from RollingStone.com News: Jackson Suit Dropped
I know, that people of different cultural origins, different tranditions and beliefs could not handle same events in the same way. But at the same time I know that any restrictions applied on humans, always created counter actions.
Back in the days of USSR, state controlled TV and Radio had always few minutes delays for ANY BROADCASTING.
As a result of that the value of the things BROADCASTED was diminished by a majority of population. Basically, most of things announced by Soviet TV and Radio on behalf of goverment were persieved as UNIMPORTANT BLABBING...
How is my rhetoric question, - WHO IS TO LOOK AT THE BROADCAST AND STOP IT WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED OBJECTIONABLE? I always thought that these people are called CENSORS... right?
What is concerning you more "freedom of press (media)" or "censorship"?
Another question, - what is happened, actually? People got offended by a sudden public exposure of body parts. What makes this offensive? Are we really protecting children brains, or we are trying to hide our own incompetence as parents and accuse media instead? Or we are trying to find legal clause to sue *these rich bastards (replace last with your favorite swear-at term)* and get a little money for ourselves? I think that we have a little bit of everything here...
...Knoxville native Terri Carlin filed a proposed class action lawsuit in a U.S. District Court last Wednesday, charging the accused with causing her and "millions of others" to "suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." The suit sought billions of dollars damages. According to Carlin's dismissal paperwork, she plans to wait and see if outrage over the incident will prompt new measures to prevent "indecent" material from airing on primetime television again....Here we go!
Some changes have already been established. CBS, having been burned at the Super Bowl, ran a five-minute tape delay last Sunday for its coverage of the Grammy Awards. ABC is planning a five-second delay during its February 29th Academy Awards telecast. The Federal Communications Commission is also investigating the incident, having fielded almost as many complaints in the time since the flash as it did in all of 2003. Congress is also discussing more stringent rules, regulations and fines for networks that air 'indecent' material at certain hours.
I know, that people of different cultural origins, different tranditions and beliefs could not handle same events in the same way. But at the same time I know that any restrictions applied on humans, always created counter actions.
Back in the days of USSR, state controlled TV and Radio had always few minutes delays for ANY BROADCASTING.
As a result of that the value of the things BROADCASTED was diminished by a majority of population. Basically, most of things announced by Soviet TV and Radio on behalf of goverment were persieved as UNIMPORTANT BLABBING...
How is my rhetoric question, - WHO IS TO LOOK AT THE BROADCAST AND STOP IT WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED OBJECTIONABLE? I always thought that these people are called CENSORS... right?
What is concerning you more "freedom of press (media)" or "censorship"?
Another question, - what is happened, actually? People got offended by a sudden public exposure of body parts. What makes this offensive? Are we really protecting children brains, or we are trying to hide our own incompetence as parents and accuse media instead? Or we are trying to find legal clause to sue *these rich bastards (replace last with your favorite swear-at term)* and get a little money for ourselves? I think that we have a little bit of everything here...
1:18 PM by igor
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home