Standards still valid

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 13, 2012 11:15 p.m. missed my sarcasm entirely.

  • LVIS Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    American Fork, UT
    "I don't want the government to make decisions for me. Period"

    Of course you don't. I'm sure that's why you pay no attention to the speed limits on the roadways. And, of course, neither should anyone else. Neither should the gubment be able to decide who carries a gun, or who drives a car, or how old you should be before drinking alcohol, or...

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    Jan. 13, 2012 2:42 a.m.

    The purpose of Government is to help provide safety and freedom for as many people as possible. One key element to provide freedom to people of all minds is recognizing we have a Responsibility. The government has not banned nudity and vulgarity they have only said that in the open streets and open airways profanity and nudity have a detrimental effect on everyone's freedom and therefore should not be allowed. Profanity, nudity and vulgarity can be paid for at a viewers discretion but they should not be forced on society and should not be readily available where children can stumble upon them. The Government should encourage decency and civility in society otherwise our society will cease to enjoy the freedom that we have because we have lost the counter weight of responsibility.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 10:00 p.m.

    I don't want the government to make decisions for me. Period. It's the republican way. Either embrace my freedom, or I'm a democrat.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 12, 2012 7:30 p.m.

    re: Joe Blow,

    That's why you have the right to watch whatever you want.

    Our values are different. Personally, I think that whatever people choose to watch or listen to reflects their most basic values. I think that we can't eat garbage without having that garbage impair us in some way. I also think that if we watch garbage or listen to garbage, that garbage is going to impair us. We become desensitized to the higher things in life when we wallow in the baser things.

    Every adult can choose for himself whether he believes that nudity and profanity should enter his home through his TV. The more important question is whether we should allow nudity and profanity to be displayed when children can watch it. Should we allow the TV networks to set the standard for our own families or should we set the standard.

    I've decided to be proactive and to set the standard in my home. I've decided to eliminate the filth that comes over broadcast TV. I won't allow others to tell me that I have to watch filth to fully "enjoy" life.

  • Shawnm750 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    On the one hand, I think we as a society need to put regulations in place that help ensure viewers that they can watch network television with SOME reasonable expectation of decency, even with the the current rating system.

    On the other hand, I have to agree with the court. Ultimately what viewers, or in this particular case young viewers, do or don't watch is up to them (or their parents.) If uncensored, networks would undoubtedly push the envelope, and some programs would become more racy, but for how long? Networks have rolled out highly-edgy shows before, and most of them have flopped. Local stations that refused to pick up some of those were derided for doing so, but where later validated when their claims that the shows weren't going to do well proved to be accurate.

    Networks have to produce various shows that appeal to various demographics. Even if uncensored, there would still be wholesome programs because even networks execs know that there's an audience for them, which means more viewership, and more money to be made. Plus, with the introduction of digital broadcast, I think we'll see more specialized public channels emerge in the near future.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    There are areas where only the federal government can effectively function; public safety, national defense, interstate commerce, collecting taxes, and other issues that cross state borders. Only anarchists would argue differently. Controlling the airways is a legitimate governmental function that Mr. Obama has correctly identified for intervention. The hyperbole from LDS Liberal and others obfuscates rather illuminates the legitimate role of elected government.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Jan. 12, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    Alito is right, internet streaming is the direction Television is headed, and we should welcome it. It provides a market solution where parents can be empowered to set the limits they deem appropriate, rather than having those boundaries arbitrarilly determined by anonymous regulators.

    These kinds of controls are best handled by private citizens and not regulators. Parents groups are already pretty good at boycotting programs they deem innappropriate, and many parents are good at controlling what their children watch. Those that aren't, still will not be helped by regulations, at least unless we decide that we want to regulate/monitor the internet like Iran.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Jan. 12, 2012 2:40 p.m.


    I do not want to restrict my entertainment to that which is "uplifting".
    What you consider "near smut" I may find to be entertaining.
    Life is full of "violence, dysfunctional families and foul mouthed comedians"
    Isn't is reasonable for movies and TV to sometimes reflect that?

    I can certainly understand the need to protect children from some of the programming on the airwaves.

    But, I am not a child. And while I respect your right to only choose "uplifting" programming, I would like to have a wider selection.

    I support the ability to block such programming from entering your home.
    I DO NOT support others attempts to determine what should enter mine.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 2:09 p.m.

    I'm sooooo confused.

    Do Conservatives want Government OUT of our lives, and let the markets decide?
    Do they want Government in our homes, in our bedrooms, and in our TVs?

  • three11stu Saratoga Springs, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    Nobody has a right to being provided with clean and appropriate entertainment, the same as nobody has the right to being provided dirty and inappropriate entertainment. Just because you own a TV does not mean that producers and networks have the obligation to provide you with entertainment you find clean and family friendly. They are free to make whatever show they want, and we all have the choice to either watch the show or not watch the show. Those that make commercials are free to make whatever commerical they want in order to try and sell their product.
    If you own a TV, you should know of the risks that come from watching television, including being shown things that you do not want to see.
    There are so many tools available to help people know the content that is included in the shows they watch. People need to regulate on their own, and stop having the government do everything for them.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 12, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    So Obama is in favor of a "safe haven" from smut on TV. Would Romney turn that around in the name of "getting the government out of business"?

  • Sandy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Ahem, so are we really trying to protect the children? Do we really think trash and smut does not hurt the rest of us, the so-called adults? How is it that we think smut-polluted adults have no bad effect on the children they come in contact with, when smut-filled television does? So if you stay up late on relish the smut, and then walk and talk among children or adults the next day, what good has it done to keep smut off the TV in prime time? I argue that the infected adult is just as contagious.

    Smut is bad for everyone, and it is tragic that our society is in such denial about it.

  • newintown WOODS CROSS, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    The old saying, "education does not take place until behavior is modified" is still valid. Unfortunately, behavior modification is at the sole discretion of the individual. I have often asked my children, "what did you learn in school today?" The response was nearly always, "we talked about..."

    What is talked about and what is learned can be very different things. No matter what controls we place on our lives and the lives of others, actions will always be decided, not by the controller, but by those being controlled. Reference is often made to a mythical book, "Free Agency and How to Enforce It".

    Does society have the right and power to decide its own standards? Of course it does. The tricky thing is determining who get to have the loudest or final say in the decision. Ultimately, the best protection against filth and degradation of community mores is education, not more outside controls.

    When seeking to controls others behavior, we'd better take a careful look into our own hearts. Does our own behavior need modification? If so, education has not taken place. Think about it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 12, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    In our home, we do not watch broadcast TV. We carefully pick the movies that we watch. We decide what will be available to our grandchildren when they are here.

    Years ago, we stopped watching broadcast TV. It wasn't worth the effort to try to find good, uplifting programming. At first, we mostly watched channel 11 (BYU public TV), but how many times can someone watch "Little House on the Prairie"?

    Keeping smut out of our homes is the responsibility of the parents. Choosing the lesser of many evils is not the same as rejecting all evil. Broadcast TV has shown that all it cares about is advertising revenue. When the programming is NOT uplifting and the commercials promote base appetites, why would anyone invite that "near smut" into their homes, even if nudity and profanity were eliminated?

    Our homes should be havens where correct values are lived and taught. Inviting violence, scenes of dysfunctional families, and foul mouthed comedians into our homes does not promote correct values.

    Sorry, but broadcast TV chose a path, years ago, that made it unacceptable to be allowed into my home.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 7:30 a.m.

    The courts will eventually follow the public. The public has been choosing to have dangerous material freely available, thus allowing the erosion of family values.

    We must reverse the trend and protect ourselves and our children from addictive content. We start by cleaning up our own viewing habits.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that FOX TV, which runs some of the most raunchy shows on network TV is also the network that claims its news broadcasts are "fair and balanced." Or that they are champions of some nebulous thing they call "Family Values?" All that while suing to allow themselves to pollute our living rooms even more.

    Can anyone spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 6:58 a.m.

    The fact that kids can get negative influence entertainment from other sources is besides the point. The 'air waves' in question belong to the public, and as such, congress has a right to regulate them.

    The reasoning that kids can get negative influence entertainment from other sources so don't regulate is faulty. Because there are many unsafe harbors, does this mean there should be a decrease in the number of safe harbors that already exist?

    The notion that government should never regulate is curious. A major purpose for government existing in the first place is to place barriers in front of behavior that hurts others.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 12, 2012 5:48 a.m.

    I find it fascinating that Fox, a network well known for its conservatism, is here championing what most "values voters" would find repulsive.

    To all who argue that the channel changer is the only control needed, I would say that we then need to be absolutely certain that our children and grandchildren are never at any home without a responsible adult present. Unless and until we can be certain of that, the concept that they will just change the channel is a hoax.

    Also, even if I am present, why should my children or grandchildren be subjected to glimpses of filth or snippets of verbal garbage while channel surfing or if they just happen to punch the wrong numbers into the channel changer?

    Finally, even when watching family friendly entertainment, some of the commercials are decidedly not so family friendly. More needs to be done here.

    If they want to be a broadcast channel, then they should accept the responsibility of being part of the public square where nudity and profanity are not allowed. If they want to be something else, then they should be a premium service.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 12, 2012 12:29 a.m.

    Do you want government to control our lives or not? Why is it OK for government to control what we watch on television, but not OK to decide what kind of health insurance we buy?

    Personally, I think almost everything on TV is either offensive, or stupid, or out and out garbage. That's why I don't watch TV. I read and listen to music. Try it, if everyone did, maybe TV programming would improve.