• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

What would you like to see?

  • The "loud" bill passed

    Votes: 31 51.7%

  • The "loud" bill defeated

    Votes: 11 18.3%

  • Network executives tied down and forced to repeatedly listen to Crazy Train

    Votes: 14 23.3%

  • I clicked the link to get to this poll - LOL

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Total voters
    60
Dav said:
For one thing, the ability to do what you said is a recent phenomenon that likely not everyone knows about. You do seem to realize, though, that without such a system, adjusting the volume and making sure kids aren't exposed to porn aren't the same things.
Click to expand...

How is turning off the tv or switching channels any different for either?

But anyways, what you said still involves government standards, in that programs have to rate themselves appropriately based on their content in order to be censored.
Click to expand...

It appears you want the government to regulate things you find questionable, but when it comes to things you don't find questionable despite the underlying ability of individuals to rectify the situation on their own being virtually the same, you do not support a single standard.

If you actually believed in the notion of personal responsibility in hitting the mute button or changing the channel when a loud commercial came on, you'd have no problem doing the same for things you find offensive on broadcast. But here we are and you aren't presenting a single standard.

And why not let the market decide what gets shown?

I gotta wonder how some people can think they are consistent when they hold diametrically opposed notions.
 
Dav said:
Then press the goddamn mute button.
Click to expand...

How about make the volume the same for commercials and programs. Then if you want to have the commercial blasting through your home then you get the flipper box and press on the Volume Up button till the windows shake......................................
 
Every one doesn't have a remote---makes for a lot of gettin up and down. --Why did this issue have to ever go to the Gubment? Shouldn't the providers address this problem? ---Mine did tell me, it was out of their control, but they often stretch things a tad. I think a phone call to the right guy would do the trick. If I knew who it was.
 
obvious Child said:
Except that they aren't.
Click to expand...

Why do you always come across as so angry and tense?

And people don't want their children exposed to exceedingly loud commercials?
Click to expand...

If you do not realize the difference, I don't know what to say. I had pegged you as smarter than that.

By your measure, we should ban offensive radio because people don't want their children exposed to it.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "offensive", but isn't it mostly already banned?

The whole "children" argument is total crap as you can argue anything should be banned/regulated because "people" don't want their children exposed to it.
Click to expand...

Except that some of those arguments might actually be valid.

Not my fault you're defending a hypocritical position.
Click to expand...

To you, everything is a hypocritical position, so yes, it kind of is your fault.

Your entire argument is a giant double standard. When it comes to loud commercials that anyone can simply mute or change the channel, Government shouldn't get involved. But when it comes to things on TV like extreme violence or sex, the government MUST get involved despite the same principle of being able to change the channel existing. Hatuey summed it up well about personal responsibility. There is principally no difference here.
Click to expand...

Except there is. As I have pointed out multiple times, one situation is about personal preference, while the other is about what one's child is able to see. But please ignore that essential difference.

obvious Child said:
How is turning off the tv or switching channels any different for either?
Click to expand...

Because in one situation, since it's not about you, you're not always there to turn the TV off or switch channels, and a lot more damage can be done in the short amount of time before one does.

It appears you want the government to regulate things you find questionable, but when it comes to things you don't find questionable despite the underlying ability of individuals to rectify the situation on their own being virtually the same, you do not support a single standard.

If you actually believed in the notion of personal responsibility in hitting the mute button or changing the channel when a loud commercial came on, you'd have no problem doing the same for things you find offensive on broadcast. But here we are and you aren't presenting a single standard.
Click to expand...

Still ignoring many key differences here. Like I said earlier, saying that it's okay because you can just change the channel is like saying that underage smoking should be legal because all parents have to do is not buy cigarettes.

And why not let the market decide what gets shown?
Click to expand...

"Why not let the free market decide who gets to smoke?"

I gotta wonder how some people can think they are consistent when they hold diametrically opposed notions.
Click to expand...

I gotta wonder how you go through life seeing hypocrisy with every turn. It must be great, you seeing this vast, massive hypocrisy that nobody else has had the brains to realize. You must be the smartest person in the world or something.
 
Dav said:
Why do you always come across as so angry and tense?
Click to expand...

Because you refuse to acknowledge your double standards.

If you do not realize the difference, I don't know what to say. I had pegged you as smarter than that.
Click to expand...

Merely because you wish them to be different does not equate to them being different.

Not sure what you mean by "offensive", but isn't it mostly already banned?
Click to expand...

There's the kicker. What is offensive? And to whom?

Except that some of those arguments might actually be valid.
Click to expand...

Some? Who gets to define that? Furthermore, once we start, how do we stop? What is offensive to whom? Who decides?

To you, everything is a hypocritical position, so yes, it kind of is your fault.
Click to expand...

Taking arguments from Mr. V is generally a bad idea considering his track record.

Except there is. As I have pointed out multiple times, one situation is about personal preference, while the other is about what one's child is able to see. But please ignore that essential difference.
Click to expand...

Except that the child is also able to hear the loud commercial as well. Furthermore, it is your personal preference as to what you do not want your child to see and here. Thus, both are personal preferences. There is no essential difference other then your double standard.

Because in one situation, since it's not about you, you're not always there to turn the TV off or switch channels, and a lot more damage can be done in the short amount of time before one does.
Click to expand...

Come again? How is that not applicable to both? And it is YOUR personal preference as to what you want your child exposed to.

Still ignoring many key differences here.
Click to expand...

What key difference? It is YOUR personal preference for what you want your kids exposed to and YOUR personal preference as to the volume of the commercials.

Like I said earlier, saying that it's okay because you can just change the channel is like saying that underage smoking should be legal because all parents have to do is not buy cigarettes.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's okay. What I'm saying is that the argument you present is very uneven. Complaining about government regulation on the basis that people are free to rectify the situation on their own when it comes to loud commercials but not applying the same thinking when it comes to things you may find offensive on broadcast is a hypocritical stance. Basically your argument is little more then "I don't like this, therefore regulate, but I don't mind that, therefore don't regulate" when both are nothing more then your own preferences.

"Why not let the free market decide who gets to smoke?"
Click to expand...

Sure. As long as those who are smoking are informed of the risks.

I gotta wonder how you go through life seeing hypocrisy with every turn.
Click to expand...

Everyone is a hypocrite. Some are just worse then others.

It must be great, you seeing this vast, massive hypocrisy that nobody else has had the brains to realize. You must be the smartest person in the world or something.
Click to expand...

Again, Mr. V doesn't win any arguments with those lines, so copying them from him generally isn't suggested.
 
danarhea said:
This is reminiscent of a science fiction book (I forget the name or the author) I read, back in the early '70's. in the book, an inventor became famous for inventing "Adnix", a device which, when attached to the TV set, muted all commercials. Advertisers were up in arms over it, but to no avail. But the inventor's downfall was when he invented another device called "Preachnix", which muted everything said by televangelists, and that just pissed off too many people. LOL.
Click to expand...

The Title of The Book was The Man Who Owned the Moon. Incidentally, the primary point of the book was that the regulations at the time of the writing were very restrictive with what can be viewed on TV ( I think it was written during the 50s). So the hero of the book ( the same person who managed to block all those adds) managed to get the right to set broad cast towers on the Moon that could broadcast without censorship in other words porn. ;) ( observe the thread discussion from page 7 or so about this issue.)

I didn't read all the way thru that book i don't know how it turned out. Anyone here read it thru?
 
I agree that this is silly waste of lawmakers' time and yet another intrusion into areas they have no business involving themselves in.

The best response for consumers, would be a national pledge, so easy in the Internet Age, to boycott any product or service so advertised. Advertisers would respond with the predictability of guppies rising in an aquarium for their food.
 
danarhea said:
Here's a poll for you.


Meanwhile, a bill has passed the House, making it illegal for stations and networks to "pump up the volume" on commercials. At first blush, this seems like a good law to pass, since is pisses me off to no end to get my ears literally blown off by loud commercials, when I am attempting to watch a TV show. However, don't you think there are more important things our Congresscritters could be doing in Washington? Namely, attempt to get spending under control?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Poll is here.

Did you click the link to get to the poll? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It's good to see that Congress was able to set aside all this silly if not destructive talk of National Health Care and finally did something worth doing.
 
Skateguy said:
Man, I'm all for that one. I keep the remote in my hand, just to turn down the volume on commercials.----Back in the stone age, when cable first came out, the selling point was "No commercials" Seems they forgot that part.
Click to expand...

Really, no commercials??
Dreamland:rofl
That must have lasted about three minutes!
I keep the control tied with a HF mini-bungee to the Lazy Boy arm.
Mute is hit 95% of the time when a commercial strikes. I'd love to see government control over these annoying ads - they are propaganda due to their nastiness and frequency.
A compromise - let the viewer know to the second how long the ad will run.
It should take Congress about two hours to do this; then they can return to the important things.
 
Remember when cable was supposed to have no commercials?
 
obvious Child said:
Merely because you wish them to be different does not equate to them being different.



There's the kicker. What is offensive? And to whom?



Some? Who gets to define that? Furthermore, once we start, how do we stop? What is offensive to whom? Who decides?
Click to expand...

1. They are different.
2. Offensiveness in the form of opinions which offend people is protected by freedom of speech. Offensiveness in the form of indecency is not.

Zyphlin explains it better than I ever could:

Zyphlin said:
In general, the more balanced stance is that public decency laws are present to maintain a minimum amount of civility and decorum within public so that things that generally offend and shock the general majority of people are not forcefully presented anywhere they go. That while yes, nothing says you HAVE to take your child out into public EVER, it is rather unreasonable to expect such. And as such, it is reasonable of the government to mandate a certain level of decency, for example public displays of nudity, to allow for such reasonable levels of public activity to occur without chancing the violation of other peoples rights.

For example, it could be thought of that taking a child to the doctor is a reasonable normal activity that I should feel "safe" doing. As such, your right to put up a billboard depicting graphic sex or run up to my car shaking your junk around at the windows is trumped by the rights of the child or even the person going about normal routine business.

I agree, things do get very tricky when it comes down to deceny laws and censorship, but at its heart it generally comes down to a protection of rights issue more so than the government "forcing" morality through new laws. Its why a PRIVATE strip club is free to have naked women shaking their ass all they want, but don't put it out on the sidewalk where people have a reasonable expectation to not have their rights infringed upon by things the general population veiws as obscene and thus offensive.
Click to expand...

Taking arguments from Mr. V is generally a bad idea considering his track record.
Click to expand...

So it's a good thing I didn't do that, and used my own words. I don't even usually read Mr. Vs post.

Except that the child is also able to hear the loud commercial as well. Furthermore, it is your personal preference as to what you do not want your child to see and here. Thus, both are personal preferences. There is no essential difference other then your double standard.
Click to expand...

It is not a double standard. Loudness applies equally to children and adults. Obscenity applies only to children.

Come again? How is that not applicable to both?
Click to expand...

Did you even read the thing you quoted wherein I explain that?

And it is YOUR personal preference as to what you want your child exposed to.
Click to expand...

Not really; I'd like you to find a parent who has no problems with exposing their young child to hardcore porn.

What key difference? It is YOUR personal preference for what you want your kids exposed to and YOUR personal preference as to the volume of the commercials.
Click to expand...

See above.

I'm not saying it's okay. What I'm saying is that the argument you present is very uneven. Complaining about government regulation on the basis that people are free to rectify the situation on their own when it comes to loud commercials but not applying the same thinking when it comes to things you may find offensive on broadcast is a hypocritical stance. Basically your argument is little more then "I don't like this, therefore regulate, but I don't mind that, therefore don't regulate" when both are nothing more then your own preferences.
Click to expand...

You really didn't read my post did you?

A child being briefly exposed to hardcore porn is different than a child being briefly exposed to loudness. In one case the damage is temporary; in another the damage is lasting.

Sure. As long as those who are smoking are informed of the risks.
Click to expand...

You think an 8-year-old child can smoke if they know the risks?

Everyone is a hypocrite. Some are just worse then others.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that everyone is much much worse than you are, though (especially if they are right-wing).

Again, Mr. V doesn't win any arguments with those lines, so copying them from him generally isn't suggested.
Click to expand...

See above.

Really OC, it must be horrible being the smartest person on Earth and thus being able to see everybody for the complete hypocrite that they don't realize they are. It's no wonder you seem so rabid and intense all the time; you have seen the light and yet nobody else will accept it. How sad.
 
There is always gonna be bigger things to be done but little things add up.

Hope the bring in a similar law over here.
 
mikhail said:
There is always gonna be bigger things to be done but little things add up.

Hope the bring in a similar law over here.
Click to expand...



I like that first sentence! Sounds like a good approach to life :2wave:
 
apdst said:
The economy would improve if Congress spent more time on stuff like this.
Click to expand...

I think not.
But I do think our quality of life would.
Regulation is necessary, these people are trying to ruin the TV shows with their incessant and loud commercials. They even broadcast commercials during the shows...so damned annoying.
Thank God for PBS and PCN.
 
danarhea said:
Here's a poll for you.


Meanwhile, a bill has passed the House, making it illegal for stations and networks to "pump up the volume" on commercials. At first blush, this seems like a good law to pass, since is pisses me off to no end to get my ears literally blown off by loud commercials, when I am attempting to watch a TV show. However, don't you think there are more important things our Congresscritters could be doing in Washington? Namely, attempt to get spending under control?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Poll is here.

Did you click the link to get to the poll? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I think out of all the dumb**** for those in office to try to pass this has to be the dumbest. Do those politicians somehow think that if they are not making some kind of law or regulation that the voters are not getting their money's worth out of their elected officials? It kind of makes me think that maybe they are going to try to slip something in not related to the loudness of irritating commercials.
 
This is a First Amendment issue besides. If it becomes law, I hope it's challenged and soundly defeated.
 
Harshaw said:
This is a First Amendment issue besides. If it becomes law, I hope it's challenged and soundly defeated.
Click to expand...

Right!!! :rofl
 
Harshaw said:
Didn't say it would be. But one can still hope.
Click to expand...

What about rules limiting billboard sizes in municipalities and states across America? Does that also violate free speech? :lol:
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What about rules limiting billboard sizes in municipalities and states across America? Does that also violate free speech? :lol:
Click to expand...

Never thought about it. Either way, it's not comparable.
 
Harshaw said:
Never thought about it. Either way, it's not comparable.
Click to expand...

Of course it's comparable. They are both laws limiting the 'volume' of advertising in order to serve the common good of the public.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Of course it's comparable. They are both laws limiting the 'volume' of advertising in order to serve the common good of the public.
Click to expand...

No. Controlling volume is controlling content, directly, as volume is part of content.

Controlling the size of the sign doesn't control what's on it.

And besides, there are about thousand other different issues between the two. Controlling the size of a sign or billboard may well meet conditions of scrutiny that a commercial volume restriction wouldn't.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Of course it's comparable. They are both laws limiting the 'volume' of advertising in order to serve the common good of the public.
Click to expand...
We have had those Law in Texas for quite awhile. ---New bill boards are hard to get approved, and have strict size standards. Which is cool. why should we have to look at some guys sign as we roll down the Highway? Put it on his own lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom