
According to a March 9 article on adage.com, cable and satellite providers such as Comcast and DirecTV, are picking up their effort to boost sales through adult entertainment and the advertisements are expected to appear on more "male-heavy channels such as ESPN and Spike TV." Though the spots may run in the early morning hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., the mainstream media has largely failed to report this news.
USA Today was the only mainstream media outlet that ran the story from Advertising Age. To date, there has been no other mention in network news of the controversial content to air on non-adult-themed channels.
Television providers cite the cheap internet smut and DVD sales with a decrease in their pay-per-view pornography sales. "Five years ago, 90% of our business was DVD," admitted CEO of Digital Playground, a California-based adult studio, Ali Joone said. "This year it will probably be less than 60%. And a lot of the broadcasters, they're putting out the same material out that you can pay for by the minute on the internet. At that point, the consumer is like, ‘I can get this for pennies!'"
According to Joone, PPV is almost 100% profit. "90% of the revenue goes to cable operators," he said. "They have the lion's share of the profits." And while prices on subscription packages for DirecTV and Comcast continue to rise, pornography prices are dropping.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I did notice that.
March 10, 2009 - 14:22 ET by sherylsimsWe were watching some comedian on Comedy Central (at 8:00 pm) with our children (because they tend to bleep out the bad words for those... (our "children" are actually teenagers) and an ad came on for Girls Gone Wild and the commercial was porn. Both my husband and I fumbled for the clicker and switched the channel, but when we checked back again, the commercial was still going on. Made me mad because the content of the program was in no way equivalent to the content of that ad. ("pg" does not equal "xxx")
S'why I try not to watch
March 10, 2009 - 16:01 ET by Lord ElicaniS'why I try not to watch Comedy Central after about 7 pm, unless it's a show I really like. I'm the demographic those commercials shoot for (18-25 male), and I have no urge to see that crap.
I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
- Queensrÿche, "Revolution Calling"
Now that I think about it, I
March 10, 2009 - 17:01 ET by ApacheNow that I think about it, I haven't watched Comedy Central in over a month. When I hear a new SouthPark is on then I'll tune in. The Daily Show has completely given up comedy to provide snotty cover fire for Obama. Is "Chocolate News" still on? I liked Richard Alan Grier in "In Living Color" but his new show was too stupid and part of the premise seemed defeated once Obama got elected. Sarah Silverman's show is unwatchable. The cast actually wouldn't be that bad if they just replaced her. Some of the side stories could have been funny. I can only watch one redneck comedy tour a year. They need to bring back "tough crowd" and fire Stewart now that he is irrelevant and I might start watching again.
Only show I'll really watch
March 10, 2009 - 17:23 ET by Lord ElicaniOnly show I'll really watch is Important Things with Demetri Martin. He's one of those rarities who is extremely funny without overdoing the filth and language.
I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
- Queensrÿche, "Revolution Calling"
I didn't know he had his own
March 10, 2009 - 18:46 ET by ApacheI didn't know he had his own show. I'll check that out. His standup special was good.
I'm not surprised. And quite
March 10, 2009 - 14:25 ET by eaglescout1998I'm not surprised. And quite frankly, I don't know what the big deal is. This can't be any worse than TV ads for phone sex or "all natural" male enhancement pills.
Actually eaglescout, the
March 10, 2009 - 14:58 ET by sherylsimsActually eaglescout, the one I saw was REALLY bad. It was naked girls kissing each other and making hip thrust motions on each other with just a teeny little bit over the nipples "censored". I would have been embarassed by it even if I had been alone when it came on.
I'm shocked. Btw, does
March 10, 2009 - 14:50 ET by ApacheI'm shocked. Btw, does anyone know how you set the DVR to record a commercial? lol
The porn industry has a dilemma. They like to cry about social and religious conservatives trying to restrict their exposure yet as their 'product' gains more acceptance they make less money. The supply out paces demand. Now you have internet sites giving away the supply for free. I'll bet in hindsight they enjoyed the fight with social conservatives more than they enjoy fighting for relevance.
From CPAC - gota read the fine print.
March 10, 2009 - 16:48 ET by nwahs*Rush Limbaugh: We don’t want to tell anybody how to live. That’s up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we’ll try to stop it — and make — but it’s a waste.
* Except in matters regarding porn or sexuality.In those cases we will tow the Evangelical line and tell you exactly how to live. Integrity is dependent on availability and only at participating family value candidates. MPG may vary.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nw... You just can't help
March 10, 2009 - 16:53 ET by bigtimernw...
You just can't help yourself, even here where Rush isn't even mentioned you can't stop with your hatred for Rush...talk about an obsession...you are taking the cake.
Great cherry picking
March 10, 2009 - 16:58 ET by cocodrieGreat cherry picking and misrepresentations there nwahs. Congratulations on your success.
Jesus Loves You
~Has Rush ever talked
March 10, 2009 - 17:06 ET by choselife3xAbout porn or sexuality on his show?
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Why yes he has.
March 10, 2009 - 17:53 ET by nwahsIn cause and effect context:
"If you look at these pictures, you cannot deny that there are elements of homoeroticism …I've seen things like this on American websites. You can find these if you have the passwords to these various porn sites, you can see things like this. And [Hughes'] point was maybe these kids—the soldiers, the guards, whoever, who are of a certain age group, who've grown up with access to this are simply acting out what they've seen on these websites or something, just for the fun of it, or maybe other reasons."
And in artistic context: "Remember the Mapplethorpe controversy, folks? Where we were -- it was
touring all over the country. We were told we -- we couldn't stop it
from being seen. We were told if people wanted to go see it, they
should see it. That this was art and we were in no position to judge."
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
~Are those
March 10, 2009 - 18:22 ET by choselife3xThe most vitriolic examples available? They don't seem all that inflammatory.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Sorry nwahs, but I think it
March 10, 2009 - 17:14 ET by mostlymoderateSorry nwahs, but I think it is in the publics interest to protect our children from sexual perversity until they are mature enough to handle it. I don't care what you do and I hope you don't care what I do but the fact remains, children are going to turn televisions on without their parents from time to time and broadcasters need to be held accountable for turning our children into little whores. The reasonable person does not expect to be barraged with low-quality, low-grade porn like Girls Gone Wild on Comedy Central at 7pm at nite. 11pm is a different story but 7pm is ridiculous.
Fair enough
March 10, 2009 - 17:37 ET by nwahsYou're in favor of government regulating television? I mean just to protect people from things they can't protect themselves from? Kind of like a body guard or caring nanny or like a caring big brother? Nothing intrusive, just to weed out the bad stuff? I mean you never know when a child might be watching, right? The government should make sure they don't channel surf - or even net surf? - into that , right?
That would be in what tenet of conservatism? Public interest?
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Television has always been
March 10, 2009 - 17:54 ET by mostlymoderateTelevision has always been regulated. Unfortunately, certain broadcasters push the limits too far. Why do you hate children? Why would anyone want to have children subjected to trash on television? If you want porn, go rent it nwahs or better yet, get a girlfriend. The real thing is much better.
I'm just rying to figure out ths new conservatism
March 10, 2009 - 18:02 ET by nwahsI don't hate children. I don't want a child to blow his head off at a friends house, but I don't want the government outlawing guns. If your children watch television without your permission, that your fault, not the governments fault or responsibility. Want them to regulate violent video games? Your child has a very good chance to stumble on to one of those. Obviously there's a new tenet in conservatism that makes a nanny state ok if it pertains to sex. It must have been in the fine print of the CPAC speech.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nw... I know you ignored
March 10, 2009 - 18:13 ET by bigtimernw...
I know you ignored my post, which is fine, but why did you feel the need to include Rush here like you did above?
Attention you need?
Because this isn't conservatism
March 10, 2009 - 18:28 ET by nwahsThis is dittoism, conservatism "as articulated by [Rush]." Conservatism isn't about creating a child proof nanny state. You want government to increase its regulation on television content?Than how in the world can you honestly argue against the Fairness Doctrine? Its the same thing - government censorship.I know, this is different, this is porn. Well if it was actual porn, its already outlawed from being on television. If its an individuals or groups idea of porn, its a call for censorship. Believe it or not, some people actually consider Hannity hate speech. They should not have the right to censor it.
I had to quote Rush because you're going to find this tenet in dittoism (the public good?) not conservatism. I didn't ignore your post, it seemed more like a statement than a question.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nw... There was no reason
March 10, 2009 - 18:51 ET by bigtimernw...
There was no reason to mention Rush here like you did right off, it was an attention getter...and you succeeded, I'll give you that.
I'm not interested in who kicks whose butt here on this site...that gets old, I was just curious, you answered the best you could, but I'm not stupid, I know why you did this.
Carry on with others, got to get dinner in the oven.
Oh, I see
March 10, 2009 - 18:15 ET by BlondeSo you think it is not unreasonable to watch a family oriented show at 7:00 p.m. and to see a porn commercial like "Girls Gone Wild"?
That about cover it?
You liberals are all so excercised about the FCC and the "Fairness Doctrine".....I think it's reasonable to expect porn-free content on non-premium cable channels, and broadcast channels, before 11:00 p.m.
Guess that's just too much common sense for a liberal, though.
Carry on...bassackwards.
I hope he fails, too.
tagged
March 10, 2009 - 18:36 ET by nwahsYou're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
While you have so far
March 10, 2009 - 18:53 ET by ApacheWhile you have so far failed to connect this to Rush in any meaningful way, I do think that if Comedy Central or other cable networks want to alienate a percentage of it's audience than that is their choice.
Apache... I Second that.
March 10, 2009 - 19:05 ET by bigtimerApache...
I Second that.
They are public
March 10, 2009 - 19:59 ET by cocodrieThey are public airwaves and the public has the right to restrict content.
The whole world of cable and satellite is available for "adult" content.
Why is it objectionable to reserve a place for family entertainment?
Jesus Loves You
It isn't objectionable to
March 10, 2009 - 20:19 ET by bigtimerIt isn't objectionable to me coco...but it is up to them and I want it to continue to be a private business, not govt. they are reaching in slowly but surely everywhere in my opinion.
Public airwaves...heck that seems to be a joke anymore.
Good evening BT
March 10, 2009 - 20:53 ET by cocodrieThe industry used to police themselves. If enough people quit watching they might change, but that's not likely.
Boycotts against advertisers don't normally succeed so the public has to go back to good morals. That's not likely either. There are some brands I don't buy because of principle. Even though it doesn't do any good, I feel better knowing they didn't get my nickle.
You're right about government control being a slippery slope but I think it is coming if the industry doesn't change. I believe it will be sorely abused.
Jesus Loves You
Remember what you said
March 10, 2009 - 20:57 ET by nwahs"They are public airwaves and the public has the right to restrict content."
Remember that logic when its used to silence talk radio.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
twisting again nwahs
March 10, 2009 - 21:06 ET by cocodrieI said THE PUBLIC, I did not say THE GOVERNMENT.
Jesus Loves You
You also said restrict
March 10, 2009 - 21:27 ET by nwahsYOU can't restrict the airwaves. Only the FCC can.
Slam dunk - BOO-YA
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Wrong again
March 10, 2009 - 21:36 ET by cocodrieThe broadcasters themselves are the main controllers of content. They restricted content by refusing air time to religious groups, political messages and some commercials.
The public can force broadcasters to police themselves by not supporting them. This is very unlikely to happen.
Jesus Loves You
You can nuance it all you like
March 10, 2009 - 21:40 ET by nwahsOnly one entity can restrict the airwaves. Its their job. The FCC.
As thunder claps in the east , Cocodrie, you are wrong.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
I'm glad to know
March 10, 2009 - 21:54 ET by cocodrieI'm glad to know that the FCC schedules the shows , commercials and approves the everyday workings of all the broadcast media.
I always wondered who decided to ban the budweiser frog commercials, blackball any mention of political party affiliation of democrat scoundrels and when to preempt programs.
If you don't think broadcasters decide their own content and commercials, you are beyond hope. Oh, I forgot, Present Obama gave you hope.
Jesus Loves You
But cable and satellite
March 10, 2009 - 23:37 ET by ApacheBut cable and satellite providers are not "public airwaves". I'm not even sure "public airwaves" should be considered "public airwaves" because they wouldn't be there in most cases if some private company hadn't put up an antenna and spent the money to broadcast a signal on it. The argument for considering them "public" is that anyone with a tv or radio can inadvertently pull the signal out of the air as they stumble across the channels. Not true with satellite or cable. You need to subscribe to the service. Which means its not "public".
Well if you read the quote
March 10, 2009 - 19:46 ET by nwahsHere's the quote: "We don’t want to tell anybody how to live. That’s up
to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you
want to ruin your life, we’ll try to stop it — and make — but it’s a
waste. "
Just take the first sentence. This thread and the sentiments therein, are in direct contradiction to that sentence. Seems to me you are telling the cable company or satellite company how to live their life and do their business. If the commercial was actual pornography as defined by law, it would be illegal to broadcast it in that circumstance. It wasn't porn as defined by law. Now this is why the second part of Rush's statement is more important than the first. This is the meat of the statement. "If you want to ruin your life, we’ll try to stop it — and make —" And make what? Laws? Who defines me "ruining my life" so you can stop me? What in the hell has that got to do with conservatism?
So someone decides to call something they don't like, porn, or "too violent," or "hate speech" and its quite alright to "try and stop it - and make-" And make what? A new regulation? A new nanny arm of government? And make what, Rush?
You won't agree. Hell would freeze over first. I fully expect "you're grasping at straws," "thats a strawman," "your brain is constipated with Cocodrie crab meat!" I don't expect you to agree. I didn't write this to change your mind. Thats not going to happen here. I wrote it because its my opinion- thats all .
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
nw... don't try they
March 10, 2009 - 19:52 ET by bigtimernw... Don't try the side-stepping BS...you inserted that quote here on a blog post that had zilch mention of Rush...who do you think you are fooling, some people that just now get here and won't read all of this from the start where I questioned you about injecting Rush here, even in a blog post that had nothing to do with him...at all.
Typical leftist spin...dodge and defend.
You are obsessed with your dislike for Rush...you should try to comprehend what he says instead of fighting him all the time, you are intelligent ...what a waste to not learn from him and maybe see the error of your ways... ;-)
Ideas, anyone?
March 10, 2009 - 19:58 ET by UnsaneJust curious...
Do you have any ideas other than hating Rush Limbaugh and constantly attacking him no matter what the subject?
"I'm disappointed in Newt G-------." - Unsane
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~We just don't
March 10, 2009 - 18:31 ET by choselife3xHave the television on when the children are awake.
I do think that wanting basic decency standards for broadcast stations during regular hours is not unreasonable. If you're going to argue freedom of speech, then by that reasoning you should be making a case for public nudity as well.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Yeah, and let's stop giving
March 10, 2009 - 19:46 ET by mostlymoderateYeah, and let's stop giving drunk college kids a fine when they are peeing in the park too. Freedom of Expression man!! Obama! WooHoo! ;)
chose
March 10, 2009 - 19:50 ET by shawn228from my understanding public nudity is illegal and nudity in your own home is legal.
Perhaps I might agree about the basic channels having some restrictions during certain hours, but correct me if I am wrong, you have to pay to have comedy central and cannot get it on the public airwaves.
He had my vote
hey shawn
March 10, 2009 - 20:08 ET by candanceYou know we have had this discussion about cable bundling in the past. As long as I have to buy Comedy Central just to have access to Fox News I don't feel sorry for advertising restrictions. If they don't like it they need to take it up with Comcast.
hey candance
March 10, 2009 - 20:12 ET by shawn228I feel the same way, except I don't feel sorry for the people that watch the commercials, if they don't like it, they can take it up with Comcast ;-)
He had my vote
An interesting fact
March 10, 2009 - 20:13 ET by UnsaneDid you know that there are many stretches of TX where eMpTyV (h/t to DT) is not broadcast, even on cable channels? Even though it is readily available, for instance, in my part of TX?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~Shawn
March 10, 2009 - 21:26 ET by choselife3xI was referring to broadcast television specifically. The stuff you don't pay for.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Huh?
March 10, 2009 - 20:10 ET by UnsaneThe "new conservatism"? Hardly.
You and shawn228 are in for heartbreak. What is a major function of society? Why, to set limits. And governments, being representative democracies, are reflective of societies.
Societies have these things that deeply bother you and others. They are called STANDARDS. People generally do not like to see sexual acts performed on TV so therefore they are proscribed.
And another reason is that, unlike you, I understand one of the great joys of childhood is to live without your mind cluttered by such adult concerns as the desire to reproduce, which is truly a double edged sword that can bring grief and sorrow just as easily as it can bring joy. Thus, I, and many in this society, have a STANDARD which states that maybe we shouldn't show explicit sexual behavior on TV. Because of children.
FYI, in my house, I was free to watch whatever I wanted - if the nudity wasn't excessive or it wasn't even faintly pornographic - it was fair game.
"I'm disappointed in Newt G-------." - Unsane
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The Obsessive Devotion
March 10, 2009 - 19:55 ET by UnsaneThe OBSESSIVE DEVOTION continues.
Maybe it is because you absolutely lack any ideas. Which is typical for a Leftist.
And quoting Newt G------- does not sway me. But then, I'm not the Leftist you are, who is ACHING for His Majesty The Shahinshah to succeed.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
p0rn can be blocked can't it?
March 10, 2009 - 18:22 ET by MotherI thought newer TV's have features that block certain adult content with a simple input code that can be turned off/on at any given time?
When I was growing up my mother thought the show "Three's Company" was perverted and she wouldn't allow my younger sister, brother and I to watch it but we'd find allllllll kinds of ways to sneak and watch it anyhow. Parental supervision is becoming harder for two parent working homes and more imperative than ever because of the 'loose' content being piped in via the telly.
Sex is natural and is nothing to be ashamed of between two consenting ADULTS.
Filmed p0rn is legal prostitution...no 'fenagling' a way around that one.
The other thing to
March 10, 2009 - 20:03 ET by sherylsimsThe other thing to consider here is, I can do everything in my power to keep MY OWN kids from watching porn, but it only takes one (or more) other kids who have parents who didn't succeed in keeping their kids from it to introduce it to my kids. It just gets more and more difficult to raise kids to be pure in this society.
Televsion as a Dumpster
March 10, 2009 - 21:30 ET by rexdraconimAn old mentor of mine once said that "televsion is like a garbage dumspter; you may indeed find a treasure there, but you are going to have to wade and paw through a lot of crap to find it." There are good programs, irreverent laughs, information and societal experience sharing (space launch, speeches, big game, etc.) to be had. On the other hand, there are the commercials, propaganda, inane content, sensationalism and misinformation to be had. My family and I do watch T.V., but my family and I are much more likely to select specific programs or films, and watch JUST what we planned to watch. We do not engage in hours upon hours of continuous T.V. If something unexpected comes up, we parents divert or explain. And as imperfect creatures, we are going to miss some stuff. We have to remember that 30 seconds is not going to undo what we have done if we did our job in the first place! Good habits can be just as hard to break as bad habits. Parents are the primary builders of good habits that their kids have!
Human beings, being such visual (and lazy at times) creatures, find television very attractive. It takes no effort at all to watch and a person can watch "successfully" without training. Just think how much more difficult it is to teach a child to read, compared to plopping them in front of the tube. Each year, we fight a battle (which as a country we are losing) between literacy and television, not only for our children but as we adults age as well.
Our family's children (age 20 down to 1 month old), have always been encouraged to read, play, perform chores, engage in musical and artist projects as a priority. They also watch and have watched T.V., supervised at home (although without a doubt they broke the rules. All kids do, it stands to reason we all did at one time because, well, odds are, we were all kids before, too) and of course they watch and watched unsupervised other places. You just hope that the work you put into parenting pays off in positive behaviors and choices. Maybe "hope" is the wrong word. I am not entirely sure what the word would be, but you parents out there understand. You "know" they will be okay. Have faith in your kids. When and if I have to bet between whether my kids or the government will make the right choice, I will take my kids, everytime.
As to regulation; a culture, nation, society does have to decide and regulate. The mechanisims of this include advertiser management, viewership, additional education, legislation and other means. What has to be decided is what those standards of regulation are to be. Is the majority always right? Do certain values transcend politics? We can find ourselves very close to the edge of too much regulation, just a step after too little. Do I think that a government is capable of making those decisions? That would depend upon the goverment. In the end though, I always believe that the individual has more power to change these things.
We all have the ultimate power, Divinely provided, to choose our path. Contact the cable provider, contact the networks, contact the advertisers that get lumped in the same time slot as the offending material (porn, propaganda, etc.) or turn off the tube!
Many of you will not like this next part. For that I am sorry, offense is not intended, just expression of my own point of view. I think the greatest problem concerning the T.V. is not the networks' or governments' fault. The greatest problem concerning our childrens' access and addiction to the GREAT GLASS ALTAR lies in their parents.
Are parents willing to pay attention to their kids, even after a hard day? Are they willing to forgo a measure of their own selfish desires to do the right thing? Where do you suppose that children learn most of their lessons, good and bad? When will we stop centering our nations lives around a piece of electronics? Do both parents REALLY have to have a job, or is it more of a want? It is a fantastic and amazing device, capable of much good, but like anything else, regulated or not, the individual can make choices to denigrate it. Or the individual can make good choices. Even with goverment regulation, in the end it comes down to the individual and their guidance from the Divine.
Bottom line: we as individuals will always have the only real power to regulate anything in our lives.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" - me
Excellent post
March 10, 2009 - 23:44 ET by shawn228Your right it should be parents responsiblity to monitor what our kids watch.
He had my vote
~yes it is
March 11, 2009 - 12:05 ET by choselife3xSo what would you do if there were no laws against public nudity and every time you left the house there was a high likelihood of your child being flashed? How would you handle it if a naked man strolled by your picnic table?
Basic standards of decency and courtesy do not equal censorship.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Censorship, Decency, Nudity
March 11, 2009 - 14:37 ET by rexdraconimWhile I did not mention a word about those matters, they certainly would be worth discussion on this topic and many others. I was pointing out that control of raising our children comes down to the parents. In the pursuit of this, I did say that part of a society's function is to set standards. I still think that decency and courtesy are taught in the home, not mandated and enforced by government.
We control T.V. content at many levels. Ultimately we are let down by the "democratic process" and the Tyranny of the Masses. The good news? The "OFF" switch is still in my hands, in my control, in my house. More good news: despite the thieving government, I still control the money I have. Even if the goverment someday REQUIRES us to watch certain programs and glue my eyes open, they can NEVER control a FREE mind either way. My intellect and faith can resist. If we raise our children strong, there is NO sin that can take from them their freedom, innocence or belief. If they are free, they and only they can ever choose to become slaves themselves.
It is already illegal to flash. Yet people still flash. if our picnic was flashed, I would be forced to remove my kids from the situation, laugh uproariously or subdue the perp for law enforcement, depending upon the exact circumstances. I don't think my kids would have their fragile little minds destroyed by it. We don't raise jello. We raise Free Citizens.
If it were, however, legal (based upon a majority ruling, in this our "democracy") my options of removal of children or laughing would still hold, with the likely additional option of facing the consequences for popping the perp one in the nose.
Laws do not stop the criminal. Citizens defending their liberties and sanctity, raising their kids appropriately stop criminals. The tolerance of society creates criminals. At this point in time in history, the government is more likely to defend the criminal than you. Yet, we as a society still do have standards of decency and courtesy, with or without the government's help. People disagree on what these are sometimes, but there are large segments of agreement as well. Despite the corruption in the world, most folks live quiet, law-abiding, decent lives. Do I think we are becoming more insane, less decent, more rude and generally more low-rent as a nation?
Yes. I unfortunately do think that. But that does not mean that we as individuals are doing these things?
Do you need the government to tell you not to murder, rape, steal etc? I don't and I am sure you don't either. Does the LAW stop a criminal? Nope. They still break the law. What we as a society can do is band together and help to smooth out standards and balance consequences.
For the record, I am opposed to public nudity. As I get older and the football weight moves south, so to speak, I am starting to be against personal nudity as well! :)
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" - me
~Rex
March 11, 2009 - 17:19 ET by choselife3xMy post was a response to shawn228. He's an enthusiastic porn fan.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
CL3X
March 11, 2009 - 17:39 ET by rexdraconimI thought you were responding to him, but just in case, I wanted to address your comment as well. All things lead to all other things, then back around again.
Although I will admit I was slow on the uptake on another thread concerning the existance of 2 "shawns". I mean it really got me grinding the old gears.
-nwahs- Shawn backwards...!
Sometimes I am a real doofus. Most of the time I do better than that. <<shaking my head>> But not this time...
I have been trying to figure out for awhile what the heck nwahs might mean. I have very much enjoyed all of you here. And I like how all three of you have responded to my post; pretty cool. Thanks. :)
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" - me
~I really like shawn228
March 11, 2009 - 17:59 ET by choselife3xI hope to wheedle him deeper and deeper into conservatism until the transformation is complete....
Anyway, his biggest issue with is with social conservatives. Shawn likes the weed and the smut. I'm trying to point out that basic public standards can be upheld without qualifying as 'censorship' or undue 'prudishness'. My husband can't even watch a football game with our children in the room thanks to things like Victoria's Secret commercials. I know Shawn will think that is incredibly 'prudish', but I don't think that women in barely there underwhere reclining in suggestive positions while licking their lips and leering is appropriate viewing material for children.
If you wouldn't dress that way or act like that in public, it shouldn't be on publicly broadcast stations. Save it for cable.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Preserve your sanity
March 11, 2009 - 18:22 ET by UnsaneIMHO, if you aren't supportive of legalizing public nudity and sex acts anywhere at any time, you are a prude and an evil oppressive dictator, in Shawn's eyes.
You will not wheedle him into conservatism. Toss in the towel now and save your sanity.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
aww thx chose
March 11, 2009 - 21:05 ET by shawn228".....women in barely there underwhere reclining in suggestive positions while licking their lips and leering....."
Don't all women do that? Don't ruin the fantasy for me. All joking aside, I believe in any personal freedom that does not affect anybody else.
Contrary to what another prudish poster that enjoys stalking me said, I don't believe anything goes anywhere anytime. I believe in protecting children, so I don't agree with public nudity unless it is in a designated spot.
He had my vote
~Shawn
March 11, 2009 - 21:13 ET by choselife3xDon't all women do that?
Not in public.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Television shows can be
March 11, 2009 - 21:15 ET by balboaTelevision shows can be reasonably avoided.
Personal responsibility
March 11, 2009 - 09:45 ET by nwahsI agree with your post, and am a firm believer in personal responsibility.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
How To Contradict Your Own Story...
March 10, 2009 - 23:20 ET by The7Sticks"...Though the spots may run in the early morning hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., ..."
And therein lies the contradiction. The FCC has made it clear that it's authority on broadcast indecency is limited to the hours of 6 am to 10 pm in all time zones. That means almost anything, that's not against the obscenity laws we have on the books, goes. And since these specific channels are on cable and sattelite, it's already out of the FCC's jurisdiction anyway. Where is the importance of this story if you have clearly contradicted the usage of the FCC's own rules and guidelines? Nobody expects a child to be awake at the hours of 2 am to 6 am. Only caffinated hypochondriacs (like me) are usually awake at that time (In my case usually working at home.)
through extreme measures
March 11, 2009 - 01:12 ET by katainkentand extraordinary technical advances... there is a device allowing us the ability to keep this information out of our homes.
Its called the "off" button.
some people don't know how to use the off button
March 11, 2009 - 01:31 ET by shawn228Some would rather ban something they find offensive, than let someone else enjoy it.
I am all for protecting kids and I understand the need to use common sense for advertising during family hours, but there are many folks that just want to remove shows they find immoral altogether, which in my opinon is every bit as bad as wanting the fairness doctrine to come back.
He had my vote
advocacy for personal responsibility
March 11, 2009 - 10:28 ET by katainkentshouldn't stop at the television.
~Nuthin but net, baby
March 11, 2009 - 11:51 ET by choselife3xNuthin but net.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
flagrant foul
March 11, 2009 - 21:07 ET by shawn228for bias ;-)
He had my vote
Well, yes. But as much as
March 11, 2009 - 10:50 ET by UnsaneWell, yes. But as much as it causes you extreme, intense, horrific pain, societies of all sorts have things called STANDARDS.
For instance, in Europe, it is not nudity and pornography they find offensive but violence, and their freedom of speech is not what it is here.
STANDARDS do exist, unfortunately.
And yes, that off button is a wonderful thing - I rarely use it myself, as the TV is usuallty off - but others who think it would be GREAT and WONDERFUL to have full-throttle pornography available of cable and elsewhere are the same people who get EXTREMELY ANGRY that anyone would, at the same moment they hit their off switches, would dare criticize what they view as crappy, disgusting entertainment.
The off button is great but people also need to learn to not be so absolutely enraged and indignant when programs come into criticism for all sorts of reasons.
"That's freedom of speech. That's democracy. That's the messy business we call 'the exchange of ideas and opinions'." - Rex Murphy, CBC, from 3 January 2008
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Just another example of how our republic is nearing its end
March 11, 2009 - 07:49 ET by JohnMcGrewWe're living in an age where Larry Flynt is regarded as a "protector of free speech", and Congress is about to impose some form of the "fairness doctrine". Porno starts are now openly lauded in the mainstream media, and Rush Limbaugh is labeled as threat that should be banned.
Have I taken crazy pills, or have I been transported into the anti-matter universe?