Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 07:56:18 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <BCR.92Sep22110506@hpl3sn02.cern.ch> dated Tue, 22 Sep 1992 10:05:06
GMT, bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) wrote:

 > Anyways, I have a much better solution.  Tell your children not to watch
 > that channel.  If you find them watching it anyways lock the TV in a closet
 > for a week or so.  If they are old enough to be able to successfully sneak
 > behind your back and watch without you cetching them, then they are old
 > enough that you better start getting used to them making some of thier own
 > descisions. If you've been teaching them what is right and wrong then
 > hopefully they will make mostly right descisions.

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.

Also, I believe that it is wrong to put temptation in someone's path (the Bible
would agree with me on this, or rather I should say that I agree with the Bible
on this, but from some of the mail I've received in response to my previous
message I realize that people who quote the Bible aren't exactly held in high
esteem by a few participants on this echo.  I didn't even mention the Bible in
my last message and still got some mail from folks that evidently didn't even
appreciate any inference of religion.  Oh, well).  I believe that is is wrong
to bring objectionable materials into the home capable of receiving
objectionable materials and then tell the kids not to watch, because if they
do, they are guilty of disobedience BUT *I* am guilty of putting temptation in
their path. They will have plenty of opportunities while away from home to make
choices that may or may not be right, but the home should be sort of a haven
from the temptations of the world (unfortunately, it often is not, and
television is one reason why).

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.

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.

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.

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).
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.

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.

So, I stand behind everything I said but I'm not going to waste my time going
out to dig up "proof" that you folks (some of you) won't accept anyway.  I live
in a fairly remote area anyway, so digging up actual statistics is not an easy
task.  I will just say that the folks who claim that there is no link between
pornography and sex crimes are of the same moral character, and are about as
truthful as the Tobacco Institute folks who for years claimed there was no
proven link between tobacco and lung cancer (when in fact there was
considerable research that had established that linkage).  The Tobacco
Institute folks, like many UseNetters, simply refused to believe or
acknowldedge any research that contridicted their opinion.  If someone said
there was a link between smoking and cancer, it was a prima facie case of
defective research, as far as they were concerned.

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.

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

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