as texanne stated, it is a shame we have to protect the rights of the extreme hedonistic, immoral and unethical people in order to protect our own rights (i am paraphrasing here, but it was well said texanne)....please suggest a better legal system than ours???

JMO...I also feel if more emphasis was placed on home and family to teach children morality, right from wrong, etc...then the issue would be moot.It is easy to get caught up in the topic and my discussion is not meant to put anyone down for their beliefs I just want to express mine and while my opinion seems to be in the minority here I am pleased that no one has called me names. I have been called a baiter because I question statements made by others and they question mine. Baiting is wanting to make trouble, I like to discuss. I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking but I like the back and forth, you justify your statements and I try to justify mine. The arcade is fun although I am terrible at most everything but I enjoy the forums.

[Mrs Robinson]

Please see my response above Mrs. R....and Happy New Year! Of course I am not making the correlation between sponge bob and nazi germany....my point is extremists are the root of the problem; the more power you hand over to others as opposed to your own reasonable and good judgment, you may tip the scale to an outcome that you had not anticipated. That is why I posted the portion of censorship in Germany today and how censorship still exists. And I know you do not feel I am defending the other extreme...how to make crack 101...nahhhhh! I do respect your choices and beliefs very much, but at what price? and how far do we go? no extreme either way is the answer.
I may have been extreme using Sponge bob but my point was concerning the analogy of Hitler's censorship to the censorship of not allowing 4 letter foul language on the public airways. I agree extremes either way is not the answer.

[Chrissy]

It is easy to get caught up in the topic and my discussion is not meant to put anyone down for their beliefs I just want to express mine and while my opinion seems to be in the minority here I am pleased that no one has called me names. I have been called a baiter because I question statements made by others and they question mine. Baiting is wanting to make trouble, I like to discuss. I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking but I like the back and forth, you justify your statements and I try to justify mine. The arcade is fun although I am terrible at most everything but I enjoy the forums.

Mrs.R...your beliefs are very much respected, and if anyone differs in their opinion this is a place where respect for each other reigns...very much due to Paulie's high standards! No one will call you names here! I love to debate also and if we all agreed on everything, well, borrrringgggg!!! ...and i have seen other posts of yours that ITA with...regardless....:11_2_104: Happy New Year to you and yours! :tender:

[texanne]

I've never known anyone that is not judgemental, it is part of who we are and IMO not always a negative.


It is one of those things we are supposed to strive to overcome, unless you prefer to be a cafeteria Christian and only pay attention to the things that come easy for you. This, of course, is not the religion forum, so I will let it go at that point. I am glad that people who think they know what is best for everyone else are held back by the constitution. There is a reason wise people made sure our rights are spelled out and protected. They had lived in a society where only a priviliged few had rights. I find judgemental twits to be as offensive as some of the trash on TV.

[Mrs Robinson]

It is one of those things we are supposed to strive to overcome, unless you prefer to be a cafeteria Christian and only pay attention to the things that come easy for you. This, of course, is not the religion forum, so I will let it go at that point. I am glad that people who think they know what is best for everyone else are held back by the constitution. There is a reason wise people made sure our rights are spelled out and protected. They had lived in a society where only a priviliged few had rights. I find judgemental twits to be as offensive as some of the trash on TV.In my opinion the constitution has become a joke, just a document whose words no longer have meaning. That's what made this past election so important, not the change promised which I feel will never be delivered but the appointments that will be made to the SC. A few Ruth Buzzi appointments and the SC will be a mirror image of the 9th Circuit but with the final authority. Those wise men's wise words have become fodder for activist judges to interpret according to their political persuasion. IMO most people could care less as long as these rewriter's of the Constitution slant their interpretation to reflect their beliefs.

Back to those not wanting to redefine marriage, do you feel they are being judgmental and know what's best for others or are they just expressing their beliefs and should not be chastised for it?

[texanne]

I don't think anyone should be held in contempt for standing by their beliefs. That is why the marriage thing is such a quagmire.

[Tracian]

I thought the mantra was that marriage was a human rights issue, IMO it is not a human rights nor a religious issue it is a civil issue.

I see no problem with a child attending 2 moms or dads, I have an issue when those moms or dads tell my child her parents are homophobes or bigots for their beliefs that might not coincide with Heather's mommies. They want tolerance, is it asking too much for the same?

Do you really feel any parent that teaches their child something that you are in disagreement with is a lazy parent, isn't tolerance a 2 way street?


The marriage issue is a human rights issue, that religious morality should not a part in...if one's religious beliefs are for or against, it makes no difference, it is a civil issue, legally, morally, it is according to personal beliefs.

As far as the two moms or dads telling your children that you are homophobe or a bigot....that again is a two way street....what are you telling your children about them, or what are you telling their children? That they are immoral, ungodly, unnatural, perverted?

Children tend to mirror the attitudes of the parents, if a parent is not comdemning, the child tends not to condemn. Bottom line, there are zealots on both sides of the fence that do more harm than good for the general public, and tend to pigeon hole the rest of us.

And I didn't say that parents should not teach their children their morals and beliefs, and that it makes them lazy if they do...I said quite to opposite, What I said is that parents that are so concerned about what their child experiences outside the home and wish to change it for everyone is lazy, because they don't take the time to talk with their child, the don't take an interest in what they are hearing, seeing and even learning..they just want everyone to walk lock step within their belief systems so they don't have to take the time to actually interact with their children.


We disagree a great deal, but I don't consider you a baiter or hater...you have strong opinions, and that makes discussions with you enjoyable and a challege..thank you for that, and Blessed New Year to you and yours.

[Tracian]

~snipped respectfully~
Back to those not wanting to redefine marriage, do you feel they are being judgmental and know what's best for others or are they just expressing their beliefs and should not be chastised for it?

I am a heterosexual, I am Wiccan, my husband is a Methodist...does my marriage define yours? (My husband and I were hand-fasted (Wiccan) and married in his church, symbolically...our union was joined spiritually, Legally, it was done by a Judge, just to sign the license) Aside from the fact that your marriage and mine are with the opposite sex, what other things do you think we have in common? What about a marriaged couple that defines marriage as 'swinging' does that also define your or my marriage (over his dead body in my case...LOL)

Does the musical chair way celebs marry and divorce, define your marriage, even if it was done in a church?

Marriage is a union, civilly, legally only desolved in court...the rest is moral according to one's beliefs, or spiritual belief system, that has nothing to do with the 'legal' contract.

The bottom line, IMO, is that no one should be able to define your marriage, nor should anyone be able to define mine..or anyones.

I don't think anyone should be held in contempt for standing by their beliefs. That is why the marriage thing is such a quagmire.


Everyone is entittled to their beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not enfringe on the basic civil and human rights of others.

[texanne]

My point was that everyone has the right to their beliefs....everyone. Both sides IMO are judgemental toward the other. As far as schools are concerned, they would do better to teach the subjects required to graduate and shy away from controversy. I do not want the government telling me what I can watch, and what I cannot watch....and I do not want someone telling me I am wrong to stand by my beliefs. That inteferes with MY rights.

[wheezer]

I just think it is as simple as turning the station.

[texanne]

I just think it is as simple as turning the station.


Exactly. It would help if protests were made to the sponsors, also. I used to write letters and make calls, but I am getting a little lazy. Too bad there is not a sponsor hotline that people could bombard with complaints about smut. But, yes....the remote control is our friend.

[Mrs Robinson]

The marriage issue is a human rights issue, that religious morality should not a part in...if one's religious beliefs are for or against, it makes no difference, it is a civil issue, legally, morally, it is according to personal beliefs.

As far as the two moms or dads telling your children that you are homophobe or a bigot....that again is a two way street....what are you telling your children about them, or what are you telling their children? That they are immoral, ungodly, unnatural, perverted?

Children tend to mirror the attitudes of the parents, if a parent is not comdemning, the child tends not to condemn. Bottom line, there are zealots on both sides of the fence that do more harm than good for the general public, and tend to pigeon hole the rest of us.

And I didn't say that parents should not teach their children their morals and beliefs, and that it makes them lazy if they do...I said quite to opposite, What I said is that parents that are so concerned about what their child experiences outside the home and wish to change it for everyone is lazy, because they don't take the time to talk with their child, the don't take an interest in what they are hearing, seeing and even learning..they just want everyone to walk lock step within their belief systems so they don't have to take the time to actually interact with their children.


We disagree a great deal, but I don't consider you a baiter or hater...you have strong opinions, and that makes discussions with you enjoyable and a challege..thank you for that, and Blessed New Year to you and yours.
Children do mirror the beliefs of their parents and that is fine with me. I have no problem with parents passing on their beliefs, I don't think they are expecting others to walk lockstep with their beliefs, what they want is for others to stay away from trying to indoctrinate their children into thinking their beliefs are wrong.