(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I agree with the FCC being deregulated. It should assign channels and nothing more. The air waves were once a finite public resource ==> but today with the internet, cable tv, etc. that is no longer the case.

It is one of the more interesting debates in legal circles right now with google starting to provide free internet in kansas the "public finite resource" aspect which is the entire justification for why we have an FCC is on life support.

So, you're thinking that the FCC will go away to the dust bin of government agencies and will no longer exist? I'm thinking those at the FCC will be able to convince the right people of their absolute necessity - hell, maybe even get more funds allocated. When do government agencies ever go away?

(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 02:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depends on the extent.

You are all for showing uncensored xxx material on prime television and long as there is a 30 second delay. Not showing pornographic films is not living in a free society.

You are also in favor of lowering the viewing age to 13.

Yeah...no.

13 year olds are old enough to think about girls, they should be old enough to watch them in action.....as long as the parent is there to supervise and answer questions.

(04-28-2014 03:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 02:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depends on the extent.

You are all for showing uncensored xxx material on prime television and long as there is a 30 second delay. Not showing pornographic films is not living in a free society. You are also in favor of lowering the viewing age to 13.

That seems like a............................ reach to imply that is what nomad was getting at.

(04-28-2014 03:06 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I agree with the FCC being deregulated. It should assign channels and nothing more. The air waves were once a finite public resource ==> but today with the internet, cable tv, etc. that is no longer the case.

It is one of the more interesting debates in legal circles right now with google starting to provide free internet in kansas the "public finite resource" aspect which is the entire justification for why we have an FCC is on life support.

So, you're thinking that the FCC will go away to the dust bin of government agencies and will no longer exist? I'm thinking those at the FCC will be able to convince the right people of their absolute necessity - hell, maybe even get more funds allocated. When do government agencies ever go away?

i am saying the legal argument for why the FCC is constitutional is on life support. I don't think it has anything to do with certain politicians but the supreme court.

They already had the "big 3" CBS ABC & NBC go to the supreme court over an issue similar to this.

(04-28-2014 03:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 02:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depends on the extent.

You are all for showing uncensored xxx material on prime television and long as there is a 30 second delay. Not showing pornographic films is not living in a free society.

You are also in favor of lowering the viewing age to 13.

Yeah...no.

13 year olds are old enough to think about girls, they should be old enough to watch them in action.....as long as the parent is there to supervise and answer questions.

When I was 13 it was more important the parents weren't there to answer the questions.

The problem with morality laws is that members of most religions and denominations are likely to disagree on them.

(04-28-2014 03:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 02:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depends on the extent.

You are all for showing uncensored xxx material on prime television and long as there is a 30 second delay. Not showing pornographic films is not living in a free society.

You are also in favor of lowering the viewing age to 13.

Yeah...no.

13 year olds are old enough to think about girls, they should be old enough to watch them in action.....as long as the parent is there to supervise and answer questions.

Shouldn't have to be a parent. The Boy Scout Leader or Ralph from the park are perfectly capable of supervising and answering questions.

I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

(04-28-2014 02:47 PM)AngryAphid Wrote:  I once reported a local radio station for playing an unedited version of a Puddle of Mudd song.
It wasn’t like it was 2 in morning either.

lol you would you levitical goon, no offense you know I am just messing with you. I have a hard time believing this as you once admitted to going to a vanilla ice concert iirc.

The FCC is apparently even cracking down on the amount of side boob you can have. Each station had an allotted percentage they were allowed to show and there is a proposal now to out right ban it.

I would say any regulation on 1srt trimester abortion is a definite morality issue, but that is a whole other can of worms.

(04-28-2014 03:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 02:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depends on the extent.

You are all for showing uncensored xxx material on prime television and long as there is a 30 second delay. Not showing pornographic films is not living in a free society.

You are also in favor of lowering the viewing age to 13.

Yeah...no.

13 year olds are old enough to think about girls, they should be old enough to watch them in action.....as long as the parent is there to supervise and answer questions.

Shouldn't have to be a parent. The Boy Scout Leader or Ralph from the park are perfectly capable of supervising and answering questions.

I totally agree.

(04-28-2014 03:06 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I agree with the FCC being deregulated. It should assign channels and nothing more. The air waves were once a finite public resource ==> but today with the internet, cable tv, etc. that is no longer the case.

It is one of the more interesting debates in legal circles right now with google starting to provide free internet in kansas the "public finite resource" aspect which is the entire justification for why we have an FCC is on life support.

So, you're thinking that the FCC will go away to the dust bin of government agencies and will no longer exist? I'm thinking those at the FCC will be able to convince the right people of their absolute necessity - hell, maybe even get more funds allocated. When do government agencies ever go away?

See the post office in 10 years imho. Also many consumer protection agencies are cut first to support law enforcement.

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

I actually agree with you on this. A 16 year old with a nude pic of his girlfriend is not a sex offender. It should apply like the age of consent.

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

I really don't know what to suggest. You have to protect the victims of CP. Now, to be specific to what you're talking about, if someone over 18 lifts a pic from a cellphone I think that should be something. If a 16 year old girl does it and sends it to a friend and they post it on facebook, that should be something. But the girl who took the picture? That's not a sex offense. Two teens sending pics to each other? That's not a sex offense.

My TV has an OFF button.

(04-28-2014 03:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

I really don't know what to suggest. You have to protect the victims of CP. Now, to be specific to what you're talking about, if someone over 18 lifts a pic from a cellphone I think that should be possession. If a 16 year old girl does it and sends it to a friend and they post it on facebook, that should be distribution. But the girl who took the picture? I have no idea what to do about that.

What if the picture was taken by a parent just taking pictures of his kids?

I've never heard of a nude family photo.

(04-28-2014 03:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

I really don't know what to suggest. You have to protect the victims of CP. Now, to be specific to what you're talking about, if someone over 18 lifts a pic from a cellphone I think that should be possession. If a 16 year old girl does it and sends it to a friend and they post it on facebook, that should be distribution. But the girl who took the picture? I have no idea what to do about that.

What if the picture was taken by a parent just taking pictures of his kids?

I edited it to be more clear. Are you talking about normal pictures?

(04-28-2014 03:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

I really don't know what to suggest. You have to protect the victims of CP. Now, to be specific to what you're talking about, if someone over 18 lifts a pic from a cellphone I think that should be something. If a 16 year old girl does it and sends it to a friend and they post it on facebook, that should be something. But the girl who took the picture? That's not a sex offense. Two teens sending pics to each other? That's not a sex offense.

tumblr is a disturbing online CP cesspool. All people that get on that site should be put in jail over 18. It is what Jesus would want imho

(04-28-2014 03:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I have heard of way too many stories with high schoolers getting nailed over child porn and being put on sex offenders list. We are at a point where these laws that are designed to protect children are hurting children as well.

I really don't know what to suggest. You have to protect the victims of CP. Now, to be specific to what you're talking about, if someone over 18 lifts a pic from a cellphone I think that should be possession. If a 16 year old girl does it and sends it to a friend and they post it on facebook, that should be distribution. But the girl who took the picture? I have no idea what to do about that.

I don't either. part of the problem is that you have so many under 18 pics in circulation on the internet mixed in with post 18 pics it seems ridiculous that we honestly believe we can enforce it with pics of teens.

(04-28-2014 03:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I've never heard of a nude family photo.

We actually had a thread that presented one to us.