Senator Vows To Do Something About T.V. Violence

[Brando @$$ Fat]

http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2007/06/26/699575.html&cvqh=tot_senator



Sen. Rockefeller Criticizes TV Violence
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 26, 1:15 PM

WASHINGTON - Big media companies that include graphic violence in their programs are more concerned about short-term profits than the long-term health of children, and government should intervene, a senator said Tuesday.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he will push legislation in the coming weeks to limit violent content in the media.

"I fear that graphic violent programming has become so pervasive and has been shown to be so harmful, we are left with no choice but to have the government step in," Rockefeller said at a meeting of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

"To be blunt, the big media companies have placed a greater emphasis on their corporate short-term profits than on the long-term health and well-being of our children," Rockefeller said.

Others on the panel, including ranking minority member Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, were unenthusiastic.

"I think we have to tread a lot softer than you indicate," Stevens said. He said he was concerned about First Amendment implications of any legislation and the possibility that Congress might overreach and pass a law that would be invalidated in court.

The hearing included a brief video montage of clips of graphic scenes of violence and rape played for the packed committee room and compiled by the Parents Television Council.

The issue of television violence has gotten more attention lately. In April the Federal Communications Commission released a report urging action on the issue, and laying out a number of options Congress could pursue if it were to write legislation.

Among the chief recommendations was requiring the cable television industry to offer programs on an "a la carte" basis, something FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has long supported. Such a system would allow parents to avoid paying for and receiving channels that contain content they find objectionable.

Rockefeller, in a bill he offered during the last Congress, did not support that proposal, but the senator's spokesman said before the hearing that "every option is on the table."

One thing the FCC did not do in its report was define the meaning of "excessively violent programming that is harmful to children" which would be at the core of any legislative initiative.

Witnesses at the hearing included Peter Liguori, president of entertainment for Fox Broadcasting Co., which produces the show "24."

Liguori said that there was "no causal link" between television violence and violence in young people, an issue that has been hotly debated. "Without a causal link, we cannot justify imposing content limits on our media," he said.

The broadcast executive voiced the industry's oft-repeated view that parents are the first line of defense when it comes to protecting their children from violent content on television.

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University representing a group called the "ad hoc media coalition," cautioned the panel about pursuing legislation, urging them not to "sacrifice free speech on the altar of protecting children."

Rockefeller chaired the meeting at the request of regular Chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who was not present. Inouye, in previous statements has expressed support for an anti-TV violence law.


_____________________________________



http://www.permalife.com/prodimages/20x20a.gif

[Scarfather]

*puts hand to ear, hears a solemn tear drip down the cheek of Lynn7*

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Scarfather
*puts hand to ear, hears a solemn tear drip down the cheek of Lynn7*


Wait, because Republicans aren't the ones doing it?:confused:

[Scarfather]

*puts hand to ear again*

They be tears of victory matey.

[Jon Lyrik]

Oh god, not this post-PMRC shit again.

[Squid Vicious]

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i168/kieranmahon2000/HelenLovejoy.jpg

[shoe1985]

I thought it was the parents' job to monitor their kids? Why don't parents do more to protect their kids?

[Vong]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I thought it was the parents' job to monitor their kids? Why don't parents do more to protect their kids?

Because today's parents are lazy and dumb, duh!

[Vong]

*double post for some reason*!

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Vong
Because today's parents are lazy and dumb, duh!

True, but I blame it on the expectations that parents have that they must all work to achieve success. I remember growing up and having my mom there for me. She was there when I got home from school, took my to the doctors, anything really, she was there. My dad worked, but we spent a lot of time together when he came home.

Today's parents must work because the majority go in debt, and spoil their kids so much. One parent should work while the other is home with the kids, maybe we wouldn't have the problems with our children like we do now.

[EVILxxx]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

He should probably shut up now.

[Jon Lyrik]

"Something else I'm getting tired of is all of this stupid bullshit we have to listen to all the time about children...it's all you listen to now...children...'what about the children', 'help the children', 'save the children', you know what I say? Fuck the children!"--George Carlin

Oldie but goodie.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

He should probably shut up now.


Such a pointless fucking argument, yet comes out more often then members of the Glee Club.

[jolanar]

Those are some interesting graphs. I had no idea crime had dropped that dramatically in the past 15 years.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by jolanar
Those are some interesting graphs. I had no idea crime had dropped that dramatically in the past 15 years.

The statistics are actually quite amazing. Like cut-in-half kind of amazing.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by jolanar
Those are some interesting graphs. I had no idea crime had dropped that dramatically in the past 15 years.

That's because reporting the FACT that we live in a much less violent society now than we did 15 years ago doesn't fit into the constant irrational fear = high ratings agenda that the mainstream media has.

There is absolutely no link between violent movies, violent t.v., video games, or any other fictional violence and real violence. Despite all their attempting scapegoating and sandy vaginas, none of the politicians or other various asshats who try to enforce unwanted and unnecessary censorship upon us have a reason to do so except to get the concerned soccer mom vote. Senator Jay Rockefeller needs to shut the fuck up and go back to the 17th century.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Senator Jay Rockefeller needs to shut the fuck up and go back to the 17th century.


Which, coincidentally enough, happens to be located in West Virginia.

[The Postmaster General]

The only problem I have with media is the misuse of time slots.

Regardless of what anyone says, there is no logic behind advertising syndicated South Park during The Price Is Right.

With the addition of feeling media companies should stop being so damn predatory in when they place their adverts, I really agree with what every one is saying here. No doubt, though, that parents' jobs are a bit stepped on when "more adult-oriented" programing is advertised during kiddie shows.

Either way, if they want to focus on something to stop exposing kids to, why don't we start with the fucking douche and viagra commercials? Hey, how about stop leading into news promos with stories of violent crimes?

To single out entertainment-based media is a bit double-standared. It seems to me the stuff that isn't treated as comedy or drama would be of greater consequence (IF ANY).

No matter - it's nearing big election time, so all the assholes are making themselves known.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

This would seem like a really bad political move at this point. In the 2004 election, the Democratic candidates tried to seem as conservative as possible (failing miserably) because America had a conservative mindset. Maybe this election will be different in that the candidates will try to seem as liberal as they can.

[MadsenOMC]

What do you mean by the candidates attempted to appear as conservative as possible? I think the problem was that Kerry was Swift Boated. It was dirty but it worked.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
What do you mean by the candidates attempted to appear as conservative as possible? I think the problem was that Kerry was Swift Boated. It was dirty but it worked.


The #1 issue of that election, according to surveyed voters, wasn't even foreign policy......it was "family values." Although, I do think the Swift Boat Vets did sway a couple of million votes away from Kerry to Bush.

[MadsenOMC]

I see what you're getting at. It will be interesting to see how it all progresses between now and the primaries.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Rudy's done an amazing job of getting conservatives on his side mainly through 9/11 related talking points. I think that is what this next election will be all about.....talking points.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Rudy's done an amazing job of getting conservatives on his side mainly through 9/11 related talking points. I think that is what this next election will be all about.....talking points.

He certainly has, and he is going to try and ride 9/11 all the way to the White House.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
The statistics are actually quite amazing. Like cut-in-half kind of amazing.

In the book Freakonimics, the author concludes that legalized abortion had a direct result on the crime rate. 17-18 years after it was legalized, the crime rate dropped dramatically.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
In the book Freakonimics, the author concludes that legalized abortion had a direct result on the crime rate. 17-18 years after it was legalized, the crime rate dropped dramatically.

I learned about that as a possibility in my (don't laugh) Juvenile Delinquency class.

[Criminal Rock]

I laughed... sorry...

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by electriclite
Which, coincidentally enough, happens to be located in West Virginia.



Bwhahahahaha.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
In the book Freakonimics, the author concludes that legalized abortion had a direct result on the crime rate. 17-18 years after it was legalized, the crime rate dropped dramatically.


I forgot about that part of it. Interesting book. (Okay, I did the audio CD)

Wait - I thought the actual statistic was that abortion rates were rising because the last days are among us.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Rudy's done an amazing job of getting conservatives on his side mainly through 9/11 related talking points. I think that is what this next election will be all about.....talking points.

I am hoping it is his downfall in the end. People are going to vote for him on name value alone. His name was plastered everywhere during and after 9/11. People need to really look at the candidates and find the one that works for them.


I agree with you guys on advertising certain things like violence during morning tv shows.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
industry to offer programs on an "a la carte" basis, something FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has long supported. Such a system would allow parents to avoid paying for and receiving channels that contain content they find objectionable.

That's already available; it's called "Don't subscribe to cable."

I hate it when people blame TV, especially cable TV, when there's the option of not having it at all. Go to the parents, tell them to get the V-chip, tell them to throw out their television or something. Tell the kids to read a book or something, go outside, whatever. There's plenty of options other than going straight to the media saying it's their fault.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

EDIT: Ignore post

[<3mekthx]

Originally posted by bigred760
That's already available; it's called "Don't subscribe to cable."

I hate it when people blame TV, especially cable TV, when there's the option of not having it at all. Go to the parents, tell them to get the V-chip, tell them to throw out their television or something. Tell the kids to read a book or something, go outside, whatever. There's plenty of options other than going straight to the media saying it's their fault.

Do you have a problem with having the option of only paying for the channels that you want to receive from cable/satellite?

[zombievictim]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I thought it was the parents' job to monitor their kids? Why don't parents do more to protect their kids?

My thoughts exactly. I mean if you can't control what your child watches on TV then they shouldn't be watching TV at all. I mean, if you're letting your 7 year old watch the Sopranos, then you have some serious problems. It's the parents job to prohibit certain shows and channels. It's the parents fault, not the media.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Although, I do think the Swift Boat Vets did sway a couple of million votes away from Kerry to Bush.

Anyone who was swayed by that campaign is mentally unfit to live.

[EVILxxx]

The few votes that the Swift Boat adds (which I think I saw on tv about twice) took away from Kerry have nothing on the fact that Kerry is a douche bag.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
The few votes that the Swift Boat adds (which I think I saw on tv about twice) took away from Kerry have nothing on the fact that Kerry is a douche bag.


These days you have to be at least a bit of a douche to get into the White House.


Besides, he was from Massachusetts, what do you expect?;)

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
These days you have to be at least a bit of a douche to get into the White House.


Besides, he was from Massachusetts, what do you expect?;)

No argument here, but he was a huge douche. Do you recall when he had himself taped registering for a hunter's permit? "Is this where I get me a hunting license?" I believe is the quote. What a good 'ol boy.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by <3mekthx
Do you have a problem with having the option of only paying for the channels that you want to receive from cable/satellite?

No, not really. But I've heard this option come up before and cable stations DO NOT want to do it. And I doubt that Congress, or anyone else, will be able to make them do it. For the life of me I can't remember the reason, but it probably has to do with money - I can't remember the details and logistics.

But still, even if it's a pay-per-station basis, programming will still be blamed for whatever crap it does to whatever kid is watching it. And the parents will not be blamed; that's my issue with all this.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
No argument here, but he was a huge douche. Do you recall when he had himself taped registering for a hunter's permit? "Is this where I get me a hunting license?" I believe is the quote. What a good 'ol boy.


Haha, yeah.....and the Democrats still wonder why they lost.

[<3mekthx]

I've heard the cable companies say that an a la carte system would end up costing the consumer more. I really don't care either way.

[EVILxxx]

Well Comcast has pretty good parental controls. Don't want your kids watching a station? Put the 4 digit code in and block it. Want to watch the channel yourself? Unlock the station.
I believe you can even lock out "TVMA, TV17", ect. shows as well.
I think most cable providers have similar systems so this really shouldn't be an issue.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, Comcast is tight. I'm always worried I'll be screwed up and screw up and set a code, then forget it and have to make phone calls so I can watch Family Guy.



bigred:

That's already available; it's called "Don't subscribe to cable."

Well, now are you saying that because I want to order Nick Jr. for my kid so he can watch The Backyardigans, that it's my fault if they wake up late a night and flip on... I don't know, but don't answer this yet. I know your line of thinking, but have to say not to blame cable, or people who subscribe to cable.

Let's face it. The issue is uptight parents who get all flustered and stupid when their kid says sex, penis, vagina, or shuttlecock if they aren't into sports. These kids see something that they probably don't need to see at whatever age -- Okay, a rather minute problem. The kid should have a good relationship and be open with their parent - then they can go and repeat what they saw. A lot of kids don't seem like this, so now the small problem is confounded, and a bit bigger. So maybe the kid does talk to the parent, and the parent should be able to maturely, and sensibly talk about what they've learned, and spin it to be age appropriate. In a day where parents are getting younger and younger, and the general public less and less common sense -- this doesn't happen. Now we are getting a big problem. Finally, the parent should be able to observe their kid, understand their "style" and knowing their overall MO. But with parents away from the home more, so many self-fullfilling home entertainment devices, and with information being so much easier to get off Wikiparent than the real parents --- See, now we are at the point where some coke smoking legislator has to stroke and breathe on dicks with his pussy-ass "blame entertainment!" platform.

[someguy]

It's gonna rip our dicks off

[Criminal Rock]

I sure hope so...

[someguy]

Originally posted by Senator Tankerbell
GENTLEMEN I PROPOSE THAT THIS ARTS FUNDING IS LIKE A MILKING MACHINE AND UNLESS WE SHUT IT DOWN, IT'S GONNA RIP OUR DICKS RIGHT OFF!

That's what I meant.

[The Postmaster General]

El-em-effin-eh-oh.

[Jon Lyrik]

There's such a thing as parental locks. Even if you're kid is clever enough to override it, well, so what? That's the consequence of owning a TV and having a curious kid. Don't like it? Don't get a TV. Or don't have a kid. If you're nutty enough to really think a glimpse of Busty Coeds on late-night TV is gonna turn him into a communist sex maniac, you probably would have done him a favor if you pulled out the night he was conceived.

[The Postmaster General]

Parents are just lazy, I think. To me, trying to stay ahead of your kid is a perk of parenthood. When else would I get to apply lessons learned from Miami Vice, Parenthood, and The Neverending Story all rolled into one?

[Kevin Lockard]

WE NEED A BLACK POSTER'S OPINION ON ALL OF THIS.