Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the moving-picture-tubes-made-me-do-it dept.

Censorship 346

tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They did it before (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049830)

They can do it again.

Re:They did it before (5, Insightful)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050278)

They can do it again.
It's funny you say that because I've always thought it was funny that you couldn't show a nipple on TV, but you could show a bomb going off and killing people in a crowded hospital or somebody getting shot. America is funny like that. I always thought that violence and sex would even out on TV but I always thought that it would be that more graphic sexual content would be allowed instead of violence being banned. Teee-hee...who knew.

I also think that it's funny that if you do anything under the guise of "news", you've got a free pass. Dateline, 20/20, etc, show the most graphic shit on TV but it's OK because they're "news" programs. Ick.

And where are you free speech ideologues now? (4, Interesting)

Concern (819622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050560)

You know, the ones who talk about Fox News' sacred right to broadcast propaganda and call it news?

You know, the sacred right they've had since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the last decade or so?

When you talk about government regulating what they say on TV, some Republicans trot out the constitution like a prayer rug and wave it all around in the air. Their Speech Is Free. How dare the government regulate the media.

(I mean, the government has to decide who can broadcast. And it can only pick a few lucky people, and everyone else can't broadcast on pain of huge penalties.)

(But aside from that, those lucky few should be able to say whatever they want on TV. If you don't like it, print a newspaper.)

The Republicans said, Americans are smart. Americans are free. Americans can handle their own media without getting confused. They don't need anyone to look out for them. They choose what media to watch and what not to watch, and if they happen to see something not so cool when switching channels, oh, they can handle it.

And they are lying through their teeth. They don't really believe a word of that.

Their coming out to censor the media like this is how you can tell.

You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.

Megalomaniacal hypocrites.

Re:They did it before (3, Interesting)

BruceCage (882117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050610)

Sexual content and violence should be regulated by the government exactly the same, which is no regulation at all. I'll admit there are a couple of extremes which obviously need to be regulated, but in general this isn't something the government should concern itself with.

This however is an excellent idea [] , let the users regulate themselves by adding an age flag in the transmission. Regulation such as that suggested by the report only adds another annoyance factor to a medium which is already plagued by them.

Choices choices... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18049836)

Which side of this do you find yourself on?

I think I'd prefer the gratuitous sexuality. That's way more fun than violence.

Reality cooking shows (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049850)


Re:Choices choices... (2, Funny)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049966)

I agree with that. I'd rather have some hardcore deep dicking than some pair of conjoined twins joined at the head on TLC. (The learning channel my fucking ass)

Re:Choices choices... (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050096)

Also it would be a good idea to correct MPAA's rating which considers that one boob seen shortly makes it "not suitable for children" but where gunslinging is considered okay.

Americans and Sex (5, Insightful)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050508)

You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

Sex is something very common, a part of a _normal_ life. Violence is not! A 12 year old can see someone's head being blown off but 'Oh my god! Shield them from seeing someone's genitalia on TV."

I don't advocate showing pornography to children, but I think they should be able the see the statue of David. I just don't understand why for so long, violence was accepted, but sex was not.

If I had to choose one or the other, I would accept the display of sexuality to children than the display of violence.

I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I have to say that when coming to U.S. I was shocked of how sexually repressed this country it. There was a story in the news how a theatre changed the title of the 'Vagina Monologues' to the 'Hooha Monologues' -- WTF!?

  A vagina is a 'hoohaa' now, because a grandmother didn't want to tell her granddaughter who is old enough to read what a vigina is? Well, what the hell is a hoohaa then?

There is a reason why there are so many substitute words for female genitalia in English (hoohaa, pussy, box, coochie, hole, snatch, slot, nooch, fanny -- just a couple I could thin of right now.) This is direct result of sexual repression.

Also, a couple of years ago, when 'March of the Penguins' was in the movie theatres, I was watching it with my wife and there was couple with their young (6-7 year old ) daughter. There is a scene in the movie when the penguins are mating. They were not showing close up of genitals or anything like that. The mother got up, yanked the daughter by her hand and dragged her out. The girl didn't quite understand what to make of her mother's reaction, she got scared and started crying. Then they came back later, just in time to watch the penguin baby chicks die because their parents couldn't take care of them. I thought, 'how sad', that poor girl...

At the same time. This is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is not because of the guns, it's irrelevant, people own guns in other countries but the don't necessarily shoot each ther with them.

And then there is the problem with violent video games. Children in Europe play violent video games. I love Doom, Quake and all of the other ones. But those children do not go and shoot each other as much as the American children. It is as if we cannot simply blaim ourselves, and our culture for disasters like Columbine, we have to blaim video games, or some other things that we can all point a finger to.

Sorry for the rant. Hey if Linus can have a nice 'healhty' rant at the GNOME desktop, so can I at the American society ;)

Re:Americans and Sex (5, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050600)

You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

No offense, but I think that betrays a very eurocentric viewpoint.

What I've found is in most cases where someone categorizes the U.S. as unique, especially in a somewhat negative way, they're ascribing qualities that are actually quite common--just not in Europe.

There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.

Virtual Violence vs Actual Violence (1)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049852)

When one is absent the other will be there take fill the void.

I like violence, I am sure many other people do too. Currently its presented in a virtual enviroment where nobody gets hurt.

I am sure many people would have no qualms in making actual violence more of a reality.

So watching porn stops rape? (1, Informative)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049882)

What BS.

Seeing lots of violence normalises it. Hearing lots of fucking swearing normalises that too.

This is well documented. The idea that gaves and movies etc provide a harmless relief valve are completely without merit.

Re:So watching porn stops rape? (2, Interesting)

all204 (898409) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050178)

I second this. This is the reason that soldiers train shooting at human shaped silhouettes. This habituates soldiers to fire at human shaped things rather than at abstract bullseye. This way there is less hesitation when the time comes to do it for real.

Re:So watching porn stops rape? (2, Funny)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050318)

Yeah, since I started playing Natural Selection I sometimes find myself fighting the urge to drop from the ceiling and parasite, chomp, chomp someone.

Re:So watching porn stops rape? (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050436)

Yes, but it's equally as foolish to say that there is a direct causation between virtual violence and actual violence (correlation yes, causation no) - you didn't specifically state that you can go to far either way (too much censorship VS not enough). It's likely that the virtual violence, while providing an immediate outlet for the violent tendancies, will ultimately have people thinking that it's OK to stab someone in the face (etc) - which they may or may not have already believed. But ask yourself; if the gamer/viewer was completely non-agressive to begin with, then why would they want to watch something with violence in it?

Re:So watching porn stops rape? (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050626)

Bingo. Violent games are so popular probably because we live in a violent society. (I have mentioned this in another post already) I think American socity is very violent as a whole and it has a violent legacy. Traditionally violence won wars, conquered land and established domination. That is how this country came to be. It was a 'sink' for all the violent people. Here they could run 'wild' in the 'wild west'. American version of Christiany (puritanism) didn't mind violence at all. But when it came to sex, "OMG! The blazing maw of hell will immediatly swallow them if they masturbated"

This attitude persists. chilren grow up implicitly learning that 'violence is accepted'. Look at movie rating PG-13 can have people dismembering each other but as soon as a penis or a vulva pops up in there -- the rating gets changed to NC-17, no questions asked. What are young people to make of it?

By the time they want to play Quake and Doom, they are already violent! They just find a virtual release for it. Now that in an of itself may help normalize it or not, but I really doubt that it is the video games that caused Columbine and other such disasters. Video games are a product and product will exist on the market only if there is a demand for it. Children want to buy games to blow virtual people! It is just that we don't want to blame ourselves, our culture, our attitudes and our society (how can we, we are the most perfectestest and most awesomestest country in the world!), so instead we find a scape goat -- Those 'evil', 'magic' computers and their 'internets' and the video games.

Re:Virtual Violence vs Actual Violence (1)

metalcup (897029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050022)

sorry.., are you suggesting that in the long lost days when there were no video/PC games whatsoever (yep, such dark, grim days did exist) people were more violent than after PC/video/console games were introduced? Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is the case?

Re:Virtual Violence vs Actual Violence (1)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050290)

I don't support the stand that you're arguing against, but yes, violence has been on a steady decrease for a long, long time. Yes, before video games, people hurt each other more. I don't think there's even the slightest causal connection between video game violence and global trends of people hitting each other, but actually people of any period in the past 1,000 years are less violent than their parents.

However, they didn't have Fox News &c skewing reality for them, so I can forgive your ignorance :D

Re:Virtual Violence vs Actual Violence (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050614)

The bigger problem is you "like violence" virtual or otherwise.

Remember, kids... (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049854)

Gratuitous, horrific violence is OK, just as long as you don't say any naughty words!

Re:Remember, kids... (4, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049976)

Gratuitous, horrific violence is OK, just as long as you don't say any naughty words!

Senator, is that you?

Limit or Ban? (5, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049858)

I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.

  I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.

  I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.

  For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.

Re:Limit or Ban? (2, Interesting)

JasonStiletto (653819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049922)

I'd like to see more generosity toward what can be shown now. I hate the idea of living in a culture where things slowly move toward everything being made appropriate for children. It's little wonder when people are given a choice they move away from broadcast TV. All entertainment shouldn't be reduced to the lowest common denominator, but there will always be pressure for it to do so.

Re:Limit or Ban? (-1, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049994)

if we allow them to limit it to a certain time... then we should allow ALL VIOLENCE, SEX, and LANGUAGE to be aired anytime except prime time, and 6 to 7 pm.

BUT since a child could be watching TV at any given point because a child may be home from school sick.. or may be on vacation... or at home during the summer during the day....

I guess we're pretty much fucked. We must bow down to our children. They run us.

The truth is, this is the government using the angry mothers that will vote for so called family values... before constitutional ones. I'm glad they're killing the country for some selfish cunt's children.

The FCC is a peice of shit, and illegal. They know it, but they still continue to control us because no one told them to fuck off.

Re:Limit or Ban? (5, Informative)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050204)

The FCC is not illegal. The airwaves are a public resource, and the goverment can make any rules they want about the type of content that can be distributed over them.

Re:Limit or Ban? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050352)

The FCC was formed to keep all the broadcast frequencies straight and make sure phone lines got strung out to the boonies.

This business of being America's censor is something a little newer, and a lot more questionable. Their role as pimp for the big advertising companies like ClearChannel and the rapacious monopolies like AT&T is newer still. They're still trying to figure out this Internet thing. When they do, we are well and truly screwed.


Re:Limit or Ban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050210)

I think we already knew where someone with a name like Jackie_Chan_Fan was going to stand in this debate.

Re:Limit or Ban? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050378)

I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry.
Porn industry and hookers need you to supress sex. Otherwise why watch porn when you could get the real thing for free?

Re:Limit or Ban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050454)

I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.

Forbidden is unlikely. But it is probably true that the age rating for cinemas is more sensitive in Germany (and probably Europe in general) towards violence, which might also cause sometimes studios to re-edit the movies in order to still get a lower rating (and thus, a larger audience). It's the other way round when it comes to sexual content, I believe. For example, "Eyes Wide Shut" was edited for the US (by digitally putting additional persons in front of too explicit scenes), while it was shown without this editing in Europe. Again, the movie would probably not have been forbidden in the US, but a lower rating means a larger potential audience.

According to IMDB, the Red Dawn was rated as free from 18 in Germany, while the Rocky movies were rated free from 12 years (with one exception being from 16). So surely not forbidden. That doesn't tell you anything about whether they have been changed, though.

Yes but no (4, Informative)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049872)

I'd say that there needs to be some censorship in this area, but it needs to be well defined like it is here in the UK. You can show violence, sex and whatever else you like AFTER 9pm, up until 9pm you have to keep it tame. This means people can still show anything they like but parents have a fairly good idea of what will be involved after the watershed (9pm).

Re:Yes but no but (2, Insightful)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050424)

the 9pm watershed is outdated when we have such a wide range of broadcasts. cable satellite. The simplest solution with digital broadcasts woiuld be an age rating flag.

let the user set the level they want to recieve and blank the channel when it exceeds thier set rating.

Parents would appreciate the ability to keep thier tv kidsafe when they want and allow the rest of us access to what we want to watch when we want to watch it.

some of us adults have to be up early in the morning, a 9 oclock watershed means limiting our viewing to family safe content.
Do you really want your tv limited to broadcasting quiz shows sitcoms and soaps before 9 so called family entertainment?

of course kidsafe tv is open to the parents disabling it entirely it would also entail parents buying into the scheme (quite literally as it would require some new hardware). Of course this would mean an end to our tv regulators deciding what is suitable for us to see.

It also makes it possible to block tv licience funded broadcasts and make the tv licience opt in for viewers.

Of course self-regulation wouldnt be acceptable to the current regulators, would it .

extending this idea might allow users to block particular broadcasts. For example anything featuring michael barrymore or noel edmonds or chris moyles or janet street porter. They don't necessarily break any standards of decency but i'd rather not have them in my living room.

actually now this does present the real dilema. If a broadcaster flags a show as in a particular catagory you then are trusting that broadcaster to always be right. Thats the problem with giving them the control of censorship of your viewing.
maybe the real solution is the off button and parents taking responsibility for thier choice of what is suitable for thier kids to see.

I do like the idea of perhaps dynamic self censorship.
pick what offends you and have a database of the schedules flagging what you want or don't want to see.

maybe i just need to press the channel change on the remote.

Re:Yes but no but (1)

barrkel (806779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050586)

One risk with this is that it builds an infrastructure of content rating, marking and censorship. Such an infrastructure would have a lot more uses than just age control.

Here's an idea (3, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049874)

Stop regulating content completely and let parents do the regulating with parental control settings that are on pretty much every digital cable box nowdays.

Re:Here's an idea (2, Interesting)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049934)

Not everyone has cable, oh no.

If it's unregulated there is absolutely no reason why they could not show a snuff film in the middle of the playschool kids TV hour.

Regulation if done correctly is a good thing, if done badly is it a horrible thing.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050228)

So have different systems for terrestial and for satellite/cable. That's what we do in the UK. No strong sex, violence or profanity on terrestial channels before 9pm (and it's up to the parents/guardians whether they let their kids watch TV after 9pm); pretty much anything goes on cable/satellite at any time but if it contains strong sex, violence or profanity then it's protected by the parential control PIN (and it's up to the parents/guardians whether they tell their kids the PIN).

Re:Here's an idea (3, Insightful)

chaoticgeek (874438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050354)

But if a snuff film was to come on then I'm sure parents would not allow that channel to be viewed anymore, thus resulting in the network going "oops" and learning from that mistake. I'm gonna bet that even though the network wants more ratings they are not going to go off the deep end to get it because once they take it too far they will get burned for it.

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050390)

Stop regulating content completely and let parents do the regulating...

I don't think parents want to do any parenting anymore. Besides... look at how violent Muslims and the Mongols and have been through the ages. THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE EFFING TELEVIONS!

Yes, I'm posting anonymous for fear of Muslims coming to blow me up.

Re:Here's an idea (2, Informative)

Chysn (898420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050450)

Parents are the most important part of regulating children's viewing. Not just the content, but the amount of TV should be regulated by parents. My young son has a TV in his room, and I have the V-Chip set to block pretty much everything but TV-Y and TV-G programming without violence. But every so often, 24 comes on at 8:00. Now, I love 24. And I, as an adult, choose to watch it. But I don't want my little kids seeing it. And the oldest of them is still awake at 8:00pm. I don't begrudge the violence in 24, or the right of the producers to create programming with that level of violence. But does it have to be on at 8:00? Of course, it also bugs me that they casually use mild profanities on the TV Guide Channel at ALL hours. I mean, I'm trying to see what's on TV while my kids are in the room and they've got programming in the top half of the screen that says "damn," "ass," and "bitch." What's with that? Why do I need to mute the damn bitch-ass TV Guide Channel? That's another thread.

dumb move (2, Interesting)

Sh1fty (1019804) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049886)

that's rubbish. tv violence has nothing to do with real life violence. the source of violence is bad parenting. instead of wasting all this money they should've given it to someone who could use it to really solve this problem, like social service or schools.

Re:dumb move (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049924)

Welcome to Slashdot, where we claim to be smart but are really dumb.

THE SOURCE OF VIOLENCE IS NOT BAD PARENTING! Everyone has a natural personality which can be shaped by parenting, but you have to accept some people are just plain bad and some as just plain good. Some people will be violent no matter what their parents do, while other kids will never harm a fly even if their parents try to turn them into a boxer.

Parents are NOT the answer to every problem, they do NOT cause every problem. They are just people told to babysit a tiny person and do their best.

Re:dumb move (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050320)

Glad to hear that you have solved the nature vs nurture debate once and for all, I was waiting quite nervously for that to be resolved.

(My favorite argument is that if people are innately good or innately bad, then they probably don't deserve any credit or blame for their behavior, they couldn't help but be themselves)

Re:dumb move (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050418)

Your right, It doesn't really matter a toss whose fault badly behaved youngsters are.

In the next few years we will have enough technology to track people and record what they do 24/7. And we will vote for it because no criminal act can be committed without it being recorded. So who cares whose fault it is? because we can send the scumbags to the electric chair without jury trial with 100% incontrovertible video proof of the crime. Just think - the jails will empty and we can execute more and more categories of criminal safe in the knowledge that innocent people are not being put to death. Brilliant Eh!!

You carry on filling the shops with violent video games and swapping snuff dvd's. Lets carry on assuming that people can breed without the slightest responsibility for raising their offspring to be useful members of society.

Just remember though that I fully expect everyone caught tailgating someone on the highway in a decade or two will be caught and brought to justice and I might even have the pleasure of watching their execution on public tv.

Re:dumb move (3, Interesting)

cliffski (65094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050344)

you would do well to read about Bhutan:,3605,975 769,00.html []

This is the last country on earth to have no TV, until 2002. When foreign TV was introduced, complete with violent porgrams, the crime rate in the country went ballistic. The country now has all kinds of social problems that were previously unheard of.
People often claim you cant tell the effects TV has because there is no test case. they are wrong Bhutan was a perfect test case, and a damning one for showing TVs potential negative effects.

"Since the April 2002 crime wave, the national newspaper, Kuensel, has called for the censoring of television (some have even suggested that foreign broadcasters, such as Star TV, be banned altogether). An editorial warns: "We are seeing for the first time broken families, school dropouts and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world - shoplifting, burglary and violence..."

Sex or violence? (4, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049902)

USians demand right for ultra-violence in media, get upset about female anatomy being shown (e.g. Janet Jackson's boob on tv). Europeans get upset about kids getting exposed to violence (big fuss in the UK at the moment because 5 teenagers got shot dead in the country in the last month, people really worried about level of violence) but happy with nudity... go round France, Italy etc and there will be billboards by the side of the road with topless models advertising perfume etc.

mmm... your choice :-)

Re:Sex or violence? (4, Informative)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050046)

USians demand right for ultra-violence in media, get upset about female anatomy being shown (e.g. Janet Jackson's boob on tv). Europeans get upset about kids getting exposed to violence

Heh. I remember that once they had this commentary on some softporn show (might have been Playboy late night or something) about ads in Europe. The narrator was all fussed up "how can you actually remember the product when watching this commercial"....and it was a Rexona ad, with two women taking a shower after a workout in gym. I had seen that same ad and never thought there was anything sexual in it...but hey, being a Finn and frequently visiting a sauna I have never thought that nudity automatically implies sex.

Re:Sex or violence? (1)

makapuf (412290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050252)

Linus, I think you promised to stay away from that late night show !

Alternatively... (4, Insightful)

muecksteiner (102093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049916)

they could rule that any violence shown on TV must be absolutely realistic.

Not the idiotic "bang, you're dead" type "violence" that you see all day long in gangster films and the like.

No, they would have to show the real thing - where someone who is shot takes quite a long time to die, and does so under very disconcerting circumstances.

My guess is that people would turn off their TV sets rather than watch something like that. And they would complain on their own accord - "think of the children!", but this time it would be a grassroots thing, rather than something which is being mandated from the top.

And to boot, having seen such scenes would probably make children a lot more squeamish about playing with toy guns and "shooting" people as well...

Or perhaps I'm still too optimistic about people in general - perhaps doing something like that would not achieve anything, except turning the nation's children into hardened psychopaths much faster than they are now... :-)


Re:Alternatively... (3, Insightful)

robably (1044462) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050116)

they could rule that any violence shown on TV must be absolutely realistic.
It's a noble sentiment, but unworkable. The impact on the friends and relatives of people who are killed never ends. To be "absolutely realistic" the TV show would have to go on forever, showing suffering that you can't fast-forward through, you have to live through it hour after hour. How do you show that in a TV show?

Onn the contrary ! People would watch ! (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050368)

Why do I say that ? Well remmember the Roman ? As far as I know death & blood were not faked. And somehow I doubt people were forced to watch, or stopped watching in disgust. Look at when there is an accident the number of passerby which comes and watch. Usually what slow down traffic is less the clown which have a look than the accident itself (especially true on 3 or 4 lanes freeway). The majority, if not all people, have this morbid streak to look at the misery of other and think "well at least that was not me". Make it real and people will not only be even more desenstivized to true violence, but they might even STARTS to enjoy it...

Re:Alternatively... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050470)

Actually I think they covered this in Austin Powers (I can't quite remember which one) - they show the guard leaving to go to work and all his daily problems etc, and then Austin shoots him dead in a second. I sometimes wonder whether there isn't some armed forces persuasion in the entertainment business - they already use simulated violence to numb the association between that and real violence.

bogus (2, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049932)

The FCC found one study that gives them evidence to extend their authority, ignore the Constitution, and further entrench the government in our lives. What a surprise. Really, for an organization that was initially designed to de-conflict the radio spectrum, the FCC sure has expanded. Police powers are supposed to be left to the states. The federal government is intruding on their power and citizens' rights. If its so bad, parents should do their job and not let kids watch it. If its so bad, then no one will watch it, and they will put on other programming. The thing is, people are watching it, and its what people want. Let me make my own decisions, and stop trying to be my parent. That's not the purpose of government. Defend me from the big, bad media companies, please, cause I don't have the common sense to turn off the TV and read a book.

Your comment basicaly supports the "issue" (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050322)

Being a parent you can't be all encompassing and control every finite moment of your child, that would be a *BAD* parent. You have to learn to trust your kids and learn to set limits which is very very hard if tv is stretching those limits beyond means.

Its a paradigm of media winning the hearts and minds of family and parents just being those people that pay for it all (in ways children can't conceive).

I don't think the issue is necessarily control violence but i'd sure as hell hope my kids see boobs and crotch and weiners long before they see someone eating someones brain for dinner while they're drugged up.

So yeah, i actually appreciate a government discussing something, a split house is nice for actual "debate" and well, politics is dirty, if you can prove parents are all to blame then do it.

No one has yet, but they still just blame parents. Sure there are bad apples and some people should have a license to be able to have kids but there you go, accepting big brother for something you see doesn't impact you but would impact someone else.

catch my drift?

Being a parent my hands are tied and you want to say i need to do more? are you a parent?

Re:Your comment basicaly supports the "issue" (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050504)

The government already makes many decisions about how to raise our children. They will continue to do so, further intruding into parents' lives. Why should we allow them to do so with TV, when it is so easy for parents to restrict what their children watch. Block content. Use a V-chip. But why should a social good allow for the government to ignore the constitution? Its a social good for them to torture people to get information that prevents terrorits attacks. But I don't support that. Yes, I realize they are on different orders of magnitude. But the government has certain rules that it isn't supposed to violate, and if it can violate one because of a "good idea," then there is little argument that they can't violate them all. If someone is going to regulate TV, it should be the states, who are supposed to have the police power in our federal system. Of course, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to expand the Bill of Rights to all of the states, so the states would be hard pressed to regulate speech under current Constitutional law. Bottom line, if this is such a good idea that we need to break the Constitution to implement it, then lets amend the Constitution to make it legal.

Re:bogus (1)

DCheesi (150068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050460)

I don't like censorship either. But the problem IMHO is that they already have free-speech exceptions for profanity and "obscenity"(sex), but not for gory violence. IMHO graphic violence should be considered at least as "obscene" as a naked breast or a consensual sex scene. Granted networks have mostly self-regulated to keep the worst torture-porn type stuff off the air, but there's plenty of bloody death still being shown.

If you're going to "bend" the Constitution for the sake of the children(TM), you might as well do it properly. Why regulate "bad words" and normal bits of human anatomy, but leave probably the worst influence of them all untouched? I'd much rather have kids swearing at me than shooting at me...

Re:bogus (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050480)

I don't think you should regulate any of it, although I agree with your point that sex is better than violence.

Freedom of Speech? (1)

All_One_Mind (945389) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049938)

I'm writing this movie about a dude named Phreedom O'speech. He's a good guy, tries to be fair to everyone, and the common people seem to really like him. However a group of terrorist find him to be a threat to their goal of world domination and decide to chop him up into pieces with an axe: first they chop off his fingers. Blood, bones, and flesh spew everywhere. They rip off his eyelids just to torture the poor guy, but they don't stop there. Off go his balls in one fell swoop of the terrorists knife. The people that respected poor Phreedom O'Speech mourn his death, but did nothing to prevent it, merely sat and watched... too busy writing shitty analogies at 3:30am that are bound to get modded as off-topic, flamebait, or my personal favorite: Insightful :(

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050312)

So, you don't understand that freedom of speach has never been all-inclusive? This is just another example. While the cry of "think of the children" can be over and ill-used, "fuck the children" is much worse.

If I had to choose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18049962)

I would censor violence... Think about it - what is most likely to pose a threat :

Gun-nuts or nuts-nuts?

Iraq? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18049974)

Well that's one way to get the Iraq war out of the media before the next election, ban TV coverage under a "think of the children" violence clause.

Fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic. (1)

Gray (5042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18049982)

Horay, in just a few more years TV will have moved online and we'll never have to hear about this issue again!

Re:Fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic. (1)

Ugly American (885937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050018)

I was thinking along the same lines. "Wow, the FCC found another way to drive people away from the networks."

Re:Fighting over deck chairs on the Titanic. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050240)

Horay, in just a few more years TV will have moved online and we'll never have to hear about this issue again!

Perhaps you missed the periodic attempts to create a .xxx TLD, and force everything that isn't kid safe to move there. And then block it.

They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (4, Informative)

MichailS (923773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050010)

not adults. So keep your knee-jerks in check. You will get to see your gore, only late at night.

I'm a grown-up man who has watched action movies all my life, and I am getting pretty sick of the violence. It sometimes seems like directors try to one-up each other with titillating depictions of evil and suffering.

I'm pretty sure mankind doesn't have an innate NEED to hurt each other despite what some psychologists hypothesized a hundred years ago - rather that it is a quick problem-"solving" (ego-scratching) solution that many stick to - and I'm pretty sure that if you expose people to violence all their lives they will become violent. Monkey see, monkey do.

Another interesting thing is that in Sweden we have only a fraction of the level of violent crimes as compared to USA. I don't think we are by nature a more docile people, it's rather probably the result of a lack of handguns and generations of limited media violence. And we haven't had a war in 200 years.

Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (1)

Ugly American (885937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050104)

"They want to stop kids from seeing it, not adults."

What stops a kid from staying up past 9 pm to watch a violent show, or setting the VCR or DVR to record it so they can watch it later?

The proposal is a non-solution, even granting the assumption that there's a problem in the first place.

Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050192)

Not only that but some of us work for a living and can't be up till 11pm or whatever to watch the adult shows. I get home from work at 4, I then use the time to exercise, practice music, cook supper and sit down for a bit [etc] before heading to bed at 10pm.

Oddly enough, the only time I was routinely up past 10pm was WHEN I WAS A KID, because it didn't really matter if I was a zombie at school.


Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (2, Interesting)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050346)

Not true. Sweden had 10K volunteers to Finland when it was invaded. But, even given that, I'm not so sure it's a great selling point to proudly point out that Sweden stood still and allowed the German's roll over the rest of Europe.

Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050444)

Another interesting thing is that in Sweden we have only a fraction of the level of violent crimes as compared to USA. I don't think we are by nature a more docile people, it's rather probably the result of a lack of handguns and generations of limited media violence. And we haven't had a war in 200 years.

Of course, not "more docile", just more cowardly and much more sympathetic to the Nazis than for the Allies. (That was after selling out the Finns to the Soviets, but lets not talk about "small stuff" here, shall we?)

Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (1)

edschurr (999028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050478)

Adults also watch TV. This sounds like control-freaks trying to parent the children of strangers. Indeed, we're all somewhat affected by those kids years down the road, but if their parents actually too neglectful then there might not much hope anyway. (I'm reminded of a Surgeon General's report about video game violence, about a decade ago, where it was concluded iirc that video game violence wouldn't appreciably affect children in the absense of neglect and some other conditions). If we're going to trample rights and allocate each other's money for the children, let's make it education.

There is a detailed document out there on the Internet about the situation with guns in Switzerland. One explanation for the disparity between violence and the prevelance of guns versus America is the family system and effort to avoid slums. May also be applicable to your last paragraph.

Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050488)

. . .it's rather probably the result of a lack of handguns. . .

Indeed, it's a well known fact that before the invention of handguns you people were complete fucking wussies.

Hammers existed before nails; your ancestors used them to hit each other over the head. The tool is not the cause.


Easy solution... (1)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050556)

Apply the "utterly without redeeming social importance" standard across the board. We could be rid of half what masquerades as "news," 3/4 of "reality" TV, 8/10 of the current sitcom and drama, 99% of "daytime T.V." and the entirety of the "WWE" all in one fell swoop. By the end of the process there'd be so little left on T.V., people would stop channel surfing and just turned the damned things off.

Consistency (1)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050036)

I'm leery of censorship and nanny-state style regulation of media, but the current system doesn't make a lot of sense. Sex and profanity are tightly controlled while violence isn't, yet violence is probably the most potentially damaging to viewers of the three. I think it would make a lot of sense if a single body had the task of rating tv, film, and video games and did so with a consistent set of guidelines as to what is appropriate.

Good lord think of the children! (5, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050038)

Fuck the children [not literally], I pay for cable not them. If cable/tv/whatever is bad for them, then make a law banning them from watching TV.

Why should I be left with shite "family oriented" programming when I'm the one paying the damn bill?

When 6 yr olds start paying for cable maybe then we should consider what's in their best interests.


Re:Good lord think of the children! (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050396)

Maybe it the other subscribers who want the violence segregated, moron. And, just maybe, they outnumber the ilk of you. Most people in the world aren't dickweeds who don't give a damn about children.

Re:Good lord think of the children! (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050518)

Yes, but the point remains they want to remove adult themed shows in place of the children oriented crap. I may remind you that most "children" programs nowadays that are approved by the likes of the CTS and AFA folk are TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY EDUCATIONAL OR SOCIAL MERITS.

Long gone are the days of "mathnet", reading rainbow, bill nye the science guy, mr. wizard, and the like. Nowadays kid watch shit like anime, power rangers, teletubbies [wtf?] and the like. They're not "children shows" they're just mindless noise with less violence and more religious [but not moral] parading.

If you were actually in it "for the children" you'd be for shows that teach kids science, literature, history, etc. Not bombard them with mindless commercialism.

In short, this has nothing to do with "think of the children" and more about a minority exerting their will on the rest of humanity. It's about power and control (whoa, common theme!).


Not today (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050064)

"by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching'

Ten, fifteen years ago I might have agreed with this. But we have TV ratings now, and we have V-Chips that can cut off content based on that rating. So long as the ratings accurately describe potentially objectionable content in a program, of what possible use is rescheduling it as well?

I can also foresee some sort of chilling effect: I seem to be under the impression that, after hours, broadcast television can show practically anything up to hardcore pornography, but even after midnight you'd be hard pressed to find a bare female breast, and then only on basic cable or some European import on PBS. Of course, I can agree that perhaps we do want a chilling effect on violence, but there's still the First Amendment and all.

Re:Not today (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050422)

You do realize the First Amendment was meant to cover speech, not yelling fire in a theater, slandering your neighbor, or cramming gratuitous violence down people's throats?

Why give a damn? (4, Insightful)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050106)

Television exists to stuff the viewer's eyesockets with advertising. The programming content serves to keep your eyes "glued" for the advertising.

There's little of value on television that one couldn't learn more profoundly by going to the library, reading an encyclopedia article, talking to someone knowledgeable, taking a walk, or just reflecting. And anything that television does teach is likely not as worthwhile as any of these alternatives.

Television being what it is (consumer hypnosis, not education), it's hard not to conclude that television is really meant to be a significant challenge on the obstacle course preventing serious thinking (and political action) in this brave new world.

Bad government and multinational corporations thank you for watching.

Re:Why give a damn? (1)

edschurr (999028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050310)

Television being what it is (consumer hypnosis, not education), it's hard not to conclude that television is really meant to be a significant challenge on the obstacle course preventing serious thinking (and political action) in this brave new world.

Or it could be, say, people giving up something of value for what they consider to be of greater value. It's hard to imagine anyone would put in the effort to manipulate millions and millions of people, without being able to micromanage anything, for a potential pay-off decades and decades down the road.

I would indeed like to study eighteen hours per day, but I don't have the energy. I don't know if I could even manage six hours of meaningful study. That's not to say I watch any TV, but I waste time...well, being here actually.

Re:Why give a damn? (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050462)

I agree, television dosent do anything for me. I don't own one anymore because it has such a low bandwidth compared to surfing the net or reading. I can still see the odd show on someone else's box if something good comes along but I don't miss it at all.

Look at other countries (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050110)

They have a watershed, after which you can show pretty much whatever you want. However, before the watershed, no gratuitous violence, sex or swearing. Watching movies on daytime TV in the US, I was appauled that the FCC seems to judge whether a film is suitable for that audience by how many times someone gets violently killed on screen - every other aspect of the movie is left intact, which seems pretty fucked up, as the actual violent scenes are not as half as violent as some of the (non-swearing) language and personal interactions also depicted. I always found US TV censors to be fucking ridiculous, to be honest. Laughable, in fact. No swearing, but you can hear this guy go on about how much he wants to kill a bunch of people for no apparent reason, then never get his comeuppance, leading kids to believe violence is cool. Kids aren't stupid, and it's their lack of stupidity which means they have to be shielded from violence. Kids learn about their world from watching adults interact. We're not born with all our social graces hard-wired. If kids are allowed to watch TV (or even sneak off to watch it on their own), then there's a very good chance they're going to see something that could skew their perspective on life.

I don't believe the government should be involved. (1)

izprince (1065036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050120)

Parents need to quit blaming the industry and ruining entertainment for everyone because they find something offensive. The best solutions. Don't buy the content before allowing children to see it...or just remember that the TV lets you change channels and turn it off. It reminds me of Jon Stewart playing a clip of a politician detailing watching his son play a violent video game. Stewart: "And as I stood there, watching my son play that violent video game, unable to do anything about it..." Yeah, my point exactly, parents want the government to step in, and I think they should just quit passing the buck and BE THE DAMN PARENT.

Whatever happened to good parenting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050122)

Most if not all major problems in people can be traced back to bad parenting.

Blame the stupid shows (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050128)

Watching American Idol or Fox News makes me a lot more likely to go out and hurt someone than Robot Chicken does.

Congress shall make no law... (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050144)

Has no-one in Congress read the Bill of Rights?

Re:Congress shall make no law... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050264)

Well, it seems that you haven't! That gives freedom of speech, not freedom of showing images. Here in the UK we have a watershed on TV but not on Radio (at least, not on stations that are not considered to have a significant listenership amongst minors).

Re:Congress shall make no law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050304)

You americans and your "Bill O'Rights", heaven forbid that you should do things for the good of all. We British do not have a constitution (not a written one anyway) so we basically don't have ANY rights, but try and do things which are against our view of fairness and we'll all be up in arms about it. Governments are designed to limit freedoms because by limiting those freedoms we can make a better world for EVERYONE, not just sitting by going "we have freedom of speach so you can't touch me" kind of mentality. Anyway i see no way for me to finish this train of thought so I'll just stop now.

Re:Congress shall make no law... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050426)

We British do not have a constitution (not a written one anyway) so we basically don't have ANY rights, but try and do things which are against our view of fairness and we'll all be up in arms about it.

See The Battle of Lexington and Concord. Might not hurt to read the Grumpy Old Sod either; the British don't seem to "get up in arms" the way they used to. Must be the effect of all that government controled TV.

Just what sort of "arms" do you expect to get up in anyway, after they take away all your pointy kitchen tools?

Anyway i see no way for me to finish this train of thought so I'll just stop now.

I'm still waiting for you to start one. A train is, at minimum, two interconnected things.


Re:Congress shall make no law... (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050620)

heaven forbid that you should do things for the good of all.

Defending our rights against government encroachment is one of the things that we do for the good of all.


So... (2, Insightful)

Alicat1194 (970019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050164)

No violence, no shooting, no riot scenes? I guess the 6pm news will have to be delayed until 9pm then?

Eliminate broadcasting instead (1)

955301 (209856) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050302)

Let's face it, serialized broadcasting where you are told when to watch was always an artificial constraint of media. If all media was turn on the tube and ask for what you are looking for at any point in time, "protecting the children" would not be an issue since they wouldn't randomly stumble upon it.

The real issue is, broadcasters cannot guarantee that a kid isn't around when they schedule a show, but you need to be in order to watch it. Get rid of this and this problem will draw back somewhat. Not entirely, but somewhat.

I chucked the tv 5 years ago. I won't let it back in until I have an apple-tv, a myth-tv and no other way of letting "programming" in. Radio station bandwidth ought to be used to push files out for prestaging on your radio, but what you listen to at what time is best left up to you.

Lastly, and it pains me to say it to some extent, I'm happy that US influence in the world is on the decline. I'm thankful that the dollar isn't as strong or universal as it was and hopeful this will continue. I don't want the jerks that pick a fight with me on Marta in Atlanta to EVER have the opportunity to go to another country and further demonstrate micro-level-war-mongering to reflect this overall influence of violence in the states.

We NEED this! Since it's obvious that.... (4, Insightful)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050314)

In an age of personal un-responsibility Americans have seemingly abdicated their will to use the most obvious control....the bloody OFF switch on the TV.

Of course this would mean losing the electronic baby-sitter so many have come to rely on.

Geez! What's a parent to do?

As a libertarian this is better than worse, sadly (2, Informative)

JymmyZ (655273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050404)

Alright, I haven't read all the comments, so I hope I'm not just repeating what someone else says (I doubt it, the quality of posts around here has been weak for a while) I'm normally all for libertarianism, the government should stay the hell out of how I live my life, until it starts affecting the lives of other. But I think I have to admit that I might side with the "censorship" side of things on this one. Sadly, WAY too many people use TV to babysit, and I really don't see why we need to highlight violence when there's healthier and, well I guess, better things to highlight with the power TV has. Sex and love and doing what you can to help your fellow man aren't intrinsically void of good plots, and they can certainly lead to great ideas and stories that could help guide the impressionable to make our nations really great again. It's a shame that the people who come up with the drivel on TV, with the real power of thought-control they have, waste it on the crap that's fed to us. There are a few smart shows out there, but most of it just helps feed negative messages to the viewers, feeds that consumerist need, and leads to a wasteful life. If suggestions (sadly in the form of legal controls) from the government can help reduce negative images and (hopefully) encourage more positive thoughts in viewers then I'm forced to agree with their doing so. But of course this "censorship" will likely be politically motivated in some way or another and won't serve any purpose but that of the people who want to enact such a law, and it'll just further fuck up an already sick nation. I guess that's the reason I'm against governments sticking their grubby hands in places they shouldn't be.

Ineffective... (1)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050408)

As it is, most TV shows that contain extreme violence are fairly late at night, so I don't think that really needs to be mandated by the government in the first place. Then again, I generally think the government should butt-out.

Even if there were some violent television shows or movies that were pushed back to 9 or 10 pm, that isn't going to stop kids from watching it. You know what we (kids) will, and already do? Stay up later then we should. And the person to stop us from doing that should be the parents.

That said, parents, if they so wish, should be the people to regulate this kind of stuff in the first place.

Personally, my parents have never regulated what I've been able to watch on television or the computer. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to be exposed to life, well, early in life, as I have been. I don't understand why American parents have become such control freaks, keeping their kids on a leash all the time.


Why violence is tolerated more (2, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050446)

Well, the basic fact is this. If there is violent content on TV or a movie, something really gross, parents have no qualms about engaging in a conversation with their kids and telling them the other side of the story and letting the kids know the right from wrong when it comes to violence. But most parents are very uncomfortable talking about sex to their kids and providing them with a balanced picture. In a ad-supported medium like TV they tend to prefer censorship. If they have to pay for content, like they do for print magazines or books, they usually dont bother. So it is easy to snicker at the parents and the American public for tolerating heavy doeses of violence and flipping out at the first wardrobe malfunction. But the fundamental cause is that there is not enough paid, ad free alternatives to TV. If that becomes possible, GoogleTV or AppleTV or Akimbo service or whatever, the demand for censorship will vanish. [Typing without my contacts. Please forgive typos.]

Make love, not war (1)

gnool (1005253) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050536)

If our aim is to create a peaceful society, broadcasting images of violence free-to-air is not the way to do it. I say keep the violence levels down, and lighten up on the sex restrictions. People have sex all the time, it's a wonderful natural part of the human experience. Violence is very unpleasant, unnecessary part of the human experience, and I believe a cap on violence levels on TV would be beneficial to our society. That being said, I don't even live in the US :-)

Stupid stupid stupid (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050546)

This is all because of people whining about how violence isn't treated equally with sex on television.

Well, it shouldn't be. Seeing violence doesn't have nearly the social effect that seeing sex on TV does. Seeing TV murders doesn't make people want to commit murders. On the other hand the MTV generation is generation of female sluts and irresponsible little boys.

NO! NO! The Monkeys Have it Backwards! (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050548)

It's the 21st century, we're supposed to see more sex, not less! Oh... and in reference to the backwards comment: The penis goes in the vaginal opening. Not cheek to cheek.

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18050574)

Ive watched porn & violent movies since i was a little kid, so by that analogy i should be a raving psychopath by now.

When in fact im quite the opposite. What realy helps is to have parents that keep you grounded (as in down to earth)

Oh boy dyslexia is a bitch (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050582)

I read it as, FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regular wich actually makes sense.

Some theory has it that excessive violence makes people immune to it and more willing to accept it in their lives. FCC training the US to be mindless killers. Oh okay, killers, they already got the mindless part.

Only kidding, americans. Europeans watch the US, watch you making a complete mess of things, and then, do the exact same thing, because HEY, it must work a second time?

Anyway, what used to constantly happen on a dutch tv program called countdown (music program) was the interviewed american/english popstars would say something and then excuse themselves for saying something that couldn't be aired. The dutch interviewer then responding, no problem and just going on.

Did all this cursing turn me into a sick sociopath unfit to live in modern society? Eh, bad example.

I also remember some full frontal nudity in dutch childerens tv. Did that turn me in a sex obssesed adult as I grew up? Damn...

Well, I also saw lots of violence like jackie chan movies. Did that turn me into an atheletic incredibly fit adult who can pull of amazing stunts at the drop of a hat? AHA! The proof, TV does NOT AFFECT US!

Discovery channel has been taking a nosedive in recent years but apart from the incredibly bad programs that have nothing to do with science or discovery they also started this amazing practice of not just bleeping out some words but even pixellating the mouth saying them. What, lipreaders complained?

A nude person, flipping the bird saying fuck will be just one huge pixel. Well, that is just wrong.

You know another thing I noticed. A "violent" show like the a-team also, at least early on (dutch tv is re-airing them, ah the quality of commercial stations) always included a shot of the people climbing out of the carwreck to show they were okay and nobody was hurt.

Compare this with far less "violent" tv like Law & Order wich might give you the idea that mass murderes are an everyday thing. Oh, in the US they are?

I know that in holland (15/16 million people, area about the size of new york state) we got less then 1 murder per day (average hovers around 300). On tv? 300 per day? Well, not exactly but close. At least half a dozen crime tv series per day and one wouldn't be complete without at least on killing.

So violence on TV is excessive.

Same as sex. Why there is more sex in one episode of sesami street then your average slashdotter has in a lifetime! SHOCKING!!! (but not as shocking as that there are people who actually want to have sex with big bird (Pino in holland and he is blue))

If I do object to violence on tv then it is that every damn police series producer seems to have watched silence of the lambs. yeah nice movie but give that damned plot a rest will you OR I might go into excessive violence mode on your ass.

The simple fact is that in mainland europe (except for krauts but what do you expect from nazis) we got a pretty relaxed attitude to sex and violence and profanity and it doesn't create a society any more violent (a society with more sex I think would be extremely welcome).

But ah, thinkofthechilderen. Can childeren be affected by images on tv.

Yes offcourse they can (wait for it), just as they can be anything else that raises them. If the TV becomes the babysitter/caretaker then yes, the child will adopt the values of that caretaker.

Childeren should be raised by their parents. To many parents nowadays put the child in front of the tv and think that is enough. It ain't. If the child picks up bad influences from the tv it is because it spends way to much time in front of it.

Because there is something else I remember from dutch tv apart from the sex and the swearing and the violence. We only had one channel. (waits for the younger readers to stop screaming in terror) Just one tv station, wich often didn't have anything on during the daytime. No I don't mean anything you want to watch. NOT ANYTHING ON. Just a test picture.

NO daytime TV!

Ah, I love the screaming of tv addicts in the morning, reminds me of playing outside.

I did not grow up on TV but many childeren do. My mother did not use the TV as babysitter because even I was not deranged enough to be amused by the test picture for more then an hour or so (I post on slashdot, what do you expect?)

Popping in a DVD to keep the kid quiet for two hours? For my 6th birthday my mother rented a projector and a short reel from Star Wars wich we watched over and over and over. VHS didn't come until I moved out of the house a decade later.

They shouldn't regulate violence on tv. They should regulate the amount of TV. You can watch anything you want. For one hour. Then you go outside and play with NO electricity. And if you do not get worms at least once in a summer, then you are hung upside down in a septic tank until you damnwell do. Any mother who uses anti-bacterial wipes should be forced to run with scissors.

That is how you raise kids.

TV isn't the problem, parents are. We should send them to bed early with no dessert. Only problem is, they would make more kids they aren't fit to raise.

1st Ammendment. (1)

mike518 (869465) | more than 7 years ago | (#18050622)

Its not infringing on others rights and its not a national security problem... therefore why should any of it be regulated? Why should anyone decide what is appropriate for kids except for the legal parents and guardians? I mean im all for giving the PARENTS more ability to disable certain programming-- but having the government mandate what is okay for everyone? I know of lots of governments that were famous for these kind of steps in the past (though they were more extreme)-- still i dont believe they were called democracies. Im sorry, freedom of speech should not be an option when it comes to media and public airwaves. I happen to be in a leadership position at a radio station, and i have to say the FCC is just an unnecessary pain in the ass and an infringement on our constitutional rights. Its the very 1st ammendment for a reason.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?