From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:25:39 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:

}In article <c7eg034h96c900@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dated 28 Sep 92 23:32:36 GMT,
}jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) wrote:

} > }In other words, it is just too easy to accidentally view a few seconds of
} > that }stuff if it's available.

} > You're so right.  So the only guaranteed solution is to not have a
} > television set in your house.  Why is it that you don't seem to like that
} > solution?

}James, television is such a pervasive part of our society that if you don't
}have one you miss out on a lot (although, increasingly, I am beginning to
}wonder if the tradeoff is really worth it).  I *did* finally get rid of cable
}service, in part because of the content.  However...

I'm sorry, but you lose a lot of credibility when you resort to an argument
like this.  First you tell us that television is so filled with objectionable
programming that you can't even switch channels from The Family Channel to
Nickelodeon without seeing split seconds of sex.  And now you tell us that
television is so pervasive that you miss out on a lot without it.  It sounds
to me like, from your point of view, what you'd "miss out on" the most is
all the objectionable sex!

You again miss the salient point:  The choice is yours.  You know what's
available on TV and, as you say, YOU get to decide if the tradeoff is
worth it or not.

}Okay.  First of all, you (and others) keep using the term "your standards" as
}if to imply that I am the only one who holds susch standards.  I hope you
}realize that is not the case.  

This is a small point, but it is worth pointing out that you really have
no basis for this.  I have made no such implication.  I use "your standards"
simply because that is what we have been talking about.

} > However, if I have my way, that is if we adopt my standard for the
} > community at large then it is permissible to show sex acts on TV.  Does
} > this then mean that I have imposed my standards on you?  No, because you
} > are perfectly free to NOT watch the sex acts on TV.  You are clearly not
} > denied anything; you don't want to watch sex acts on TV, and you are
} > perfectly able to fulfill that desire.  The only way that it could be
} > said that I imposed my standards on you would be if I somehow forced you
} > to watch the sex acts that you didn't want to see.

}Except that I am denied the right (I hate to use the word "right" here, since
}there's no real "right" to have a TV conferred by the law) to have a television
}set in my home and still be free of objectionable material.  

Of course.  Just as every person is "denied the right" to have television
programming be EXACTLY and only what that person wants.  Hey, I not only
don't watch religious programming on TV but I find a lot of it to be morally
objectionable (I do watch a little every now and then).  It offends MY
morals because so much of what I see is nothing more than cons to get
people's money.  Or so-called teachings that push the lack of personal
responsibility that has so gripped you.

But I don't think that my rights are somehow being denied just because
there are things shown on TV that I don't like.  That's just tough for me.  
I have the choice to watch or not as I see fit, and if at some point I
decide that the trade off isn't worth it (to use your own words), I have
the choice to get rid of the TV altogether, as we all do.

But it is patently false to state that you don't have the right to have
a TV in your home and still be free of objectionable material.  *YOU*
have control over YOUR TV.  You have the right to turn off and not watch
anything and everything that you find objectionable.  That something exists 
that you don't like does not infringe on your right to choose to have that 
thing in your life or not.  But I repeat that removing "objectionable"
things from availability clearly infringes on the right of others to have
them around.  One way gives everyone the choice, the other removes any
possibility of choice.  Why did you so conveniently ignore that simple point?

}And, also, in some small way I lose my "right" to personal safety (that would
}be much more the case if I were a female), because even if I don't allow such
}material in my home, those who view it will get a skewered idea of how others
}(especially women) should be treated.  If you watch a lot of violence, you
}become desensitized to violence.  If you watch graphic sex acts over and over,
}you may come to think that women are just sex objects.

Ignoring the fact that this "connection" you are so convinced of has never
been shown to be true, even if I grant such a connection, it is not an
argument for removing other people's choices.  Life ain't always fair, and
life certainly ain't always safe.  As has been pointed out by myself and
others on this thread (and which you seem determined to ignore), if "has
been known to cause violence or suffering" were the standard for removing
things from availability, your Bible would be the first to go.  Why is it
that you ignore this charge?  Do you deny that much violence has been done
throughout history in the name of The Bible?  Why is it "right" in your
view to want to remove pornography from society because it cause violence,
but it is not "right" to want to remove The Bible because it causes violence?

}Put aside for a moment the issue of the personal threat that may come about
}because others have watched this stuff, though, and you still have the problem
}that the objectionable material is available in your own home, unless you do
}without cable (and, the way things are going, without network television).  You
}may see glimpses of it when tuning across channels.  Your children may linger
}on those channels when you're outside the house, or in another room.
}Babysitters or guests in your home may turn on those channels.  It's there, and
}it's intrusive.  To use the analogy of print material, it's one thing to have
}porno magazines available at the corner newsstand. It would be quite another to
}bring home such magazines and pile them in the living room and say "even though
}they are here, no one is to read these!"  The temptation to watch something is
}much greater when it is readily available.

So now what are you saying?  That you don't want "porno" around because you
yourself or your children or your babysitter are just too damned weak to
resist the temptation?  Jeez, better not get behind the wheel of a car.  You
might find that it's too hard to resist the temptation to randomly run down
some pedestrians.

This is a completely ridiculous argument.  Again, if you really are so
afraid of the temptation GET RID OF THE DAMNED TV!  What's more important
to you, being able to watch The 700 Club, or being free of the temptation
to watch Charlie's Angels?  Life sometimes requires decisions; and sometimes
a certain amount of sacrifice is required for your own greater good.

}This last point, by the way, is not just hypothetical.  I am GENUINELY and
}DEEPLY offended by gratituous profanity (in the movies, for example).  Thus, I
}cannot watch many movies that I would otherwise enjoy, simply because the
}producers insisted on having the actors use filthy language which in many cases
}adds NOTHING to the story line.  I know of many others who don't go to movies,
}or let their children go to the movies, for the same reason.  Now, if you use
}the argument that cable only has limited bandwidth, then we should immediately
}remove ALL the filthy language movies because *I* can't watch them and they are
}using up valuable bandwidth that could contain programs that *I* really want to
}watch.  (Please note, I am being sarcastic here, my point is that this is how
}those who object to the religious channels come off).

No, it is how YOU come off.  So you`re genuinely and deeply offended by
gratuitous profanity; so you can't watch some movies and TV shows.  So?
So what?  What the heck does that mean?  Jeez Louise, there are lots and
lots of movies and TV shows that I don't like for one reason or another.
So what?  You have no more right to complain that you "can't" watch a
particular movie becuase it has too much profanity than I have the right
to complain that I "can't" watch some movie because it has Meryl Streep
in it, and I can't stand to watch her.  The world just doesn't revolve
around any one person.

} > So don't sit there and tell me that we're both the same because we're both
} > trying to get our standards embodied in the law.  You certainly seem to be
} > in favor of that.  I, on the other hand, am in favor of embodying NO ONE's
} > standard in the law and allowing each person to choose for himself.  See
} > the difference?

}I see the difference, but I think it's based on a false premise, which is that
}it's possible to have laws that are morally neutral.  

Which shows that you see nothing.  Having NO LAWS in existence that address
what can or cannot be put into a movie or a book is morally neutral.  And
that is what I favor.  You clearly miss the difference between "having a
law" and "having no law".  

}I simply do not agree
}with that.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  In any law, in any policy made by man,
}someone's views of morality are going to go into it.  Even the view that NO
}ONE's moral standards should be embodied in the law is ITSELF a moral
}judgement... you are taking the view that there is no standard of morality
}worth enforcing in the law.  Were that actually true, there would be no reason
}to have laws at all, because virtually EVERY law on the books involves a moral
}judgement of some sort.

Perhaps.  But a law that doesn't exist cannot involve any moral judgement
at all, right?  How can a non-existent thing embody any morals?

}But... the absence of regulations will have the effect of forcing many people
}to watch sex and violence on TV.  Perhaps only a few seconds, perhaps more, but
}it's still there.  Have you never been in a position where, due to
}circumstances, you were virtually forced to watch (on TV) or listen to (on
}radio) something you really didn't want to see or hear?

Now this is certainly the oddest thing you've said yet.  No sir, I have
most certainly never been in a position where I was "forced" to watch 
soemthing I didn't want to see.  True, sometimes I have been in waiting
rooms or somesuch with a TV showing something I didn't like.  But surely
I still have the choice to get up and leave if it bothers me that much.
Are you maintaining that at some time in your life you have been tied to
a chair and forced to watch sex on TV?  Frankly, you seem to have a very
loose definition of this word "force".  Please explain to me how it can
possibly be that the existence of sex and violence on TV FORCES anyone
to watch it.  How can it possibly be that these people lose their abilities
to change the channels or turn the TV set off?

And this "problem" you have with catching glimpses of sex while changing
channels has been dealt with before.  Just get a TV like my Zenith.  It
has a very easy to use feature that lets the user select EXACTLY which
channels are accessible and which are not.  Three button pushes and
channel 38 is gone.  When you cycle through the channels, it goes from
36 to 37 to 39.  The only way you can view channel 38 is to DELIBERATELY
tune to it.  So stop whining about this accidental glimpse while changing
channels problem.  A solution IS available, it's just up to you to choose
to make use of it.

}[Regarding Ted Bundy's taped comments:]

}Of course, it could be that as death became more certain, he became more
}inclined to tell the truth.  Most people tend to accept a deathbed statement as
}more truthful than any previously made statement; could it not be that Bundy
}saw that death was inevitable and finally wanted to come clean?  In any case,
}you would certainly have to admit that you'd not be likely to find Playboy
}publishing anything that would be harmful to the porno industry.  They're
}hardly an unbiased source.

Oh, and this Reverend you cited previously IS in unbiased source?  You
show your ignorance when you claim that Playboy is not likely to publish
anything that would be harmful to the porno industry.  The magazine
routinely publishes all sides of such issues.  Would your church newsletter
ever publish a pro-pornography letter?

--James Preston