From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:28:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
: 
: Bill, I would agree with you except for one thing.  When you are going up and
: down through the channels with a remote control, it pauses on each station for
: a second or two.  If an explicit sexual act happens to be on the screen for one
: or two seconds as that channel is passed, it will certainly leave an image in
: the mind that will last far beyond the time that the TV has moved on to another
: channel.

So, get a tv or vcr that has Parential lockout. Then there is no pause at
those channels. 

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

By the way, what is wrong with sex? If nothing is wrong with it, then why
the great desire to keep people from viewing the act?

... bunch of religious justification deleted ...

: I would just like to say one other thing (not to you, Bill, but to the folks
: who sent me mail).  I wish you people would get it through your heads that
: unless you live on a deserted island, SOME standards of morality are going to
: be imposed on you.  In our society, for example, we severely punish people who
: take the lives of others (in most cases) and that standard comes directly from
: one of the Ten Commandments, as well as the writings of some other religions.

I would say that the religions borrowed the standard of not killing, stealing
etc from a social need to keep the society functional.  By the way, the
original prohibition was not against killing, but against murdering.

: The question is not whether any standards of morality are going to be imposed
: on you;  I can absolutely guarantee you that they will.  The only question is
: "whose standards?"  Obviously, it would be convenient for all of us if our own
: standards were embodied in law; in practice it never happens.

Exactly, which is why no ones moral standards should be imposed on others.
If I wish to kill myself, no one else should have the right to prohibit it.

: Personally, I think that the Biblical standards should be used... not
: necessarily the Old Testament punishments, but at least the definition of what
: is acceptable and what isn't.  Now, I understand that some disagree with that,
: most likely because for whatever reason you don't accept the Bible as
: authoritative.  However, my point is that I think we all have the right to
: express our opinions and to work for what we believe in.  You people who send
: mail that basically says that I should keep my morality to myself (and again,
: it's not really mine) are really just saying that you see a conflict between my
: moral standards and yours, and you want yours embodied in the law, and never
: mind what I or anyone else thinks.

Wrong. What we want is to have the right to decide our own morality - not
have yours thrust upon us. By the same token, you should have the right to
decide your own morality - as it applies to your life. If you don't like
the morality of others, then you don't have to associate with them.

: One final point.  I said there was a link between pornography and sex crimes. A
: couple said that there was no provable link.  Look, folks, there IS a link but
: in some places it's not considered "politically correct" to say so.  Can I

There is a link between violent sex films and rape. Tenuous, but it is
there. There has been no link found between pornography and sex crimes.

: prove it?  No, I cannot.  Well, actually I could, but I know that the minute I
: tried you'd discredit my sources.  Never mind, for example, that mass murderer
: Ted Bundy said ON TAPE that pornography was a great influence on him (just
: hours before he went to the electric chair), the fact that he was being
: interviewed by Dr. James Dobson would immediately discredt that testimony in
: the minds of many of you (as if he had anything to gain by lying about it).
: Again, he said it on tape, and copies of the tape are available from Dr.
: Dobson's ministry.  But I've found that in UseNet you can't invoke a source
: unless it's politically correct, and the PC crowd seems to be as blind as a bat
: to the link between pornography and sex crimes.

Funny that he only made this claim to an anti-porn crusader - and not before.

: One more example.  Linda Lovelace of "Deep Throat" fame got on TV and said that
: at the time she made that film, she was on drugs and was given her supply only
: if she would perform on camera.  She said that when you watch that film, you
: are watching someone being raped.  Ah, but she said it on the "700 Club", so
: since it wasn't said on CNN or one of the three networks, a lot of UseNet folks
: will dismiss it out of hand.

She has said other places that she was forced to perform or she would be killed.
In those statements she did not mention drugs.  Which story are we to believe?
Maybe she is lying in all of them? She obviously was not telling the truth all
the time.

... deleted ...

: Generally speaking, I hate government intrusion into my private life as much as
: the next person, but it really scares me that we are turning out a generation
: with no real moral foundation.  Other empires have gone down this same road
: into decline and fall, yet we follow the same path.  Only we can do it faster
: because we have the technology to pump violence and immorality into people's
: homes, every night of the week.

And yet, it appears that the greatest number of child molesters are Christian
priests. Seems to me that Christian morality is just as fallable as any other
morality.

: Anyway, I've said enough on the subject for now...

Yep.

Reply by e-mail.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,sci.electronics,rec.radio.amateur.misc