board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Indecent Indecency

Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 42 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Mar , 2005 11:16 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Because they're a bunch of self-righteous, hypocritical bureaucrats and Bush appointees who think they sense the zeitgeist and are leaping to jump in front of the parade?


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Mar , 2005 11:43 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
No, no, it's because they're all vacuums.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Mar , 2005 11:54 pm
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
halplm wrote:
There are seriously people that would make it illegal to have religious discussion on schools. This is the anti-religious LEFT for lack of a better pigeon-hole.
Nope. This is the RIGHT. At least, in my experience.

I teach in a public school and since I teach music and related arts, the concept of God comes up quite often, especially when discussing Bach, Beethoven and other "greats" who often worked for and wrote for churches.

The biggest objection has come from parents of students who are HIGHLY "religious" and VERY "conservative Christian."

Seems you can only mention God if you talk about THEIR particular concept/idea of God. Anything else is blashphemy. As I was told by one parent yesterday. They "read the Bible every night" and pray to Jesus daily, she said. And I shouldn't be mentioning God in my classes; I was supposed to be teaching music, not religion.

I am always up for a religious discussion, and am quite well-read and well-versed in common scripture (Judeo-Christian) and have a working knowledge of some of the other religions (Mormon, Hindi, Buddhist) But I have found, in the 25+ years I have been teaching, that the loudest and strongest objections to this kind of discussion comes from the Christian RIGHT.

They are all for religion in schools as long as it is THEIR religion, taught THEIR way. Anything else - forget it.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Mar , 2005 11:57 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Jeez, Prim. You used the word "zeitgeist" in a sentence!!! :love:

Americans are cracked on the subject of The Boob Incident and other such. NOT ALL AMERICANS. But an awful lot of them. "Indecent!!" they hiss. "It's....it's......sex...." and their voices drop to a whisper.

They can show forty people being murdered, beaten, tortured, etc., but heaven forfend ONE little brown breast being seen!!!

Famous little girl singers can simulate sex on stage, licking their lips and caressing their OWN breasts, Michael Jackson could grab his own goolies enthusiastically while cavorting about before prepubescent kids, and then poor Ms. Jackson gave the interested a glimpse of a perfectly nice and perky breast and BOOM, the world as we know it came to an end.

I simply DO NOT understand it.

If people don't like what's on TV, they can turn it off. Or can they? I am beginning to suspect they can't.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Mar , 2005 11:58 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I assume you have tried (possibly without success) to explain that historically religion is important to understanding the music or the importance of the music of the Baroque (is that right?) era?

^ This is a genuine question despite how it may or may not sound.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 12:45 am
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
I assume you have tried (possibly without success) to explain that historically religion is important to understanding the music or the importance of the music of the Baroque (is that right?) era?.
Oh, yeah. I can quote chapter and verse and make great sense and usually the parents are satisfied (or at least, stop complaining)

But the fact that I have to do it at ALL really galls me.

Today, I had a 4th grader tell me that she wasn't allowed to hear the word "hate" spoken out loud because her preacher told her so. And what her preacher said was "the word of God." (We were watching bits of the movie "Amadeus" and I asked the class how Salieri could love Mozart's music but hate Mozart.)

What I find with the Far Right (more than the Far Left, who are also insane in their own way) is an absence of any willingness to reason or THINK. It's all cut and dried, no thinking allowed.

I figure, you know, God gave us BRAINS for a reason. Duh.


Top
Profile Quote
Pippin4242
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 1:00 am
Hasta la victoria, siempre
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Outer Heaven
 
Somebody very clever once told me...
Quote:
"I hate extremists. They ought to be rounded up and shot."
...Or words to that effect. :P

*~Pips~*

_________________

Avatar is a male me, drawn by a very close friend. Just don't ask why.


Top
Profile Quote
Riverthalos
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 1:01 am
bioalchemist
Offline
 
Posts: 5205
Joined: Wed 16 Mar , 2005 2:10 am
Location: at a safe distance
 
Oh but it's so easy when its black or white....

My guess is the censorship arm of the FCC came into existence because there was a demand for it created somewhere by someone who felt like they and/or their children needed to be protected from indecency. Apparently, some people don't get the concepts of "just don't look" and "responsible parenting".

My parents knew they couldn't monitor what we watched on TV all the time. They also felt that most television was garbage anyways. So they just didn't allow television in their home. End of story. My siblings and I had to read books and play games with each other. Before the nest emptied out houseguests were stunned by the amount of (usually) friendly chitchat that happened in our home. A family that talks to each other and plays togehter....oh, the Unamerican horror...:roll:

The part of the FCC that regulates who can use what frequencies for what purpose is there to keep chaos from reigning the airwaves. I can see the use for this - it would be very lame to have truckers chattering on the same band the military is trying to communicate on.

_________________

"He attacks. And here I can kill him. But I don't. That's the answer to world peace, people."
-Stickles Shihan


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 2:42 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Because I am an ignorant Australian, could someone please spell out precisely the law/regulation that is being debated in this thread? I've sorta got the gist, but I don't want to make an idiot of myself commenting on something without having the facts.

_________________

[ img ]

"Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not;
and oftentimes we call a man cold when he is only sad." ~Robert C. Savage


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 6:35 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Impenitent

United States Code

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 71 § 1464

§ 1464. Broadcasting obscene language:



"Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "


The FCC's interpretation is here:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html


I'm sure it's all a misunderstanding of the role of the Federal Censorship Commission. ;)

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 7:32 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I have read this whole thread (as many others in which I don't post) and could not let the use of "zeitgeist" let slip without comment. :love:

It's so nice when you use German words like angst....

Maybe next time I will actually express an opinion, but to both topics, fundamental christians and censorship, as well as patriotism, I think my opinions are too obvious and foreseeable.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 7:56 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
My increasingly unfashionable opinion is that the government has no business defining or controlling "obsenity" in subscription or broadcast media. If you don't like it, change the channel, write the producers, organize a protest, do any of the hundreds of things you can do to express discontent; but don't act like a kid crying to Daddy to make little brother be quiet. Especially if you're going to complain about "big-government liberals" in the next breath. The FCC should be in the business of stopping false advertising, preventing interference etc., and that's it.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 8:15 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Well, Nin, viewed from the liberal shores of the UK my feeling is of Schadenfreude. What is the German for spam?


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 8:24 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I don't know - I never posted on a German messageboard. :oops:

I fear they say spam....

Maybe pronounced SCHPAM.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
samaranth
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 10:22 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Sydney
 
Gurothostrin said
Quote:
Currently here in the U.S. there're efforts to radically strengthen the indecency rules for broadcasters. The really annoying bit of this is that the people who are trying to do this seem to think that their personal beliefs should apply to everyone. No one should be watching things they see as being bad. It doesn't matter that they are going after things they themselves may never watch. It is nothing more than inflicting one's personal beliefs on other people.
Idylleseethes has helpfully linked through to the FCC’s Policy Statement, which sets out the rules as they currently stand. (Impenitent you may also find this summary version here helpful, I know I did.)

I’d be interested to read a little more about the proposed strengthening of these rules, to learn if this is something being initiated by the FCC, or something they are being lobbied to do. I have searched the FCC site, and can find no notice of proposed rule-making or a media release, so I’m a bit in the dark here. I gather that this is a proposed extension to subscription/cable services (??)

I’m also interested in the hostile reaction here to the FCC, some of which is framed in pretty strong terms. Perhaps this can be explained by the affiliations of the people appointed to be FCC commissioners (and there’s a new Chair, I believe), or by the perceived threat that your media is under threat. Or is it just this possible broadening of the application of the rules to non-free services? More background information would be much appreciated.

Australia does have a classification scheme which applies to all broadcast media, even the subscription services (although the burden on those services is minimal compared to the free-to-air ones.) Our media is not fined over breaches of the classification requirements, mostly the findings are publicised and that’s that.

(As an aside, the prohibition against the broadcast of ‘blasphemous, indecent and obscene’ matter was repealed long ago. I haven’t noticed yet that we’re going to the Bad Place any faster than anyone else, but that could be that I’m not looking in the right places.)

Our scheme has the objective that children should be protected from exposure to (potentially) harmful material. Not all kids have vigilant parents unfortunately, and even those that do may find that they aren’t so quick with the remote control that they can flick the TV or radio off before damage is done. So the broadcast day is divided into classification time zones, and a system of classification categories is provided so that parents can choose appropriately for their children. It’s really not that different to Britain where they have the watershed (9pm), and in the US you have the 6am-10pm non-indecency zone. The essential idea is the same, to limit the broadcast of such material to a more adult time of day. One of the things I do find remarkable between countries – even Western, English speaking ones with a fairly common cultural background – are the differences in tolerance for some things. Janet Jackson’s nipple might have attracted media interest here (from the titillation point of view, pardon the pun) but I doubt very much if it would have broken any of the current classification codes. Partial nudity is permitted even in general viewing time.

I would be interested to hear from you why having such a framework in place is such an infringement of (1) freedom of speech and (2) your perceived right as an adult to see and hear what you want.

From my own regulatory perspective, this is not intended as ‘censorship’ or as a fetter to free speech. There are enough other people out there who will have that effect: the media owners have a greater say about what does and what does not go to air, for example. Then and again, Australia doesn’t have a First Amendment guarantee of free speech. But I’d argue that absolute freedom of speech is illusory, no matter which jurisdiction you might be living in. However, like the religious question that might be one for another thread.


(Speaking of pledges, we used to say “I honour my God, I serve my Queen, I salute my flag”. I don’t think any state school does this any more, though.)


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 1:18 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
jewelsong wrote:
halplm wrote:
There are seriously people that would make it illegal to have religious discussion on schools. This is the anti-religious LEFT for lack of a better pigeon-hole.
Nope. This is the RIGHT. At least, in my experience.

...

I They are all for religion in schools as long as it is THEIR religion, taught THEIR way. Anything else - forget it.
Well, I guess we'll have to say it's extremists, then. When and where I went to school, the "religious right" had no voice whatsoever.

The further extreme you get on the spectrum, the less people think, and the more their views are based on pre-defined platforms.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
Guruthostirn
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 6:25 pm
That Weird American
Offline
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 7:30 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest U.S.
 
Samaranth, it's the new appointee's at the FCC which are trying to bring in more extreme standards. They have been lobbied by a group with a lot of power to make everyone subject to their own views of what should be seen. These are not people who just report incidents...these are people who will go out of their way to look for indecency. Maybe I'm being uncharitable...but it seems like it. 'Course, there's plenty of fraud involved too....one famous incident, a whole bunch of complaints came in, and politicians used those numbers...it turned out most of them were internet chain letters, and eventually the whole thing was traced to three people.

That said, in Congress there's a Lot of support for strengthening requirements.

What irritates me is it is just another way morality and religion is interfering with government.

_________________

That crazy American Jerk...

"No stop signs, speed limits, no body's gonna slow me down..."

"You can run, but you'll die tired." -- What the archer said to the knight.


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 30 Mar , 2005 6:53 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
Quote:
My increasingly unfashionable opinion is that the government has no business defining or controlling "obsenity" in subscription or broadcast media. If you don't like it, change the channel, write the producers, organize a protest, do any of the hundreds of things you can do to express discontent
While this would be nice, I don't think that most people with an agenda see it this way. I don't know when this started happening, but ever since the mid-eighties (which is as far back as I know) it seems groups see no problem utilizing the government to step in where it really shouldn't to accomplish whatever agenda that group had. Look at the PMRC and their battle against recording artists in the eighties; trying to blame some kid's suicide on Ozzy and Rob Halford. Today seems no different.

As far as regulating broadcast media, I personally don't want any standards to be in place, but I don't control anything unfortunately. I have to live with the FCC telling radio stations that there are seven words they are not allowed to say on air, and censoring certain content (Opie and Anthony's Sex For Sam comes to mind). With subscription (I should go find the article in Manwe) they have no right whatsoever. If I pay for a channel that airs vulgar language, that's my prerogative. The government doesn't regulate the magazines I may subscribe to (I don't actually subscribe to any) and I wouldn't want them to. Those are my feelings on that matter.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 31 Mar , 2005 6:30 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Samaranth,

FCC Chairman Michael Powell resigned in late January after 4 years in that position. I believe he served 2 years prior to that as a commissioner, so he must have been appointed by Clinton.

Michael is Colin Powell's son. He presided over a clamp down on "indecency" in broadcast media that included the Super Bowl incident and Bono's Golden Globe word.

His departure inspired comment on his replacement who was eventually announced on 3/16. He is Kevin Martin, also a commissioner, who dissented from the majority opinion to not fine Bono, so he is at least as interested in censorship as was Powell.

I understand it could have been worse. There is a more conservative commissioner, but she doesn't have the extensive political connections that Martin has.

However, it is bad enough as the current level of censorship is bound to be maintained. I don't disgree with some level of broadcast censorship to "protect" children, but currently and historically it has been far more stringent than it needs to be.

Members of this administration have been known to go to extremes with their prudishness, most notably Ashcroft ordering the seminude statues in the background of his press conferences to be draped. I hope that seems funny someday.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 31 Mar , 2005 7:12 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
It seems pretty funny now. I'm irresistibly reminded of the stories (true?) of Victorian ladies who dressed the "limbs" of tables and chairs in little ruffled sleeves.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 3  [ 42 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 »
Jump to: