Only if the kids are foolish like you they won't want to find out who was behind the act.

The only limitation placed on off-air broadcasts by the FCC is that between the hours of 9am and 9pm (I think those are the right hours. I could be wrong.) there is a level of decency that should be obeyed. That can't really be considered censorship, at least not in the terms we most often think. Otherwise you'd have to say that it's censorship to not allow teachers to curse out first graders. Had the Janet Jackson thing happened outside of those hours or on cable, satellite, or anything not received by rabbit ears there wouldn't have been a problem. Frankly, I think the problem was that it was Janet Jackson but that's a different issue altogether. So there is really nothing to cry about when it comes to government censorship. If they wanted to, CBS could air Showgirls uncut after 9pm. Do I think people overreacted to the incident? Yes. But do I think that there is something wrong with the regulations? No. I think it's perfectly fair. Only six or so television stations are affected at all and only during daytime hours. The same shit happens with video games. Every few years some activist senator hooks up with a handful of soccer moms and brings up the video game violence issue. Nothing comes from it though. The industry regulates itself through a rating system and that's all there needs to be. People just like to grab on to these week long "issues" (if you can even call them that) just to get their 15 minutes. A week goes by and nobody cares anymore. That's how it's always been and how it always will be.

Quite honestly, I think it depends on the kid. If a kid sees porn and is instantly hooked, they sould have some distance from it until they can handle it properly. At the same time if a kid is able to handle it appropriatley then I wouldnt mind them seeing one on occasion. Sometimes a 12 year old kid can handle maturely what a 25 year old cant, and its unfair to the kids that can to say they cant see it. I say there really isnt a correct age (be reasonable here, Im not saying you should introduce your kid to Playboy at age 7), but just know your kid and how he/she will react before they are exposed to it

Fine, then instead of cursing in front of first graders change that to showing first graders Playboy. It's really not that different. People flipped out when South Park first aired but did that get it taken off television? Notice that there really isn't any controversy anymore. These "issues" aren't even issues at all. They're all just smoke and mirrors meant to rile people up. Your point is still stupid though because you're arguing that one incident that has been argued and forgotten over a year ago apparently means that there's some huge problem. If things were as bad as you claim they are, South Park would have been thrown off the air, Janet Jackson would be in jail for indecent exposure, and Joseph Lieberman would have his way with the video game industry. The NFL decided not to let Janet Jackson perform at the Superbowl after that, not the government. Turok, a rather tame game for the standards of the time, got chopped up in Germany. In Germany it was the government itself that censored Turok, not Acclaim. That's the difference and my main point of the last post.

For the most part, you can do whatever the hell you want if you own the network. If the CEO of TBS, a cable station, wants to show hardcore porn at 12 noon every Saturday then he has the full right to do that. The reason why he won't is because it will affect ratings. When you're moderate you can appeal to the widest audience. But if the now defunct Acclaim wanted to release Turok unaltered in Germany, the government would not let them. That's real censorship. The shit you see in old SNES games where Nintendo of America would prevent things like cursing and alcohol references from being put in games isn't censorship. It's a Nintendo console so the CEOs have the right to make their own call as to what they want to be shown. If the U.S. government told Nintendo they had to take out that stuff then that would be censorship. The point is, it doesn't matter how much "controversy" there is if nothing happens. Did anything actually come of it? Did the government shut down CBS or throw Janet Jackson in jail? So they paid a fine. Big deal. A bunch of billionaires had to pay a million or two. Do I agree with it, no, but does it somehow mean that there's a huge problem? No. What's really more intrusive to your personal life? Fining an off-air network because they showed an old lady's tit on national television between 9am and 9pm and forgetting about it shortly after or changing all blood in a video game to be green and continuously censoring things for years? I could just as easily say that Germany is too up tight about violence in entertainment and the U.S. is far more open about it. The difference is, the up tight people in the U.S. are just people filing BS lawsuits that never actually win (believe me they don't, I know quite a bit about law) or getting their 15 minutes of fame on the nightly news. They're not actually running the government.

Whatever the case, I don't want this to turn into a "this government > that government" arguement so I'll stop here. You can have the last word if you want. I just want everyone to be clear on what censorship really is, government intervention to cease the press, entertainment, or individuals from speaking their minds. Something hasn't been truely censored if the government wasn't what stopped it from happening. And it also has to be stopped beforehand. So fining CBS for Janet Jackson's tit doesn't count as censorship either since it actually happened.

They're only kids, even if they did find out who it was, I doubt many would understand the whole picture.

That's exactly what I'm saying though. Don't force it on the kids (i.e showing them playboy) rather just let it be. They'll discover it naturally when they're ready for it. I'd say it's an issue when people are suing each other over it and a network has to pay half a million for something like that. And you keep going back to cenecorship in the general form. Violence and such. I'm talking about a country which makes such a big deal about such small natural occourences. It's ridiculous. Glorifying violence is a completely differen't thing. I understand how that might upset people. I don't entirely agree with it for reasons which I've stated far too many times but I can relate.

Censorship works both ways. It doesen't necassarily have to be a government which enforces it. The media is just as influencal and if they censor something that can be as impactful as the government doing it. Let's face it really... The media runs the country.

man on that moslim thing:
first of all islam means peace.
2. ignorance welcomes hate and fear.
3. terrorisme has no religion its only an organized crime.

and as i understand religios topics are not allawed so be adviced.

back on that porn thing:
what ever adults ban from kids will just increes their curiosity and get it any
way, so if u allow a kid enything then he will try mybe like it then eventualy gets bored of it. i have spoken.