Government must continue to control decency standards on public airwaves

U.S. Supreme Court makes reasonable decision in protecting FCC powers to regulate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Pippen Kaysville, UT
    June 24, 2012 8:31 p.m.

    That this editorial begs for government intervention in what is produced for consumption in the media is a remarkable contradiction.

    What is that contradiction? The Deseret News (DN) does commerce in the media market. They are quite smug in their calls for government regulation of ugly material because, fortunately for the DN, many in Washington happen to agree with the DN's point of view of what is ugly material.

    But what if that weren't the case? What if Washington happened to be full of people who didn't like Mormon stories? What if they didn't like politically charged stories, or editorials, or comments on editorials such as this? I expect that then the DN would be calling foul for the unjust regulation of free speech.

    What we need is for government to protect principles that can and will be protected independent of which way the wind is blowing in Washington. That is the nature of a Republic and that is how a Republic differs from a Democracy. Part of being free is having the courage to self-regulate.

    Dear Deseret News, where is your courage? Why don't you defend your readers' right to choose?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2012 6:41 p.m.

    "I did understand their point of view. They believe that conservatives should remain 100 percent consistent and not cherry pick where they think government should intervene therefore justifying calling them hypocritical."

    Yes that's what they explained. But did you take the time to try to understand why they would take this stance? Why they would feel this way? Why they would feel a need to point out the hypocrisy?

    And you keep dismissing my call to try to understand who are the truly incivil ones. It seems as though you think it unimportant. But with out an understanding of that, without even trying to understand that, I dont think you will, or can, understand why.

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    June 24, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    My initial comment was a reaction to many of the posts on this thread and the aggressive nature of them against the so-called hypocritical conservatives. Yes, generally conservatives push for limited government but many do recognize that there are times government should step in.

    I did understand their point of view. They believe that conservatives should remain 100 percent consistent and not cherry pick where they think government should intervene therefore justifying calling them hypocritical. I was pointing out that they might instead be glad for a little flexibility, something they think conservatives need and which conservatives were displaying.

    Again, the truth is people's political beliefs are not all or nothing.

    Since we cannot control others it seems the real solution to increasing civility is to start with ourselves. Otherwise we are like little kids defending our actions because someone else does something worse. This doesn't work in the playground or in the adult world.

    Thanks for wishing my dad well.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2012 2:30 a.m.

    Jeanie, no it does not matter to my own personal behavior who is more uncivil. Why would it? But  it does matter, I think, because it is important to identify the real sources of incivility in this country if we are  to have a discussion about it. Or even if we are going to have an understanding of it. Your comment, your initial comment, struck me as a passive aggressive attack on liberals, that they would rather call names then welcome flexibility in conservatives opinions. 

    You liked my comment that we should try to understand others points of view. Tell me, did you take any time to try to understand the point of view of the posters that saw hypocrisy in a position and decided to point it out? Did you take any time to try to understand before claiming they would rather just call names? 

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    June 23, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    So what was my point in bringing up my dad? It was to illustrate that we all arrive at our political leanings because of our life's experiences. Once we get that it seems there can be room for some real dialogue - instead of "gotcha".

    As far as who wins at being the main source of incivility? Does it matter to our own personal behavior who is the worst? I like the last line of your post. Let's focus there Mark.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2012 8:13 p.m.

    Well, Jeanie, not sure what your father has to do with the discussion, but I wish him the best.

    I do find it interesting that you would think that only far right conservatives call names, "Yes, far right conservatives call names too. . . "

    Only far right, huh? That made me laugh. Yet you made a point to criticize "liberals" on this thread that "called" names. "Instead they (liberals) would rather call people names?"

    You seem like you are trying to truly be reasonable. But in your call for kindness (which I agree with, by the way) perhaps it would behoove you to look at the main source of incivility. Listen to the language of conservative pundits, really listen to what they are saying. Look at the comments on these boards, compare those that are conservative against liberals. And do it honestly. I think you will find that while liberals can be incivil, it pales in comparison to the attacks conservatives make on liberals.

    All the same, I think you are right we can use more civility and more of trying to understand others view points.

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    June 23, 2012 6:51 p.m.

    Mark -

    I'm not outraged. I'm just tired of the incivility. Yes, far right conservatives call names too and liberals are hypocritical at times as well - we're all dirty.

    My father is a "right-wing" conservative. There are certain topics you just don't bring up. Let me tell you how he got to this place. As a newly married man, having just recently received his doctor's license he left for the Vietnam War. He became a captain and commander over a mash unit in Vietnam. He saw first hand the consequences of the decisions of our government - in young lives lost. After arriving home he started his medical practice and during his career he experienced government regulations that limited his ability to help his patients in the best way.

    My father is generous to a fault and would give anyone (conservative/liberal) the shirt off his back.

    In sharing this all I am saying is - let's all speak a little kinder with those we disagree with. We don't know why people think as they do, but usually there is a reason and like a previous poster said, it's rarely all or nothing.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    "You really can't get over the wardrobe malfunction, can you? Nobody died. Nobody got hurt. . . We had to look on the net after to see what all the fuss was about."

    Hutterite, I was watching it at the time, and I still have not seen it. I must have blinked.

    -"I am surprised that liberals on this website don't welcome some flexibility in conservatives pro-limited-government stance. Instead they would rather call people names?"

    Jeanie, I think the thing is that this editorial is a clear example of the conservative mindset: they seem to want to remove government from all aspects of life, or so they claim. Yet the. They turn around and want government to deal with issues such as these.

    Hypocrites seems like an apt description. Though you are right about name calling. But I wonder if you reserve some of your outrage for conservatives who seem to constantly use derogatory terms when referring to liberals.

    There do seem to be a couple of conservatives who are showing consistency, however. I wonder, though, how fast they would change their tune when the free market began providing full nudity on network television.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    June 23, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    Funny how federal regulation and government intervention is bad when it comes to money making business activities. - But when nude and prude is the issue the government must get involved. I personally think that unfettered political money is far more damaging to the social order than nudity or curse words on broadcast TV.

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    June 22, 2012 5:49 p.m.

    I am surprised that liberals on this website don't welcome some flexibility in conservatives pro-limited-government stance. Instead they would rather call people names? How does this persuade others to consider their view?

    I believe that fundamentally more of us would agree on many important issues if we actually had some civil dialogue instead of some flip responses and "gotcha" posts.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 22, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    I for one have never quite understood the concept that morally questionable material is speech and the debate about such things hinges on our rights to free speech.

    In my view, the freedom of speech drives toward political discourse (which these things are not). Further, limiting the availability of such things does not change my ability to speak about them (which would limit the political discourse). As a corollary, drugs may be regulated but my speech about them (for or against) cannot.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 22, 2012 1:13 p.m.

    You really can't get over the wardrobe malfunction, can you? Nobody died. Nobody got hurt. You let yourself get offended, and that was pretty much it. As for the rest of us, as I recall the halftime show was really bad. They usually are. So, we were eating, We went to the loo. We were putting more beer in the fridge. Whatever. We had to look on the net after to see what all the fuss was about. Turns out it was nothing.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 22, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    I still can’t figure ultra-Conservatives out…

    One minute it’s – The LIBERAL Media wants to control everything,
    get the Government Out,
    Freedom, Freedom, Freedom,
    Let the Markets decide.

    Then, it’s –
    The LIBERAL media wants to show smut,
    The Government needs to better regulate the airwaves,
    The Free Markets can’t just go around airing whatever sells,


    Personally – I’m all for regulating the airwaves,
    I’m all for NOT allowing Free Markets to air smut,
    I’m all for Government intervening in some cases to protect society regardless of Freedom of the Press,
    [Socialist LIBERAL Europe has already banned porn on the InterNet – gasp! The tyranny!]

    But – that makes me Liberal.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 22, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    More government intrusion???

    Why not let the free market decide?

    If it's too raunchy or offensive then we can always just stop listening, stop giving away money, and force those folks to change.

    Why does the government have to nanny everything?

    This is why repubs are ridiculous. On one hand they talk about shrinking government then on the other they are constantly wanting to increase it via subsidies, wars, defense spending, corporate welfare and bailouts, and nanny care (treating adults like children at BYU. We don't need government deciding what is appropriate to listen to or watch).

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 22, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    I agree with the premise of this article.

    I believe that it is OK for govt to set standards, or "regulation" if you will.

    But thats just me. I also think that there are other regulations that govt imposes that also benefit society. (and yes, there are some that are total bunk).

    The point is that it does not have to be all or nothing. It does not have to be a choice between govt intervening in every aspect of our lives, or none at all.

    The EPA has done lots of good. Same with the FDA.

    But there are still those (MANY) who dont want to address the problems in these agencies. They want to shut them down completely.

    As if THAT makes a lot of sense. How childish.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 22, 2012 7:11 a.m.

    But I thought government wasn't supposed to pick winners and losers? I thought the free market dictate what networks air? I thought overbearing government regulation was bad for business?


  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2012 6:40 a.m.

    So the constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speach, unless kids are offended. NO it does not. The constitution says that you have the right to free speech, period, end of discussion. The FCC should go back to doing their real job, making sure that radio and TV stations are all broadcasting on separate frequencies and stop being a censorship board. Let the market decide what they want to broadcast.