View Full Version : The new Moral Majority is Rising
RawAlex
12-07-2004, 01:45 AM
http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlin...t_id=1000731656 (http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656)
One group accounts for 99.9% of the obscenity complaints made to the FCC for all issues outside of the Janet boob thing.
2400% increase in reports this year, which chairman Michael Powell used in front of congress as a reason to support tougher fines and actions from the FCC. What he either didn't know or failed to mention was that this one group basically is the ONLY source of complaints.
A concerted attack by a small but well funded group will dictate the obscenity landscape on broadcast TV and radio. Stunning.
Alex :salute: :salute: :salute:
(oh yeah, this isn't another american bashing thread. It's a polite reminder to those who vote and elected a conservative government as to what you get as a result)
Originally posted by RawAlex@Dec 6 2004, 10:46 PM
(oh yeah, this isn't another american bashing thread. It's a polite reminder to those who vote and elected a conservative government as to what you get as a result)
hahahaha. putting a disclaimer at the bottom of your posts.
So.. let me see if i have this right..
Instead of these parents actually taking control over what their kids are doing [and being parents] .. they are forcing their parental roles on us?
Does that about sum it up?
grimm
12-07-2004, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Dec 6 2004, 10:46 PM
http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlin...t_id=1000731656 (http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656)
One group accounts for 99.9% of the obscenity complaints made to the FCC for all issues outside of the Janet boob thing.
2400% increase in reports this year, which chairman Michael Powell used in front of congress as a reason to support tougher fines and actions from the FCC. What he either didn't know or failed to mention was that this one group basically is the ONLY source of complaints.
A concerted attack by a small but well funded group will dictate the obscenity landscape on broadcast TV and radio. Stunning.
Alex :salute: :salute: :salute:
(oh yeah, this isn't another american bashing thread. It's a polite reminder to those who vote and elected a conservative government as to what you get as a result)
i can live without janets saggy boobie:)
the FCC is what it is, it will not change.
I think Alex just wants to get rid of that pesky democracy where peoples voices are heard.
PornoDoggy
12-07-2004, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by JR@Dec 7 2004, 02:04 AM
I think Alex just wants to get rid of that pesky democracy where peoples voices are heard.
I'm having trouble understanding how you are arriving at that conclusion on the basis of what he posted.
I don't see Alex advocating the elimination of the FCC. I don't even see Alex suggesting that this group that allegedly is responsible for 99.9% of the complaints shouldn't be allowed to make them.
How, exactly, is democracy served if any special interest like this (allgeged) group is allowed to dominate the discussion?
Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 6 2004, 11:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 6 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@Dec 7 2004, 02:04 AM
I think Alex just wants to get rid of that pesky democracy where peoples voices are heard.
I'm having trouble understanding how you are arriving at that conclusion on the basis of what he posted.
I don't see Alex advocating the elimination of the FCC. I don't even see Alex suggesting that this group that allegedly is responsible for 99.9% of the complaints shouldn't be allowed to make them.
How, exactly, is democracy served if any special interest like this (allgeged) group is allowed to dominate the discussion?
[/b][/quote]
We have a system where people can voice their opinions and be heard. Welcome to it. They can get together and act within the law to influence government policy and legislation. Why do you feel thats wrong? EVERYONE has the choice to oppose them right? But we don't.
Just because one side is getting the result they want while the other side is sittting in their living room playing John Madden Football on PlayStation 2, drinking beer and smoking a joint, does not mean that there is a breakdown in the political system itself, or a conservative witchhunt. It means that those on the other side of the argument need to get off their ass... or suffer the consequences of their inaction.
It's a political system working just as it should.
Just because it's not working in the direction you want it to, does not mean it's broken. It's encouraging to see people speaking out to change something they feel is wrong... regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. Thats the form or representative government that so many fought and died for. Where are those against the FCC? They either don't care enough to do anything about it because they feel it does not affect them directly (my opinion) - or they are hapless idiots, brainwashed by the administration and particularly CNN who are making us all victems of a nazi-like Conservative conspiracy to strip our rights and freedoms away (the view of our paranoid friend in the north, and those who fall to the left of center)
Tom Lykis said it best
"why don't you get active and do something about the FCC"
..."because we target the exact demographic that is least likely to do anything about it"
Howard Stern faces that same problem as with everyone else directly affected by the FCC and their decisions, fines etc.
Winetalk.com
12-07-2004, 07:52 AM
If FCC was vigilant against sex on TV, the profits of porn industry would only rise.
This group is GOOD for business, the fuckers should pay for boobs on the Internet and not get them for free from public TV!
Long Live Censorship!
;-)))
JR,
You have to admit though, democracy or not, this individual group *IS* taking the piss.
I mean seriously, do they not have anything better to do than call up the FCC every time they hear or see something they dont like?
Remember now.. we arent talking about every now and again, we are talking about a group lodging 99.9% of complaints with the FCC, how many of those were upheld and how many werent? Better yet.. how much of OUR tax money was spent because of their actions?
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 04:53 AM
JR,
You have to admit though, democracy or not, this individual group *IS* taking the piss.
I mean seriously, do they not have anything better to do than call up the FCC every time they hear or see something they dont like?
Remember now.. we arent talking about every now and again, we are talking about a group lodging 99.9% of complaints with the FCC, how many of those were upheld and how many werent? Better yet.. how much of OUR tax money was spent because of their actions?
it was one group when clear channel took Stern off the air.
no one cared. there were no protests in the streets.
thats my point. the system works as it was designed to work. that same system allows for everyone to voice their opinion. when you are exploiting google to get higher PR... you are not concerned about fairness, you are concerned about getting results.
I dont agree that its a good thing. I am simply saying that people are to blame as well. had it not been for the apathy of the masses, they would be countered by an equal and opposite voice. however, there is none. most people don't care.
Originally posted by JR@Dec 7 2004, 04:59 AM
the system works as it was designed to work
Or perhaps 'allowed' to work would be a better example ;)
let me say it another way.
we have a political system that gives us equality of opportunity.
it does not guarantee equality of outcome.
whether that is fair on not depends solely on if you are taking in the ass... or benefitting from it.
Timon
12-07-2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by JR@Dec 7 2004, 08:02 AM
whether that is fair on not depends solely on if you are taking in the ass... or benefitting from it.
or both ;-)
Winetalk.com
12-07-2004, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Timon+Dec 7 2004, 08:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Timon @ Dec 7 2004, 08:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@Dec 7 2004, 08:02 AM
whether that is fair on not depends solely on if you are taking in the ass... or benefitting from it.
or both ;-) [/b][/quote]
why do I think of Alexander when I read this?
;_))
http://www.thesquealer.com/images/alex2.gif
Originally posted by JR@Dec 7 2004, 05:02 AM
it does not guarantee equality of outcome.
But dont you find something inherantly wrong with that irrespective of whether or not we, you or, i have had anything to do with the decision making process?
The FCC (in this instance) shouldnt be basing their decisions on one group but rather a wide reach, hell th whole Janet nipple slip incident was completely blown out of proportion imho. So some skank showed her nipple on national TV.. its no different in my view than most of the shit you see on MTV these days.
However, claiming something is 'wrong' without having some kind of formula that works other than antiquainted rules which seriously need to be re-written is just crazy, it benefits nobody in the end ultimately.
We'll be back in the dark ages if something isnt done soon.
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 07:53 AM
JR,
You have to admit though, democracy or not, this individual group *IS* taking the piss.
I mean seriously, do they not have anything better to do than call up the FCC every time they hear or see something they dont like?
Remember now.. we arent talking about every now and again, we are talking about a group lodging 99.9% of complaints with the FCC, how many of those were upheld and how many werent? Better yet.. how much of OUR tax money was spent because of their actions?
What would you, Alex or PD propose as an alternative? I wholeheartedly disagree with the group in question and everything they stand for but I don't disagree with their voicing their opinions. According to the PTC website, they have one million members. Do they deserve a voice?
Well, how about the "American Civil Liberties Union"? Don't they "dictate the standards" also? Hasn't the ACLU, an organized group of libertarians had an influence on american politics and standards well beyong their number of members? Wasn't it the ACLU that managed to get CDA and CDA II overturned?
How about the Rainbow Coalition? How about NOW?
What version of Democracy would permit one brand of special interest group to survive and not another?
Originally posted by Lee+Dec 7 2004, 05:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Dec 7 2004, 05:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@Dec 7 2004, 05:02 AM
it does not guarantee equality of outcome.
But dont you find something inherantly wrong with that irrespective of whether or not we, you or, i have had anything to do with the decision making process?
The FCC (in this instance) shouldnt be basing their decisions on one group but rather a wide reach, hell th whole Janet nipple slip incident was completely blown out of proportion imho. So some skank showed her nipple on national TV.. its no different in my view than most of the shit you see on MTV these days.
However, claiming something is 'wrong' without having some kind of formula that works other than antiquainted rules which seriously need to be re-written is just crazy, it benefits nobody in the end ultimately.
We'll be back in the dark ages if something isnt done soon. [/b][/quote]
now you are arguing my point exactly.
you are arguing that the system itself needs to be under examination. i think its stupid to argue that those exploiting it are wrong.
thats the epitomy of ignorance in political threads that are basically arguing that "things would only be better if ABC was not president" or if "Party ABC was in power". i don't believe in people. our system of government was not set up to place faith and trust in people. in fact, it was set up with the exact opposite intent.. to keep people in check through an elaborate system of checks and balances. i believe in the system of checks and balances that keeps everything more or less in the center, more or less all of the time.
if you think what is happening is unfair... what do you do about it? complain about the religious right which will never go away... complain about conservatives which will never go away... or argue that the FCC and its arbitrary rules and decisions need to be re-thought? what would be the most realistic position if your true concern was fairness?
What would you, Alex or PD propose as an alternative? I wholeheartedly disagree with the group in question and everything they stand for but I don't disagree with their voicing their opinions. According to the PTC website, they have one million members. Do they deserve a voice?
I dont disagree they shouldnt be allowed to voice their opinions / concerns either however, voicing their opinion / concerns and blatently abusing the system are two different matters all together. Its like comparing apples and oranges.
The group in question are obviously tying to force their views on others through the FCC by applying [as i already mentioned] antiquainted standards.
For one of the free-est (is that a word?) countries in the world, there is a hell of a lot of shit we can do, say, watch in the US.
What version of Democracy would permit one brand of special interest group to survive and not another?
No version would however, at the same time, the version we have now obviously isnt working like it should.
Dont get me wrong im dfinately NOT saying focus groups shouldnt have their say. Im saying when it comes to focus groups creating 99.9% of a workload that costs the tax payer money.. thats when something needs to be done about it. Its abuse of the system, nothing more, nothing less.
Originally posted by JR@Dec 7 2004, 05:17 AM
what would be the most realistic position if your true concern was fairness?
Re-write the rule book and not just for this stuff in this instance, from what i can tell [im no expert by any means] but there are a shitload of laws that serve nothing more than being used as leverage when it suits either side of a specific arument.
Originally posted by Colin@Dec 7 2004, 05:10 AM
What version of Democracy would permit one brand of special interest group to survive and not another?
i can answer that. they would support the version of democracy where they agreed with all the decisions all the time. unfortuneately it only exists in the utopian pardise known as the land of the happyt unicorns. you need to be blessed with the special gift of make believe to go there. apparently, we "just don't get it"
:(
Originally posted by Lee+Dec 7 2004, 05:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Dec 7 2004, 05:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@Dec 7 2004, 05:17 AM
what would be the most realistic position if your true concern was fairness?
Re-write the rule book and not just for this stuff in this instance, from what i can tell [im no expert by any means] but there are a shitload of laws that serve nothing more than being used as leverage when it suits either side of a specific arument. [/b][/quote]
then i agree with you 100%. its not really about Christians, Conservatives, Bush or Democrats. its about a group of people sucessfully exploiting a flawed system to their advantage. good for them. if i believed in their cause, i would be doing the same thing... because i would be focused on results. living in fear of everyone who does not think like you (i.e. a political party) and believing that everytime they are in power (while knowing they will be 50% of the time), that you need to sleep with one eye open, is borderline insane in my opinion.
RawAlex
12-07-2004, 08:27 AM
Colin, the system itself isn't defective. People should have the right to voice an opinion.
I have a problem with organized groups that attempt to abuse systems in order to effect change. If these are truly "moral" people, they would not be watching a "cheating spouses" show to start with. I suspect that in the 1 million members, less than 1% of them actually watch the shows that they complain about. As mentioned in the article, once the FCC starts removing compaints from people who "just heard about the bad thing", the numbers drop very quickly.
Organized campaigns don't require original thought from the complainers: Just go here, click on this link, and a premade complaint will be formed up and sent to the FCC. That isn't complaining, that is just clicking buttons.
It's the old rule from prize drawings: hand written entries only, no mechanical reproductions. What the PTC does is the equivilant of stuffing the drawing bin. Their members are not expressing their PERSONAL outrage at something, just towing the group line.
I would suspect that if they went further and investigated, they would find that the submitting IP address on many of these was the same, I wouldn't put it past a group like this to have a system automatically send 1 complaint for each member automatically.
Does that 2400% increase in complaints mean that any more people were TRULY offended by what they INDIVIDUALLY saw on tv? I don't think so. Michael Powell, in presenting these raw numbers to congress may have attempted to use this as justification for some very agressive actions where less over the top fines were not normally justified. I applaud fox for taking this one man censorship committee to task in the courts.
Alex
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 08:17 AM
No version would however, at the same time, the version we have now obviously isnt working like it should.
I strongly disagree. I think it's working exactly as it should. After the Janet Jackson incident, a nationwide debate ensued. An international debate in some ways. There were op-ed pieces debating each side of the controversy. These debates occured in American newspapers, magazines, radio and TV talk shows and on the internet. T
There were fines and now there are appeals to a court of law.
So one group has dominated the obscenity complaints. An American writer discovers and criticizes this. The article and contents of the story are picked up by many other American media sources.
How is this not the democratic process?
RawAlex
12-07-2004, 08:37 AM
Okay, found their website, and here is an example of what people have to do to complain online (Heck, you can do it too!)
http://capwiz.com/parentstv/mail/oneclick_...alertid=6509896 (http://capwiz.com/parentstv/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6509896)
That's it. Go to the website, click SEND and you just complained.
Man, that takes a whole pile of moral outrage to do. You have to be offended to the max to complain to the FCC about it.
YEAH RIGHT.
Alex
Timon
12-07-2004, 08:41 AM
I think it's fair to say that so far only Serge and I have contributed to this thread...
The rest of you are going to have to try harder!
Jesse_DD
12-07-2004, 08:49 AM
Hey - Let me be the one to blame the Christians -
WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY (Just speaking to the US cohorts)
WHERE 79% OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH!
Coincidence - I think not :D
Winetalk.com
12-07-2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Timon@Dec 7 2004, 08:42 AM
I think it's fair to say that so far only Serge and I have contributed to this thread...
The rest of you are going to have to try harder!
I concur!
;-)))
Originally posted by Colin+Dec 7 2004, 05:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 7 2004, 05:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 7 2004, 08:17 AM
No version would however, at the same time, the version we have now obviously isnt working like it should.
I strongly disagree. I think it's working exactly as it should. After the Janet Jackson incident, a nationwide debate ensued. An international debate in some ways. There were op-ed pieces debating each side of the controversy. These debates occured in American newspapers, magazines, radio and TV talk shows and on the internet. T
There were fines and now there are appeals to a court of law.
So one group has dominated the obscenity complaints. An American writer discovers and criticizes this. The article and contents of the story are picked up by many other American media sources.
How is this not the democratic process? [/b][/quote]
Colin, no offece to you dude but do you really think the whole nipple incident was done for any reason other than marketing?
If it had happened during any other performance or event than the Superbowl do you think it would have received as much attention as it did?
The whole thing was a well planned and well thought out marketing ploy for one or all of the parties involved including the Superbowl.
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Dec 7 2004, 08:28 AM
I have a problem with organized groups that attempt to abuse systems in order to effect change. ...Organized campaigns don't require original thought from the complainers: Just go here, click on this link, and a premade complaint will be formed up and sent to the FCC. That isn't complaining, that is just clicking buttons.
On the ACLU website you can send a letter to your senator "Urging the Administration to Release all Torture-Related Documents " with two clicks. The letter is pre-written. You can also oppose a Federal Marriage Amendment or oppose changes to immigration law.
Now I think if you feel strongly about such a thing you should go ahead and click those buttons. If people feel strongly opposed they should organize opposing websites
How long would slavery have lasted in the world without all the various abolitionist groups and efforts? How would women's suffrage have ever happened in the western world without such groups? Sure, 90% of the participant weren't involved in "original thought". Sure, they parroted the slogans of the women's rights movement or the abolitionist movement.
But these were democratic processes just the same as the ones under discussion.
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 08:50 AM
Colin, no offece to you dude but do you really think the whole nipple incident was done for any reason other than marketing?
If it had happened during any other performance or event than the Superbowl do you think it would have received as much attention as it did?
The whole thing was a well planned and well thought out marketing ploy for one or all of the parties involved including the Superbowl.
Where did I say ANYTHING about the motivation of those involved?
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Dec 7 2004, 08:38 AM
Okay, found their website, and here is an example of what people have to do to complain online (Heck, you can do it too!)
http://capwiz.com/parentstv/mail/oneclick_...alertid=6509896 (http://capwiz.com/parentstv/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6509896)
That's it. Go to the website, click SEND and you just complained.
Man, that takes a whole pile of moral outrage to do. You have to be offended to the max to complain to the FCC about it.
YEAH RIGHT.
Alex
Yeah? Here are some more.
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/Natio...?ID=17083&c=108 (http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=17083&c=108)
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/Lesbi...m?ID=16841&c=23 (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16841&c=23)
What's wrong with it?
Originally posted by Colin+Dec 7 2004, 06:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 7 2004, 06:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 7 2004, 08:50 AM
Colin, no offece to you dude but do you really think the whole nipple incident was done for any reason other than marketing?
If it had happened during any other performance or event than the Superbowl do you think it would have received as much attention as it did?
The whole thing was a well planned and well thought out marketing ploy for one or all of the parties involved including the Superbowl.
Where did I say ANYTHING about the motivation of those involved? [/b][/quote]
I kinda read between the lines, i probably shouldnt have done.
But it still doesnt change the fact that the whole 'Janet' incident is another reason why the current system doesnt work... As it should.
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 09:07 AM
But it still doesnt change the fact that the whole 'Janet' incident is another reason why the current system doesnt work... As it should.
Please respond to my reply then. I still don't know in what way you are saying the current version of Democracy doesn't work. It's not like we're making her drink hemlock.
Originally posted by Colin+Dec 7 2004, 06:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 7 2004, 06:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 7 2004, 09:07 AM
But it still doesnt change the fact that the whole 'Janet' incident is another reason why the current system doesnt work... As it should.
Please respond to my reply then. I still don't know in what way you are saying the current version of Democracy doesn't work. It's not like we're making her drink hemlock. [/b][/quote]
It doesnt work because it can be manipulated.
A true democracy shouldnt be able to be manipulated in the manner in which democracy in the US works.
It just seems to me like if you have more, money, power, than the other side you get your way irrespective of what the ultimate 'prize' at the time is.
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 09:22 AM
It doesnt work because it can be manipulated.
A true democracy shouldnt be able to be manipulated in the manner in which democracy in the US works.
How would your ideal Democracy work? Is there an example from history of where it has "worked" in your opinion?
Originally posted by Colin+Dec 7 2004, 06:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 7 2004, 06:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 7 2004, 09:22 AM
It doesnt work because it can be manipulated.
A true democracy shouldnt be able to be manipulated in the manner in which democracy in the US works.
How would your ideal Democracy work? Is there an example from history of where it has "worked" in your opinion? [/b][/quote]
You know i honestly havent thought about it in that much depth.
We seem to have wandered so far off the original topic its unreal lol
Timon
12-07-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 7 2004, 09:30 AM
We seem to have wandered so far off the original topic its unreal lol
Yeah let's get back to the taking it in the ass and benefitting part, that's the only interesting thing so far ;-)
Almighty Colin
12-07-2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Timon+Dec 7 2004, 09:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Timon @ Dec 7 2004, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 7 2004, 09:30 AM
We seem to have wandered so far off the original topic its unreal lol
Yeah let's get back to the taking it in the ass and benefitting part, that's the only interesting thing so far ;-) [/b][/quote]
Wrong thread, Timon.
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=14865
Mike AI
12-07-2004, 10:12 AM
I am still comfortable with my vote.
Don't these people have a right to do this, just like Michael Moore has right to make anti-American movies?
I do not support them, I think its pretty funny, but they do have a right to it.
I also think the SuperBowl situation was dissappointing - its a family, all-American event that is on pretty early. What Janet and timberlake did should have consequences. The nipple did it not bother me, but to those it did I can see their point.
It's not like people can say " Well what do you expect, if you don't like it don't watch"
SykkBoy
12-07-2004, 11:58 AM
I'd much rather my kids watch a tv commercial about 4 hour erections than a black woman's boob popping out on tv....
if the superbowl is so family friendly, why do they have ads for sexual enhancers and beer?
I'd rather do nothing more than explain to my 8 year old daughter about 4 hour erections while sharing a budweiser....
Actually, I've started my own forms of protest...every time I hear someone on TV say "god bless you" when someone else sneezes, I get my trigger finger ready to fire off a complaint to the FCC.
I've already written letters/emails to many of the sponsors the PTC claims to have worked with to stop buying ads or pulling ads and I'm surprised how many "official" replies I've gotten that things on that site were taken out of context. I've also scored a lot of freebies ;-))
RawAlex
12-07-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Colin+Dec 7 2004, 09:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 7 2004, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RawAlex@Dec 7 2004, 08:38 AM
Okay, found their website, and here is an example of what people have to do to complain online (Heck, you can do it too!)
http://capwiz.com/parentstv/mail/oneclick_...alertid=6509896 (http://capwiz.com/parentstv/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6509896)
That's it. Go to the website, click SEND and you just complained.
Man, that takes a whole pile of moral outrage to do. You have to be offended to the max to complain to the FCC about it.
YEAH RIGHT.
Alex
Yeah? Here are some more.
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/Natio...?ID=17083&c=108 (http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=17083&c=108)
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/Lesbi...m?ID=16841&c=23 (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16841&c=23)
What's wrong with it? [/b][/quote]
Colin, both of those sites are WRONG, because they allow people with moderate or uncertain opinions the chance to say the most extreme thing possible. Essentially, those sites (and that type of mailto form thing) puts the words of a VERY small minority into the mouths of thousands (or millions).
If the PTC was 10% of the complaints, this wouldn't be an issue. 99.9% is a stunning amount of complaints. It means that effectively nobody else in American was offended except for their members. That should tell you how much bullshit they are generating.
If there were large numbers of normal every day people writing in and complaining, the PTC stuff would just be the icing on the cake. Instead, it is the icing, the cake, and the platter it's being served on. There is no point.
They are free to do it - and the FCC should be bright enough to file it as ONE big complaint, rather than thousands.
Alex
RawAlex
12-07-2004, 08:41 PM
Here is the numbers is reality:
240,000 complaints total. Only 480 of them were from "non group members".
Is that not a little out of line?
Alex
PornoDoggy
12-07-2004, 08:49 PM
I don't see anything wrong with any group - including left-handed celebrate gay blonde bald agnostic recovering lutherans - petitioning the government on any issue they want to petition them on. That would include the born-agains who want "racey" television to be to the standards of "I Love Lucy", or the ACLU advocating that gay marriage be imposed on people.
Anyone who makes the arguement that a governmental body responding to that kind of manipulated barrage of complaints is truly being "democratic" either has way too much time on their hands (making specious arguments for something to do), or is dumber'n a box of rocks.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 7 2004, 05:50 PM
I don't see anything wrong with any group - including left-handed celebrate gay blonde bald agnostic recovering lutherans - petitioning the government on any issue they want to petition them on. That would include the born-agains who want "racey" television to be to the standards of "I Love Lucy", or the ACLU advocating that gay marriage be imposed on people.
Anyone who makes the arguement that a governmental body responding to that kind of manipulated barrage of complaints is truly being "democratic" either has way too much time on their hands (making specious arguments for something to do), or is dumber'n a box of rocks.
But the gay lefties are just as bad.. if not worse the righties ;)
RawAlex
12-07-2004, 09:29 PM
Gay lefties? talk about conflicted! :lol:
Alex
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.