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: 28 Sep 92 23:32:36 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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.

}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?

}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.
}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.

You are as wrong here as it is possible to be.  Let me see if I can explain
this to you in terms that you can understand.

Let's start with this simple statement:  Your standards of morality say
that watching sex acts on TV is wrong; my standards of morality say that
watching sex acts on TV is perfectly ok.

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.

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.

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.

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?

}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.

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.

}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.

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.

}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
}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).

Interestingly, Playboy magazine had an article a while back addressing this
very issue.  I don't remember all the details, but basically what they found
was that Bundy's story clearly changed over the years. Initially, he indicated
no link between his crimes and pornography.  But the more he was in the
spotlight and the more he saw that such a link was what some people wanted
him to say, the more he said it.  I could post a reference to the specific
issue of Playboy, or even quote a little of the article if you want.  But
then, I suppose that it being THAT magazine, you would discredit the source.

}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.

Yeah, I've heard about this too.  Even supposing that Linda's story is true
(which is highly doubtful), what does it say about a link between pornography
and sex crimes?  Ok, so she was drugged and forced against her will to appear
in a sex movie.  So?  When you said there was a link between pornography and
sex crimes, I assumed that you meant that being a CONSUMER of pornography
tended to cause one to then go out and commit sex crimes.  That a criminal
act was used to PRODUCE the pornography is an entirely different matter.
And I would dare say that there is nothing you can name -- not a single
product or service or business -- for which there aren't a few examples
of criminal acts being used in the production thereof.  Heck, I think there
are even a few examples of criminal acts being committed in the name of
the Bible.  Does that mean we should ban the Bible?

--James Preston