Protecting adults from invasions

Glenn Reynolds links a TCS column by Derek Hunter -- "Liberals and Conservatives Catch the Regulatory Bug" After discussing the advocacy of so-called "Net Neutrality" by the left (a misleading concept I oppose), Hunter turns to the right:

The regulation bug isn't limited to liberals, as some conservative groups would like to control what children, and by extension everyone else, are able to see on television.

There is no doubt television of today is not The Cosby Show of days gone by. Racier shows dealing with sex, sexuality, and violence often bring in bigger ratings than most other shows, which is why there are more of them than "family friendly" programming. That is the market at work.

But those same market forces have spawned several family friendly cable networks and the broadcast networks relegate more adult themes to non-family shows or other channels altogether. Choices are out there for parents concerned about what their children watch.

Also, there is the V-Chip, a device installed in every television now sold that can, upon a parent's wish, block shows they deem inappropriate. All shows on network television are now subject to a ratings system, which aids the V-Chip in knowing which shows to block based upon content.

But that's not enough for some; they want the government to regulate show content so there isn't the possibility of something they disapprove of being seen by their children.

Actually, I have to disagree just a little bit with that characterization, because I think that children are more the ostensible issue than they are the real issue. While it's true that activist anti "pornography" groups often mention children, that's mainly because protecting children draws a much larger cross section of support. There is no mistake that the goal of these activists is much broader than merely protecting children.

I think that last sentence should read:

....they want the government to regulate show content so there isn't the possibility of something they disapprove of being seen by anyone.
It should also be noted that by no means are all of these people on the right. Many can be found on the left, especially the feminist left.

Anyone remember McKinnon and Dworkin?

I'm not even sure that it is accurate to describe the regulatory campaign an "anti-pornography movement" -- which is why I tend to put the word in quotes. As I've explained before, the goal in some circles is to go after that which is deemed "sexually explicit" -- which could mean almost anything -- including the mere mention of penises and vaginas.

It's all so illogical, and it reminds me of the people who used to complain that Howard Stern was "invading" their homes. But no sooner did he move to satellite radio than there was a push to regulate satellite radio. Does that mean people are paying to be "invaded"?

I think the goal here is to lower us all to the standard of children, and treat us all like children.

That this is being done in the name of protecting children should surprise no one.

posted by Eric on 04.09.07 at 08:41 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4867






Comments

Well, I think for a lot of the social conservatives, it's hard for them to admit that they really have a problem. With as many as seventy percent of the people in the church suffering from pornography addictions, it's humiliating to say the least. However, as a born again Christian myself, I'll say that this is precisely the opposite path we should be taking. No amount of anti-porn campaigning is going to negate the fact that we are a shrinking church with only 11% of the population as bonafide believers. If they want to really take the war to the pornographers, the only way is to convert America back to a nation of Christians (not a "Christian nation," big difference).

MikeT   ·  April 10, 2007 08:34 AM

I think MikeT has a very reasonable view, i.e. that instead of trying to keep things like pornography from people who want it, social conservatives should be trying to convince people not to want it in the first place. However, even if we do become more like a nation of Christians in the future, we will always be a pluralistic society, and pornography will still have to be tolerated.

P. Aeneas   ·  April 10, 2007 02:46 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



April 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits