|
Footman
|
First of all, check out this ban cooked up by the RIAA and friends: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,...tw=wn_tophead_2Particularly disturbing is this little snippet: However, under the proposed language, viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture," like the previews on a DVD. So technicaly, you could be fined or possibly jailed for skipping the commercials on your DVD. Also, we have here this article: http://www.sundayherald.com/45957Yeah, because Steven Spielburg is destroying our morals with Oscar-winning flims! I think you all can look forward to your children living in a world where they never have to hear a curse word because those who say them will be shot! The American Family Association also calls for a general boycott of Disney, because the company has encouraged gays to visit its theme parks, and of food giant Procter & Gamble for hiring gays. What is wrong with these people? And since when is it any of their sporking concern if a company is hiring homosexuals? Maybe if they where only hiring homosexuals(of which they aren't), then it would be a problem. But that's not the case is it? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-11-18, 02:00 by Footman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
  
Posts: 1011
|
So technicaly, you could be fined or possibly jailed for skipping the commercials on your DVD. Nothing new there, you could be fined and or jailtime for FF-ing through the FBI warning on VHS. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
BiGRoB85
|
I agree. These proposals are just stupid. What if I just want to watch a movie and not have to sit through about six minutes of previews and commercials beforehand? I'm sure there's a lot of people who think of these commercials as nothing but a big annoyance.
As for the complaints about bad language in Saving Private Ryan (or any movie, for that matter), I think that, if a kid curses a lot, some of the blame should be placed on the kid's parents. I've seen a lot of movies with a large amount of swearing in them ever since I was little. My parents taught me that I should never use that kind of language, and it worked. Also, you hear a lot of swearing in high schools and college campuses. I can't remember a single day of high school or college during which I didn't hear at least one curse. Because of this, I think that censorship is not only a bad idea, but it won't solve anything either.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-11-18, 03:21 by BiGRoB85 »
|
Logged
|
-BigRob85
(Not so) Proudly turning dual gats into BFGs since 2004!
|
|
|
|
lord_malchia
|
Ah, good old fashion Christian morals... Genocidal rampages and bloody jihads are fine, but once someone says a naughty word or disrobes then it?s straight to Hell for them! Few examples of this would be better than said persons complaining about cursing in Saving Private Ryan, an extremely graphic movie. Even more graphic than their ever-so precious Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ and it?s poorly done computer-generated blood. Of course, their utter admiration for ?The Passion? is an entirely different topic, since it actually has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus? teachings, and is in fact nothing more than a drawn out guilt trip based heavily upon Catholic beliefs and the insane ramblings of an eighteenth century nun-turned-heretic.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
... ?The Passion? is an entirely different topic, since it actually has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus? teachings, and is in fact nothing more than a drawn out guilt trip based heavily upon Catholic beliefs and the insane ramblings of an eighteenth century nun-turned-heretic. If you want to discuss The Passion please start a new thread so this doesn't turn into a religious debate. We were discussing network censorship and DVD copyrights. Please stay on topic.
First, I say it's complete BS that someone who buys a DVD can't do whatever the hell they want with it, short of making a bunch of copies and giving them away or selling them bootleg. I say if someone wants to skip commercials or use it as a skeet target they paid for it, let them. This is yet another example of unwanted advertising intruding into people's private lives.
Speaking of intruding into people's lives, here's one for you. The same people who bitch that "well the parents can just change the channel" are the same people who don't want to see any hint of religious expression in public. It's blatant hypocrisy, shoving blood and gore and swear words down people's throats who don't want to see it while throwing out public servents who wish to express their religious preference, which is guaranteed under the First Amendment that they can. Which is a more egregious violation of Freedom of Speech - firing someone because they believe in God and wish to exercise their religious rights, or having to pay for cable or rent a movie if you want to see excessive violence, blood and gore, etc? Those who preach tolerence are the most intolerant bunch of bigots around. It's tolerence with their exception - they don't have to tolerate anybody or anything they don't like, but EVERYBODY must tolerate THEM and what THEY WANT.
Broadcast television is subject to decency laws for a good reason, and the First Amendment does not exist to protect people who want to say the "f" word on TV. You think you can do/say anything you want in public? Here's one for you. Walk up to a cop and call him or her a "f'ing pig" and start cursing and swearing at them. You'll be arrested for disorderly conduct and hauled off to jail. Explain to the judge that you were excersizing your "freedom of speech and expression" and see how far that gets you. I guarantee you'll be fined and convicted. Laws governing behavior and content exist to protect the peace so that no one person uses their rights to trample on someone else's. Nobody's rights to dissent or expression are violated by them, but people who want to be an ass and ruin someone's day are kept in check by them. If you want proof, just look at all the back-and-forth accusations by both sides in the last election. Nobody's shut down moveon.org or the swiftboat vets or pulled the plug on their websites. Both sides have said the other side is full of it, is lying, etc. Nobody hauled Michael Moore off to Guantanamo or deported him to Canada. If you really want to see hardcore porn, blood and gore, or someone saying the 'f' word every other sentence you have every right to - in the privacy of your own home. It's when you force that kind of thing on other people that the line is drawn.
Also, it's more than just decency, it's called common courtesy. It used to be that people had respect for other people. Today's society consists of people who just bitch and whine about what they want then go running to the ACLU when they can't get their way. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Those people need to grow up and stop acting like a bunch of spoiled babies, and start showing some respect for other people instead of thinking of nothing but themselves all the time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Lordbane2110
|
It will always be the same somebody trying to force there ways and ideals on others whether it be religous or political and yeah i agree totally with pho, that mostly today's society just bitchs and whines if they can't get there own way but no matter what is done about it you will always have a small minority of people, who will act this way just for the sake of it there has been since i've been alive, an exceeding amount of blood, gore and viloence on the tv, and in fact more so in the cinema's, if people don't want to watch that fine. just don't go around telling other people what they can and can't do  as behavior such as that we only show people, how intolerant you really are as for DVD's, now stop me if i'm wrong but once you've purchased it, other than copying it and distributing it for cash, you can pretty much use it for what ever you like even if that mean's using it as an expensive coaster  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lord_malchia
|
I must sincerely disagree with you Phoenix. What right does the government have to judge what is and isn?t decent? Everyone?s perception of such is different and to be forced to adhere by another?s belief of morality is an infringement of our basic, guaranteed right of freedom. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. As long as it does not hurt another, leave it be. Simple words do not harm anyone in any way, period. What basis, if any, do you or anyone else have to condemn simple words? Are you afraid that they may posses an actual curse? One that will damn your soul or steal your mind? And even though you used it as a basis of attack, you can change the channel if you do not wish to see it, just as I avoid the Christian Broadcasting Network by not punching it the appropriate sequence of digits on my remote. No one is forcing anything down anyone?s throat except sub par reality television. This has nothing to do with religious practices being pushed away from public areas. We have the right to believe as we wish, yes, but that also means that our political and societal ideals must be devoid of any or else we risk favoring one sect over another. This is why prayer is not allowed in school, why the Judeo-Christian word ?God? should be removed from the already laughable pledge, and a slew of other highly debated yet easily solved topics.
You seem to have a biased opinion where you see the atheists and agnostics as an intolerant enemy who wants nothing more than to initiate a holocaust of sorts to rid the world of religion by censoring. While this may be true for a number of them, it is a false generalization on your behalf. What you seem to fail in noticing is that the religious are just as, if not much more guilty of this. They?re the ones that stand outside of rock ?n? roll concerts with protesting posters, the ones that harass and graffiti abortion clinics, and etcetera. Most atheists actually know more about a chosen religion than the followers of that path usually do, and this tends to be because they themselves were once part of it but were pushed away with further knowledge. It?s also partially due to the fact that most religious folk are fakers, merely following an anonymous charlatan through their blind eyes and ignorant minds. It is because of this that we have so many problems in society, with people attempting to censor everything because it might defile their pitiful souls.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
Oh good. weve had a shortage of anti religious biggots in here lately and its good to see someone has decided to fill the void.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gnam
|
The part about making it illegal to skip commercials or other parts of a movie is particularly ridiculous. It's one thing for movie companies to make a DVD without a skip feature for certain scenes; they are providing a product and they can produce the product however they want. However, neither the movie company nor the government has any right to tell me how I can or can't use that product,.barring use in a conventionally illegal act (distribution of copyrighted materials, armed robbery, assault, etc.) If I use a peice of software to bypass portions of a DVD, even if the movie company did not provide a skip feature, it's my choice. A DVD is a product, not a service. When you purchase the DVD, you are not entering a contract or agreement that says that you won't skip commercials. On the other hand, with, say, a cable TV service, if part of the service agreement involves only accessing the service through specific hardware (the provided cable box, which presumably only allows you to access certain features), because you signed the agreement, the cable company has some right to enforce it, even if it seems intrusive (you shouldn't have signed the agreement if you didn't agree to the terms).
Ultimately, if such a law actually was enacted and movie companies only made DVDs with unskipable commercials, it would only incite more piracy because people would be driven to distribute illegal copies of the dvds with the commercials removed, or provide illegal commercial-skipping hardware. Either that, or the DVD business would suffer because no one would want to buy movies filled with commercials.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Malachi: What right has the government to judge what is and is not a crime? This is the exact sort of argument I'm used to hearing from moral relativists. Speaking of government and morality, here's one for you:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_...transcript.htmlEmphasis mine. I invite you to read the whole text for its historical significance if for no other reason. You're also confusing public broadcasting for paid cable television service. Public broadcasting is regulated by FCC rules of conduct because anyone can turn on a television or radio anywhere in the country. Televisions and radios are also quite often present in public places or places of business, like hospital waiting rooms, auto repair centers, or any number of places. There is also a distinction between freedom of religious expression, which is protected under the first amendment, and objectionable behavior. The government, by representing the consent of the governed DOES have the right to decide what is publicly decent because the electorate put them in office to represent them. This is how a Constitutional Republic functions. Government's job is to secure the rights of the people and protect them, and it operates under the consent of the governed. That means people elect officials to represent their interests, and those officials enact laws. This includes putting into place regulatory agencies like the FCC. If you disagree with it, then vote for someone who you think will enact what you want, or lobby your congressmen to influence their positions. That is your right. It's also the right of people who disagree with you to vote for people they want and lobby them to influence their positions. Expect people to disagree with you. Whining about not liking how things work isn't going to effect change. You don't like it here? Then vote to change things, or move somewhere else. That's how the process works. You also make a mistake in believing that I take issue with atheists. I do not take issue with atheists for their beliefs. I have friends who are athiests that I get along fine with. We respect each other and our diverse beliefs, and we do not feel offended when either of us discuss our beliefs openly, debate them, or try to sway each others opinions. It's called "maturity" - learning how to get along with and coexist with people that are different than you. Pointing out that there are bigoted Christians is not educating me on anything I don't already know. I don't attempt to whitewash people's actions, I prefer they hold themselves accountable for them. Let's not forget how many bigoted secular humanists there are as well. Where I take issue is when Federal judges and organizations like the ACLU sidestep the legislative process and decide by lawsuit and court ruling that actions of private citizens - not laws - are unconstitutional when such actions are protected BY the constitution. Students have been suspended and parents fined for the child bringing a bible with them to school or even bowing their heads before a meal. Now the ACLU has sued the Pentagon for allowing Boy Scout troops onto military bases just because to join the Boy Scouts you have to believe in some kind of higher power, even though it is not specified as to WHAT higher power it is. It is discriminatory to ban them from being present because of their religious inclinations. This IS an anti-religious agenda, and it is infringing on people's constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of religious expression. The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...vol=330&invol=1The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...ol=367&page=488Emphasis again mine. If the religious rights of an atheist are protected by a Supreme Court ruling, then reciprocity is implied since atheism is a specific religious inclination. Yet, children are punished for praying in school or even looking like they are praying, and no government official is permitted to express their personal faith publicly. There is a difference between personal belief and legislative policy, and these lawsuits are resulting in lower court rulings that are in direct contradiction to the US Supreme Court's previous rulings that I've illustrated above. If you want to talk about censorship, this is censorship of the WORST kind. Finally, I will say this once again: this is a legal discussion, not a debate on the validity of Christianity, so please stay on topic and cut the Jesus-bashing. If you want to discuss religious validity you're welcome to start a new topic for that debate. If you take this off topic again you'll be subject to moderation.[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
lord_malchia
|
Oh good. weve had a shortage of anti religious biggots in here lately and its good to see someone has decided to fill the void. It's no wonder, with attitudes like that being flung around... Correct me if I'm wrong but that kind of behavior seems like something that a moderator should have edited, because it's certainly a personal attack upon me. I didn?t come in here and say ?Jesus sucks, kill all of the Christian bigots? Or anything did I? No, I?ve kept a very civil tone for this debate, although have apparently (and unintentionally) gone off topic with it. If anything, a comment like yours Woodsman only goes further to solidify my ideals. And Phoenix, first thing?s first, my name is spelled Malchia. I assume you simply misplaced the letters on accident and am thus not angered, but in many cultures such would show a lack of respect. Something to keep in mind. I?m not going to reply to anything specifically, since I must stay on topic, I guess. Even though I felt everything said was completely on topic, since it is the Right Wing that?s trying to censor us. Such things, in reality, are not tied down and neatly compacted into just one little problem, I hope you realize. They span a number of different problems. With that said, I will simply say that even I disagree with suspending children for personal prayer in school and such. Of course, you see the same kind of blind zealots on the other side of the relig-o-meter as well, they just discriminate against other things. To bow one?s head and recite a few phrases in your own mind or very quietly is not a problem with me. It?s when teachers institute classroom prayers that it becomes a big, big problem.
I didn?t put any of these official in office. Democracy doesn?t work, okay? When you have several people, none of which would make a good candidate in your eyes, then what are you to do, huh? That in itself is your freedom of choice being taken away. And equal rights are a joke, they always have been. Even now we see many minorities that completely lack same basic rights that any ?normal? American would have. A great example of this would be this election?s proposal to ban gay marriage, to take away a right that they should have, as well as many others that they don?t. There shouldn?t have even been any grey area, gay marriage should be legal, period.
You seem to want to have a debate where we?ll assume that the system works and that a near utopian society is right outside of my front door. I?m attempting to display this as if it were in reality, and the reality of it is that it?s far from off topic, as everything ties together in one way or another. These problems are sadly not just little isolated islands that need corrected, they?re a deep seeded set or moral and ideas that should have been flushed from civilization years ago. Problems such as people gasping and gagging on ignorance when they hear a certain set of four letter words. A set of words that everything thinks is bad, but no one knows why.
I?m going to stop here though, because I fear that what I have already wrote will be unfairly considered off topic, and I certainly do not want to be subjected to any moderation, or *gasp* censorship? The one you should REALLY be worried about is the fellow that posted shortly after me, Woodsman, who clearly took up a hostile and insultive stance against me without initially being provoked. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Yes that was an oversight on my part. My apoligies for the misspelling, it was unintentional. On to your comments.
Most atheists actually know more about a chosen religion than the followers of that path usually do, and this tends to be because they themselves were once part of it but were pushed away with further knowledge. It?s also partially due to the fact that most religious folk are fakers, merely following an anonymous charlatan through their blind eyes and ignorant minds. First, Woodsman was making an observation based upon your prior statements, as I've quoted above, and the behavior of people who have spouted the same kind of rhetoric on this board in the past. As such his comments do not warrant moderation since they are an observation based on your own words. You've made blanket statements outright condemning people for following a specific belief system for no other reason than the fact that you disagree with it. If that does not fall squarely under the definition of bigotry, then nothing does. Second, the topic is censorship, freedom of expression, and copyright laws. Any conversation within this area is welcome, and minor straying from the topic as course of normal conversation is expected and permitted, so I have no problem with you expressing your opinion as in your most recent post, whether I agree with it or not. That is not the issue. I don't want this turning into a tit-for-tat religion-bashing session, as these kinds of threads usually do. Why? because any time religion is brought into the discussion some people who take offense at religion's very existence use it as an excuse to start bashing, then start crying "censorship" as a way to try to circumvent the forum rules when people get pissed off about it. Religion can be included in the discussion as long as it's kept in the context of the discussion. Bashing won't be tolerated. Fair?[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
The day I've got to watch ads on a DVD I have paid for will be the day I stop buying DVDs. Not do without them, just stop buying them. :!:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tekhead
Elite
Posts: 1110
|
Agreed, shambler.
The FBI warning thing makes sense (since it is a stern reminder of the law which can be forgotten about at times), but blaring ads that scream an insignificant message at a volume louder than the movie is not cool. That is why I try to show up 10 minutes late to movies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lord_malchia
|
Fair? Yes, I believe so. Though I hardly think Woodsman's comment was called for, as I felt my statement was pretty fair. I pointed out flaws in both sides, I merely chose to focus more on that of the religious to balance your focus on the non-religious. That's all. As for an on-topic statement, heh... I too am angered by forced consumerism. Even the FBI warning disturbs me though, as I feel that personal back-ups should be allowed. In reality, this kind of stuff is merely a waste of money for the industries, because a way around everything they dish out will eventually be found. They're only stopping the most lowly of pirates and what-not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
What amazes me is they push this stuff like it's an EULA for computer software, where you only purchase a "useage right". If that's the case, they should offer free lifetime replacements owing to changing media formats.
I think the current fair use policy is fine and should be left alone. The US is supposed to have an "innocent until proven guilty" system of laws, where the burden is upon the state to prove someone committed a crime - not the other way around. In regards to all this copyright stuff it's turning into presumption of guilt, where the vast majority of innocent people are penalized for what other people might do with copyrighted material. To me that's akin to saying "You can't own guns because someone might commit a crime with one", or "You can't own automobiles because someone might cause an accident with one", or "You can't buy alcohol because someone might get drunk and cause an accident with the gun or car they shouldn't own in the first place." Punishing the innocent along with the guilty is not the answer.
One point I noticed in the links Footman posted is that they can press civil lawsuits for criminal activity. Civil lawsuits? I thought an activity was either a criminal matter or a civil matter, but could not be both. So if they can't convict you on criminal charges or if you choose to fight it in court, they just slap a civil lawsuit ala RIAA, which the individual cannot afford to fight in court since, unlike a criminal trial, the court is not required to provide representation, so people end up paying the fine just to avoid the legal expenses, loss of work, and possibly loss of job, house, and whatever else could result in their lives being ruined. Doesn't this equate to double-jeopardy, and when do these lawsuits become a convenient form of "tax", similar to how police departments are funded by traffic fines? Where does it stop?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Most of the internet IS in the US, and countries like China censor internet content all the time. Although, fortunately, they're only speculating in the article. They've not said the FCC is actively persuing internet censorship.
I also read this blurb:
Thierer thinks indecency-obsessed politicians will be careful, though. He predicts that while they would target cable television -- home to raunchy shows like South Park, which used the S-word 162 times in a single 2001 episode -- they will stay away from premium channels like HBO. When it comes to basic cable, he said, it's easier to use the argument that it's "pervasive" like broadcast television -- in other words, difficult for children to avoid.
There is a difference, of course. Broadcast television and radio are free and come uninvited into homes. Courts won't fail to notice that Americans shell out billions of dollars a year on cable, satellite TV and now satellite radio. This is where I draw the line. Broadcast television and radio is fine to have some regulation, but cable television is a paid service. While broadcast radio and television are everywhere, nobody's forcing anyone to have cable. It should be left up to the viewers, channel owners, and cable providers to determine what content is and is not acceptible since this is the realm of private commerce. The FCC has no business imposing decency rules on cable, digital satellite radio OR the internet. I also think they should define it clearly as to what is and is not permissible on broadcast, otherwise it's just guesswork.[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1011
|
While broadcast radio and television are everywhere, nobody's forcing anyone to have cable. Yes and no on that one. Cable IS a paid service, but a good 90% of the apartments in my area 'offer' free cable. In that you get basic cable for free, and essentially pay-per-view on premium channels. Perhaps if the individual could in some fashion officially request specific channels. To avoid having those they may not wish to have by simply not subscribing to them. Example: The Women's Channel is on basic cable, in many basic cable plans the Learning Channel is NOT. Not even considering the fact that the men's channel is Premium*. *'Men's channel' being the Men's channel, not porn. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
