"Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."
Seems to me like they did—and now they’re just raising the stakes.
I don’t wanna see Janet’s wardrobe malfunction on TV any more than I wanna see her brother—ever. I also think it is a poor idea to have un-defined “crimes” that carry a half a million dollar penalty. I’m no lawyer and I refuse to play one on a blog so it may just be my poor research… But I can find no indication of any kind what, specifically, is covered by the term “obscene, indecent, or profane material .”
To me, the whole Scott Peterson case was indecent. The Michael Jackson thing is obscene, disgusting and creepy to the max. I shudder to think if I had little kids and, for myself, I turn off the raadio/TV every time they try to tell me about it, thereby missing their commercials. Good system, that free market. But, much ass* I loath the subject of MJ and his creepy SometimesLand escapades, I would not advocate the government demanding fat fines of any organization/individual talking about it—public airwaves or not.
What follows this? First, no saying the 7 Dirty Words [see George Carlin] Next, no talking about the seven words. Then no talking about not talking about the seven words?!?!
The whole world is not meant to be safe for a six year old. There are subjects that adults must talk about and that are for adults only—not only sexual content, but a vast range of ideas and emotions that a six year old is not ready to comprehend or cope with. This is why children have parents—because no matter what we legislate, the world will never be a safe place for a six year old to go unaccompanied, unguided and unparented.
Trying to legislate that is very unwise. Trying to legislate it without describing exactly and specifically what is outlawed is just crazymaking. And a big fat invitation for petty bureaucracy morphing into fascist control.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
[* added after profreading: would that little typo get me a $500,000 fine?!?]
Aha! Here we find the engine of your mysterious interrogatories. I think you’ve been on Libertarian trip recently. Be careful about that. Although Libertarianism has many seductive qualities, it is ultimately another form of Absolutism that falls flat on it’s face in our real world. But enough of generalities--let’s go to the chalk board.
As you know, I am involved with improving human habitation. Deeply involved. That has led to a lot of deep thinking about shelter--why we need it, what makes it work. I mention this because I see a link to your concerns about our gov trying to make the world safe. The short answer is that humans require security. It’s not just a nice thing to have. We cannot survive as a species w/o it. We invented gov to provide it at low cost and our society depends on that economy.
Expanding on that theme, I realized years ago that people need shelter everywhere. In some benign climates, that shelter might be as simple as the shade from palm fronds. Survival in Vermont requires more elaborate constructions. Early shelters were mostly garments. Our clothing creates a small, inexpensive shelter. Later as we became wealthier, we could expand our clothing into spacious buildings that provided an indoor climate. Aside from protection from the weather, an indoor climate provides protection from attack. So our houses free us from high defense costs and allow us to devote more time to gathering food and knowledge.
Still, one of our most important costs is the defense of our children. They are weak and stupid, and thus need extra protection. Yes, as you say, the world can never be safe for them. However, we can develop small safety zones were we can let down our guard. These shelters happen to be homes, schools, libraries, churches, and theaters. Those are choices that have evolved though the evolution of our society and they are very practical.
Naturally, agents devoted to the destruction of our society will always act against the weakest parts of it. That is why anti-Americans loathe censorship and cry out against regulation. And this is something that Libertarians can never fathom because it directly conflicts with their 2-dimensional view of the world. We must have controls on media content in child safety zones because we can never afford the effort it would require for each parent to protect each child full time. It is exactly like asking each citizen to perform police and national defense duty instead of creating professional military and law enforcement agencies. You have no freedom when you are on perpetual guard duty.
The words you have chosen--decent, indecent, profane--are poorly defined and there is nothing wrong with that. Our judgments are constantly changing and standards vary among communities. Meanwhile, Leftists and Libertarians insist that the lack of perfect definitions disqualifies the implementation of practical solutions. Bullshit.
Posted by HelenW on 02/19/05 at 09:17 AMNo giving me away, Helen! ; > Not yet.
No, actually—I didn’t know about your involvement with improving human habitation. Interesting subject.
Vis a vie security—when in human history have we ever had but the most fleeting illusion of security. Yet, we, as a species, continue to thrive. hmmm....
Another point—I see from numerous mentions that you firmly believe that children are “stupid,” with “no brains, no need for privacy, and no rights. I compare them to heifers.” Damned near contempt. I disagree. Children are ignorant [many things not yet learned]—not stupid [incapable of learning].
Children being, as they are, simply young humans have every bit as much innate, sacred Human Dignity as do older humans. That is not something conferred by society at a particular age along with the right to vote or drink. [see ...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...to secure these rights, Governments...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...and so forth] If Human Rights and Dignity are conferred by Government, Government can withdraw same at any time. Bad idea. [see Kristallnacht ]
To take it a step further, seems to me that treating children as rights-less, dignity-less stupid things creates nothing more than fodder for socialist fascism. Hell—look where we’ve gotten by treating them like delicate, fragile egos not able to handle competition, score-keeping at ball games or red ink. We’ve achieved the least resilient, least capable generation—the antithesis to the Greatest Generation. Humans—of any age—live up to, or down to what is expected of them.
I do see what you mean by the necessity for ‘safe spaces’—homes. The rest of your list doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sure someone of a particular faith would not want the tenets of another faith taught as er… gospel to their child. So church is not necessarily a ‘safe’ place. [see also priests and kids...] Libraries are for all people—the repository of all human knowledge [ideally]. In all of human knowledge, there is much that children aren’t yet prepared to assimilate—so libraries are out. Have you looked into what they teach in state schools lately?!? I laugh in the general direction of any suggestion that schools are ‘safe.’ [see The Language Police and Ward Churchill]
Americans also loathe censorship. Americans cry out against stupid regulation. Americans detest Nanny Laws which imply that the lawmaker knows better than the citizen what is good for the citizen.
I cannot fathom why or how we “cannot afford” for every parent to protect each child. In my experience, given that no place but home is always safe for children, that is what parents do. By definition. And always have done. This is why kids are kept very close until 6 or so when they are let out further bit by bit as they demonstrate their capabilities and coping skills.
Your simile is somewhat flawed, too as the police are not liable for the protection of the individual. Just ask one. At a ratio of one cop for several thousand residents it is an impossibility. They/we just play the odds. Your personal safety and that of your family are your job. Freedom is not free—you have none if you are not on constant guard. [see Price of freedom is eternal vigilance]
I did not choose those words—the lawmakers did. I am in the process of exploring how and if it will be useful.
[I got no idea about Capital-L Libertarians. Not interested in party stuff.]
Posted by Claire on 02/19/05 at 03:18 PM
Next entry: Ya can say *that* again....
Previous entry: "Our First Amendment rights are very important. Boo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo"
