From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:07:32 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

(James Preston) wrote:
> > Now then, if you have your way, that is, if we adopt your standard for
> > the community at large then it is forbidden to show sex acts on TV.
> > Clearly then, you have imposed your standards on me, for as much as I would
> > like I just cannot watch sex acts on TV.  In other words, for you to have
> > what you want means that I am denied access to what I want.
 
(Jack Decker) writes:
>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.  And frankly, I have no illusion that my PERSONAL
>standards are going to be adopted as the law of the land.  Each of us has a
>personal set of standards; but I doubt that any two of us would have exactly
>the same standards.
>
>This is one reason we get into trouble when we try to make laws by consensus.
>We cannot ever arrive at a true consensus, and in this case, we can't even get
>a majority opinion because people's standards are all over the place.  That is
>one reason that our society was much better off when we more or less agreed to
>use an external standard, e.g. Biblical morality (before anyone argues this,
>please remember that the original settlers in our country were mostly religious
>people, even if they didn't always agree with each other).  You can rightly
>point out that this didn't always work well because people argued over how to
>interpret the Bible, but at least most people recognized that there was a
>standard there and that the only debate was over the fine points of
>interpretation.  And, of course, there were always people who totally ignored
>the standard, but the divison between right and wrong was much sharper then.
>

  BUT, you still haven't addressed the point Mr. Preston made.  All you're
  saying here is that you wished more people agreed with you and [it seems]
  that you'd like to live in a theocracy rather than a democracy.  May I 
  suggest Iran, perhaps?


(James Preston) wrote:
> > 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.
 

(Jack Decker) writes:
>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.  This is one reason
>I proposed the system of voluntary lockout bits, but everyone jumped on that
>because they claimed there would be no agreement on what constitutes
>objectionable material.  Never mind that you could ignore the rating bits and
>make your own decisions if you wanted to, some people seem to object to giving
>any people a tool that would help them avoid objectionable material.
 
  Er...  excuse me, but I believe that it was _ME_ who suggested this     
  hypothetical system of voluntary lockout bits.  Frankly, I don't remember
  what your original response was to this suggestion, but I don't recall it
  as being initially favorable.  
  
   
(Jack Decker) writes:
>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.
 
  While not wishing to debate this issue, some people have already challenged
  you on this issue and have cited studies which discovered NO correlation
  between pornography and violence.  All you have offered is anecdotal 
  evidence.

(James Preston) wrote:
> > Do you see the difference here?  Your way IS imposing your standards on
> > me because it forces me to abide by your standards, i.e. to not watch sex
> > acts on TV.  My way does NOT impose my standards on you because it does NOT
> > force you to abide by my standards; you still have the freedom to not watch
> > what you don't want to watch.  Your way curtails my freedom; my way
> > curtails no one's freedom, it simply allows us both to make the choice that
> > is right for us.  Your way removes the possibility of the choice, my way
> > keeps the choice intact.
 
(Jack Decker) writes:
>No, not quite.  Your way curtails my freedom to have and enjoy a television
>set. 

  Perhaps.  I've already conceded that I would like for YOU to have the 
  ability to effectively filter out material that YOU consider objectionable.

(Jack Decker) writes:
>If I wanted to take the same attitude as those who say that there
>shouldn't be religious channels on cable because it uses valuable bandwidth,
>then your way limits my viewing choices because there are now many more
>programs I cannot view.
 
  Huh?  I remember the people who have said "You don't want pornography, *I*
  don't want religious programming...", but how did you integrate this into
  his statement (eg., "your way limits")?  He didn't say that, did he?

(James Preston) wrote:
> > 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?
 
(Jack Decker) writes:
>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.  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.
>

  If you think this is a false premise, then you reject the very thing that
  your pilgrim forefathers came to this country for:  to escape religious
  persecution.  You are contradicting yourself when you say that "even the 
  view that NO ONE's moral standards should be embodied" in law, and in the
  next breath accuse him of taking the stance that "there is no standard of 
  morality worth enforcing in the law".  The reason everyone's arguing with
  you is because you clearly DO want your moral standards legislated upon
  the rest of us.  You want the distinction between right and wrong to have
  the clearly demarcated boundaries that YOU assign to these values.  The
  thing you're missing (I think) is that if you do this to US, then you set
  a precedent for someone else to do it to YOU.  Of course, I'm sure you 
  feel that this has already been done to you, but... then that's what he
  was trying to set you straight on.  (And put it very well, as in the 
  following paragraph...)

(James Preston) wrote:
> > Again, you clearly misunderstand.  You seem to want your standards embodied
> > in the law; I rather want the law to just stay out of it.  If I were
> > advocating that the law be written to FORCE everyone to watch sex and
> > violence on TV, then I would be advocating embodying my standards in the
> > law.
 
(Jack Decker) writes:
>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?
 
  Well, we all have to deal with this.  And no, I can't say I ever have been
  in the position where I was "virtually forced" to watch or listen to   
  something I really didn't want to see or hear for longer than it took me
  to realize that fact.  That's the inconvenience that we ALL must bear if
  we're to have freedom of speech and expression.

(Jack Decker) writes:
> > }Liberals are real great for hollering about "freedom of speech", "freedom
> > of }expression" and such, right up until the time someone starts to read
> > from the }Bible. If you even mention THAT, or if you even SOUND like you
> > MIGHT be quoting }Biblical principles, they want you shut up!  Well, please
> > don't tell me in one }breath that producers should be able to put any kind
> > of filth imaginable on }Cable TV, and then in the next breath tell me that
> > I have no right to express }my views on what the law should say... that is
> > just hypocracy.
 
   You can read from the bible all you want.  I won't tell you to shut up.
   I just may not listen.  And I'm not even a liberal!  And you HAVE been 
   expressing your views (in great abundance).  That's the _wonderful_ thing
   about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression".

(James Preston) wrote:
> > Clearly it is hypocrisy.  I don't know who these "liberals" are who do
> > this, but I am certainly not one of them, neither can I say that I have
> > seen one of them on this thread.  Quote the Bible all you want to me.  Just
> > don't expect me to accept it as an unimpeachable source of THE truth.
>

  And he's not one of them either, nor is he telling you to shut up.

(Jack Decker) writes:
>There are at least a few hypocritical liberals who read this newsgroup,
>apparently (I'm not referring to you).   As for the Bible, I only expect those
>who consider themselves Christians to accept it as the truth.  The problem is
>that liberals often do everything in their power to keep people from even being
>exposed to Christianity or Christian principles (even to the point of trying to
>have nativity scenes removed from public parks... again, more censorship by
>liberals) and many people now have never even heard a true gospel message (not
>to be confused with what comes over the airwaves from some "TV evangelists"!).
>It's only to be expected that as the percentage of believers decreases, the
>reliance on the Bible as a standard for morality will also decrease.
 
  I agree with you that sometimes this (worrying about religious symbols in 
  public places) stuff gets pretty silly.

(Jack Decker) writes:
>I'm running out of space for this message but would just like to say that even
>though we disagree, I appreciated the tone of your message.  Of all the replies
>I've received so far, you were the most willing to discuss the issues and not
>resort to profanity or name calling, and that's why I chose to respond to your
>message.  Thank you for at least being polite!

  Gee Jack, I've been pretty polite and haven't called you any names! ;)

  This whole argument is starting to go around in circles.  I'll just close
  by saying that _my_ position has been pretty clear.  I don't want to censor
  YOU, and I don't want you to censor ME.  I believe that ultimately 
  technology will be required to solve what is a technological problem 
  (information glut --> "offensive" material).  Until then, we are ALL going
  to be inconvenienced to different degrees.  Sometimes freedom is NOT a 
  convenience, but it's worth it.

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1685 misc.consumers:17399