Religious Right launches moral crusade

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Well, this comes down to what you believe to be a sin. For instance, there is nothing in the bibile about using expletives such as the f-bomb unless they are used as a curse. Yet, our society has deemed these words as vulgar (goes back to the Norman Invasion of England).

Respect is the concept, as in "respect your mother and father". It encourages behaviour (conformity, respect, loyalty) that they believe are good things for society (and the soul) at large. Swear words (or curse words as they were originally but aren't any more) create a rebellious society which will rebel against the Father. The punishment for rebellion is eternal damnation.

The same goes for nudity. All nudity does not automatically infer sex. Is nudity even public nudity specifically forbidden in the Bible? The only thing I could find with a quick search was a page that said there were

Nudity is fine so long as it is asexual. Since men (and many women) are visually stimulated by a naked form, it is almost universally sexual. Sexuality leads to Lust which is a deadly sin. Therefor, nudity leads to lust and can reasonably be judged to cause lust and should be banned as inciting people to sin.

So then the Right becomes wrong simply because they are trying to impose a false sense of morality that isn't even dictated by their source of "God's word".

Not at all. See above.

[lochinvar]

Let's posit a few points and see where they lead us...

The Parents Television Council is an activist organization formed with the express purpose of policing the public airwaves. They attempt to prevent material they see as objectionable from being shown on television or broadcast over the radio. They do this by taking advantage of the procedure already established by the FCC for the filing of complaints RE the content of television and radio shows.

How is this different from any other political activism?

How, for example, does their complaint campaign differ substantially from a letter campaign aimed at elected officials with the express aim of preventing a toxic waste dump from being established in a certain area? Or preventing a highway from being expanded? Or banning tuna fishing that's not "dolphin friendly"? Or any one of a thousand other causes around which groups have organized to advocate for a particular outcome?

C'mon, people, this is the American way. They're just following accepted procedure. I'm forced to conclude that the objection lies not in their methodology but in their message. In other words, you find it objectionable because you don't agree with them.

Well, that's just too bad. I don't particularly agree with them, either, but they have as much right to free speech and free assembly as you and I do.

The answer is not to villify them for their activism, but to organize yourselves in opposing activism. Then let the public decide whose message is more compelling. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

[jeff]

Well, in this particular instance it's because there are First Amendment issues "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." They want to use government agencies to restrict free speech, which is directly applicable to the issue at hand, and not so with toxic waste dumps and so forth.

That said, I quite agree that the right answer is to exercise active democracy and organize against them.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Well, in this particular instance it's because there are First Amendment issues "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." They want to use government agencies to restrict free speech, which is directly applicable to the issue at hand, and not so with toxic waste dumps and so forth.

Well, you can't peaceably assemble in Jeff's house if Jeff doesn't give his consent can you? Why can't you hold a High Satanic Mass in the Capitol Building when congress is in session? When speech becomes harmful, is it still free? When your free speech prevents me from speaking freely, is it still free? Obviously, free speech and the first ammendment have limitations on their use.

But that's besides the point. Broadcast standards are not a first ammendment issue for one, simple, reason: airwaves are a natural resource owned by the government. Because they own them, they can choose to not license those same airwaves for whatever reason they want and it is perfectly constitutional. You're not "limiting the free speech of the broadcasters" for the same reason that you and I are not entitled by right to slant drill under our neighbour's house: we don't own the resource and so must negotiate with its rightful owner for its use. Part of that agreement is that those airways are subject to acceptable use clauses and there are fines for breaching that broadcasting contract. Enforcing those clauses (or not) is the choice of the resource owner to make.

[jeff]

Of course free speech has limitations - recall the "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" example for one. No, you can't assemble in my house unless I permit you to, and then I'm going to expect you to bring the beer, or at least the dessert.

You mean they don't do Satanic Masses in Congress? Oh, I've been terribly misinformed!

As far as the broadcasters go: I'm pretty certain it has been established under law that government control over what happens on broadcast media is in fact protected by First Amendment. You're right that there are "acceptable use" constraints for the publically-owned airwaves licensed to the broadcasters, but I believe that courts have also (if apparently in contradiction) have upheld First Amendment rights in this medium.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

As far as the broadcasters go: I'm pretty certain it has been established under law that government control over what happens on broadcast media is in fact protected by First Amendment. You're right that there are "acceptable use" constraints for the publically-owned airwaves licensed to the broadcasters, but I believe that courts have also (if apparently in contradiction) have upheld First Amendment rights in this medium.

Kinda. Broadcast media is subject to first ammendment protection from censorship, the same as anywhere else. There are exceptions to First Ammendment protection, as you outlined. Specifically the content in question must be deemed appropriate in terms of the obscene content exception and judged on its ability to harm the public good. Because of the community offense nature of the exception things that are patently offensive to a large segment of the community can (and in some cases should) be censored without infringing on First Ammendment rights.

In the broadcast space it goes one step further in that indecent material, as well as obscene material, is also regulated. You can say what you like, is the concept, just not during some specific times when your speech is more likely to injure community members (kids, in particular) and be a disservice to the public good. Violations of these regulations carry regulatory punishments (revoking license, fines, etc...).

The question of what the community determines is patently offensive is what's pertinent here. Specifically, what the community is (who's a member, how broad it is, etc...), and, from that, what they deem offensive. My comments about religion above are designed to lead towards a definition of community and the acceptance of different community defintions based on regional beliefs. My opinion on the matter is that regional broadcasters have regional community and national ones have national community. Each should be responsible for ensuring that their broadcast conforms to their community norms.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jeff

Of course free speech has limitations - recall the "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" example for one. No, you can't assemble in my house unless I permit you to, and then I'm going to expect you to bring the beer, or at least the dessert.

I hear Soldier makes some wicked fried chicken--would that do?

[jeff]

lochinvar: in that case, I'll supply the alcohol (a light red wine will go well with the chicken), though I think it's harsh to cook a room-mate)

jBirch: I concur with your arguments. Given that only a small number of very vocal individuals and groups have been making such complaints, I pretty much feel that community standards for obscenity weigh against them. Your point about 1st Amendment not being totally application is taken.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


In Europe, a large part of the population lives in places where the airwaves of neighboring countries can be taken in. The dish used for my flat area is used to recieve TV programs from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, GB, Italy, etc. Many people here (in Northern Europe) have home dishes which take in TV channels from various middle east countries, including Al-Jazeera. The Sw. State TV company airs a Swedish-language channel which can be seen literally all over the globe. This has limited the power of various consor-happy politicians, since the many viewers can get what the pols don´t like in some other channel.

That said: How large part of the US. population live in places where Canadian or Mexican TV can be taken in? How many can see over-the-globe LW TV? Are they so many so the that they affect politics in any way?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[lochinvar]

Well, Peter, were I to live in Paris, France, for example, and go 1000 K in any direction, I will cross numerous national boundaries and interact with 6-12 different sovereign governments.

Were I to go 100 K in any direction from where I currently live, I would still be in the US or Canada--which is culturally very similar, despite what jBirch would have you believe.( )

There are, in fact, very few places in the US that can pick up signals from either Mexico or Canada. Hell, usually you can't pick them up from another state, much less another country!

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I hear Soldier makes some wicked fried chicken--would that do?

Oh, hell no.

I'm all about barbeque.

And it wouldn't be wicked, anyway - how many times do I have to tell you, the chickens aren't damned?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

how many times do I have to tell you, the chickens aren't damned?

But their socks are darned.

BBQ? Well, that's a subject work threadjacking for. Pork? Beef? Other? What kinda sauce or rub, eh?

[Soldier]

Socks on chickens? What kind of a weirdo are you? The imaginary chickens which may or may not live in my room do not wear socks.

I'm generally favorable to hamburgers or steaks - few good substitutes for red meat, done extra-rare.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Socks on chickens? What kind of a weirdo are you? The imaginary chickens which may or may not live in my room do not wear socks.

Whoah. How do you know if the chickens, which may or may not live in your room, wear socks or not? I mean, you don't even know if they live in your room or not, how can you possibly know what kind of footwear they prefer? Seems an unsupported assertion. What kind of evidence do you have to support your non-sock wearing chicken position?

[Soldier]

Oh, I know whether or not they live in the room. You just don't.

You Canadians need to work on your intel...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Oh, I know whether or not they live in the room. You just don't.

You Canadians need to work on your intel...

Oh. So your assertion then is that you confirm that the chickens (which may or may not live in your room), the ones in contention here, definitely do not wear socks ever. Logically, you can't know that they always don't wear socks unless you live with them all the time. Given that you know for certain that the chickens never ever wear socks at any time it follows that you live with the chickens.

The only thing left to determine is whether or not *you* live in your room.

[Soldier]

First you have to define what it is to live...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

First you have to define what it is to live...

Fair enough. To live is to be cooped up. Obviously, chickens live in a coop (by definition, a coop is a place where chickens live) so if your room is a coop then the chickens live there with you. However, you seem to know that chickens don't wear socks, which means they never wear snowshoes either. So you can't live in your room if it is snowing since the chickens don't give a darn about darn socks. All of this, of course, implies that the chickens have sock experience, ie// the chickens have seen darn socks, but haven't necessarily darned darn chicken socks. Which sucks for chicken socks but doesn't necessarily suck socks. It would be terribly impolite for you to suck eggs while the chickens aren't darning darn chicken socks, them being chickens and all. But anyways, the chickens obviously lay eggs (they are chickens after all) and everyone knows that Air Force guys are cocky (which is why the chickens and them co-habitate, roosters and chickens naturally being like that) and don't lay eggs. So to live is to be cooped up with the chickens and if they are in your room then you are living with them in some sort of legal cohabitation that isn't proscribed by law in your state (cooped up). So if you are in your room then you are cooped up with the chickens and they are darning darn chicken socks that are worn by other chickens. Which, of course, implies that there are chickens in your room, since the only way for you to know or not is to check and as soon as you check, there are chickens in your room.

It's an interesting relationship you have going there Soldier.

[Soldier]

Wow...you actually got me to laugh out loud at that (and in so doing, awaken my roommate).

And yet, the Commandant just authorized us free passes for every Saturday - so I'm not so cooped up anymore.