Help out with the petition to the FCC

[Anita C.]

YOU said it. Not ME . . . Namaste'. Anita C.

[genebujold]

The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. It was written many, many years ago when people exercised better control. I don't think the authors of the Constitution in their wildest dreams could have even conceived of Howard Stern & his shenanigans!

I don't care for Howard Stern and others who hide behind the Constitution in an attempt to be offensive & obscene. Not my idea of talent OR entertainment! Mr. Sterns' "cutsey-poo" attitude regarding his boorish behaviour is sophomoric. Fining him had no effect nor did station sanctions. He was issued a license with certain provisos he chose to blatently disregard.

Janet fine was fair, just & necessary.

And as for Michael . . . well, don't get me started.

Call me a prude if you will but I believe that there are things that are not acceptable to the general public and should not be granted the same access & protection as more "PG" material.

As for Howard? Good-bye.

I listened to him once . . . that was enough.

Yes, one can always change the station. BUT, should minor, impressionable children have access to this crapo when Mom & Dad are elsewhere?

I don't think so.

Ciao!

Anita C.

I couldn't agree with you more, Anita. So much so, in fact, that I quoted you just because you said it better than I could have.

With the technology available today, there's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that programming beyond Rated-G (the standard when the rated system first came out) should be sent over the airwaves. As for Cable, it would be ridiculously simple to include a signal so that converters and TVs would block any programming beyond that rating without a password or PIN (easer for remotes). And the TV owner could very easily set things up to bypass the system if they so desired.

But get this - the ACLU would scream bloody murder at such a system, even if it were disabled by default. I have nothing against the ACLU per se', as they have defended liberties mirroring my own beliefs from time to time. But their founding premise is that "anything goes," while forgetting that there's a balance between freedom of speech and freedom from speech. Case in point - cars that go BOOM-BOOM-BOOM with speakers riviling that of a The Who in concert. If they're out in the middle of nowhere - go for it!

But my point is this - neither I or anyone else should ever be subjected to anything I/they consider vile against our will. There will always be the "you can always turn it off" argument." I would counter that while flipping through the channels, I often encounter what I consider to be vile on usually innocuous channels, and it takes less time to imprint on my mind than it takes me to hit the next channel button on the remote.

Having said all that...

I signed the Stop the FCC petition, for one good reason: The entire premise of our Founding Father's efforts was to put the absolute minimum power in the hands of the government required to ensure peace and domestic tranquility, and instead relegate as much power as low as possible, down to the people themselves, if able (right to vote, to bear arms/standing militia).

I support that premise 100%, and I think that although their intentions are good, the way the FCC is going about things is all wrong. Another case of people who're out of touch with reality/current technologies making decisions "for the good of everyone."

Yech!

If someone wants to watch what I consider vile - so be it! But only insofar as I don't have to catch glimpses of it while flipping through the channels.

Again, with today's technology, we can have it both ways!

As the Windows 95 install routine said, "grow a brain..."

But, because I signed the petition, I'm obligated by my conscience to go the next step and describe in detail the kind of system to which I refer, that would allow the willing unfettered access to whatever programming they want while providing a very simple set of tools to the discerning that would allow even the most inept of neophytes the ability to block any programming beyond whatever level he/she wishes in their household - AND the ability to view it, later, after the kids are asleep, if they so desire.

Well, that's my two cents!

[Anita C.]

I didn't sign the petition because I don't agree with WHY it was initiated. Namaste', Anita C.

[Rockpup]

Gene: don't all tv's have a chip that blocks out coded programming already? I've been seeing tv ad's reminding people about that recently. I like the way XM radio handles foul/offencive language. They have the channels that may contain offencive material clearly marked in the channel name, and you can specifically block those if you feel they are inapropriate for those who may be listening. With all broadcast signals being required to switch to digital, there is no reason you could not do the same thing with land based broadcasts. Simply set an adult rating for certain radio shows, and let the recievers block their reception while they are on. Most stations that carry stern around here play classic rock the rest of the day, and most of that is not very offencive. Jim

[genebujold]

Gene: don't all tv's have a chip that blocks out coded programming already? I've been seeing tv ad's reminding people about that recently.

I like the way XM radio handles foul/offencive language. They have the channels that may contain offencive material clearly marked in the channel name, and you can specifically block those if you feel they are inapropriate for those who may be listening.

With all broadcast signals being required to switch to digital, there is no reason you could not do the same thing with land based broadcasts. Simply set an adult rating for certain radio shows, and let the recievers block their reception while they are on.

Most stations that carry stern around here play classic rock the rest of the day, and most of that is not very offencive.

Jim

Although this works in theory, the reality is that XM was designed around content channels. TV, on the other hand, both broadcast and cable, is designed around syndicate channels (i.e., Fox 20, AMC 35, etc.).

While you may very well be able to get rated G content on one channel and rated R content on another with XM radio, the fact is that the syndicates will reserve the right to show all ranges of content on their channel, from G to as far as they can push it.

Thus, there is no rated-G content, with perhaps a few exceptions like the Disney Channel (rated PG-13, at worst) or American Movie Classics (few are ever beyond PG-13).

Thus, there remains a need to be able to block certain types of programming.

Given today's digital media, it's a cinch to broadcast a rating flag each time a foul word is uttered or a scene contains certain content. The TV would then either black audio, video, or both.

But if this is too hard for the poor little MPAA execs to figure out, then just broadcast a rating along with the picture and allow the cable converter's user-defined settings to filter the entire movie out.