tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199604.post114988372564890905..comments2023-06-25T08:10:57.467-07:00Comments on tvjames x blog: @#$% !@#$!@%Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12123107186667009032noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199604.post-83642759982911555142011-06-21T23:04:49.596-07:002011-06-21T23:04:49.596-07:00My views on censorship over public airwaves are ra...My views on censorship over public airwaves are radical. Go figure, right? Well, they are. First, nothing should be censored between the hours of 9pm-5am. Why? Because kids should be in bed. If you are a full grown adult and cannot handle nudity or the f-word, get over yourself. If you are a parent who allows your child to stay awake and watch TV, you need to give your child up for adoption. I'd allow family friendly censoring of programs from 2pm-9pm, and from 5am-2pm I am honestly undecided. (these are for Mondays-Fridays, obviously).<br><br>Whenever I hear the word "indecency" I get shivers up and down my spine. Politicians are, by and large, the most indecent bastards in America, yet it is they who presume to dictate what is indecent in the media? <br><br>Yes, we need to allow "Saving Private Ryan" on broadcast TV, because (although it is a boring, preachy, obnoxiously bad film) there are still, depending on the survey, anywhere from 20-35% of Americans without cable TV who would like to be challenged by what they watch.<br><br>Broadcast TV should be TV for the people, but that does not mean it should be for all the people all the time. There should be programs that only kids would want to watch, just like there should be programs that kids should not be allowed to watch. <br><br>As for FCC fines and legislation, the FCC operates without a check and balance system. Whereas our government has three branches, the FCC has one. The same entity that creates legislation and is also in charge of enforcing it. By that standard, the FCC is unconstitutional and should be restructured or done away with completely. Were I a lawyer for either a network or an affiliate station, I'd take that argument to the Supreme Court... and I'd win.KEVIN МАРУСЕКhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05481948329077248169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199604.post-1150081109359088772006-06-11T19:58:00.000-07:002006-06-11T19:58:00.000-07:00My views on censorship over public airwaves are ra...My views on censorship over public airwaves are radical. Go figure, right? Well, they are. First, nothing should be censored between the hours of 9pm-5am. Why? Because kids should be in bed. If you are a full grown adult and cannot handle nudity or the f-word, get over yourself. If you are a parent who allows your child to stay awake and watch TV, you need to give your child up for adoption. I'd allow family friendly censoring of programs from 2pm-9pm, and from 5am-2pm I am honestly undecided. (these are for Mondays-Fridays, obviously).<BR/><BR/>Whenever I hear the word "indecency" I get shivers up and down my spine. Politicians are, by and large, the most indecent bastards in America, yet it is they who presume to dictate what is indecent in the media? <BR/><BR/>Yes, we need to allow "Saving Private Ryan" on broadcast TV, because (although it is a boring, preachy, obnoxiously bad film) there are still, depending on the survey, anywhere from 20-35% of Americans without cable TV who would like to be challenged by what they watch.<BR/><BR/>Broadcast TV should be TV for the people, but that does not mean it should be for all the people all the time. There should be programs that only kids would want to watch, just like there should be programs that kids should not be allowed to watch. <BR/><BR/>As for FCC fines and legislation, the FCC operates without a check and balance system. Whereas our government has three branches, the FCC has one. The same entity that creates legislation and is also in charge of enforcing it. By that standard, the FCC is unconstitutional and should be restructured or done away with completely. Were I a lawyer for either a network or an affiliate station, I'd take that argument to the Supreme Court... and I'd win.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05481948329077248169noreply@blogger.com