Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 08:48:26 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <Sep.22.09.35.24.1992.5594@gandalf.rutgers.edu> dated 22 Sep 92
13:35:25 GMT, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) wrote:

 > I don't have children, but I will in the next couple of years.  I can't
 > say specifically how I would handle the situation, but right now, I think
 > that I would let the child watch whatever s/he wanted as long as s/he
 > asks me first (and as long as s/he isn't watching too much TV overall).
 > If the show sounds less than tame, then I will be sure to stay close by.
 > I might not sit next to  him/her and watch the whole show because s/he
 > might like some privacy, but I will make sure that I am in the next room
 > and readily available when the show is over to discuss the program with
 > the child.

.....

 > I'm certainly not going to purchase an adult
 > cable channel (I don't do so now, why should I later), but I'm not going
 > to censor my child's programming.  I'm certainly not going to restrict them
 > from viewing nudity.  There is nothing wrong with looking at naked bodies
 > or at people making love and I'm not going to teach my child that there is.
 > I will make sure to explain the realities of the situations that they see
 > on television.

First of all, you should not have children if this is the way you intend to
raise them.  But if you do it anyway, and if it doesn't soon dawn on you that
this isn't the way to go, you will find out two things.  First, the parents of
"nice" children are not going to want their kids anywhere near your home.
Second, your kids are going to get used to the idea that they can do whatever
they please, and when they become teenagers you are going to have a REAL mess
on your hands.  I am dead serious about that.

You are one of the best examples of why pornography should be banned.  It is
one thing for adults to watch the stuff (even though they shouldn't), but it's
even worse for parents to almost encourage their kids to watch such things.
And once your child watches it and then goes out and decides to try it for
himself or herself (thinking it must not be too bad because mom lets me watch
it on TV), are you going to be happy?  Especially if a pregnancy results?

 > I won't keep my child from watching violence either, but I will make sure
 > that I explain the realities of what they are watching so that they don't
 > believe that it is really so glamorous to kill people.

I suppose you think that your explanations will be so eloquent that they will
overshadow what the kids are viewing on the tube, in living color no less.

 > Perhaps when my child becomes interested in violent programming, I will
 > find some war documentaries to show him/her so that s/he can see the
 > realities and not just hear about it from me.  Then perhaps s/he will
 > develop a distaste for such programs on his/her own.

Have you totally lost touch with reality?  What have you been smoking, lady?
The stuff that Bill Clinton says he tried but didn't inhale? (Surrrrreee he
didn't...)  Sorry about being so sarcastic, but I'm just trying to make the
point that it doesn't work that way!

 > I certainly don't expect the broadcasters to censor their programming
 > on my, or anyone elses', behalf.  But I do expect them to provide
 > ample notification of the content of their programming.  I also appreciate
 > their efforts to keep the more adult-oriented programs in the later
 > time slots.  I also expect the cable company to provide a means to block
 > any channel that I find so objectionable that I would prefer that it
 > not come into my home at all (like Pat Robertson's channel).

Nobody says you have to like Pat Robertson or his channel, and certainly you
should be able to block any channel you wish.  However, it seems like there is
a lot more effort being expended to get Pat Robertson off the air than to get
pornography off the air, and that is just screwy.  Seems it's perfectly okay to
try and CENSOR the religious chanels, but not the porno channels.

You actually make a valid point, which is that the programs you find
objectionable may be different from what others find objectionable.  But still,
you should have the right to have that channel blocked if you don't want it.
Your kids won't be able to watch the old reruns of "Batman" (on the same
channel), but so what.

(I just wonder, do you REALLY feel it would be more harmful for them to watch
Dr. Robertson than to watch people performing various sexual acts?  Are you
saying you'd give them the freedom to watch the porn channels in your home, but
they'd have to sneak around behind your back if they wanted to investigate
Christianity?)

Honestly, I'm not trying to get you totally riled, but if you raise your kids
the way you said you intend to, you are going to have some really messed-up
kids.  Kids need discipline and they need adults to set the limits for them. If
the adults have no moral underpinnings, or if they abdicate their
responsibility to set limits for their kids, the kids wind up being really
confused about right and wrong (and also they do not feel very loved).  I heard
that even Dr. Spock admitted later on in life that he was all wrong in what he
had written about raising children.

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate