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: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:35:30 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <a8C903nq8e7c00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dated 23 Sep 92 16:53:06 GMT,
jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) wrote:

 > }etc. etc.  You get the idea.  Just quantify various things, have a bit
 > }representing each one, and turn that bit on if the program contains it.
 > Then }parents (and others) could decide exactly what they want to allow,
 > and what is }just too much.  The trick is to be SPECIFIC in the things you
 > are looking for.

 > Yeah, I get it all right.  This is just another case of a person assuming
 > that YOUR definitions of "profanity", "nudity", "graphic violence", etc.
 > are shared by all, are somehow not subjective, and are easily quantifiable.
 > Sorry, but it just doesn't wash.  What YOU may find objectionable and
 > something that you don't want your children to see may be something that
 > your neighbor has no problem with and wouldn't care if his children
 > watched. You just can't "quantify" and "be specific" about what are clearly
 > individual matters of personal judgement.

No, but you can come pretty close.  No system of this type would be perfect.
One reason we have juries in our courts of law is because everyone has a
slightly different idea of what a "reasonable man" might do in given
circumstances, so we try to get a consensus from twelve people and hope for the
best.  No, it isn't perfect, but if we said that we wouldn't enforce the law
until juries always rendered perfect verdicts, anyone could do anything and get
away with it.

At least the system I proposed gives you some choice.  If, for example, the bit
is turned on that says that the program contains profanity, but you feel that
the people doing the ratings are too conservative (or too liberal!), you can
choose to ignore the rating.  And, I think a system could be devised that would
satisfy most people.  For example, if you had ENOUGH bits to play with, you
could have a bit for each word that someone might consider profane, and then
let folks select which ones they DON'T want to hear.

You see, I think some of you folks that argue this aren't really so concerned
about this stuff being available to YOU, as that you want it made available to
EVERYONE with no restrictions... including minors!  I have to wonder about the
motives of folks who think like that.  Anyway, as I said, I didn't expect
everyone to agree with me, but I still say that censorship is NOT necessarily a
dirty word and at this point in our history, we DO need a bit more of it...
certainly no one is advocating the type of total censorship imposed by a
dictator, but on the other hand, there is no reason we should be dumping our
trash all over the public airwaves.

I don't for a moment assume that everyone shares my views on this... in fact, I
am painfully aware that many people now have an "anything goes" attitude.  I
also happen to think that this is what is contributing to the decline and fall
of America.  But as I say, I have the right to express my beliefs, just as much
as you do, and I will continue to do so.  Liberals have NO qualms about trying
to impose THEIR views of (im)morality on others (and I *DO* mean IMPOSE!!!!!)
yet you try to make conservatives feel like we should be ashamed of being so
"narrow-minded". Well, THIS conservative isn't the least bit ashamed of it, and
if that offends you, that's just too bad for you!

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