Anthony Smithee

There is a difference between television and reality, and the majority of people are aware of this difference.
I will not be signing.

If you would block objectionable content on television then you may as well request that the History Channel be blocked, or most nature documentaries.

PCMadness

Christ .... the broadcasting regulatory system used to work, what has changed?

With your logic we should all be able to regulate our speed when driving without having speed limits imposed by the government.

Similarly, there shouldn't be any age restrictions on drinking or smoking because everyone will do the right thing and wait until they are a responsible adult.

In essence you are saying that nothing should be regulated by the government and we should all be able to regulate ourselves. If that's the case, anarchy will rule, because judging by the comments on this thread, no one gives a **** about anyone else other than themselves.

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

PCMadness

Can I flip this round?

Do any of you think that the classifications should be removed from movie releases?

Would you be happy if your 11 year old went down town with her mates to watch a movie and ended up seeing an erotic hardcore porn movie, or a snuff movie?

Even more likely, your daughter went to watch TV at her friends house (who parents aren't as strict as you) to watch something you wouldn't approve.

I'm trying to draw a line here. I'm not clear where you all draw yours.

Or is none of this important to you anymore?

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

PCMadness

Not necessarily kids though eh!

Why? Do you see the battle of Hastings in glorious technicolor? No! Nor do you see the real horror of the wild in the nature programs.

All I will say is compare a 1960/70s action film to a 2007 film. It's there in all is gory glory in the modern films whereas in the older films it was more implied. (ie. you could show it pretty much any time of the day)

Just as the sex scenes were done, if necessary and not gratuitously.

I really cannot comprehend why others here accept this slide.

__________________
Edmund Burke (1729–1797)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

My Ignore List
Useless idiots, whiny little sh*ts, know it alls, people that can dish it but can't take it

mkpdavies

No sign for me, but I would sign something that gave parents more control over what they can lock and what gets flagged up as "violent" to them.

Personally, I would like to be able to watch Hostel, Seven, American Psycho during the day on any Movie channel, instead of having to wait until after the ridiculous watershed. Push the control back into the parents hands.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Westcountryman

Exactly, and private companies have responded to this. You can get content/parental control on Freeview, Sky, Virgin and the internet these days.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Westcountryman

Works on the autobahn.

You think this stops them now? I've caught a pair of five year olds smoking before now. I'd argue for the age restriction in this case, merely because smoking and (excessive) alcohol can be detrimental to a child's development.

Regulation should be as minimal as possible, and it should only be for public safety and to stop companies misleading or lying to the public.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

harryaldridge

Lol Against government intervention into choice, and then advocating Ofcom step in to upgrade the broadband network!!

btw, no telco is going to upgrade the broadband network as it is too expensive. Fiber to the home is very very expensive and BT isn't going to do it because they will be forced (EU regs) to open up that network to competition, i.e. not allowed ot benefit from their investment. So the broadband access network will remain copper and remain limited (that is until I come along with next generation wireless technologies like WiMAX/4G and build an alternative wholesale access infrastructure outside urban areas (Bluenowhere: Wireless Solutions) (Apologies for going off topic)

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

Westcountryman

The government were considering upgrading the Broadband network by getting rid of the remaining copper and replacing it with fiber optics. This was until OfCom said the creaking system was fine as it is! Namely, us poor Brits don't need better speed and bandwith. Ba****ds.

As you point out, BT would do it, but regulations forcing them into opening their infrastructure make the investment pointless.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Smidgey

And by forcing companies to not show what they wish to show on their own property, you are enacting a censure. No ifs, not buts.

It may be patronising, but from the rest of your post it seems to be the truth.

So you are saying that government is not inherently violent? Perhaps you would like to test that by not paying taxes? I thought not...

The law can go too far and in our country it has.

Again, I'm going to make the point you so nicely dodged:

Why should you be so egotistical to think you have the right to punish everyone else because of your own viewing preference?

Standards have been lower than they are now and I never claimed they were not, so I don't see the purpose of this point. There have been times in Britain when every single current illegal drug (if it had been available, such as opium) was available for purchase.

And yet you still have not presented any argument other than your own opinions and emotion against my argument that the state is violent.

There is a clear difference between something being moral and something be legal. I think such things on our screens are immoral, but I know (unlike violent people like you) that it is more immoral to us violence to censure such viewing.

Then what on earth are you complaining about?

You must be like a complete saint I suppose?

You try to wrap up your own selfishness in caring for others. Of course I think about others in society, which is why I am not punishing them by censuring their television viewing. When it is reverted around like this it is clearly you who are caught up in your own selfish interests.

Of course I don't. I don't have children and I never intend to have them.

I never claimed that it never has happened and I never will claim that it never has happened. So please stop following this straw man argument.

Just like the rest of your post, no actual argument, just emotive nonsense.

I'm not here to be loved. If you think people are here to be loved and gain respect it just proves my point about your selfishness.

Those who want to threaten freedom of speech with government violence are, in my opinion, the morally bankrupt ones.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel