99.8% of FCC Complaints Filed By Christianazi Group.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-07 05:04pm

And why should it affect people? Because your exposing children to something that some parents would deem unecessary and indecent. When you tune into the Super Bowl your expecting to watch football and funny commercials, not a nude breast.

In other words:

"Crass commercialism = good
Violence = good
Human body = eeeeeeeeevviilll!!!!!!!!!"

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-12-07 05:06pm

cyclonefever wrote:Mainly because I'm guessing over half of the country would still think that's indecent. If most people still believe it's undecent, don't you think we should respect that opinion?

Let's take a Zor like look and use a hippothitical situation:

The colour green offends me, I find the colour green indicent. I believe that it is unsuitable for children to be exposed to the colour green because it offends me. I therefor demand that no one show the colour green on the TV.

This is stupid because there is no reason beyond my own nonsensensical offence.

Alright, so this is mostly nonsense from start to finish, but please...think about how fucking stupid your position is. Basing your position on nothing but "indecency" and an appeal to popularity is fucking moronic.

cyclonefever · Post by **cyclonefever** » 2004-12-07 05:13pm

Darth Wong wrote: Based on what data? A complaints system which has been hijacked so that a single special-interest group makes 99.8% of the complaints?

I'm not basing it on any specific study, rather, what I would consider common knowledge. Perhaps you disagree. I'm not sure. I'll try to look for a specific study on it. However, I am curious, do you really believe most of America believes that the showing of Jackson's breast was appropriate?

No. They must show justification for censorship. Saying that you don't like something is not enough reason to ban it or persecute people for making it. You must show that it is harmful.

Like it or not, if people find it to be in bad taste, that's what you follow. You follow the larger precedent set by the majority of the viewing audience, in which I'd be willing to guess believes it was uncecessary.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-07 05:16pm

cyclonefever wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Based on what data? A complaints system which has been hijacked so that a single special-interest group makes 99.8% of the complaints?
I'm not basing it on any specific study, rather, what I would consider common knowledge. Perhaps you disagree. I'm not sure. I'll try to look for a specific study on it. However, I am curious, do you really believe most of America believes that the showing of Jackson's breast was appropriate?

The burden of proof is upon he who would seek to restrict freedoms, not he who would seek to retain them.

No. They must show justification for censorship. Saying that you don't like something is not enough reason to ban it or persecute people for making it. You must show that it is harmful.
Like it or not, if people find it to be in bad taste, that's what you follow. You follow the larger precedent set by the majority of the viewing audience, in which I'd be willing to guess believes it was uncecessary.

So you're saying that anything which is in "bad taste" should be censored?

I've got news for you, pal: EVERY goddamned Super Bowl halftime show is in bad taste. The Backstreet Boys are in bad taste. Infomercials are in bad taste. Comb-overs are in bad taste. Tight clothes on fat chicks are in bad taste.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-07 05:21pm

I'm not basing it on any specific study, rather, what I would consider common knowledge. Perhaps you disagree. I'm not sure. I'll try to look for a specific study on it. However, I am curious, do you really believe most of America believes that the showing of Jackson's breast was appropriate?

You're missing the post. People here are saying that unlike this "respect the majority opinion" bullshit, we should be demanding proof of harm FIRST. Delicate sensibilities are a poor reason for dictating nationwide morals and what they should legally allow.

To defend your side a bit, I agree that the stunt itself was kind of stupid (assuming it was preplanned, they denied it completely), and really is unnecessary as a portion of the super bowl, but at the same time the BETTER attitude would have been indifference or derision for the foolishness of the stunt. Outrage just gave them better publicity. It was their agents dream come true.

Like it or not, if people find it to be in bad taste, that's what you follow. You follow the larger precedent set by the majority of the viewing audience, in which I'd be willing to guess believes it was uncecessary.

But when you are saying that, what are you suggesting EXACTLY? That if a poll shows 85% of Americans find it obscene that that automatically justifies it becoming a criminal act? one that can be construed as illegal and sueable? (Sueable? Is that a word?

)

The point here is that the appeal to majority fallacy is the wrong way to go about making judgements. If that was all it took, we would be even further in the dark ages then places like Afghanistan even DREAMED of.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-12-07 05:24pm

Australian TV:

After 8:30 at night you can run pretty much anything short of hardcore porn.
Swearing - fine, as long as its not too excessive or out of context.
Nudity - fine.
Violence - sometimes a problem but we get uncensored SPR and BHD.
Drug use - fact of life, fine.

I love Australian TV.

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-12-07 05:30pm

Maybe we sould bring back the gag rule.........

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-12-07 05:31pm

weemadando wrote:Australian TV:

After 8:30 at night you can run pretty much anything short of hardcore porn.
Swearing - fine, as long as its not too excessive or out of context.
Nudity - fine.
Violence - sometimes a problem but we get uncensored SPR and BHD.
Drug use - fact of life, fine.

I love Australian TV.

and you guys are actually censoring the right stuff. The violence. Some violence just ISN'T suitable for young children for the simple reason... some have difficulty with recognising it isn't real. How the fuck is a breast gonna scar a kid more than someone getting his head blown off?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2004-12-07 05:37pm

cyclonefever wrote: You think it's a good thing?

Will it kill a child? No. But you really can't make an arguable case to me to say that was an OK thing to air. Many people disagree with such an action, and it's clearly indecent to a large portion of Americans, wouldn't you agree?

Then a large portion of Americans need to grow up. Only way to effectively remove tits from television is to cut them off. Literally.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-12-07 06:14pm

Well, what do you mean affect you? I suppose you don't think it's affected you in an adverse way because you've grown up under the impression that it's no big deal. My simple point is that others would just disagree with that.

You have no fucking point, your point is this constant appeal to popularity bull shit, which is a logical fallacy, and invalidates your shit excuse for an argument.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-07 06:23pm

Cyclonefever, if you tell me where you live I will search out the cheapest one way airline ticket to Riyadh just for you. You can thank me later.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-12-07 06:29pm

Like it or not, if people find it to be in bad taste, that's what you follow. You follow the larger precedent set by the majority of the viewing audience, in which I'd be willing to guess believes it was uncecessary.

What if people find certain T-Shirts that criticize figures, ideologies, groupes offensive and obscene? Should they be banned as well if the majority says so. Democracy sucks in morality.

Morilore · Post by **Morilore** » 2004-12-07 06:51pm

The majority doesn't like it? Great! Let the majority not watch it. Shows not watched by a large number of people tend to be canceled.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-07 06:51pm

cyclonefever wrote: You think it's a good thing?

Will it kill a child? No. But you really can't make an arguable case to me to say that was an OK thing to air. Many people disagree with such an action, and it's clearly indecent to a large portion of Americans, wouldn't you agree?

And, did I say anything about Bush???

Give it a rest buddy. My children have seen my wife's breasts on more than one occasion and their fine.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-12-07 06:59pm

This isnt usually the opinon I have on these type of things, but I have to say that just because the majority thinks it was wrong doesnt justify the censorship. Yeah, I thought it was horrible to have to see that (and the most disgusting part was the still frame that all the internet news had with Justin (or whatever his name is) looking at the breast like...I dunno...He wanted to eat it or something..he looked like a crazed animal) That was the sick part to me. But I can clearly remember when the Bills were playing the cowboys for the first of their two super bowl meetings, Michael Jackson did the half time show. During one of his songs, he got down on his knees, grabbed his crotch, and proceeded to scoot across the stage pulling his crotch in and out (ok, hard to discribe, but you get the point). My cousins mimicked that for days! Why didnt anyone say anything then? People are just getting too goddamn sensitive.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-07 07:09pm

Hey man, just stop for a second and examine your own personal motives as to why you feel this way.

Honestly. Just search your soul (so to speak) and discover the genesis of your feelings that are against this kind of behaviour and try to compare it lin light of what people here are saying about judgement and morals.

Be honest and don't try to tell me that you ALWAYS agreed with majority and acted accordingly. Tell me that there are many things in your life that you did without caring what the majority might have thought because YOU felt it was right.

If you really WERE someone who only acted as the majority thought you should, than I really feel sorry for you and anger at the people who perpetuate this kind of crap.

Just so you don't feel like everyone is simply piling up on you, I'll agree with you this far. I thought it was a stupid stunt. I don't think it was "appropriate" to be a segment of the Super Bowl. BUT it happened, and I could care less. If someone asked my opinion I would simply say I don't care. It's something I'm indifferent to because it's harmless. Do you hear that? HARMLESS. Seeing the human body nude is never something I would consider to be a bad thing. Appropriate is a completely different ballgame, and it comes down to consideration, etiquette, etc. No diff than it might not be "appropriate" to start reciting Shakespeare loudly in the middle of a quiet restaurant where people would prefer silence, but this does not make it EVIL, it's just inconsiderate.

This "OH my GAWD, the kids" argument has got to be tossed where it belongs. In the bullshit heap. Kids are not hurt by nudity. They are not hurt by frank discussions of sexuality. They are not hurt by getting sexually aroused by images, stories or fantasies.

They ARE hurt by guilt, unfair abstinence demands, and abuse of all types perpetuated by idiots who have an agenda to push.

Teach a kid what they need to know to make intelligent decisions, and be there to help them when they want guidance. That's the commandment that should be posted as the first in our schools.

Sadly, they will be treated as sheep meant to be guided towards the "only way" to truth no matter what methods will kill them to get there. Welcome to the (still) backwards United States.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-07 07:10pm

quick reference here:

My post is to Cyclonefever, not the people who posted in between.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-07 07:35pm

cyclonefever wrote: You think it's a good thing?

Will it kill a child? No. But you really can't make an arguable case to me to say that was an OK thing to air. Many people disagree with such an action, and it's clearly indecent to a large portion of Americans, wouldn't you agree?

And, did I say anything about Bush???

You mean that one pixal wide nipple on the TV screen? Unless you knew what was going on, you wouldn't be able to pick it out. Both my son's were watching at the time and neither even knew they just saw a nipple.

Now, days later, when the media blew it up, and cleared up the image, you could tell it was a nipple.

Questor · Post by **Questor** » 2004-12-07 07:37pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Parent's Television Council... I've seen that place before.

Shall we get together a group of LA board members and go picket the office?

I'm in, just give me a time.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-07 10:45pm

*reads thread* Oh godsdamn wtfhell!!?

That's two times I post news from the front and two times I draw troll-fire! Alright, who posted a link to an enemy and forgot to fix flash-suppressors?

Cyclone, search your feelings and let go of your hate. You are not entitled to dictate what everyone sees and hears based on whether you'd be offended by it. The freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of tolerating what may be offensive without asking for it to be suppressed. If you don't like what's on the TV, turn it off or change the channel, or, hey, how about getting off your ass and go to the library. Go take a walk downtown and meet someone. Go visit some friends. Go play a game on the internet. Go to the gym and buff up. Stop by the bar, have a drink or two, relax, and maybe find yourself a date. Ask her if she likes anal sex.

It's what we do when we don't like what's on TV.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-12-07 11:38pm

wautd wrote:Is that Janet Jackson bullshit thing STILL?!? going on?

WHATS THE BIG FUCKING DEAL? It was just one damn (hidden) nipple from an ugly bitch.

Sjeesh....

Amen. If they had a hot chick do it, even the fundies would be saying "Nice jugs." Yes, I was thinking of Beyonce Knowles. What pissed me off was that they should have made Janet Jackson sing the national anthem and let Beyonce whip out a tit.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-12-07 11:41pm

Hey cyclone, maybe childbirth should be outlawed. Why is it that the first think a kid experiences is passing through his mother's twat? Sick.

On a serious note, they had Jeff Jarvis on The Howard Stern Show. He pointed out that not only is it just a handfull of shitheads writing these letters, but they're form letters to boot. Losers.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-12-07 11:51pm

THE PTC?

God, didn't those assholes learn there lesson when the WW(F)E suided there asses into the ground?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-12-07 11:55pm

Isn't it sad that people think marginalising nudity (to the point where its essentially just porn) is a good thing? I'm sure that gives kids a lovely perspective on sex and nudity. Heaven forbid we treat it naturally, so that we're all comfortable with our sexuality. Remember, all naked women are whores or pornstars; thats got to be a positive attitude for our children! One to go with the 'violence is just fine' one.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-12-08 01:09am

Look on the bright side: Without such prudish attitudes about the human body over here, Euros and Aussies wouldn't be able to make fun of American tourists when they visit the beaches and their heads spin around like the little girl in The Exorcist.