Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

Enoch wrote:
So, because the parent isn't there to watch the child the media should?



no, it's the medias responsibility to not show something that would scar a child. and if someone wants to make gross disgusting pointless s**t they can put it on the internet.

[Enoch]

The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote:
So, because the parent isn't there to watch the child the media should?



no, it's the medias responsibility to not show something that would scar a child. and if someone wants to make gross disgusting pointless s**t they can put it on the internet.

No, its the media's responsibility to put out programs or papers that will sell. If I own a television station, I am not there to make sure your kids don't see things you don't like. That is your job, and your "but parents can't be there 24/7" argument doesn't matter. 24/7 or not, it is the parents' job to monitor children, not the media's job to protect them.

[The Comrade]

Enoch wrote:

No, its the media's responsibility to put out programs or papers that will sell. If I own a television station, I am not there to make sure your kids don't see things you don't like. That is your job, and your "but parents can't be there 24/7" argument doesn't matter. 24/7 or not, it is the parents' job to monitor children, not the media's job to protect them.


it's the medias responsibility BY LAW to not show something deemed innapropriate(I.E. harmful to children).


and the fact that parents cannot watch their children 24/7 is very much relevent. a child cannot watch their child 24/7, in which case a corporation shouldn't be allowed to f**k with that childs head every single chance it gets.

[Enoch]

The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote:

No, its the media's responsibility to put out programs or papers that will sell. If I own a television station, I am not there to make sure your kids don't see things you don't like. That is your job, and your "but parents can't be there 24/7" argument doesn't matter. 24/7 or not, it is the parents' job to monitor children, not the media's job to protect them.


it's the medias responsibility BY LAW to not show something deemed innapropriate(I.E. harmful to children).


and the fact that parents cannot watch their children 24/7 is very much relevent. a child cannot watch their child 24/7, in which case a corporation shouldn't be allowed to f**k with that childs head every single chance it gets.

Just because it is law doesn't mean it is right. I'm sorry, but don't push parenting off on to a third party.

EDIT to add: If you can't be there to monitor your child, send them to a babysitter, have them stay with a friend of yours, or a relative. If you are so concerned that your child might see something wrong on TV or the internet or in a newspaper, have them stay with an adult you trust so they can't see those things.

[The Comrade]

Enoch wrote: Just because it is law doesn't mean it is right. I'm sorry, but don't push parenting off on to a third party.

A)censorship of foul language/nudity and gore isn't wrong.
B) pushing parenting onto a third party implies that parents aren't doing their jobs, when in reality the majority are.


Enoch wrote: EDIT to add: If you can't be there to monitor your child, send them to a babysitter, have them stay with a friend of yours, or a relative. If you are so concerned that your child might see something wrong on TV or the internet or in a newspaper, have them stay with an adult you trust so they can't see those things.


some people can't afford baby sitters. and your second and third solution is contradictory to
Enoch wrote: I'm sorry, but don't push parenting off on to a third party.

[Otacon]

You don't like pornography? Don't watch it. Don't like shows with profanity? Don't watch them. There should be absolutely no censorship. There are parental controls for a reason. Use them to prevent your children from watching shows that contain adult material. It's not the government's job to wipe your kid's ass, nor is it their job to parent your child.

[micfranklin]

Honestly, pretty much everybody on this forum agrees that censorship is useless.

[Protostar]

The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote: They should have the right, and I will blame the parents. As a media owner, I should have the right to put on my station or in my newspaper whatever I want. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you don't want your child to see it, get off your butt and be a parent. Don't let the computer or television be a babysitter.


parents cannot watch their children 24/7. and parents who try harm the child more then they help. it's called being a helicopter parent. and like i said, any 7 year old can get around any form of filter if they want to. it isn't hard.

No they can't. But they can institute measures that would make it difficult for the kid to access the TV. You could put a lock on the case or take the card out of the DirectTV receiver. My parents didn't do any of this. It was just known to me and my brother that we would received an ass kicking if we were caught looking at anything deemed inappropriate. If you have kids, its your responsiblity to ensure that they are kept inline, not anyone elses. YOUR kids, YOUR responsibility.

[micfranklin]

Protostar wrote: The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote: They should have the right, and I will blame the parents. As a media owner, I should have the right to put on my station or in my newspaper whatever I want. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. If you don't want your child to see it, get off your butt and be a parent. Don't let the computer or television be a babysitter.


parents cannot watch their children 24/7. and parents who try harm the child more then they help. it's called being a helicopter parent. and like i said, any 7 year old can get around any form of filter if they want to. it isn't hard.

No they can't. But they can institute measures that would make it difficult for the kid to access the TV. You could put a lock on the case or take the card out of the DirectTV receiver. My parents didn't do any of this. It was just known to me and my brother that we would received an ass kicking if we were caught looking at anything deemed inappropriate. If you have kids, its your responsiblity to ensure that they are kept inline, not anyone elses. YOUR kids, YOUR responsibility.

Or they could always not own a TV in the first place.

[The Grandmaster]

micfranklin wrote: I really don't know how censorship can be justified.

Me either Micfrank. It is the tool of fanatical prudes and uptight soccer moms who cannot sleep at night unless they know that other people are forced to live by their beliefs. It is the tool of sheep who know possibly two words in all their vocabulary, and those two words being “Children…chiiillllddddrrreeeennnn!” It’s all they ever say. It is very tiring. It is the tool of those who cannot accept personal accountability, and must call upon a higher power to do their thinking for them. That is all that it is, nothing more.

One time Winchester explained that the only time he advocates it is when something is shown that might be objectionable that no reasonable person would ever expect to see at a certain time. For example, you don’t expect for the camera to pan over and show two people having wild crazy sex during Sesame Street for instance. Shows that claim to be for a certain audience, I can see should be geared toward a certain audience. But for shows claiming to be for the mature, I say anything is fair game. Anything.

The rating system is good enough.

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote: I really don't know how censorship can be justified.

so things like this don't start polluting every form of media shown to the public.

What’s wrong with rotten.com? You don’t like it, don’t look at. Don’t forget the free market. Do you honestly think of that’s all NBC or ABS showed, advertisers would pay for space on their show? No. Like any other business, they would tank by not showing a quality product.

The Comrade wrote: why should people have to suffer so sick weirdos can put anything they want on television or any other form of media?

No one else has to suffer. It's called not watching it. Why is this so hard?
If you don't like a show, and I do...
Why do you have to watch it?

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:
Freedom of the press, anyone?

yes the press has a right to show necrophelia, scat porn, beastiality, and suicides by shotgun on mainstream media all they want. there shouldn't be any regulations at all.

Finally, we agree on something.
No I'm serious.

The Comrade wrote: apparently you're okay with children finding s**t like this?

1) Look outside, and around you. Is everyone a child? We're told as children to act grown up. Then as adults, we're supposed to live in a world padded all around for only children. How does that make sense?
2)Yes, they will be fine seeing that. If they dont' like it, they will just turn away.
3)This is the big one. If you don't want kids watching it...don't let your kids watch these shows. Wow. That was hard.

The Comrade wrote: and don't go and blame the parents.

Why? Can you answer me one question Comrade? How is it my responsibility to raise someone elses kids?

The Comrade wrote: considering i too was once a child i know that it's not hard at all to give your parents the slip on what you're doing.

If you can "give your parents the slip" like that, you can handle seeing a shotgun blast on TV. If not, oh well. Lesson learned.

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

I'll start by saying that the parents, as many have said, should be monitoring what the children watch, unless they want their child seeing that.

any seven year old knows how to bi-pass computer filters and television blockers.

This is an unwarranted assumption, and cannot be entered into the argument as evidence. I do not believe at all most 7 year olds can break a password set by the parent on a TV filter.

The Comrade wrote: and a parent cannot watch their child 24/7

That's not my problem. They will need to get rid of their TV then, and the child will not see these things. Thread over.

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote: But other than that, no I'm not okay with children seeing that.

yet you want to make it easier for them to access it?

Micfranklin looked like he made a mistake here. He is allowing you the premise that by virtue that it is harmful to children, he is not okay with it. I will not make this mistake. I will not concede either that it is always harmful to children, (because you haven’t demonstrated that it is), and even that if this objectionable content was harmful, it is still not relevant. Many things are harmful to children. So what? We don’t let them play with guns, or operate heavy machinery. It’s like saying since a kid could steal the keys from his parents, we’ll need to ban cars too. Don’t want little Jimmy wrecking and killing himself, now do we?

The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote:
So, because the parent isn't there to watch the child the media should?

no, it's the medias responsibility to not show something that would scar a child.

Says who?
And whoever said it, who care’s, what makes them right?

Is it the oven maker’s responsibly to make an oven that won’t burn a child? Or is it the parents responsibility not to let them use the oven?

The fact I could have used countless examples here shows that by your logic,

everything would be banned or censored.

The Comrade wrote: and if someone wants to make gross disgusting pointless s**t they can put it on the internet.

What about your arbitrary determination of what is gross, disgusting, and pointless makes it right?

The Comrade wrote: Enoch wrote:

No, its the media's responsibility to put out programs or papers that will sell. If I own a television station, I am not there to make sure your kids don't see things you don't like. That is your job, and your "but parents can't be there 24/7" argument doesn't matter. 24/7 or not, it is the parents' job to monitor children, not the media's job to protect them.

it's the medias responsibility BY LAW to not show something deemed innapropriate(I.E. harmful to children).

You are using a laws existence as justification for it’s correctness?
Don’t you see the problem with that?

The Comrade wrote: and the fact that parents cannot watch their children 24/7 is very much relevent. a child[Parent, you meant parent here.] cannot watch their child 24/7, in which case a corporation shouldn't be allowed to f**k with that childs head every single chance it gets.

If a parent is that concerned, I suggest they get rid of the TV then. It is, again, not my fault, if they cannot stop their own kids from watching TV. If Jimmy will see it at Timmy's house, well, don't let him go over to Timmy's house. And finally, there are things far more harmful that mere TV, yet we do not think of "censoring" them.

Do to the TV what you'd do with the table saw. Lock it away in the garage. But don't take s**t away from me if you can't control your kid.

[The Comrade]

Otacon wrote: You don't like pornography? Don't watch it. Don't like shows with profanity? Don't watch them. There should be absolutely no censorship. There are parental controls for a reason. Use them to prevent your children from watching shows that contain adult material. It's not the government's job to wipe your kid's ass, nor is it their job to parent your child.



yeah, you're right. no child on earth could learn how to push a few buttons to get around a filter.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

What’s wrong with rotten.com? You don’t like it, don’t look at. Don’t forget the free market. Do you honestly think of that’s all NBC or ABS showed, advertisers would pay for space on their show? No. Like any other business, they would tank by not showing a quality product.

who says a maintstream media corporation would show it?

new channels can be added.



The Grandmaster wrote: No one else has to suffer. It's called not watching it. Why is this so hard?
If you don't like a show, and I do...
Why do you have to watch it?

well as long as you don't see something for too long it's okay...


The Grandmaster wrote: 1) Look outside, and around you. Is everyone a child? We're told as children to act grown up. Then as adults, we're supposed to live in a world padded all around for only children. How does that make sense?
2)Yes, they will be fine seeing that. If they dont' like it, they will just turn away.
3)This is the big one. If you don't want kids watching it...don't let your kids watch these shows. Wow. That was hard.

it's hilarious how you assume children are total retards grandmaster.

a child can get around filters and blockers with ease. it's not difficult.

The Grandmaster wrote: Why? Can you answer me one question Comrade? How is it my responsibility to raise someone elses kids?

it isn't your responsibility. it's the corporations responsibility because of laws put forth by the government. and considering there isn't an outcry for these laws to be abolished they're perfectly a-ok.



The Grandmaster wrote: If you can "give your parents the slip" like that, you can handle seeing a shotgun blast on TV. If not, oh well. Lesson learned.

isn't it the kids that bring guns to school and commit gruesome murders usually the kids who were exsposed to all sorts of disturbing things?

why would you want to increase access to things like it?



The Grandmaster wrote: This is an unwarranted assumption, and cannot be entered into the argument as evidence. I do not believe at all most 7 year olds can break a password set by the parent on a TV filter.

okay. i was seven a short nine years ago. all of my friends, including me, could get around any of those things. it's a matter of pushing buttons or finding a website that bipasses firewallls. it isn't difficult.


The Grandmaster wrote: That's not my problem. They will need to get rid of their TV then, and the child will not see these things. Thread over.

indeed it isn't. because you don't control a television station.

The Grandmaster wrote: Micfranklin looked like he made a mistake here. He is allowing you the premise that by virtue that it is harmful to children, he is not okay with it. I will not make this mistake. I will not concede either that it is always harmful to children, (because you haven’t demonstrated that it is), and even that if this objectionable content was harmful, it is still not relevant. Many things are harmful to children. So what? We don’t let them play with guns, or operate heavy machinery. It’s like saying since a kid could steal the keys from his parents, we’ll need to ban cars too. Don’t want little Jimmy wrecking and killing himself, now do we?

nice hyperbole grandmaster.

The Grandmaster wrote: Says who?
And whoever said it, who care’s, what makes them right?

the government says so, and is supported by popular opinion.

The Grandmaster wrote: Is it the oven maker’s responsibly to make an oven that won’t burn a child? Or is it the parents responsibility not to let them use the oven?

The fact I could have used countless examples here shows that by your logic,

everything would be banned or censored.

i would say it's an ovenmakers responsibility to not make it easy for anyone to get burned.

much in the same sense that it's the responsibility for the media to put out something that isn't going to offend anyone.


The Grandmaster wrote: What about your arbitrary determination of what is gross, disgusting, and pointless makes it right?

dead bodies seem to be gross by a majority of people.

scat porn seems to be gross by a majority of people.

snuff films, torture, rape, etc etc etc seem to gross by the majority of people.
The Grandmaster wrote: You are using a laws existence as justification for it’s correctness?
Don’t you see the problem with that?

considering this is little opposition to that law i think it is right.

and don't use jim crow laws or any of it's contemporaries as an example. it's apples and oranges.

The Grandmaster wrote: If a parent is that concerned, I suggest they get rid of the TV then. It is, again, not my fault, if they cannot stop their own kids from watching TV. If Jimmy will see it at Timmy's house, well, don't let him go over to Timmy's house. And finally, there are things far more harmful that mere TV, yet we do not think of "censoring" them.

you're right, it's not your fault, because you don't own a media corporation.

The Grandmaster wrote: Do to the TV what you'd do with the table saw. Lock it away in the garage. But don't take s**t away from me if you can't control your kid.

do you feel your television programing is lacking because there isn't any form of filth on it?

[micfranklin]

So Comrade I ask you this: are you pro-censorship or anti-censorship?

[The Comrade]

micfranklin wrote: So Comrade I ask you this: are you pro-censorship or anti-censorship?

for




in which case you are going to respond with some hyperbole about the consitution and how i support an authoritarian government.

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote: So Comrade I ask you this: are you pro-censorship or anti-censorship?

for

in which case you are going to respond with some hyperbole about the consitution and how i support an authoritarian government.

I'm not gonna talk about you supporting authoritarian government...

today :wink:

But I will reiterate that censorship is not something I can ever support. I will also once again say that if one does not like what's on the TV or the radio then either change the channel or shut it off.

[The Comrade]

micfranklin wrote:

I'm not gonna talk about you supporting authoritarian government...

today :wink:

But I will reiterate that censorship is not something I can ever support. I will also once again say that if one does not like what's on the TV or the radio then either change the channel or shut it off.


and how does todays censorship impact you?

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote: So Comrade I ask you this: are you pro-censorship or anti-censorship?

for

in which case you are going to respond with some hyperbole about the consitution and how i support an authoritarian government.

Not really. I just think you are a prude, and pretty uptight.
We still get along most of the time though Comrade, so no big deal. *High fives* But yeah...pretty uptight dude.
How about porn, what do you think about porn?

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

Not really. I just think you are a prude, and pretty uptight.
We still get along most of the time though Comrade, so no big deal. *High fives* But yeah...pretty uptight dude.
How about porn, what do you think about porn?


i watch porn quite a bit. but it has it's place(the internet).


oh grandmaster...if only you knew me in real life...you wouldn't think i was uptight at all

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
What’s wrong with rotten.com? You don’t like it, don’t look at. Don’t forget the free market. Do you honestly think of that’s all NBC or ABS showed, advertisers would pay for space on their show? No. Like any other business, they would tank by not showing a quality product.

who says a maintstream media corporation would show it?

new channels can be added.

Perfectly fine solution. New channels can be added without censorship. If a station chooses not to show something, no problem. That isn’t censorship. That’s a business determining what they want their company to produce. If they want to show something that might hurt the feelings of a few uptight prudes however, be my guest. I think the rating system is fair warning for a person to choose whether or not he wants to see something.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No one else has to suffer. It's called not watching it. Why is this so hard?
If you don't like a show, and I do...
Why do you have to watch it?

well as long as you don't see something for too long it's okay...

Indeed. See, we can already find points of agreement.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: 1) Look outside, and around you. Is everyone a child? We're told as children to act grown up. Then as adults, we're supposed to live in a world padded all around for only children. How does that make sense?
2)Yes, they will be fine seeing that. If they dont' like it, they will just turn away.
3)This is the big one. If you don't want kids watching it...don't let your kids watch these shows. Wow. That was hard.

it's hilarious how you assume children are total retards grandmaster.

a child can get around filters and blockers with ease. it's not difficult.

I don’t think you really addressed my previous passage. I’m going to assume your are using parental controls on television as the parents only means of keeping children from seeing something that is supposed to be objectionable.

However, it simply is not the case that this is the only, or even the most effective way to keep your kid from watching something. How is he going to see it if the parents do not want him to? If he is old enough to drive to a friends house, then he is old enough to see the content anyway. Children in the age group that is supposed to be “harmed” by this content are supervised anyway. Keep the TV in the parents bedroom, locked away, or don’t have one if you’re that desperate. It’s just that easy. A parental lock doesn’t even have to come into play. If you catch them watching it anyway, that’s an ass-whipping. That’s how you show kids not to do something.

Where is all this “government raise my kids for me” coming from these days?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Why? Can you answer me one question Comrade? How is it my responsibility to raise someone elses kids?

it isn't your responsibility. it's the corporations responsibility because of laws put forth by the government.

Why is a law made by the goverment nessesarily a law that is right?

The Comrade wrote: and considering there isn't an outcry for these laws to be abolished they're perfectly a-ok.

Lots of people hate censorship laws. Look at this thread.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: If you can "give your parents the slip" like that, you can handle seeing a shotgun blast on TV. If not, oh well. Lesson learned.

isn't it the kids that bring guns to school and commit gruesome murders usually the kids who were exsposed to all sorts of disturbing things?

I don’t think that is a solid assumption. When something like that happens, they will bring it up if the kids were exposed to something gruesome when younger, but more often than not, it was an unrelated thing, like years of frustration, bullying, and many other factors. It would be misleading to generalize that lack of censorship is to blame.


The Comrade wrote: why would you want to increase access to things like it?

Because I want to see it.
If it’s there, I can see it, and you can choose not to.
If it’s not there, you can still not see it, but I can’t choose to.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: This is an unwarranted assumption, and cannot be entered into the argument as evidence. I do not believe at all most 7 year olds can break a password set by the parent on a TV filter.

okay. i was seven a short nine years ago. all of my friends, including me, could get around any of those things. it's a matter of pushing buttons or finding a website that bipasses firewallls. it isn't difficult.

Lock the computer and TV in the parent's room. Done.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: That's not my problem. They will need to get rid of their TV then, and the child will not see these things. Thread over.

indeed it isn't. because you don't control a television station.

Don't even know what you were doing ther. No TV, kid won't see it. Simple.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Micfranklin looked like he made a mistake here. He is allowing you the premise that by virtue that it is harmful to children, he is not okay with it. I will not make this mistake. I will not concede either that it is always harmful to children, (because you haven’t demonstrated that it is), and even that if this objectionable content was harmful, it is still not relevant. Many things are harmful to children. So what? We don’t let them play with guns, or operate heavy machinery. It’s like saying since a kid could steal the keys from his parents, we’ll need to ban cars too. Don’t want little Jimmy wrecking and killing himself, now do we?

nice hyperbole grandmaster.

Actually, a metaphor, and one you failed to address.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Says who?
And whoever said it, who care’s, what makes them right?

the government says so,

Do you really want to claim that if the government says something, it is right by virtue of the government saying it?

The Comrade wrote: and is supported by popular opinion.

Then why is there an overwhelming majority of people against censorship on this very forum? :wink:
Can you demonstrate an overall consensus? Or is this an unverified claim?


The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Is it the oven maker’s responsibly to make an oven that won’t burn a child? Or is it the parents responsibility not to let them use the oven?

The fact I could have used countless examples here shows that by your logic,

everything would be banned or censored.

i would say it's an ovenmakers responsibility to not make it easy for anyone to get burned.

The confusing thing is everything can be harmful. Why do people complain about TV, when it is no different than anything else?

And furthermore, you haven't shown me that a kid can be "harmed" by a television program anyway. If he sees something that bothers him, he'll stop watching.

The Comrade wrote: much in the same sense that it's the responsibility for the media to put out something that isn't going to offend anyone.

A philosopher once said, “The first amendment is not to protect what we want to hear.
It is to protect what we don’t want to hear.
It is not to protect the 50 people who agree.
It is to protect the one man who doesn’t.”

Do you know what would happen, if the media could not offend? There could be no freedom of speech. There is not such thing as a “Freedom not to be offended.” Guess what, you get over it. I have the freedom to say what I want. You don’t have to freedom to make sure I only say what you want to hear.

There could be no debate, there could be no progress, there could be no discussion, in real life, on TV, or on the internet, if their were a “freedom not to be offended.” The media bears no responsibility whatsoever to do what you propose. We got where we are today, because people had to be offended to get their. They will get over it.

Some might find the raunchy things in life not worthwhile. Some might say they do not need, nor merit, protection. But until you show me anywhere where it says I, as a United States Citizen, have the given right, to not be offended, you need to take back your claim.


The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: What about your arbitrary determination of what is gross, disgusting, and pointless makes it right?

dead bodies seem to be gross by a majority of people.

scat porn seems to be gross by a majority of people.

snuff films, torture, rape, etc etc etc seem to gross by the majority of people.

That isn't what I asked. I asked what makes "your" determination of what is gross correct?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: You are using a laws existence as justification for it’s correctness?
Don’t you see the problem with that?

considering this is little opposition to that law i think it is right.

Can you show me there is little opposition to the law? Evidence I have seen suggest many people hate it.

The Comrade wrote: and don't use jim crow laws or any of it's contemporaries as an example. it's apples and oranges.

You don’t want me to bring up Jim Crow laws because you know that ruins your position. You are afraid of that point, and don’t want to combat it. Jim Crow laws demonstrate a larger idea, which is applicable in all situations. That idea is that law does not determine what is right or what is wrong. They demonstrate that was “most” people believe, does not always justify something as being the best solution.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: If a parent is that concerned, I suggest they get rid of the TV then. It is, again, not my fault, if they cannot stop their own kids from watching TV. If Jimmy will see it at Timmy's house, well, don't let him go over to Timmy's house. And finally, there are things far more harmful that mere TV, yet we do not think of "censoring" them.

you're right, it's not your fault, because you don't own a media corporation.

But those of us who want to watch certain things cannot, because someone else claims they can't control their kids. This is bunk. And I don't agree that media has any responsibility to make sure no one is offended. History backs me up.

Do you really want a country where it is illegal to not offend another? Yes or no?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Do to the TV what you'd do with the table saw. Lock it away in the garage. But don't take s**t away from me if you can't control your kid.

do you feel your television programing is lacking because there isn't any form of filth on it?

Yes.

[micfranklin]

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

I'm not gonna talk about you supporting authoritarian government...

today :wink:

But I will reiterate that censorship is not something I can ever support. I will also once again say that if one does not like what's on the TV or the radio then either change the channel or shut it off.


and how does todays censorship impact you?

Well the damn "bleeps" irritate me, for one and screw up a lot of good TV. But also, there's a lot of things in the media that we don't get to hear about or see because of censorship.