Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 25, 2008
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Judges Favor The Profane
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


For the second time this year, a federal court has ruled against Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and ruled in favor of shattering every barrier of decency on television. A few months ago, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled in favor of fleeting profanities thrown carelessly on network TV. Given that Hollywood could defend all profanities as "fleeting," that ruling opens the door for F-bombs galore, any time, anywhere.

Now, the Third Circuit in Philadelphia has ruled the same for fleeting nudity. Nothing is sacred on television -- except the profane.

The FCC's $550,000 fine against 27 CBS-owned stations for the infamous and deliberate Janet Jackson breast-baring during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl is now reversed. The court found that the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so "pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience." That finding is beyond preposterous. What was not shocking about sudden nudity on the most watched television broadcast of the year, in front of an audience stuffed with millions of children?

But in effect, what the judges were saying is that since the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC has been a steady, ongoing farce of decency protection for 30 years, it must always and forever remain a joke. Would the public accept a ruling like this about other regulators, about air pollution or water pollution, instead of TV pollution?

In their ruling, the judges make absolutely no allowance for the fact that indecency on television has grown pervasive by leaps and bounds over the last thirty years. It's so pervasive that the shock is often dulled by the consistency of an increase in sex, violence and filthy language.

But the Janet Jackson incident was different. The audience was shocked, and the amount of protest was historic. The controversy surrounding the incident yielded a record-breaking 540,000 complaints to the FCC in the weeks following the game. Switchboards and mailboxes on Capitol Hill were overwhelmed with angry protests. One senator told me privately that no issue ever generated more constituent outrage than this -- and he didn't sit on any media oversight committee.

But the judges had the audacity to question the authenticity of the protesters. They sneered in print that "the record is unclear on the actual number of complaints received from unorganized, individual viewers" as opposed to advocacy groups. They took every complaint and shredded it and threw the confetti back in the public's face.

"Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing," the judges wrote. But judicial second-guessing is all these courts have to offer. The judges are second-guessing not just the regulators, and not just the Congress, which voted to increase FCC fines tenfold after the Janet Jackson incident, but the credibility of the public itself.

Disturbing signs are now emerging that the next administration -- no matter which party -- will be bowing before Hollywood and its fat-cat lobbyists, and waving the white flag of surrender on policing nudity and profanity on television. At a recent forum in Washington, representatives of both Barack Obama and John McCain insisted their candidates would step away from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's attempts to draw attention to the problem of broadcast indecency.

Speaking for Obama, former Clinton FCC chairman Bill Kennard claimed, "We have a lot of headlines about the Janet Jackson case, but it really doesn't address the key issue, which is how we can protect our families and our kids from harmful content." Wouldn't fines discourage broadcasters from allowing profane "mistakes"? But Kennard, like every slick telecom lobbyist in Washington, insisted on the absurd line that the V-chip and other technological frauds can help parents protect their children. No V-chip would have -- could have -- stopped millions of children from being flashed by Janet Jackson. Kennard knows that, of course. But lobbying means never having to say you're being honest.

Kennard also unfurled the other line every libertine uses, arguing that since profanity and explicit sex are spreading across every other media platform, from cable and satellite TV to the Internet to cell phones, it's now outmoded to try and regulate the indecency on broadcast television. Blow up every dam, and the let the flood begin.

Sadly, the representative for John McCain was equally useless. John Kneuer completely agreed with Kennard. The legal framework for indecency enforcement was "overdue for examination." The framework is outdated, created long before cable and satellite TV. He proclaimed the need for a new framework that "all parties and consumers can understand."

We are currently headed toward a framework that all consumers should understand. It's very simple: "You're on your own."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Indencent Judges
The problem with the American people is simple. They don't know who the judges really are who are elected and appointed into office. They haven't a clue if they are perverts who enjoy porno on their personal computers and have no respect for women and kids or are sexually harassing litigants or staff. I won't mention other perverted scenerios which recently popped up in the news that are extremely indecent. So, if you don't know who's judging you even though you're paying their wages and vacations and for their golf trips or to ride around in limos then this is the result of apathy and the attitude that if it doesn't affect me then I don't want to know about it for decades. Well, it's gotten to the point that it affects everyone and especially little children who are now watching cartoons about sexual behviors and intimite details and curse words that even an adult wouldn't say in front of their kids. The media is out of control and so are the judges, but if they walk down the aisle hand in hand and partner up then the only chance you have of forcing them into a divorce is to remove them from their positions and protest and demand that they protect the people rather than the perverts! But, people are too busy complaining rather than taking action and forcing them to come up to a standard of decency. Their behaviors in favor of indecent actions in the media are indecent.

Anderson
My cousin in ME calls it the "West Coast: East"! Almost as many fruits and nuts. Being that Gestalt is from Snow/Collins RINO country and you're from AZ neither of you knows what the militant freak lobby in NYC has been up to.

I'm a Roman Catholic. I used to be the religious awards instructor for the Bronx for the Boy Scouts of America. I had the privilege of teaching the only female recipient of a Scout religious award (Pius XII) that I know of. She was part of a Sea Explorer post with her twin brother who also graduated.

We have the ceremony at St. Patrick's Cathedral. It's impossible to have ANY ceremony there without a lot of security from now on. We've had gays drop trou and wave their genitalia at the congregants. They have cursed and mocked the Cardinal a prince of the Church. They then seized chalices of wine and Eucharist (the flesh and blood of the living God to us) and threw them on the floor!

Then they want us to bend over backwards, forwards and sideways and leap through flaming hoops for less than 2% of the total population that can't control their impulses?
Then they call US intolerant?

-Ray

Gestalt
You are another homosexual militant here on TH.

Wrangler could not of said it any better.His statement is a reflection of most Americans beliefs. No matter how you try to say different.

Learn tolerance Gestalt.


Gestalt
I have gay family members and don't dislike any of them! I don't dislike gays BECAUSE their gay either. I have HUGE problems with the professional gay activists and those who must wear their preference on their sleeve like a chip waiting for somebody to knock it off their shoulder.

I have an acquaintance on a muzzleloading forum. His daughter is a lesbian. Both she and her girlfriend of over 9 years (FIVE times the duration of the average male gay relationship) are well loved. They are known to all his friends and relations and there is no problem. They even participate in black powder re-enactments and rendezvous in full costume. I didn't ask which wears the calico dress and couldn't care less.

I am all for tolerance. You have a weird and vastly different definition. Mine is "keep your business to yourself" and live and let live. YOU want the school system to SELL kids as young as 5 that gay is "normal" and the numbers say it's NOT.

-Ray

replies to Wrat Wrangler and Anderson659
Both of you can give Sophie lessons in how conservatives think about gays. You're both excellent examples of the points I was trying to make.

The basic divide between liberals and conservatives on this issue is clear, and does not depend at all on anybody's fake or real statistics about the incidence of homosexuality.

Here it is: Most liberals think that sexual orientation should have absolutely nothing to do with the giving of mutual respect and tolerance that ought to be simply a part of the behavior of individuals as members of society. Much of this used to fall under the heading of "good manners," but try getting conservatives to buy into that these days!

But for many conservatives it really matter deeply that there are people around them, in their workplace, etc. who are gay. This very fact is disgusting, so intolerance follows quite readily. For we liberals the ideal situation would be one in which no one cared one way or another about the sexual orientation of other people, but could work with them, socialize with them, etc. just as one would be able to work or socialize with others regardless of their hair or skin color. This utopia, however, is seriously opposed by conservatives, who want to be able to express their disgust and contempt for gays. It's especially important for conservatives to believe that gays choose to be gay, which is supposed to show that they are people who have chosen to do evil, disgusting things that justify your own hatred of them. This is why most conservatives will not even consider the possibility that sexual orientation is not something people choose to have; it's a natural fact.

Fabius you forgot a few things.
It is reliably estimated that over 30% of the editorial and opinion staff at the NY Slimes is gay. Wow, big surprise right? The same or higher percentage holds true for the writers of TV shows and movies not to mention movers and shakers at the big studios. Duh! And we all thought this heavy-handed pro-freak agenda was an accident.

-Ray

So true, Fabius!!!
Not only did they mau-mau the APA but they've been trumpeting the bilge that passed for research by Kinsley. Kinsley was a dangerous homosexual pedophile who used to film his straight wife masturbating for "research"!

He based his 11% figure on studies of sexuality in MALE PRISONS for God's Sake!!! Then when you think it can't get sicker Liam Neeson appears in a total whitewash of Kinsley and all of Hollyweird swoons.

He'd be crown King of NAMBLA today.

-Ray

Another "poor little victim" has arrived
Gestell,

For the most part NOBODY really hates gays. We do have a problem with the agenda to make all your repulsive "lifestyle choices" part of the mainstream. It USED to be enough for us to adopt a live and let live standpoint and in fact we DID in general.

That was the early Seventies till about 1982 when AIDS made you characters a "protected" minority. Can't tell gay jokes. Can't offend the poor things. HAVE to not only tolerate them, which was fine, but now we HAVE to tell kids it's all right that Daddy has a new roomate every 18 months (the average male gay relationship).

Moreover, we HAVE to accept all the phony and fabricated stats you people (and I MEAN "you people") spit out. Recall the famous claims that first 10%, then 11% and now 14% of the human race is gay? Buffalo bagels! In the early Nineties more than 2 DOZEN independent and peer-reviewed studies put the numbers of gay people at no more than 4% or as low as 0.5% with an average of 1.9%.

That does NOT mean the majority can or should do whatever they want with the minority, but it DOES mean that WE don't have to walk on eggs, jump backwards through flaming hoops and kow tow to your insignificant population.
For politically motivated gays AIDS was a godsend!! You could count on the weeping sympathy of all those self-loathing middle class white liberals to get you everything in you sick agenda.

From the Rainbow (raincoat) curriculum in NYC to "outreach to gay (confused mostly) youth it was all handed to you and your attitude grew and reeked even more.

-Ray

Gestell
Do you really think what you posted makes sense? And that anybody bought it? If so you are full of yourself. All you posted was a word game. Nothing of substance and not even a legitimate reply.

And I see TH has another resident homosexual militant poster who demeans people in a sly way thinking he has a cleverness in doing it.

Sorry pal the low intelligence and low information voters are at daily kos and the huffington post, not here.

reply to Sophie
There are a lot of creepy dudes on TH. As for your claim that a heterosexual can be supportive og gays, as a liberal, I say that's absolutely true. However, if you regard yourself as a traditional conservative, you're just going to have to drop such left-wing attitudes right now! Seriously, unless you start hating gays, the real conservatives won't teach you the secret handshake (it's a very, very butch handshake), and you'll never be told where the meetings are held. So if you want a future as a conservative, drop those gay friends of yours, develop a decent set of intolerant Christian reflexes, and get to work.

reply to FearGalX
No, Bozell is not a Communist. He is a conservative Catholic and a veteran of the conservative movement. I suspect you are one of those young conservatives who just assume, without any knowledge, that the only people who want censorhip are "Communists." Hah. Have you got a lot to learn!

traditional conservatives believe in the absolute truth of Christian morality, and conservatives like Bozell have absolutely no problem with getting government to enforce this morality. Unbeknownst to many young conservatives, there lies within conservatism complete opposition to much of what Americans think of as individual choice in terms of personal behavior. Learn about this stuff if you want to be an informed conservative.

Anything goes
I work at public library in Charlotte, NC. Local gang's use of profanity and abusive behavior reighs at our lower income branch. Police have offered assistance to prevent reoccurance, library managers refuse their instruction.

Such is our time of lessing moral values in public places.

What?
Excuse me, but when the Janet Jackson bare breast incident happened, she appeared to be as shocked as anyone over the fact that ALL the layers of her garment, in that one spot, were pulled back. She said so afterward . . . that the choreography was not intended to leave her breast ACTUALLY bare. She seemed sincere when she said as much, and truly embarrassed. I have no reason to doubt her.
Does the FCC really think that accidents cannot happen?
Ridiculous!
Isn't it time we all grow up and realize that a bare breast is not going to bring about the fall of Western Civilization?

Sophie
Glad to see you and the other resident homosexuals here feel I am creepy because I dare to stand up to your tactics, and call you out when you get caught lying between posts on other columns. I am creepy when I see fraud and attacks on believers instead of debate.

Thank you for the compliment, if you felt any different or offered anything of substance I would have been worried. You did not disappoint.


is Bozell a Communist
Why does he obsess so much about increased governmental regulation? The FCC is horrible. Parents should make sure they are involved what (if anything) children are watching. What the people saw with the Janet Jackson song should have been turned off way before the nipplegate episode by parents who "care" what children watch.

Anyway, while I might support a decision to fine for posting hard core porn during a football game -- the stupid incident was not that big a deal. People would generally not have seen Jackson's chest because it was out for like one second.

During a live broadcast "something" could always happen. Should a broadcaster be fined for having Bud Dwyer live on TV or the Oswald/Ruby murder? Aren't they worse than a brief nipple? I think Bozell would say the killings are not as bad (which can only mean to be he is some extremely sexually repressed person).

Ed
Definitely have no problem with that.

Thanks Gandalf
I appreciate that.

Personal responsibility, limiting government, massive tax cuts, tough on crime...you'd be voting for those things. :-)

Ed
You ever run for office again, let me know, I'll volunteer for your campaign.

Akagi 2:11
"Since you would no doubt had made an awful parent since you admit you would have had no influence on your children and how they acted and behaved, probably a good move on your part. "

Oh, I wouldn't say I recognized that I would have had NO influence on them. I simply recognized, at the time, my inadequacy in the characteristics necessary for raising psychologically and spiritually healthy children and so I consciously deferred. The direction I perceived the world headed into was simply further inducement to restraint.

If I knew then what I know now and if I was then, who I am now, would I make the same decision?

Yeah, I think so but it would be due more to the condition of the world and where I see it going, than my inadequacies.

Sophie, Sophie, Sophie...
Nowhere did I disdain travel. What I disdain is the notion of the "ignorant American" that a certain urban set in America and virtually everyone in Europe tends to throw around rather stereotypically.

Let me remind you Sophie, that the distance from London to Milan, Italy is like that from the top of New York State to the bottom. For a European, "world travel" means driving 200 miles. You cant even cross a state here with that distance.

I did say that whatever one sees abroad it is not anything really that new under the sun. Humans have society, they live under four walls and a roof, they want to raise kids safely and traditionally. Most of them (rather like Middle American and rather UNLIKE Euro secularists) are religious.

As a social liberal (READ: TAX AND SPEND) you probably want subsidies so those people you "pity" who can't experience places like Darfur or the slums of Amsterdam can then afford to do so.

Alas.

Fabius Whatever
"Grumpy, your comments are specious heckling."
Is that your way of saying you can't answer the question?

I asked, "Who determined that it was NOT acceptable (to be nude at the beach)?"

Well?

I don't belittle people
for not having a stamped passport....not all are lucky enough to have the means and opportunity to travel.

I have not yet made my way to Europe.

I do pity however people who CHOOSE to disdain travel out of a lack of intellectual curiosity and/or fear.

Americans who think american culture is the be all/end all of world civilisation are not only irritatingly arrogant, they are doing themselves a gross disservice in missed opportunities for learning.

Social Liberalism is Liberalism
by any other name. That means taxpayer funded schools, welfare, and health care. It also means punishing success:

Ahem:

"(for social liberals), the accumulation of wealth by a small group is seen as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and, therefore, seen as a threat to liberty."

Does the Reign of Terror ring any bells with you, historically speaking?

Hmmm. Just saw Anderson & Talent Scout
posts from earlier...

Creepy dudes.

Offensive is clearly in the eyes of the beholder.

And anderson, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that 'real' heteros cannot be supportive of the gay community.

I can assure you I am 100% straight. Just not narrow (minded).

You two have some serious issues.

And Ed
You can indeed be socially liberal and fiscally conservative...

Tolerance doesn't cost tax dollars...

Freedom of speech and expression does not cost any tax dollars. In fact social conservatism costs quite a bit in this area in the form of useless meddling from such agencies as the FCC.

Separation of Church and State does not cost anything...And again, social conservatives such as Bush again waste tax dollars on such nonsense as faith based intiatives...

Noninterventionalist foreign policy uses FAR less tax dollars than foreign misadventures such as the Iraq war.

Supporting costly big government programs would classify as fiscally liberal. Not socially liberal.


If you traveled more, you might realize there are many varieties of liberals on our amazing planet.




15 Years in NYC Sophie
I lived 15 years in New York City Sophie, which probably makes me more qualified to comment on the third world than you, I dno't care who you married or where you went.

I was married to a Russian immigrant for three years who had nothing in a Soviet bloc country. Virtually every Mexican I know who grew up outside of Mexico city did so without running water and toilet paper.

I ran for office in Edison, NJ - probably the largest concentration of Indians in America.

Now then, unlike yourself, I don't belittle people for not having a stamped passport and no, I don't think international travel makes anyone smarter about anything other than little trivialities about where they visited. Some of the dumbest people I know are also the most well-traveled (READ: NYC liberals).

Don't worry Mellor, it still is
I'm just addressing the nonsense posted about how this is some kind of American isolationism.

Think a breast on tv would fly in China? Nope. How about India? Hardly.

And don't even get me started on Pakistan and the rest of the Middle East.

And the notion that Americans are startled silly by an exposed breast is daft in the extreme. Walk into any store's magazine section and that's all you see. Porn in American makes more money annually than all the output of Hollywood.

Americans offended by this are not offended by Jackson's breasts and they don't need to "travel more" (yuk yuk) - they were offended by the fact that it happened where it was not supposed to happen, just as you would be offended if I dropped my pants in front of your kid.

Comprende?

Ed, I pity your ignorance
As someone who is married to a Peruvian and has visited that incredibly beautiful country, I can assure you that you know nothing about the so called 'third world'.

You disdain travel because you are afraid of opening your mind to new experiences and points of view.

They do love their potatoes in the andes though! They have have hundreds of varieties.

Cuy (guniea pig) is also a delicacy among the indians...

Not bad.

Tastes like chicken.

Ed
And some people don't fly into a tizzy when a breast is exposed.

So that's the subject.

Also Mellor
You can't be socially liberal (Government as nurturing mother via taxpayer expense) and fiscally conservative (less taxes).

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

How are you going to fund all your programs?

Better Yet Mellor...
Tell me how travel has broadened you. What did you. What did you see in your travels that changed you profoundly. That people do stuff differently in other continents?

Wow.


Akagi/Gestell
This has more to do with labels than content. Allow me to explain.

There are folks who wish to impose their (biblical) preferences of the moral order on the rest of us. Gestell calls them "conservatives."

There are those who prefer that the government keep as light a touch as possible on economic life: "libertarians."

The trouble is that those who do not wish to impose their preferences on the rest of us are called "liberals," while (in the US) that terms also stands for Big Government, and the left.

Of course, these days, how could you get more "Big Government" that the GOP and Bush?

The ideas of "left" and "right" are simply insufficient to describe the political spectrum. Rather, there are two dimensions. Me, I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Does that make me a "conservative"?



Travel Overrated
Mellor,

Travel can “broaden” someone in a superficial way. So people living in the Andes eat potatoes after stepping on them. So what?

So much of the third world wipes its rear with its left hand and doesn’t have running water.

Again, so what?



Ed in LA
"Bozell is very preachy over this though. Ditto for the poster stereotyping Americans as xenophobes though too."

I thought the poster simply suggested that travel broadens, not that they were afraid of foreigners.

"Also, the notion that Americans have to "travel" or see "the world" to, you know, get with it - this is just absurd."

It's nothing to do with "getting with it." It has to do with seeing other ways of doing things. You can still choose the "American way" having found it preferable.

"Most of the world doesn't engage in international travel. Get real."

True. So?



I see No Talent is back to sodomy
"When sodomy was the topic of the day
For the public square as it is becoming today
It was in two cities
Sodom and Gomorrah."

Post #95. Funny, I didn't see that on the Super Bowl...

Thanks, eddie too
... for your defense of me, but I really don't need it.

But it is, of course, completely wrong-headed.

"He knows he must repent and be saved"

I have already made my peace with the Great Elf.

"before his self-loathing can be cured."

This is cute. What possible reason would I have for that?

"Pray for him. He is not stupid. He is a slave to his unwillingness or his inability to control his passions."

You know something about my sex life that I don't, eddie?

"He speaks so strongly to try and repress his shame."

Shame? About what, eddie. Go on, tell us.

Actually Crisco
I never said I was tolerant, in fact I am violently intolerant of anyone that would use the power of government to attack freedom--be that economic or social.

Once again into the fray.
Akagi #110
Very simple once again, you give the flippant answer so you and others of your opinion can do what makes you feel good anywhere anytime and everyone else can go to heck. Isn't it funny how your type complain about us not being tolerant but you are the ones that show none.

Gestell
You had me until the very last when you said this:

"I know that some TH readers will not like my comments, but that's because those readers are libertarians, and libertarians, at the end of the day, are simply not conservatives. Libertarians have much more in common with liberals like me than with conservatives like Bozell."

No we don't--we find both you liberals and conservatives equally distasteful. Both of you hate freedom and liberty. Simply you attack freedom from different sides. We have just as many problems with the attacks on economic liberty by liberals as we do with conservatives who attack personal freedom. And I am no conservative Gestell. I am a libertarian and will be voting for Bob Barr in November.


Bozell is Right, as usual
As a liberal, I do respect Bozell for holding on to the principles of conservatism when it's clear that so many TH readers are libertarians, not conservatives.

Genuine conservatives should have no fear of using the power of government to enforce traditional values and social customs. Conservatism in its proper sense is about the use of government power, as well as social coercion, to enforce traditional values. For Americans, these values are, for the most part, Christian values, and thus Christian understandings of sexuality and morality are part of the values that government is supposed to enforce. All things that God, according to the Bible, prohibits and finds offensive should be incorporated into the agenda of values that conservative government will enforce.

I know that some TH readers will not like my comments, but that's because those readers are libertarians, and libertarians, at the end of the day, are simply not conservatives. Libertarians have much more in common with liberals like me than with conservatives like Bozell.


Oh yes
"Oppresion by the Minority."

Yes I forgot the poor oppressed Christians. Give me a break. You aren't oppressed. At least not in the US you aren't. Very simple once again--"turn the channel or turn it off."




What if it had been a male member?
OMG they would've went through tht roof.

Bozell is very preachy over this though. Ditto for the poster stereotyping Americans as xenophobes though too.

We spend more on porn than anyone else. Also, the notion that Americans have to "travel" or see "the world" to, you know, get with it - this is just absurd.

Most of the world doesn't engage in international travel. Get real.

weak link
Hot Topic I'd say...it's like smokers vs. non smokers....EACH has their own opinion...and both feel as if they are getting burned....we should be looking for a solution...It's funny how the media is causing division, and we as citizens are playing into their game, from this to politics...We should be trying to solve a problem of disagreements instead of trying to prove the other wrong....And one wonders why the US is struggling....a chain is only as weak as it's weakest link...

Ha Ha, Brent! What a boob
You are!

present one child who was damaged by the fleeting glimpse of the boob.

Just one.

Jack
Thanks! So you agree with the approach of "consensus" when deciding matters for the group?

Bozell Children and FCC Daddy
Federal judges, commissions, senators…

Whatever happened to parental responsibility? It’s sad when a conservative is reliant on the federal government (FCC) for enforcement of his family values as concerns network television.

Will he be a crusader for the (godawful) Fairness Doctrine should the federal government make that a reality?

Get out of the 1950s and the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, Mr. Bozell. Most kids these days have over 300 channels. You can’t rely on the FCC to hide boobage. You have to (GET THIS) police your own kids around the television yourself.

Psalm32
You would have been good at the witch trials, know that?

Akagi
The Tyranny of the Majority is still preferable to the Oppresion by the Minority.

Fabius Cunctator
"The problem is how sexuality is exploited, demeaned, ridiculed, and used in lascivious and evil ways in the entertainment and advertising industries." Okay, fair enough. Now, do you really consider a flash of Janet's nip as part of a performance to be evil or demeaning and ridiculing of sexuality?

"Who determined that it is acceptable for women to go naked just because they are at the beach?" Who determined that it was NOT acceptable? After all, "We all know that there is nothing dirty about the human body."

If you're there for sun and swimming then clothes just get in the way.

COuld You People BE any more
self centric?

Are none of you clued in to the fact that most of the rest of the world does not treat the female breast as an object of horror?

America is one of the few places in the world where a child who sees a woman's breast is not considered to have been marked by the devil.

You all would do well to get out of the country more often.

Mick
I am no liberal as most here with any sense will tell you. And yes Mick, I do expect parents to be parent. I do not expect children (which today I guess means people in their teens who in the golden years people point to here would have been married off) to be shielded from everything. Nor do I think the Janet Jackson event that big of a deal nor do I think the FCC should have fined CBS (actually I think the FCC should be abolished, but I made that point clear).


Children...Just for fun.
Your Children
Are not your children.
They are the sons and the daughters of life's Longing for itself.
Though they come through you
They are not from you
Though they are with you
They belong not to you.

You can give them your love
But not your thoughts
They have their own thoughts
They have their own thoughts
You can house their bodies
but not their souls

For their souls live in a place of tomorrow
that you cannot visit
Not even in your dreams.
You can strive to be like them
But you cannot make them just like you.
You can strive to be like them
But you cannot make them just like you.

Apologies to KG

Gandalf
"Teach your children right from wrong? How does one do that in a culture where the line has been removed?"

Same way you teach your children about other things--cars, guns, rattlesnakes, etc.

"My decision years ago to never bring children into this world is looking more and more prescient evryday."

Since you would no doubt had made an awful parent since you admit you would have had no influence on your children and how they acted and behaved, probably a good move on your part.

When sodomy was the topic of the day
For the public square as it is becoming today
It was in two cities
Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Man of God Jude told us all what the Fire from heaven was all about.
Sodom and Gomorrah has angered the wrong person, and are stirring His wrath once again today.

Ungodly men are in the church's of today, and will receive the curse they earn and work for,

Jude:
Jude 1:3 -
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Jude 1:4 -
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:5 -
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jude 1:6 -
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jude 1:7 -
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.



God is not playing Church

Akaqi
Obviously you don't understand irony.

I know I have an off/on switch, I designed electronics in a former life...what I don't understand is how so many expect everyone to take care of these pervasive issues themselves when in fact the issue itself is degrading our whole culture. Look around, do you see society moving forward or backward towards a more cave man structure. Every Lib idea is just another step in degredation.

To the point:
My point is that Judges that make decisions should be made to directly live their decision.

Souter's cottage should have been immediately confiscated when he voted to violate the constitution and allow cities and corporate entities to use imminent domain, to take one's property to give to 'their friends'.

This also applies to judges that think it's a good idea to let known child molesters back on the street...make the judge have them live in their house with their kids...

Similarly if any judge think's it's a good idea to allow profanity, let them be forced to listen to it.

You Libs just don't get it. In your zeal to take over this country with your perverted views you are only painting a target on your own forhead...keep it up, you will really enjoy the results.

I guess Akaqi is trying to take over King Liberals role as head Town Hall Troll.

Your parental influence is zero?
"Teach your children right from wrong? How does one do that in a culture where the line has been removed?"

A toddler exploring the world for the first time will put anything in his mouth, be it baby food or baby poop. You teach them what's good for them and what's not, right? Now keep up the good work!

More strawmen
"Would it be ok if I share a beer and a joint with your 14 year-old-daughter while we watch "Debbie Does Goats"?"

No, but then again this has nothing to do with the topic. Another strawman.

Betrayed by sinners, religious
And Government

Matthew 26:45 -
Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Concerning sinners, the Lord is clear on this issue and drew the line.

All men had best respect the line already drawn.

Jesus commented on a current event of his day here, He may have read it in the news too, as it was well known by his audience He spoke to.

Luke 13:1-5
1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


The message of repentance is no longer heard in the church world, let alone the public square, as Jesus spoke all things in Public

Bible lesson for the religious
"for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Repentence for what?
Sin
Matthew 9:

10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Some of you have never once made a call for sinners to repent, and just focus on Jesus ate with sinners.
Hypocrites

Akaqi
What you call "tyranny of the majority", I call"self-government".

Would it be ok if I share a beer and a joint with your 14 year-old-daughter while we watch "Debbie Does Goats"?

Love to all.

Council of the wicked
Salt - 12:03 PM EST
talent scout
Jesus did not focus on sin and sinners in His ministry. I challenge anyone to find one passage of Scripture where Jesus gave sinners a hard time. He gave religious leaders a hard time.
===
ts:
Here is your problem in lack of knowing the Lord.
And come to give the council of the wicked religious leader.

Jesus made no distinction between sinners, the religious or the unbelievers.
He spoke above all of them and directed His Word against sin.

The public square of Israel in his day was controlled by sinners, religious sinners.
The topic of discussion of the public in His day on the earth was not about sodomites, as it was so disgusting no one but the most vile of men practiced it and did not march in the streets of Jerusalem demanding every accept their sexual deviancy.

If they had spoken up on public like the reprobates are doing today, they would have been stoned to death.

The sodomites of the time of Jesus knew good and well not to speak in public about their disgusting sexual deviancy, knowing they would suffer the death penalty for their perversions.

Jesus Respected the Law of His day, and that Law was the Law He had given Moses (God in the Flesh)

He did address in very strong words the sins in the public square, very sharply with words of admonition and warning of the wrath to come.

Against all sinners, religious or otherwise.

Matthew 23:33 -
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Mick
I know this may hard for you to understand, but your TV and radio both come with controls that allow you to change the channel and another to turn off the power. And as I pointed out before there is no requirement you have either a TV, radio or access to the Internet.

Why...
fine broadcasters for something THEY did not deliberately do? If you believe in this FCC must "protect" us from the bad guys crud then wouldn't it naturally follow that any any "rules" to "protect" us would naturally follow the programming over which broadcasters have total control?

This article smacks of advocation of Russian styled censorship. No right minded conservative or libertarian would buy into this claptrap.

The best thing to come out of this ruling is that parents have been put on notice that they had better stop using the TV as a babysitter.

Further---
If you can't find the off button on your TV, unplug it!
I will "protect" myself and my kids; I don't want the government's "protection", thank you.
If the author got his way, the next avenue of "protection" would be the censorship of books and film. Maybe even the author's articles.
It was a female breast for goodness sake! Grow up!

I'm dismayed that this article was even considered as worthy of circulation/publication.

They are
"Since broadcast TV is considered part of the publicly-owned airwaves..."

But that was a Stalinist take over of the airwaves by the Imperial Federal Government in the 1920s and 1930s. I reject that premise that broadcast TV and radio are "public." Does the government provide the equipment? The staff to operate it? The land the station sits on? Did they pay for the satellites or for them to be launched? Do they pay for the talnet?

The claim was since that radio (and later tv) frequencies are finite they belong to the public. Land is finite too, so is your land public as well? It was simply a ruse for government to get its hands on the control of the airwaves--any good coup plotter knows you have to get control of the airwaves first thing. The US government is no different in this regard. And the US government has no more legitimate claim over the airwaves than any two bit coup plotter does.


Akagi
You wrote: I agree though that so-called "obscenity" is not protected, but even the most repressed person on the planet, even Brent Bozell who if you stuck a piece of coal up his...you know the rest...wouldn't argue that a human breast was obscene"

You can't even make an argument without making obscene statements.

Akagi
The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity laws enforced locally are constitutional.

Since broadcast TV is considered part of the publicly-owned airwaves, local communities have a right to say what can and cannot be broadcast.

The Democrat Party continues to push for the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively prohibit a privately-owned station from broadcasting what it wants.

Does this sound fair to you?

Yes it does
"Does this mean that you are against the Democrat Party's intention to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?"

I'd like to see the FCC abolished which means it is extinct which means it can no longer make regulations which means no "Fairness Doctrine."

No love for the Democratic Party either they are as anti-freedom as the GOP is.

Give Judges the Soprano treatment...
Not the wacking, I'm referring to the episode where Tony was to buy the lake front house and had to back out...the neighbor lawyer (worse scumbag than the Mafia man Tony) decided to hold Tony to his contract.

Jump to scene where the boat is just off shore in front of the lawyers house blaring music to the lawyers 'enjoyment'...

Take the same treatment to these judges. Put profane music in their front yard and turn it off when the cops arrive, turn it back on when they leave and make these god like judges know we are only complying with THEIR decision but we just wanted to assure them that first hand experience changes attitudes...hint hint.

I agree
Islam wouldn't much care for it either, but then Islam is a pretty repressed faith--I mean if there was a contest for what religion I wouldn't want to be a member of--Islam wins first prize, with Christianity coming in a close second.

Flashing their kids? You see more on a Girls Gone Wild advertisment than you saw during the Super Bowl.


Salt
Personally I don't favor laws against "obscenity" either which as Potter Stewart said in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio that he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it--that's the problem isn't it--that what is obscene to you may not be to me. I agree though that so-called "obscenity" is not protected, but even the most repressed person on the planet, even Brent Bozell who if you stuck a piece of coal up his...you know the rest...wouldn't argue that a human breast was obscene, well who knows seeing how he is maybe so.

But we aren't talking about obscenity laws are we? Like most of your kind using straw man arguments. The Internet is not regulated by the FCC--I could show Janet Jackson's breasts all day long with no reprecussions, obscenity on the Internet is still able to be prosecuted under US law correct? As are "obscene" videos and other forms of media? Right. Does the FCC have jurisdiction over viedo production? No. Extreme Associates was still prosecuted by the Federal Government for obscenity wasn't it? (See US v. Extreme Associates). Just because network TV was unregulated by the FCC as it should be things deemed obscene, child porn, etc could still be prosecuted. Just because the FCC was abolished and the stupid fines scrapped wouldn't make broadcast TV lawless--only a fool would think that. Yes, you'd hear F much more...oh my god..they said F..the end of civilization as we know it.


The FCC
Several of you have argued that the FCC has no right to dictate what may be broadcast.

Does this mean that you are against the Democrat Party's intention to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?

re: Akagi
What you don't know about Christianity is amazing. As to the subject at hand christians aren't the only ones that these kind of displays upset. The followers of Islam would have stoned both Jackson and Timberlake to death for what was pulled and probably executed any of the network execs that were involved as well. So climb off the high horse you don't belong there as you don't have the moral high ground on this one. In fact a majority of the world would have a problem with somebody flashing their kids in a sexual manner regardless of race, religion or gender.

Salt
"May a majority of parents band together and pass constitutionally based laws to protect their children from video beheadings and sex with goats?

Do parents have legislative rights in a democracy?"

Again. Tyranny of the majority. They though have the right to appeal of people not to watch such and appeal to advertisers not to support such and appeal to the owners of the station not to broadcast such, but to use the force of the government. No, they do not. You have no right to use the government to prevent me from seeing what I wish to see--which would say include sex with a goat and then a beheading.

The powers of government should be limited and telling broadcasters what their content should be is not one of those powers that a government legitimately should have. At one time conservatives believed in limited government, but that was before they were taken over like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers by the Theocratic Authoritarians and now they support big government just as the liberals do--they just want to use power of the state to crush freedoms they don't like which makes them little different from liberals--they both attack freedom just on different flanks.

Akaqi
Even though the Congress of the United States and all state legislators have passed obscenity laws that have been upheld by SCOTUS, you are saying...what?

Are you saying that the tyranny of one Akaqi overrides the Constitutional method os self-government?

Love to all.

Salt
"Is it ok if a majority of voters decide to limit certain expressions of sex and violence by legislation in a democratic manner?"

No, it is not. Heard of the term tyranny of the majority?

Christians can argue what they will, and as long as they don't try to use the force of the government to impose their goals, no problems with me. Preach about the evils of sex on TV all you want, but once you get the FCC involved on your behalf that is when you should be violently opposed by anyone who values freedom.

Should murder be kept off the airways? Not be government decree, but if the market decides murder is out of bounds. And there is nothing public about the "public" airwaves. That term simply a socialist buzzword put forward by the Imperial Federal Government so it could control the airwaves--in this regard the US is not unlike Stalin or Hitler or a host of other tyrants.

Jack and Akaqi
May a majority of parents band together and pass constitutionally based laws to protect their children from video beheadings and sex with goats?

Do parents have legislative rights in a democracy?

Love to all.

So TS
Christians make up only about 1/6 of the total world population so in your view (and many of your peers) your God will destroy 5/6th of his children as all men are his children right? Doesn't sound like a mericiful God to me, more like as Lt. Peter Marlow said in King Rat "...a vicious, sadistic maniac!"

talent scout
Jesus did not focus on sin and sinners in His ministry. I challenge anyone to find one passage of Scripture where Jesus gave sinners a hard time. He gave religious leaders a hard time. Why? Because the people looked to them for guidance on how to please God. The religious leaders kept trying to lay on laws and rules that they themselves could not keep instead of teaching the commandment upon which all others are based: love one another. (Funny how things have not changed very much.)

Jesus was so intent on showing love rather than teaching laws that He was accused of being a friend of prostitutes, tax collectors, and other sinners. He welcomed them. He ate with them (which was a social contract of acceptance in that culture). He instructed them by the presence and demonstration of His love.

What did He say to Zaccheus to cause him to stop stealing from other through his tax collection racket? “Today, I must stay at your house.” (Luke 19:5 NAS) The loving action of publicly accepting Zaccheus caused him to not only repent of his past actions, but to make restitution to all those he had wronged. Where was the preaching against crooked tax collectors that we would want to see? Where was the withering glance and pointing finger that we think are necessary for repentance? Where was the exposition of Scripture to prove that Zaccheus was, indeed, a sinner? Where was the program of church discipline designed to satisfy the church leaders that Zaccheus had truly repented and reformed? There was nothing but love. Jesus treated Zaccheus with infinite, eternal, unconditional love and it changed him. Our job is to let Christ show the same warm love through us to every human being – regardless of who they are, how they act or how they treat us.

Love to all.

Salt
"Is there anything that chidren should be shielded from?"

Up to their parents, for the most part

Yes Salt
"Is there anything that chidren should be shielded from?"

But that is your job as parents, not the government's job. And sorry I don't think a bare breast is going to harm anyone.

One fool in Texas (yes a member of the GOP of course) who was a member of the Texas GOP platform comittee wanted to force the government to cover up the bare breasted statues at Arlington National Cemetery.


Akaqi
Is it ok if a majority of voters decide to limit certain expressions of sex and violence by legislation in a democratic manner?

Is it ok to keep a video of a murder and dismemberment off the public airways?

Is it ok for Christians to argue for a loving society in which everyone's basic human worth is respected?

Love to all.

God not only leaves the Promise
For all men, He also has Promised a Curse.

Every man is his own judge as to which Promise of God he strives for.
For every man who strives for the Faith of Jesus Christ in righteousness, God has promised them Life.
He made another Promise as well, he has Promised death to all men who will not obey Him in the Path to Life.

The line is drawn, I will not be guilty of blurring the line God Himself has drawn between good and evil

Some of you support the wickedness of these reprobate sodomites who God is against.
The only hope for them is to keep the lines clear for their muddy and deviant minds in hope they can get a clear thought that I am not their problem, God is.

Just like this article declares:

Judges Favor The Profane

Some "christians" are favoring the profane themselves by not telling them they are full of evil and sin and headed for hell


Talent Scout the good Christian
Oh let me give you the entire quote.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Yes, not unlike you Talent Scout.

Doesn't your Bible say "Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1?

Doesn't your faith teach you to pray for the sinner. Not a very good follower of your faith now are we?

Sorry I musy do this...
Sorry, but I thought I'd get away from the name-calling festival for a moment and post a comment on the original subject of this thread.

There should never have been a fine against CBS for something that occurred outside of their control. I have seen nationally telecast college football games where the televised shot is of a field goal being attempted and you can see some guy dropping his pants and shooting a huge B.A. or "Moon Shot" at the camera from up in the largely empty end-zone seats and nobody got fined.
Aside from whatever your personal view is as to what is 'over the line', all television networks would have to stop all live broadcasts if they are held liable for the unexpected circumstances that may arise while televising live.
Okay, let's get back to the name-calling....

The curse of wimpy "christians"
Is the problem today, they are weak in the Faith, and give up ground that is sacred to reprobates and perverts.

The very substance of this article.
And the sick minded sexual deviants come on and speak their vile thoughts, and "Christians" support them and try and correct anyone who stands against the vile creatures.

Just as it takes real faith to win a crown, the opposite holds true for those who seek death, they earn it.

I am happy to allow them to win their crown of death, they insist on winning it, and I am instructed by the Lord to allow them their freedom to hell and destruction.

God is Good, and God has sent the Sword, Famine, War and destruction on all those who love death over life found in the true Faith of Jesus Christ.

There is a curse on every man who will soften the line between good and evil, cause you place yourself as trying to remove God's Landmarks for Boundary Lines.

There is no grey area with God, and He has left a curse on all men who will wimp out in facing wickedness and evil men.

Jeremiah 48:10 -
Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

There is only one hope for the wicked as there is for the righteous.
The truth of God
He never changes His judgment and hate for sin.
He is a Good God and gives all men free will to decide their own fate.

He that is is ignorant and mocks God, let him reap what he sows and die as the fool he is.
The Perfect Will of God

Anything?
Is there anything that chidren should be shielded from?

Love to all.

Salt
I find many things offensive--Christians who try to push their own beliefs on others by using the force of government for example. But since we all find different things offensive, if everything that offended everyone was abolished we'd have little left. Like the joke about Cuba where everyone can read but there is nothing worth reading. So in light of this, I say let the market decide. You can choose not to go to this or that movie, choose not to watch this or that show, or choose not to watch TV at all. There is no requirement for you to have a TV at all.

And yoshi:

Correct. You have these nutcases out there who have these cult organizations like the American Family Association (run by the nutcase Donald Wildmon) and the Family Research Council (run by the equally nutcase "Dr." Dobson). Everytime there is something like this they get their followers like the Myrmidons that they are to SPAM the FCC with complaints.

"Oh my god, I saw a breast...oh the humanity, but seeing a guy hit over the head with a folding chair on RAW Smackdown. No problems with that. I wonder what is the percentage of FRC and AFA members who live in trailers and watch WWE programming?




Forget about praying
eddie too writes:10:55 AM EST
Subject: talent scout, et al,

Mellor SJ knows where he stands. He knows he must repent and be saved before his self-loathing can be cured. Pray for him.
===
ts:
For that guy
There are some people who are marked for judgment already given as they have chosen the path for themselves and are their own judge.
Look on the fields, they are ready to reap.
Sorry, but your advice is contrary to the advice of the Apostle John.

1 John 5:16 - . There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Look it up is you doubt me.
sodomy is a sin unto death, I will not pray for it.
Wouldn't do any good anyway.
The Lord does not hear all prayers, but those according to His Will.
Not your will or mine, His Will.

Jeremiah 15:1 -
Then said the LORD unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.

He fits the bill for the above judgment and I let them go their own merry way and will never disobey the admonition of the Apostle John.

1 John 5:16 - . There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.


I will keep the line clear for me, you can do as you think best.


TS
"I do not argue with mellor or any of the reprobates."

Probably a wise move on your part since you don't usually have much of an argument. You'd just be digging your hole deeper and as we all know the first rule of holes is to stop digging.

Akaqi
I'm sorry you did not understand my posts.

I accept responsibility for not being clear.

Let me try again, "Is anything wrong with anything?"

Or, "Is there anything you think is offensive?"

Love to all.

talent scout
I see you are here too obsessed with sex again. When you are going to get help for that?

back on topic
"ruled in favor of shattering every barrier of decency on television. "

The court did not such thing. The court ruled that the FCC completely arbitrarily made this decision to fine CBS for a mistake. There is no "stattering of barriers" or other nonesense.

And the "record-breaking 540,000 complaints" is meaningless when 99% of those "complaints" are just people on the internet pressing a button to send an e-mail.

And Salt
We love all you theocratic authoritarians too. I'd rather be an adolescent than a t.a. You know if you don't like seeing breasts and the like, you may consider moving to Iran or Saudi Arabia--you don't see that too much.

As for the "its for the children." More damage to freedom has been done in their name since the dawn of time. A News flash for you all. Your 14-year olds know about sex and it is pretty naive to think teen oriented programming will not touch this subject. For younger kids, there is the Disney Channel you know.

Makes sense, except for
I do not argue with mellor or any of the reprobates.
I have my say and move on
====



Gandalf writes- 7:59 AM EST
Subject: talent scout
I hate to be the one to tell you this but your reaction to the perverted is not helpful; to you or to anyone else.
===
ts:
Helpful?
That's subjective judgment, the same judgment holds true in your saying "I hate to be the one"
I knew my post would cause crotch grabbing by the reprobates, I do it intentionally.
I intend to keep the line drawn and make it clear how different perverts are to sanity.
=====
Gandalf writes-
Perhaps that's part of the problem. You react instead of responding.
====
ts:
I have no problem, if there is one its all yours, from being too free with unasked for advice.
You have my permission to post your own thoughts, you do not have permission to tell me what to post.
Get it?

===
Gandalf writes-
Go back and study Jesus a bit more. He never reacted but He did respond and when He did He made it a point to address where the other was coming from more than what they said.
====
ts:
Jesus Christ is the one who defined the line of good and evil.
You do not know anything about Jesus Christ, obviously/
===
Gandalf writes-
Besides, you forget, if one has an argument with a fool, the fool only laughs and there is no quiet. (Prov. 29:9)
====
ts:
I forgot nothing
Read my first few sentences.



Hey anderson659
Get a life. Who cares if he is or is not a homosexual. You and Bozell worry too much about sex--not getting enough? The debate is over the FCC and the court squashing that stupid fine for the "Wardrobe malfunction." Not people's sexually.

And Tadpol:

Sure there are. You can just have your little darlings watch the Disney Channel and PBS for Kids--oh but Disney has that tramp "Hannah Montana" right, so I guess Disney is out for you too and Anderson wouldn't like Disney because the company is pro-gay.

Adult entertainment
Thalia Mara, dancer and dance educator, once said, "All this stuff they call adult entertainment is not adult at all. It is really adolescent."

To argue about what you can show or see or hear is childish.

Grown-up people in American society have generally agreed on what is suitable for public display, when there are children involved or in "mixed company".

There has historically been a recognition that there are things done, said or seen in private that are not helpful to society to be promoted in public.

Well balanced adults have been content to let the two spheres co-exist.

It has always been the adolescent mind that wants to push the envelope and blur the lines.

Love to all you adolescents out there.

talent scout, et al,

Mellor SJ knows where he stands. He knows he must repent and be saved before his self-loathing can be cured. Pray for him. He is not stupid. He is a slave to his unwillingness or his inability to control his passions. He speaks so strongly to try and repress his shame.

He is to be pitied more than bashed.

Oh and TS
Wishing people get AIDS? You in the same light as the fruitcake Savage who most recently said that kids with Autism should stop the act and calling them morons and brats. Oh and I bet you think yourself a Christian too. How Christ-like of you. Gandhi said "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians." You are typical TS of what he meant by that statement.

TS
Yes TS:

We attack idiots like Bozell. The question isn't why TH allows us, it is why TH still allows fools like him, LaRue and others have columns here.

It is quite simple really. There shouldn't be an FCC at all. This public ownership of the airwaves is pure tripe pushed by the Imperial Federal Government in the 1920s and 1930s so it could do what it couldn't do to the print media--control it. There are some like Ted Stevens (why are idiots like him always a member of the GOP?) who want to extent the power of the FCC to satellite and pay services like HBO, Sirius, etc. The only role a FCC should have is to insure that the stations don't interfere in the property rights of other stations--hijacking singnals, interference with signals, etc. But content? Let the market decide. There is something called the off button that comes with every TV sold in the US. The public doesn't own the airwaves. The stations buy the equipment, hires the staff to operate it, hires the talent, etc.--not the Imperial Federal Government. The content should be up to the station and it will thrive or fail based on how advertisers and the public at large view that content.

Bozell reminds me of a line from Good Morning, Vietnam when Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams) said to Sgt. Major Dickerson "You are in more dire need of a BJ (I am sure TH would censor it if I spelled it out) than any white man in history." Yep, that's Brent alright.

Thoughts for the day
Is there anything wrong with anything?

Why or why not?

How do we differentiate and who makes the determinations?

Love to all.

Judge Favors The Profane
Every summer kids see almost nude people on the beach. They see thier parents all the time accidently, part of growing up, the reson we have so much disease is because kids are are not informed as they should be, then when the homones kick, SEX, pregnantcy, disease. I would be more worried about the VIOLENCE and the discusting way most of those 500 thousand watch every day. GOD gave us SEX> he did not give us murder, violence, and crime IT should be taught from birth, then things such as f- word and a breast showing once in awhile or even more, has no consequences. Trouble is people like this author, if you get what you want. You'll be judging everyone. And then people like that hipocrite HAGARD, will still hide there affairs and stand on that pulpit judging. Hipocrites. THIS IS A FREE SOCIETY< and if you don't want your kids to see it, TAPE it first. I don't worry about stuppid stuff like that, I have no worry about my family. They have been taught decent morals and they have been taught about sex and the f- word, the Human body. I don't need no moral police deciding what I or my kids watch. I leave that to me. Its my responsibility. I don't watch the crime shows and teach my kids against violence and sex and diseases. KEEP YOUR MORAL POLICE FOR THE TREASONIST< MURDERING< LIAR< THIEF< in the WHITE HOUSE. I worry more about what that facist creep says and do then JANET JACKSONS BREAST

Mary
I'm sure that your 14 year old daughter will change the channel when teens talk about sex and clearly have engaged in it.

I'm sure your 12 year old son will change the channel when lots of cleavage is displayed and teen boys are idolized that engage in sex.

I'm all for freedom, but there should be basic channels that parents can be confident that sex will not be glamorized.

Isn't it odd that sugar cereals can't be advertised on channels with children's programming, but there are no restrictions on sex, nudity, and profanity?

It's not about you!
If anyone wishes to watch Janet Jackson topless, please do. The question is whether or not one is unwillingly subjected to it. I presume no one commenting would require that I view Ms. Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.

If I go into a topless bar I have a set of expectations. They are not the same expectations as when I go to church. Should one expect to see Ms. Jackson's breast in a Super Bowl half-time show? Are a parent's expectations of what their children should see to be completely discounted, even if you would wish your children to see?

Now that there is a 5 second broadcast delay, I presume those who wish to seem more of Ms. Jackson will be disappointed. Are we surprised?

Hmmm
"That last clause is a killer. Almost literally. I couldn't breathe from laughing."

Thanks for underscoring my point.

Ever watch ABC Family Channel?
One sampling - a show seemingly devoted to teen sex. Even a scene where a teen couple are at the house of the girl after the 'event', she in a robe, he putting his pants on. She begs him to stay because her mom is off working and won't be home for a while.

If we allow our children to watch this kind of filth we will continue to reduce the number of years they have of childhood.

Consequences? No talk of consequences - it's all fun and games. Sad, pathetic, and ultimately destructive.

This one's a keeper, Jack
"Anderson seesm obsessed with people admitting they are gay, whether they are or not."

Interesting how the primary claim on his web site is just how many offspring he has, and they have, in turn. I wonder why?

"Talent openly wishes death and suffering on others, from a Christian perspective of course."

That last clause is a killer. Almost literally. I couldn't breathe from laughing.

Nice job!

So Much Stupidity, So Little Time
First off, I'd like to thank Talent Scoput and Anderson for sticking to their principles. It's always helpful to someone so deluded serving as spokesperson for your ideological opponents. Anderson seesm obsessed with people admitting they are gay, whether they are or not. Talent openly wishes death and suffering on others, from a Christian perspective of course.

Secondly, it is wise to consider the law of unintended consequences. Specifically, the FEC, under Bush leadership, was attempting to "clean up" TV by dramatically icnreasing fines on decency violations. It was the level of the fine that provoked the court case. In effect, the effort to be more restrictive resulted in a loosening of restrictions. This has happened time and again. One of the key elements in the normalizing of porn was the attempt to criminalize Deep Throat back in teh 70's. The result was a ruling which standardized its acceptance.

And finally, the great majority of the 540,000 "complaints" were organized by the Family Research Council. Bozell knows this perfectly well; ignoring that fact is simply lieing by admission.

My children
See bare breats all the time, since I am currently nursing an infant. Give the GOP their way, and I could probably be locked up as a sex offender for feeding my baby in front of my toddler.

Honestly, breasts are really not a big deal, and I tend to think people who are horribly offended by the sight of a woman's breast have some serious psychological issues.

I am not a big fan of a government office of censorship, which is what Bozell wants the FCC to be. In a free country, let people freely decide what they consume.

And as an aside, does anyone else think that Bozell looks creepy? What would you do if a guy looking like that pulled up next to a playground in a van. Wouldn't you call the cops?

Just one more reason I am more scared of Bozell than I am of breasts.

A Nude Awakening
That was the title of a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue. That show STARTED with Amy Brenneman's buns on display followed in a month by Sherry Stringfield flashing her tush. On the Tonight Show she was asked about it and said "It's just a butt! It's not like we're going to go full male frontal."

They haven't and then they got nailed with a $1.43million FCC fine which stood for a long time. I think it has been lowered but not sure. The cause was a 15 second shot of Charlotte Ross getting ready for a shower and dropping her robe. She faced away from the camera most of the time. The "it's just a butt" argument worked but she turned sideways carefully blocking ANY frontal or pelvic view from the camera.

What THAT scened when Kim Delaney and Sharon Lawrence showed as much more than once got so much attention makes no sense. The viewers and the censors were WARNED in great big type that there would be occasional nudity. They even had Dennis (barf) Franz share a shower with Miss Lawrence just to show it wasn't a gimmick to get ratings. Even Will wouldn't watch THAT scene.

The language has coarsened a lot on USA with "Saving Grace", even more so this year. Ditto for "Blade: The Series". One Aussie vampire had the potty mouth record on TV till Saving Grace aired. Nothing new. Just keep it on cable and LATE at night.

-Ray

talent scout
I hate to be the one to tell you this but your reaction to the perverted is not helpful; to you or to anyone else.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. You react instead of responding.

Go back and study Jesus a bit more. He never reacted but He did respond and when He did He made it a point to address where the other was coming from more than what they said.

Besides, you forget, if one has an argument with a fool, the fool only laughs and there is no quiet. (Prov. 29:9)

AudiR10
I usually agree with you, but not this time.

How old are your children? Mine are grown, and I can tell you that you will not always be around to police what your children are exposed to, and if the whole world is watching, and being complacent, and only mom is saying this is not right, guess who the kids will imitate?

Mom will be labeled as square and out of touch with "reality". Kids will embrace the sordid, if only to be a part of society at large. Belonging is the most important thing in the world to kids.

As for broadcasters discovering why their audiences are shrinking; They KNOW WHY, and THEY DON’T CARE!! These pervs are a part of the anarchist movement to destroy America and if they ruin every descent thing in society and bankrupt themselves in the process, it's all worth it if it destroys America in the end.

AudiR10
Broadcast media is losing market share because of the proliferation of cable programs, not because the stuff doesn't sell. Our society has made its choice and is choosing trash over talent.

Teach your children right from wrong? How does one do that in a culture where the line has been removed?

How do you tell your children what's right and what's wrong if the culture no longer defends and supports it as it once did? All settled convictions have been and are being attacked and overthrown in favor of a libertine explosion of moral depravity. We can't even identify what is morally depraved any longer due to its incessant representation in every facet of our lives. They even use sex to sell breakfast cereal for crying out loud.

No, sorry, I disagree. There, at one time, was a reason we had a standard for upholding morality in the popular culture. Unfortunately, that day has passed.

My decision years ago to never bring children into this world is looking more and more prescient evryday.

Anderson...
You are such a poor, sad excuse for a human being. I realize that you are sick and obsessed and that nothing can change it.
Are you married? Yes? Then I pity the poor woman and may God protect her from your twisted mind.

You are on your own
Yes, indeed, we are on our own. We need no Nanny to slap that remote out of our hands and shriek NONO! at us when Nanny thinks we ought not to see what Nanny can view without harm.

So if you have children, teach them to be modest and to us proper language, and when crapola comes into view in books, movies, magazines, and daily life, to turn it off and close the magazine and roll their eyes and not laugh at the *jokes* ... and not buy the stuff.

Broadcast media of all sorts is losing audience hand over fist, and when somebody gets around to figuring out why, the people who are losing money will fix the problem. Until then, do you not have something better to do? Like, maybe, teach your children right from wrong?

LetsAllRelax
Look at his last post to me, just before this one.

He does not deny his homosexuality, again. All he does is issue his sputtering, spewing indignation at being outed. He can't deny his homosexuality and hold his head up in the homosexual community.

This militant has been challenged on more than one post as to his sexual preference and fraudulent postings. The statement that he is a homosexual posing as a stright male was made, in the open, and he was challenged.He did not deny it, or rebut it. Using a "wife" as a shield comment is lame.

Another home run. LetsAllRelax is outed. Another militant homosexual who tried hard to make everyone believe he is straight.

And he does not deny it. See how he makes threats because he is offended? This line is straight out of the homosexual militant manual.

Favoring the profane
Just go to Germany and turn on the television set and you'll see the future of American TV. Go to Europe and try to find a church that still preaches the Bible and you'll see where such public vileness leads. Ivegotatheoryaboutthat.com.

LetsAllRelax former straight poster
Truth hurts doesn't it? Hit the sweet spot didn't it?

You hate being outed. Just like Mellor, Alpha Omega, Du, Higene and the rest of you who come here to attack as straight males and were found out to be frauds.

And I noticed you DID NOT DENY ANY PART OF MY POST about you being a HOMOSEXUAL !!! In multiple posts. Another admission.

Forgot that part didn't you?, Slick, but not good enough.Flag the post as offensive, I hope you are banned for your fraud. It is high time that you and the rest of your fraudulent bunch are challenged for who you are.

Posting as straight males when all of you are militant homosexuals is not debate, it is fraud.

Flag this post offensive as well.

Anderson...
You can insult me with your filthy mouth all you wish, as I am here to defend myself but you WILL NOT insult my wife. I have flagged your last comment as offensive.

Now go and wash out your filthy mouth!

LetsAll Relax
Your wife undoubtedly is a he, or soon to be one. I hope he gets a kick out of them. Mellor coughed it up and admitted what he is. At least he can be respected for that small act of honesty. That is four of you,who have been outed as to the frauds you post. None of you can keep your stories straight. All of you are so militant you can't even pretend you are straight in a believeable fashion.

Too bad you continue to play the farce.

Everyone knows. It taints all of your comments and shows what your intentions are. Not debate, just attack and more attack.

Anderson...
You're weird!
I've e-mailed your stunningly intelligent comments about me being 'a queen' and a 'militant homosexual' to my wife in the office so they can all have a good laugh.
Man, you really are weird!

Grumpy...
...you just don't get it. We, the Bobs and Joes and Janes and Marys and John Does of America are not capable/awake/sensitive/intelligent/informed/educated enough to decide for ourselves. They have to decide for us.
They're the same ones who want to decide what we can read, what we can study, what we can say.
They're the ones who decide that a 18-year-old soldier can die for his country but isn't capable of drinking a beer without causing mayhem.

They are the American Taliban.

You're late here, pastor anderson
so I'll forgive you.

Me? Qu33r as a three-dollar bill.

Happy now?

Sigh
I can't imagine how the Right got a rep for being puritanical, repressed, sex-obsessed, and self-righteous, can you?

Sorry: I'm with you on about 85% of the issues, but there are some subjects on which the (partially) overlapping sets of Conservatives and the GOP are just totally whacko.

Anyway, in the end it will be the audience who decides what they do or do not find acceptable: sorta like a free marketplace, you know?

You don't think today's TV is suitable for children? I agree, but not over that silly Janet thing. How many TV rapes are there in an average week, I wonder? Ones that don't do anything as vile and evil as flash a nipple during their dramatic depictions of violence and terror?

Lets All Relax
Speaking of brain dead, glad you could join in .Another queen here to trash any form of reasonable debate.

Another militant homosexual posing as a straight poster in order to pass on the belief that somehow straights approve of homosexuals.

No debate, just attack.

So what posting judo do you have to offer? No a thing. Offer some so I can give it my shot.

MellorSJ2 And the other militant homos.
Glad you could make it. You and the other militant homosexuals are at it again.

Sad part about you Mellor is that out of your own group, you are the only one to not come out and admit you are a homosexual. Posters on Pragers column of July15th and Star Parker's column have all but said you are a militant homosexual activist,

Afraid to admit it? Ashamed? I think so.


Mellor...
your mother winces? Shame on her! And probably in public parks and restrooms.
(Thought I'd get that in before one of the brain-dead, who thinks it's a sexual per-version, gets to comment :-).

True, but I like ...
... to watch No Talent dance.

The things he says would make even his mother wince.


Mellor, there's no point...
in arguing with the brain dead.

I love you too, sweetie
And this sweet xian, No Talent, has the effrontery to call gay people perverts.

Remarkable. But hardly surprising.

Living on the bottom
Where you live mellor, there is no edge.
Just glad aids is not contagious in reading your screen name.

I have patience it will work out in the end for the joy of mankind.

Let aids have her perfect work in your life, is my best wishes

Deepest apologies, LetsAllRelax
I did indeed forget "or a breast-obsessed moralizer..."

What was I thinking?

Sent No Talent over the edge again
"You are such a disgusting pervert, a low life degenerate reprobate, I understand why aids is necessary"

Tee hee.

Talent Scout
Posters here will have to chase them out without help.

anderson659
Don't bother me what any of the reprobates have to say.
I am immune from the opinions of the idiots.
I just wonder why TH allows these morons on here who never have anything to say about an article but attack the persons who write them, or one like me.

None of them should be given a voice here as far as I am concerned, they STINK THE SITE UP with their despicable rantings at people,and never have anything to offer about subject matter.

They are filthy minded degenerates and prove it in every post.
If these degenerates are not stopped, they will make this site like democrat underground or some other site for idiots, morons and clowns

Talent scout
Stand by, MellorSj2 and whatever else he calls himself is part of a ring of militant homosexual posters.Give him a minute to e-mail his pals to come to his rescue and you will be attacked by the rest. LovelsEqual, Du, Will, Mary, Mike R and a few others.

And all they do is attack.

Never go to the German North Sea...
...Mr. Bozell, because there are dozens of open, family-friendly nudist beaches where it is illegal to wear bathing suits (to keep out the perverts).
My wife and her family (parents, two sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins) went there for years on their camping holidays and she didn't turn into a sexobsessedliberalpervert.

As Melor wrote:'...breasts are no big deal unless you're a thirteen-year-old boy... but missed adding '...or a breast-obsessed moralizer...'

mellor
You are such a disgusting pervert, a low life degenerate reprobate, I understand why aids is necessary

Silly No Talent
But I repeat myself.

The point, silly boy, is that breasts are no big deal unless you're a thirteen-year-old boy.

Oh.

In Europe, Africa, South America, Australia, and some parts of Asia, all you have to do is go to a beach and there they are. Forests of them.

good grief its a teat
good god does that really mean that nmuch to you. what the heck is wrong with you. its a womans breast. thats all,. they are not sodomizing
each other on television. what in the world is wwrong with w mentality that is that firghtened of a womans breast so that they want to punish the woman legally. your mother has them, as does your wife, if you have one,. even i havethem in a sslightly different configuration. so what? if you fine her fine her for puttiing on a lousey performance. but a womans brasts what in hell are you so afraid of. if wont bite,

How dumb can ya get?
Mary writes: 1:08 AM EST

I have an idea, let's let the market handle it. If you don't want trashy TV don't watch it - ratings will drop and it will be cancelled.
====
How many tuned in the Super Bowl to see a ti*?

Mary
Well said.

Still, it's interesting that the Small-Non-Interference-Government stance of the Right disappears when THEY want something government controlled, banned, regulated. They want their cake and eat it.

By the way, when did the American people hand the control of free-speech to the (government) minions of the FFC?

Let's get back to Individual Personal Responsibility (with capitals)...You think a program is trashy? The OFF button, folks, use it!

By the way. The Disney pays women in Bangladesh $1,50 a day to embroider the family-friendly t-shirts. So get hot about that!

But Mary!
That wouldn't be any fun!

Nor would it help bring out the "base" of gay-bashers and moralizers.

Let's hope TheEngineer's vision becomes a reality forthwith.

Justice has "one"?
Any attempt to have children to grow outside a sewer of feral depravity was disallowed when the SCOTUS found that a dancer shaking her privates in the face of a leering drunk is protected free speech.

I am not a total prude. I just believe pornography (not the unassuming term porno) belongs under the counter and available only to people who have reached the age of majority.

Show me a society which reached greatness while the citizenry wallowed in the most basic of pleasures. That wallowing has always come when the culture has reached a plateau of wealth and precededes its downfall. Check history and archeology and see if I am wrong.

Oh Heaven forbid...
the government's not there to protect me from trashy TV. Afterall, I don't know where the off button on the TV is located. I can't use reason to figure out what shows are appropriate for my children - that would be too taxing.

I have an idea, let's let the market handle it. If you don't want trashy TV don't watch it - ratings will drop and it will be cancelled.

More big government!!!
Well, why not? That's about all the GOP has left to offer these days.

I predict that next party alignment will be one of government size. The Democratic Party will be the party of big government, and will consist of the tax and spend crowd, the neocons (which is where they came from in the first place), and the big government evangelicals (like Bozo Bozell). This will be the party of Nancy Pelosi, Bozo, Bill Kristol, and George Bush.

The other major party (either the Republican Party or its replacement) will be the party of limited government, and will consist of small government folks who believe people don't need to be managed by government. This will be the party of Reagan (people like Ron Paul and Bob Barr).

"A Record-Breaking 540,000 Complaints"?
My, how pathetic can you be when you say that "a record 540,000" complaints were filed to the FCC? You're saying we have to listen to at least half the average audience of "WWE Smackdown" on the CW, the lowest-rated network of them all?

You seem to be only concerned about your radical socialist agenda of trying to control every faucet of entertainment for the sake of the pro-family elitists. Nothing will deter you, not even the truth. Apparently, like Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men", you can't handle the truth that a majority of American viewers thought that while the Justin Timberlake incident (as it should be properly labeled, as HE did the dirty deed) was in poor taste, no fine should be administered. Now, why should 90 million viewers being told by 540,000 elitists that we should only watch wholesome programming that they deem appropriate? Even your friend, Michael Medved, said that he loathes "The Lawrence Welk Show" and all its champagne bubbles.

Face it. It's over. You've lost the war. Maybe we can all live in peace now while I can watch NYPD Blue in all its naked glory. If you want to keep up this useless charade of accusing someone who tells a dirty joke as a libertine, well go on then. But nobody's going to follow you anymore. You have been vanquished. Justice has won. Good day, sir!

"A Record-Breaking 540,000 Complaints"?
My, how pathetic can you be when you say that "a record 540,000" complaints were filed to the FCC? You're saying we have to listen to at least half the average audience of "WWE Smackdown" on the CW, the lowest-rated network of them all?

You seem to be only concerned about your radical socialist agenda of trying to control every faucet of entertainment for the sake of the pro-family elitists. Nothing will deter you, not even the truth. Apparently, like Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men", you can't handle the truth that a majority of American viewers thought that while the Justin Timberlake incident (as it should be properly labeled, as HE did the dirty deed) was in poor taste, no fine should be administered. Now, why should 90 million viewers being told by 540,000 elitists that we should only watch wholesome programming that they deem appropriate? Even your friend, Michael Medved, said that he loathes "The Lawrence Welk Show" and all its champagne bubbles.

Face it. It's over. You've lost the war. Maybe we can all live in peace now while I can watch NYPD Blue in all its naked glory. If you want to keep up this useless charade of accusing someone who tells a dirty joke as a libertine, well go on then. But nobody's going to follow you anymore. You have been vanquished. Justice has one. Good day, sir!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.