And so, the march towards a totalitarian state starts...

[raVeneyes]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05334/614534.stm


From the article:
...the hearing also brought out some major religious broadcasters arguing against a la carte offerings. They prefer channels be bundled so their programs reach more homes.

John Casoria, assistant secretary for Trinity Broadcasting Network, the nation's largest religious network, urged lawmakers to expand requirements that cable operators must-carry any television station, arguing that it would help religious broadcasters find more exposure on cable and help curb indecent fare.

If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Mr. Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.

"You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"
===============
Why should you have to? WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO? WHAT THE F*CK? Why should I have to click through your channel of sudo-christian drivel?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS UNIVERSAL! STOP THE OPPRESSION NOW!

Firstly the FCC has NO LEGAL JURISDICTION OVER CABLE AND SATELLITE BROADCASTERS! Secondly, if all 'smut' is taken off TV then I want to lobby to have all religion taken off TV as well...and all the 'shopping' channels...hey while we're at it how about all the badly produced melodrama?

 

[fossten]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05334/614534.stm


From the article:
...the hearing also brought out some major religious broadcasters arguing against a la carte offerings. They prefer channels be bundled so their programs reach more homes.

John Casoria, assistant secretary for Trinity Broadcasting Network, the nation's largest religious network, urged lawmakers to expand requirements that cable operators must-carry any television station, arguing that it would help religious broadcasters find more exposure on cable and help curb indecent fare.

If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Mr. Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.

"You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"
===============
Why should you have to? WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO? WHAT THE F*CK? Why should I have to click through your channel of sudo-christian drivel?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS UNIVERSAL! STOP THE OPPRESSION NOW!

Firstly the FCC has NO LEGAL JURISDICTION OVER CABLE AND SATELLITE BROADCASTERS! Secondly, if all 'smut' is taken off TV then I want to lobby to have all religion taken off TV as well...and all the 'shopping' channels...hey while we're at it how about all the badly produced melodrama?

Sound the trumpets, alert the media, WRITE DOWN THIS DATE, because:I


I'm curious, what do you think of this article?

Hillary targets violent games
Washington - Backed by gruesome shots of computerised cannibalism, police beatings and violence, campaigners on Tuesday warned parents that their children were increasingly at risk from "sadistic" video games.

Senator Hillary Clinton and former vice-presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman meanwhile launched new legislation intended protect kids from graphic, violent and sexual material on their game consoles.

The National Institute on Media and the Family said in its annual report that video game retailers had failed to honour promises to safeguard children from violent and sexual content in new generation video games.

"There has been significant industry progress and reforms over the last decade, but ever more violent and sadistic games are still ending up in the hands of children," said the institute's president David Walsh.

Walsh called gave the video game industry a grade of "D+" over the last decade as regards protecting children, and called on retailers to embrace an independent ratings system for games.

"Retailers would rather appear as if they care about children instead of actually small steps to protect them," said Walsh.

Walsh concluded his presentation by showing video footage of games featuring police shootings, violence, graphic language and even cannibalism.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), an industry self regulatory body was not working, Walsh said, and warned that boys as young as nine-years-old were often able to buy 'M' or mature rated video games.

Parents must make informed decisions

Clinton sprung into action after a controversy earlier this year involving the latest edition of the Grand Theft Auto game which could be modified to include graphic sex with a modification called Hot Coffee available on the internet.

"I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids cant walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content," said Clinton, a possible 2008 presidential candidate.

"Today's report is yet further proof that we need to make sure parents have the tools and support they need to make informed decisions for their children."

The legislation would make it a crime for any business to sell or rent a Mature, Adults Only or Ratings pending game to anyone younger than 17.

On Monday, the gaming industry said Sony's next-generation PlayStation 3 would join the new Microsoft Xbox 360 in giving parents tools to limit access to computer games deemed too risqué or violent.

 

[raVeneyes]

Sound the trumpets, alert the media, WRITE DOWN THIS DATE, because:I

I'm curious, what do you think of this article?

"There has been significant industry progress and reforms over the last decade, but ever more violent and sadistic games are still ending up in the hands of children," said the institute's president David Walsh.

Can someone explain how that is the fault of the video game industry or of the government?

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), an industry self regulatory body was not working, Walsh said, and warned that boys as young as nine-years-old were often able to buy 'M' or mature rated video games.

How exactly is the ESRB not working? They're rating the games appropriately...they're doing their part of the job. I would give Walsh a "D-" on problem detection and solving skills.

"I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids cant walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content," said Clinton, a possible 2008 presidential candidate.

Who the hell actually thinks Hillary would make a good presidential candidate? No one... Could we drop the honorary?

Empowering parents would be explaining the complexities of the ESRB's ratings and teaching them that they have to supervise what 'entertainment' their children take part in... I don't mind guidelines saying you can't sell graphic content to minors, just like you can't sell porn to minors...but making a national law...making it a federal crime? Who's going to pay to enforce that?

"Today's report is yet further proof that we need to make sure parents have the tools and support they need to make informed decisions for their children."

Parents can't make informed decisions for themselves...much less for their children...good luck with that.

On Monday, the gaming industry said Sony's next-generation PlayStation 3 would join the new Microsoft Xbox 360 in giving parents tools to limit access to computer games deemed too risqué or violent.

Good. Parental locks on video game consoles, dvd players, and cable boxes are a good thing, only I never want them to become like the V-Chip and be interactive. They should block by the ratings, and that's it...

 

[fossten]

"Empowering parents" is a code phrase that is intended to convey a (false) motive behind their effort to regulate the industry.

Gimme a break. They don't want to empower parents. They want to eviscerate them.

 

[MonsterMark]

"Empowering parents" is a code phrase that is intended to convey a (false) motive behind their effort to regulate the industry.

Gimme a break. They don't want to empower parents. They want to eviscerate them.

Remember, this is Hillary "IT TAKES A VILLAGE"...