Reader comments
A bad decency ruling

Perhaps its time for the Deseret News to enforce a little morality of its own. As I write this, adjacent to the editorial is a list of the most popular stories. Number three on that list is "'Naked' guest bares her soul".

A few minutes ago, while I was waiting for my son to arrive with his two children, I was reading letters to the editor, when my grandson jumped on my lap to give me a good-night kiss. He immediately saw the Oasis advertisement that has a photo of woman whose only covering is a towel draped across her derriere. He asked me why I was looking at a naked lady on my computer. When I tried to explain that I was reading the editorials and the letters to the editor, he just looked at me with a hurt expression and I knew that he thought that I was lying to him.

Innocence lost is never regained, whether the cause is a naked singer on CBS or a naked lady in an advertisement in the Deseret News.

How about the Deseret News taking the initiative and cleaning up its own house before taking other media to task?

Why is it that nudity on the tv is objectionable? It is because this is our culture, but I ask what actual harm does it do?

I am told that in Japan and Europe nudity on tv isn't that uncommon. In the Moslem nations women have to be fully covered, only the face can show and in some cases not even that.

Sometimes we think of our own perceptions as rock solid truth, doesn't the existance of other cultures and ways of doing things tell us something?

that is ... Our ways our perceptions are our ways and perceptions but nothing more.

I never cease to be amazed at the people that want to hold someone other than the perpetrator responsible for an act they are solely responsible for committing. The court ruled there was no collusion by CBS in Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. Fining CBS was wrong and the court fixed that. Jackson and Timberlake should be fined heavily for their actions and perhaps even spend some time in jail, but you won't stop that kind of thing by holding the wrong people responsible.

Speaking as someone from the 'rest of the world', I have to opine that Americas' moral crusaders are nuts. I missed the so called malfunction when it ran because I was getting beer and munchies, and because it was simply a bad half time show, but was able to see it on the net within a few minutes. This is silly, yet you carry on as if people died as a result. The court system must have better things to do. Grab the fortitude and spine to realise, as we have out here, that we survived this. No harm was done, except maybe to those hoping for a halftime show worth watching. Get over it, and yourselves.

When we cut down on the violence on TV we can worry about nudity. I'd rather see full-frontal nudity from both genders (and hermaphrodites) on TV all day long than have my kids exposed to the violence seen on so many shows.

I find it shocking that at article of this nature would so directly involve a particular piece of video and then NOT LINK TO THE VIDEO! Seems to indicate that you're more interested in moralizing than in informing.

Why do those in the modern American conservative movement insist they can legislate and dictate morality for everyone?

You'd think they would have learned from their previous follies of censorship, burning and banning of books, Roe v Wade, Stem-cell research, ...

I guess it just depends upon one's definition of "indecent". I find all Super Bowl halftime shows to be among the most indecent things shown on television. Fortunately, I use my FCC approved indecency protection device, better known by it's common name, the television 'OFF' button. This device is limited, however, in that it also requires an interface with my brain to function at it's highest capacity. For example, when my brain processes the informational bits "Janet Jackson & Justin Timberlake", "half time show", and a song entitled "Rock Your Body", it sends a signal to my finger to activate the FCC approved indecency protection device. This useful system has the additional benefit providing clear instructions to all possible TV consumers in my home about the standards of decency therein.

What you watch on pay TV is your business and you're free to watch whatever you want to pay for. What is aired on free TV is everybody's business. Liberals need to understand they aren't the only ones in the country, and learn to respect the opinions of others.

The Deseret News is a newspaper which, supposedly, means it underscores the First Amendment regarding freedom of speech.

Why, then, does the paper endorse censorship so readily? Given the editorial writers' wishes, there would be no First Amendment. Everything should be controlled.

The paper's censorship of reader comments is a great case in point. About 3/4th of what I've written is censored, and I don't write profanity, I don't write anything that is mean or cruel. I write ideas, and most of them are blocked.

Why do you like censorship so much, Deseret News?

Hey freedom. Feel free to turn your TV off. No one is forcing you to watch it.

tobiasrex: if it weren't for the Deseret News, how could we relate to censorship in Cuba or North Korea?

Remember, not all church owned papers, deliver the quality of the Christian Science Monitor.

Stick to watching CBN and KBYU.

I've never been a big fan of censorship in any form.

Stifles creativity and sets the stage for unbridled authoritarianism.

Most of us are big boys and girls and can regulate such things on our own.

Apt name.

How quickly the left forgets the book burnings by the national sociaialists in germany in the '30's.

Or all the communist purges and controls of information media and teachers and professors, any educated person, the reeducation centers.

remember the killing fields in cambodia?

OR the current committees in socialist countries nowdays, like canada or denmark or england, that control and punish people, authors, filmmakers for saying, writing, showing things deemed offensive.

OR now day in the US, were sex education, moral relativism., secular humanism, prafanity are okay

but Religion, God, Prayer, Morality in the public square is bad.

Given me good old conservatism anytime.

You know when the modern American conservative movement is on its last legs when even after bitter defeat in the fields of:
Prayer in public school
Roe v Wade overturned
Stem-cell research
Censorship of ... everything they don't like
Gay unions legalized
Liberal internationalism
etc., etc., etc., ...

the STILL thing there is a black-or-white answer to everything.

I recommed mandated viewing of the classic "Pleasantville."

What do you suppose this guy has been smoking?

Leave it to a wacky far-righter to try to convince everyone that Bill of Rights people are against:
Religion, God and Prayer.

When do you suppose Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are going to retire?

Even though I pounded on the DN earlier for not first cleaning its house, we need to remember that the FCC issues a license to radio and TV stations before they're allowed to broadcast. Part of the reason for that license is that there is not enough bandwidth to allow everyone who might want to open a radio station or a TV station that opportunity.

So, those licensees agree to a minimum standard of broadcast conduct, which, in my opinion, keeps the public airways from becoming a total cesspool. The FCC has every right to levy a fine against any station that does not fulfill the terms of that license.

We all know of the famous 7-second delay on the radio, which gives the radio station time to bleep anyone who violates the terms of the license. I'm sure that CBS had access to that same type of equipment to bleep out the ward-robe "malfunction".

In simple terms, CBS breached its contract with the FCC and was fined accordingly.

You want to hiold up hollywood propaganda as our bastion of intellectual thought?

Maybe along with your movie of choice, we can also mandate "Expelled, no intelligence allowed".

We want our children to a well a rounded and balanced education, don't we?

Or do you actually advocate censorship? particularly of viewpoints you disagree with?

I am less concerned with a community who cares to decide what they think is appropriate for their community or children, or in the case this story, not broadcasters not exercising a sense of proper place and time for certain things.

and community is considered here as small as an amish community to to our whole country,

and free public tv concerns the larger community.

I am more concerned with Government sponsored and advocated censorship.

Like socialist countries canada, and sweden, who will punish those and shut down voices they deem offensive or hateful.

NOt allowing a book to be published, a movie to be shown, a viewpoint disallowed, a voice muted. By the federal government!

States and smaller communites should have more leeway and freedom to decide as you go down the chain, to the bottom, homeowner over the home, to individual over self.

"You can't legislate morality."

You mean the moral belief that murder is wrong? The moral belief that property rights should be respected? The moral belief that it's wrong to beat your spouse or children? The moral belief that it's wrong to abandon children to die?

Because, let me tell you, I can make you lists of cultures and civilizations that didn't agree with any of those ideas.

Although some people have been hacking away at it for all they are worth, our culture still says you should limit sexual and sexualized behavior in front of children. I won't ask why they feel it's so important to expose children to these things and why they rush to the defense of people who do it.

But perhaps they're right that the focus shouldn't be on whether or not this was televized. If an unknown person had jumped out of the stands and flashed the audience at the Superbowl, he probably would have been hustled off by security and taken to a police station. Why should Janet be treated differently just because we know her name?