In response to:

The Right to Decency

Tacitus X Wrote: Jul 17, 2012 7:19 PM
Who wants to force Trueman to watch anything, including material he views as indecent? Every television set I've seen comes equipped with a channel changer and an off switch. The problem comes when he want to prevent others from watching material they prefer. One wonders how many hours of "research" Trueman has spent cataloging "indecent" videos. Surely he and his supposed army of millions could produce their own cable network of devotional videos if they really wanted to view that instead.
tnorth Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 9:20 AM
Tactitus X, you clearly did not read the article before commenting. If you did, you'd see that Trueman hasn't claimed anyone is forcing him to watch anything. We not only have an absolute right to not watch indecency, we have an absolute right as homeowners to not even have access to it if we choose. And our buying and plugging in a TV doesn't invite indecency in. The Supreme Court found that the channel changer and on/off switch are not a viewer or listener's only recourse. The liberal mantra of "if you don't like it, turn it off" is incredibly mindless and tired. TV is not only for that small minority who want porn and indecency
Mag14 Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:09 AM
"To force the citizens of this country to put up with vulgar and indecent content in their homes and against their will...."
Mag14 Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 11:09 AM
btw, that's a libertarian known, those other guys who show up to vote for the Republican.
Reginald10 Wrote: Jul 18, 2012 2:34 PM
If I'm watching something which I can reasonably expect to be indecency-free, then the performer who interjects an unexpected indecency has invaded my privacy with a form of product tampering. And no, the Superbowl halftime show can not reasonably be expected to contain indecent material.

*Note - Morgan Bennett is a co-author.

The U. S. Supreme Court decision on broadcast indecency in FCC v. Fox Television, Inc. , (June 21, 2012) (“Fox II”), has reignited an important debate: whether TV networks have a right to distribute indecent material into our homes without our consent. The U. S. Congress prohibited such activity and the high Court upheld that prohibition decades ago. To obtain their licenses to broadcast, networks pledge to act in the “public interest,” but for years, they have abandoned that pledge to promote their own morbid interest in indecency.

After Fox, the Federal Communications...