Monday, July 03, 2006

It’s Just Indecent To Treat The Poor This Way

I have this list of things I plan to do in the past if time travel’s ever invented, and one of them (not a major goal, it’s way down at the bottom of the list, but it’s there) is tell Janet Jackson “keep your damned clothes on. It’s not that pretty and it sure as hell isn’t worth the trouble it’s going to cause.”

Until then, however, we’re stuck with those laws Congress passed nearly a month ago to keep us safe from naughty words and images. I’m referring to the television indecency law that gives the FCC power to fine TV or radio broadcasters up to $325,000 any time anything naughty gets aired.

You’ve already heard the arguments about how this is detrimental to free speech and the First Amendment and everything else. But here’s one I hadn’t heard before. I found it in the East Hartford (CT) edition of the Reminder Community News. It’s a letter to the editor, although because of the horrible Flash animation on the site I can’t link to it directly.

Bucks A Must

It’s in the news. President Bush has signed “Indecency Legislation” into law, making it possible for TV and radio broadcasters to be fined up to $325,000 per incident of showing indecent nudity or broadcasting raunchy language. However, cable and satellite companies are exempt! This is discrmination against poor people. This is just absolutely unfair! Why should those who can afford cable or satellite be able to watch nudity and we poor people cannot? The Supreme Court ought to shoot this one down right now. I cannot believe this is happening in this land of the free! Only if you got the big bucks is it free!

Damn right! Preach it, brother! (Not that I have any interest in pornography. Most women don’t. But this is a matter of principle, dammit. If you guys want pornography it's none of the government's damned business, although it is a good idea to hide your porn before you invite a woman over.) You want to talk about indecency, let’s talk about how America’s laws continually hurt the poor.

6 Comments:

Anonymous TC said...

And to think we the people actually allow this worthless bunch to piss our money in such a way.

All the while many of them are nothing but worthless crooks that should be in prision.

I know you and I would be if we did the same things!!!!

11:22 PM  
Anonymous Jeff P. said...

Progressives must denounce the "porn divide" in this country, demanding the poor have access to quality porn. I'd love to see the porn industry reach out to the poor. Imagine truckloads of surplus magazines, DVDs and vibrators being distributed in poor neighborhoods.

I can see the ads now: "This is Jamal. He lives here, and doesn't get a lot to eat. That means he doesn't have the energy to give himself a vigorous tug. Won't you help?"

6:24 AM  
Anonymous Warren said...

But here’s one I hadn’t heard before.

You haven't? I have.

Money quote:
All the government's doing is discriminating against poor people. It thinks poor people are like cows, that poor people can't think straight: If we let them hear dirty words or see dirty pictures, there's going to be madness! If you're poor and all you can afford is a 12-inch black-and-white TV and can't pay for cable--you're so protected! You'd probably be happier if you could see some pornography, a pair of titties, once in a while on free TV. But a pair of titties on free TV? The government figures if you saw that, you'd just explode!

7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women aren't interested in pornography? But...but...who's the target audience of those lesbian videos, then?

4:03 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Our beloved government fails to understand that parents and individuals already have the TV ratings and content-blocking tools to make and enforce TV viewing decisions, both for their children and themselves. This makes government regulation of TV unnecessary and undesirable.

Check out TV Watch, at www.televisionwatch.org, for a common-sense voice of reason in this debate.

11:29 AM  
Blogger Ron said...

Paul: Our beloved government absolutely does know that parents and individuals already have the TV ratings and content-blocking tools to make and enforce TV viewing decisions.
That's not the point. Those tools give individuals control over there own stuff. That kind of control doesn't interest a nanny state on iota, except as an anoyance or a convenient red herring.

7:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com