Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The new prudishness claims more victims

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / May 11, 2004 11:54 PM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The new prudishness claims more victims
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The new prudishness claims more victims
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re:The new prudishness claims more victims
by Dan McC / May 12, 2004 3:08 AM PDT
Needville ISD's policy prohibits pictures, emblems or writing on clothing that is lewd, offensive, vulgar or obscene.

I guess they just forgot to add "witty, subtle, sarcastic, ironic, insightful, controversial, intelligent, thought provoking, or interesting."

Dan
Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
by Edward ODaniel / May 12, 2004 4:07 AM PDT
Collapse -
Well, Dave, I suspect that if you had kids you might feel differently
by Ruth Harris / May 12, 2004 5:28 AM PDT

I cannot speak to the program that is discussed in your Chronicle article, having never watched it myself - but I can tell you that as a parent I have seen MANY, MANY things on shows over the past twenty or so years that I really did not want my kids to see or hear, and this includes some "classic" material. I am not saying that all of this programming should be banned or expurgated - but I am saying that if they want to show something in prime time hours, they need to be sure that it is suitable for all ages and not just adult or near-adult audiences.

As for the Hoover Dam t-shirt question, I have always found things like that to be slightly off-color, and certainly not suitable for wearing to a junior high school by a 12 year old! The school was well within its rights IMO.

I am sure that there will be some self-censoring by broadcasters which is not entirely necessary, but I hardly think it will be of sufficient scope to warrant a cry of "the sky is falling". Things will return to what passes for normal soon enough, I fear.

Ruth

Collapse -
If you don't want your kids to see...

don't let them watch. Why should we limit the choices available to others?

Dan

Collapse -
Easy to say
by Roger NC / May 13, 2004 12:51 AM PDT

But it is not unreasonable to ask that such things at least be on later in the evening, as they use to be.

While even that doesn't make it easy, many still work "traditional" hours and there is more likely to be one or even two parents home later in the evening.

Granted there are parents that work shift work, and the scheduling may not help as much.

The point is, it's one thing on a cable channel you subscribe to, it's another on broadcast tv during the "latchkey kid hours", from about 3 to 8 pm.

Why should we limit choices to others? are you advocating no restriction on broadcast tv and radio? free soft porn? or even just every jerk organization that wishes to broadcast, perhaps racists or other prejudice anytime of day?

Isn't that easy as saying don't let your kids watch. And there isn't anything wrong with being outraged at what you consider indecency on tv no more than if was in the shopping mall parking lot.

The old time and place for things is about gone, and everything goes all the time is replacing it.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Easy to say
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / May 13, 2004 4:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Easy to say

Hi, Roger.

>>But it is not unreasonable to ask that such things at least be on later in the evening, as they use to be.<<
I agree. But many of the recently slef-censored programs are on at 10:00 (9:00 Central) which should be an adult veiwing hour. The problem is that they've raised the bar to where a single "mistake" (really, a difference of personal taste) can cost companies millions, so they naturally err on the side of caution. And the FCC offers no guidance -- I think intentionally. I really think Powell's son is a prude, and using his position to impose his own narrow viepoint on everyone.

As for "easier said than done," that's why TVs now come with V-chips.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re:Re: Easy to say
by Roger NC / May 13, 2004 3:06 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: Easy to say

Yeap, later in evening, and with known expectations, I think we almost all at least agree on that. Some should only be shown perhaps in premium channels still, the really nasty stuff anyway, or pay per view of course, with password control.

V-chips, good idea maybe, not sure about implementation. Wonder how many sets with V chips are out in homes compared to ones without. My tv's are both about 6 years old, and had another one older that recently flipped out on me. Wonder how many people don't buy tv's before their old ones get really bad?

And maybe the pendulums just swinging a bit right now, as far as people being overcautious or 'a prude' as you refer to Powell's son. I doubt it'll swing back to the stone age (to some's point of view anyway).


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
But, not really.
by Dan McC / May 13, 2004 4:45 AM PDT
In reply to: Easy to say

As the article at the top of the thread indicates, things are not becoming more permissive, they are becoming much more restrictive.

I think you could go through all my posts and not find me advocating "anything at all on TV anytime of the day". What I would like to see is a well crafted definition of what is and is not allowed, and I'd like to see parents stop blaming the media for what they let their children watch and listen to.

Sorry that my position is not as extreme or titillating as you make it out, but it is a better position to discuss from.

Dan

Collapse -
Re:But, not really.
by Roger NC / May 13, 2004 3:11 PM PDT
In reply to: But, not really.

Until about 2 months ago, broadcasting was getting more permissive steadily, at least as far as I can recall.

So after 2 months of a backswing, many are screaming censorship and forcing prudish beliefs on others.

Well, so? nothing ever corrects without overcorrection. I doubt this is much more than a blip on the trend. I've no doubt it's loose back up fairly quickly as trends go. And maybe too much too soon too.

As far as your position(s), it may not be titillating, but from my POV it is extreme. That doesn't particularly seem a good place to discuss from, just my POV and IMO.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re:Re:But, not really.
by Dan McC / May 13, 2004 11:26 PM PDT
In reply to: Re:But, not really.

Wanting clear rules and parental involvment is extreme? How do you figure that?

Dan

Collapse -
Re: Well, Dave, I suspect that if you had kids you might feel differently

Hi, Ruth.

If I had kids below HS age, they wouldn't be watching Prime Suspect or Touching Evil at all, and it wouldn't have anything to do with curse words! The notion that to protect our kids we can't allow mature treatment of mature themes is flawed.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Ahhh.....I think that was what I was saying-was I not clear?

I don't feel like it is necessary to bowdlerize every broadcast. I DO think it is incumbent on broadcasters to be aware that during prime time the viewing audience includes a large number of non-adult viewers - and shows during that time period should reflect reasonable limits imposed by that demographic. As I said, I have no personal knowledge of the show you mentioned so I can't comment on it - but is Masterpiece Theater not a prime time PBS show any longer? When I used to get PBS it was on in the evening, and had some really wonderful family entertainment.

Ruth

Collapse -
Re: Ahhh.....I think that was what I was saying-was I not clear?

Hi, Ruth.

Masterpiece Theater is on in most areas at 10:00 (9:00 Central), an hour that while part of "prime time," is traditionally home to more adult fare, notably ER, NYPD Blue, FX, most of the Law and Order series, and other shows that deal with more mature issues in a more adult manner. I personally like the old system in which there was a "family viewing hour" earlier in the evening, with the more adult shows on later, after most younger kids should have gone to bed. And there is now a V-chip in the vast majority of TVs... The point is, we aren't talking about pornography here, though some of the blue-noses (apparently including Colin Powell's nepotistic son Micahel, head of the FCC) apparently don't understand the difference.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re:Re: Ahhh.....I think that was what I was saying-was I not clear?
Colin Powell's nepotistic son Micahel, head of the FCC)

Are you saying his father is the only reason he has the job? that Colin Powell inappropriately got him the position?

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
Re: Ahhh.....I think that was what I was saying-was I not clear?

Hi, Roger.

There are an increasing number of sons and daughters of high Republican office-holders being appointed to important positions. Are they all unqualified? I don't know -- but people are increasingly asking questions:
Rampant Nepotism In The Bush Administration.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
The neposistic Michael Powell?
by Evie / May 13, 2004 10:32 PM PDT

Just how condescending can you get? Kneejerk implications that he doesn't have the qualifications simply because you disagree with some of his policies? Sad.

It turns out that the blue nose prude Michael Powell has been an FCC Commissioner since 1997 when he was APPOINTED BY THEN PRESIDENT CLINTON. The promotion with an incoming Republican President to FCC head sure seems a likely one, no?

You can read a his bio here.

Well at least you didn't call him an Uncle Tom.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Also can't help but comment ...
by Evie / May 13, 2004 10:37 PM PDT

... on the author of your link and the black helicopter feel of her reporting about how siblings or spouses might just happen to hold positions in government. Arab news.com now huh? Wonder how Andrew Cuomo and Linda Daschle escaped her ample net.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: Also can't help but comment ...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / May 13, 2004 11:49 PM PDT

Hi, Evie.

The author of the piece is NOT the woman from Arab news.com -- it's entirely a quote from an article in the Washington Post that can't be accessed by non-Post subscribers without paying substantial fee. Typical Republican response to criticism, just as in the Iraq prison abuse scandal -- when the message is uncomfortable, attack the messenger and avoid discussing the corrupt reality.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Corrupt reality?
by Evie / May 14, 2004 12:07 AM PDT

Please.

Are you saying Powell is unqualified for his job? If not, this nepotism charge is scurilous and it is YOU who is attacking the "messenger" (Powell) rather than dealing with the issue.

That Ferguson picked up on Milbank's nonsense should be telling. Milbank is trying to make it sound like there is some sinister plot that the younger Pickering got elected to the House while his father has enjoyed a long and distinguished career and might be appointed to the federal bench? Puh leeze! There is no growing scandal here Dave, and if you really believe there is then the scandal is across both sides of the aisle. Cuomo and Daschle being just the first two that come to mind.

Michael Powell sounds like a pretty impressive man in his own right. What leads you to believe otherwise?

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Ahhh.....I think that was what I was saying-was I not clear?
by Dan McC / May 13, 2004 12:36 AM PDT

The prime time audience also includes a large number of adult viewers. Why should they not be able to see the material appropriate for them?

Dan

Collapse -
Re:The new prudishness claims more victims
by Diana Forum moderator / May 12, 2004 6:30 AM PDT

I remember my son getting suspended for three days for sexual harassment for saying bite me. I argued with the vice principal but got nowhere.

After he got out of that school, I sent her a kite and a T-shirt that said "Bite me" on them. The kite I got for free at a charity event and I bought the T-shirt at Dick's.

Collapse -
Perhaps...
by Dan McC / May 12, 2004 6:45 AM PDT

there can be middle ground between the three day suspension and the acceptance of 'bite me' as a core philosophy. I would think that an apology to whomever he said it would be in order as a good first step.

What messages he displays outside of school are, of course, protected speech and he'll just have to deal with those consequences.

Dan

Collapse -
Actually he didn't say it to anybody
by Diana Forum moderator / May 13, 2004 12:52 AM PDT
In reply to: Perhaps...

He was saying in connection to a situation and to another kid (it was a boy). A teacher overheard.

He used to say it to me and I would attack him to bite him. It was a game at home. I never thought of it as anything other than an exclamation of frustration (better than swear words).

Collapse -
Re:Actually he didn't say it to anybody
by Dan McC / May 13, 2004 5:15 AM PDT

It's pretty darned rude. Worse than 'kiss my @ss' but not as bad 'suck my ****'(insert slang for male anatomy here). I wouldn't put it on the approved vocabulary list for anyone below 14, and then only within their peer group away from adults. It's definitely not for polite, or for inter-generational use.

How old was your child at the time of the incident? If he was a small child when he said it to you, it was most likely a literal usage. It's current meaning is most likely derived from particularly derogatory references to oral sex. Not the kind of thing many parents want on their child's shirt. But, of course, definitions are fluid, especially with slang, and derivations are murky at best with recently coined phrases.

Dan

Collapse -
NT - Middle school - about 12 I think - he's almost 21 now so it was a while back
by Diana Forum moderator / May 13, 2004 9:03 AM PDT

.

Collapse -
9 years ago it would have been less acceptable. -nt

.

Collapse -
Uh oh ...
by Evie / May 13, 2004 11:41 PM PDT

... we might be in trouble! We bought our neighbor's kid (13 y.o. boy) a T-shirt that said "Bite Me" on it after our recent trip. We did run it by the parents Happy They won't be letting him wear it to school Happy

Evie Happy

Collapse -
BTW
by Roger NC / May 13, 2004 2:52 AM PDT

While I don't disagree there has been overreaction, corrections tend to oscillate a bit.

However, even if this case is overreaction, I do note that just because it's a certain organization or program doesn't exempt it from responsibility.

The "Masterpiece Theater", while overall I'm sure is a fine organization and program, is not exempt from responsibility and even oversight just because of who it is.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Agreed, Roger
by Ruth Harris / May 13, 2004 4:43 AM PDT
In reply to: BTW

That is precisely what I was trying to say in one of my other posts on this thread. I don't think there is any real danger of a wave of puritanism sweeping the country and destroying broadcasts right and left Happy

Ruth

Collapse -
Re:The new prudishness claims more victims
by MarciaB / May 13, 2004 8:03 AM PDT

In regard to the Hoover Dam t-shirt story..........

Agree it's nonsense - but only because something like this makes a news story these days. Seems rather ridiculous. I believe the school has the right to make those decisions regarding whether something fits within their guidelines or not. Granted, it was maybe falling into a gray area on this one, but the school had the right to make the final decision, and they did so. I feel it was out of line on the girls' parents part to take it this far. They could have had a meeting with the school and made their feelings known without such a big deal.

It is certainly the childs right to wear a t-shirt, but it is the schools right to determine whether such apparel is appropriate.

This is one of the reasons why our society is so darn "sue crazy!" Teach 'em when they're young that you can sue anyone for anything.

Silly people.

Marcia/Oregon/USA

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!