From: M02449@mwvm.mitre.org (Joe Gems)
Subject: TV and Behavior (was Cable TV Consumer Protection Act ...)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203c0@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>
jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Oct2.022013.12344@fid.morgan.com> dated Fri, 2 Oct 1992
>02:20:13 GMT, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
 (lots of previous and current dogmatic assertions deleted)
 
Jack said:
 
> >> Thus, in the case of TV, there may be unwilling
> >> victims... not necessarily folks who actually saw the program, but people
> >> who just happen to be in the wrong place when some guy decides he's had
> >> enough of just watching and wants to go out and emulate what he's seen.
>
and Seth said:
 
> > And in the case of censorship, there are unwilling victims, not just
> > those who were prevented from watching the program, but those who were
> > attacked by the criminal who wasn't home watching tv instead of
> > committing rape and murder.
>
and Jack said:
 
>This is one of the most ridiculous suppositions I've seen in a newsgroup, and
>I'm truly amazed that supposedly educated people would post such assertions.
>When someone is willing to make a statement like this, you know that you could
>give them all the "proof" in the world and they wouldn't agree with you.
>You're already grasping at straws to defend your position.
>
Now, apart from the fact that Jack used the verb "may" and Seth (somewhat
overly emphatic, IMHO) used the verb "are", Jack is saying someone who watched
some "evil" behavior on TV could go out and emulate it on some hapless victim,
and Seth is saying someone who is "deprived" of the opportunity to watch some
"evil" behavior on TV could go out and perpetrate evil instead.
 
It seems to me that, a priori (i.e., without hard evidence either way), either
of these scenarios could be valid. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe
that an already screwed up mentality, deprived of the opportunity to watch evil
of choice, would go out and commit evil. I'm less comfortable with the notion
that someone, not already screwed up, could watch screwed up behavior and then
go emulate it. BUT, in either event, to claim the former as absolute truth
(my apologies, Jack, if this misrepresents your position, but you do seem to
come across loud and clear that seeing bad stuff on TV **CAUSES** this type
of behavior), and, in the same message, to dismiss the latter as "... one of
the most ridiculous suppositions I've ever seen in a newsgroup ..." does show
a certain closed-mindedness.
 
> >> Now, which of you bleeding heart liberals is going to step up and defend
> >> the right of a rapist or sadistic murderer to watch porno or graphic
> >> violence?
>
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but I'm certainly willing to defend the
right of a (I assume there's an implied "convicted" missing??) rapist or
sadistic murderer to watch porno or graphic violence. Where I draw the line
is in giving them the opportunity to commit sexual and/or violent crime.
 
I don't see censorship in ANY form as contributing to a solution. Gun control?
Sure. More consistent sentencing? Sure. Overhaul of the judicial system? Sure.
Better controls on parole and/or probation? Sure. But censorship? Come on, get
real ...
>
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers