Anti-Freespeech proposal, Hilary just lost my primary vote

[Fire]

Clinton assails "epidemic'' of media sex and violence
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

March 9, 2005, 12:57 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Children are suffering from a "silent epidemic" of media sex and violence, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton argued Wednesday in calling for closer scrutiny by parents and government of what kids watch and play.
....
Speaking a day before her husband former president Bill Clinton was due to undergo a follow-up surgery for a heart bypass operation six months ago, the senator argued the public health was threatened by increasingly raw media content. Clinton, D-N.Y., focused her critique on the new media that some parents worry are a bad influence on children: violent video games, the Internet, and sexually explicit television programs.
......

Found this on another forum

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-mediaviol0309mar09,0,1268343.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

I find it so frustrating that a people I respect otherwise would be so pro-censorship.

[LoZoccolo]

1. See, I wouldn't defect from her over that one issue.

Reason being, I'm not into showing porn to kids. It's like, not my number one thing as far as voting this way or that.

[Skittles]

4. how about

the fact that she voted for IWR which helped bring about the QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ which would include THOUSANDS OF DEATHS and EVERY DAY *REAL* VIOLENCE. Yet she is disturbed by Hollywood violence? That woman seriously PISSES me off.

And if she is pandering for the Bible Belt vote that is just even MORE pathetic.

[Fire]

8. what makes me mad:

See something thats not in the snippet I showed you but the consequence of these things is banning games and censoring cable (another proposal in another article) for ADULTS such as myself who want to see those things.

[Melodybe]

11. I actually wish the smut would tone down on my TV

yes I can just change the channel, but its everywhere.

I actually agree with Hillary on this one.

[LifeDuringWartime]

30. why not turn it off?

;)

[rman]

13. It isn't so much "showing porn TO kids" as it is

(parents) ALLOWING their kids to watch porn.

According to a certain branch of republicans this problem is the government's responsibility and the solution is strong regulation of what the media should be allowed to show. Never mind that they *call* this "small" government, and of course never mind any kind of "equal time" requirements for political discourse in the media.

Actually, up to a point the government does have a role to play here - how about if economically things would be arranged so that parents can spend more time actually raising their kids (as opposed to having TV do it for them).
This economical arrangement would be in the form of a "living" minimum wage, and in general some financial relief for low income families so that it is not necessary for both parents to work jobs in order to make ends meet. Let alone one-parent families where the income provider has to work multiple jobs just to be able to pay the bills.

Also, if the media are censored to show only the lowest common denominator of what is acceptable to everyone, then there won't be much left to watch.

[leesa]

29. How about her desire for endless war?

[LoZoccolo]

42. You already know what's wrong with that argument.

:boring:

[zann725]

2. She never had mine. Boxer would far better represent 'we the people.'

She far more compassionate, human...AND Democratic.

[autorank]

3. Big "public health threat" from media not talking about eco-catastrophes.

HOLLY, F'ING XRIST! THE WORLD IS INSANE

This "moran" of a Senator is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic! The media is killing us all by avoiding any real converge of the imminent environmental melt down. The GD Pentagon released a report saying 7-15 years out, our gravest threat as a nation will consist of eco-catastrophes and the consequences. That's the Pentagon, Hillary.

Bur, nooooooo, Hillary has to stop little Johny from zapping whomever in massive multi player RPG's. She is sick, they're all sick, this makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm wearing a barrel and a hair shirt until I find an intellectually honest politician concerned with the people, the country, and the planet.

[Robeson]

19. I hate to break this news to you.....

"I'm wearing a barrel and a hair shirt until I find an intellectually honest politician concerned with the people, the country, and the planet."

....but you'll be wearing that barrel, for a long, long, time....

[autorank]

5. Fire, Welcome to DU!!! Now, we need just three more elements!

:hi:

[liberalpragmatist]

6. Well, I'm not voting for her in the primary, but...

...if you read the article it doesn't really say she's going to stop anyone from saying anything. What she calls for is a study and for a more unified ratings system that will be shown throughout or at least at every commercial break. That's not something that really bothers me.

[journalist3072]

7. And the problem would be??

I happen to believe that children ARE being beseiged by images of violence and sex on tv.

What's so wrong with speaking out against that?

[autorank]

10. You make a good point but you should consider this.

In Canada, our nonviolent northern neighbor (much less that we are anyway), the gamers are rampant and they're exposed to our media at the same rate we are, just about.

Why is there less violence there? There are many answers. But if video games and other violent entertainment were a major causal factor, Canada would be a lot more violent.

I think Michael Moore got it quite right in "Bowling for Columbine." We're violent because we are living in a paranoid culture. Somebody is always out to get us. The paranoia increases the further away you are from the threat. Why does NYC go 70% Kerry, with their history of terrorist attacks, and Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. go 60% bush, with their lack of history of being attacked by anyone? Many of them are paranoid. They get off on frightening themselves and this allows their basest instincts to come out including an advocacy of violence (support of the war(s)) and instances of violence that are much too high.

I used to worry about this but I'm convinced that Japan, Canada, and Europe -- full of gamers and fans of violent media -- with their much lower violence rates prove that the media is not only not the message, it's not the cause of our behavior.

[Jesus Saves]

15. You are exactly

right.

[autorank]

23. Game on brother!

[FreedomAngel82]

46. You hit it

I saw that movie and was quite surprised. I remember when he was in Canada and talking about how they keep their doors UNLOCKED even at night. One person even had some stuff stolen and they STILL kept it unlocked. I was like "wow!" I was really surprised. But it makes sense.

[Catt03]

12. I think so too

but the problem I have is that Hillary is doing a make-over and I think it is either phony and/or self serving. If I thought she really was sincere and informed about all this...that would be a little different.

Where was she when Tipper Gore was speaking out about violence and sex in the movies and television? She was in Hollywood collecting checks. Oh the hypocrisy!

[journalist3072]

26. Sorry, but disagree

I don't think Hillary has done any massive makeover. I think these have always been issues she cared about.

Also, she wasn't in Hollywood collecting checks when Tipper Gore was speaking out on the images in the media! Around that time, she was in Arkansas, serving as a lawyer and Governor's wife!

[Catt03]

32. Had to look that up

...that Hillary was in AK when Tipper was vocal about movies, rap , lyrics and violence.

I stand corrected. Appears that Tipper became silent about her concerns when her husband became vice president. Seems neither Hillary nor Tipper had much to say on the subject due to their strong connection to Hollywood money.

I don't disagree with Clinton about moderation in exposing children to violence. I have distaste for her new rhetoric when it appears to be convienient to her personal goals.

[tx_dem41]

33. I agree that this is a problem.

I would suggest though that it is a problem that parents should solve, and not government.

[journalist3072]

34. You're right.

Parents should be at the forefront of protecting their children from images they don't want them to see.

However, I don't think that means government does not have a responsiblity to help equip the parents with the tools they need, or businesses either, for that matter.

The V-Chip legislation that President CLinton signed was common-sense, to me.

As well, AOL and other ISPs have filters that parents can set up to keep their children off certain websites. And I think that's great.

So while parents have the ultimate responsibility, I think government and business can help equip parents with the tools they need.

[tx_dem41]

35. I wouldn't disagree with that...

As long as its not Government-mandated.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Exactly

I don't want the government telling me what to watch. If I want to see some R-rated movie I'd want to see it. If another parent doesn't want their kids to see it get a TV or cable box with a blocker and block the channels. If you have kids who you know aren't mature enough to make their own decisions keep the tv's out of their bedrooms and in rooms where you know more then one person will be in (like a family room or den). If cable is such a big deal just don't have it and buy movies.

[Red_Viking]

9. More scrutiny by parents--YES

By the government--NO. I am anti-censorship all the way. If there is something I don't want my daughter to watch on TV, I tell her to turn it off.

I'm not so naive that I believe she doesn't sometimes watch things I would rather she didn't, but she most likely hears things in the hall at middle school that would make me keel over as well. Kids can't be shielded from sex and violence--they are part of the experience of being alive. It's up to parents to teach kids to have values around those two things. Have sex when you're emotionally and physically ready, stay away from violence as it's not the answer. Stuff like that.

The government should keep out of it.

I'd be happier if she were out stumping for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. That would go a long way to curing some of our ills.

Peace,

RV

[sepia_steel]

14. Absolutely disgusting,

I want to be able to look at whatever I want to look at. As far as children, well,

BE A PARENT. PAY ATTENTION. If your kids are watching this crap then you're not involved enough.

I'm especially irritated by the involvement of video games in this. If you don't know what's in your child's room, if you don't know what games his friends have at their houses, if you haven't taught him to go by the ESRA (sp?) guidelines, well, that's your fault. Be involved. Don't make/let the government do this for us.

GRRRRRR. Sorry but that REALLY pisses me off.

[hughee99]

16. I agree that parents should give closer scrutiny

to what kids watch and play. I don't have an issue with that. As long as parents are aware of what their kids are doing, and are okay with it, I think that's as far as the "censorship" should go. I disagree that this is something that government should get involved in.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. If I'm just a little more moral, they won't keep trying to destroy me

Neither she nor her husband get it, and they never will: no amount of accomodation or appeasement will call off the dogs.

[orleans]

18. could it be hilary is doing some sucking up

to the rw?

yea--we know there are some things on television we don't want our kids to see. fine. so what do we do? not let our kids see it! how hard is it to turn the channel, turn off the tv, tell our kids: "forget it, you're not watching it." same goes for movies, video games and the parental controls for computers.

isn't there something more pressing she could be talking about?

years ago there were studies done with kids and cartoons. children who were in a room with benign cartoons on the t.v. played, got along, and watched the t.v. children who were in a room with violent content cartoons behaved more aggressively and violent in their play. it's called modeling. kids do it all the time (hence the term: role model)

i'm sure this can also be applied to videos, games, etc.
so don't let your children watch this stuff if it's too "advanced" for them. my daughter didn't like it when i wouldn't let her watch south park while some of her friends were allowed to watch it. tough. but i never thought it should be taken off the air. she's seventeen now and sometimes when we run into it we'll watch it together because we find it amusing.

when you have a child you have to be a parent. and that starts with paying attention to your child. i wouldn't want the daily show taken off the air because a five year old stays up late to watch it and they have to bleep out words. if it's a problem maybe someone should turn off the t.v.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. If they do that

all we'd be able to watch is little kid shows, preaching, other faith-based programs etc.

[fujiyama]

20. This whole

"too much sex and violence on TV is an epidemic" thing is really one of those things that politicians love to yell about. It's a non existant "epidemic" politicians have created to try to score points...and when it's done by democrats its done with the intention of trying to get the votes of those that won't vote for ya anyways.

My question is, does this actually appeal to people? It's so tedious. I remember Lieberman bitching about this years ago.

People, the solution is simple. Turn off the fuckin TV. It's not that hard. Have your kid read a book or do something else. Don't let them have a TV in their room. Don't let them watch TV past 10, when the racier shows are on. Use one of those pass word protected things that most boxes now have (and I'm sick of the old excuse - "but my kids are better with that than myslf")....

And if inuendo offends you, tough. That's life.

Just yesterday they passed a bill that basically brings back debtors prisons keeps people in perpetual debt. She says she's concerned about kids. And I don't doubt that. She's done some decent things in the past (adoption etc), but why isn't she talking about the credit card industry's practice of sending cards to 12 year olds? I think ruining people's credit ratings before they even reach college is a bad idea.

The administration is actively destroying the middle class. There is an unjustified war going on. A war which this woman supported.

Instead of that, all she can talk about is this?! :wtf:

She didn't have my vote in the primaries as it was, but she's turning off the base for the general election as well.

[formernaderite]

21. It's kind of amusing coming from her....

silent epidemic of media sex? as opposed to oval office sex?

For full disclosure, I'm no Hillary fan....anyone campaigning on this issue is pulling a royal Tipper Gore and all I can think of is Frank Zappa.

[Pepperbelly]

22. how is a study an 'anti free speech" proposal?

There were no policy declarations in that speech.

on edit: during the late 70s, mass media was the NDT debate topic and I recall the paucity of studies that proved anything regarding children and television violence. A number had been conducted but in every instance I can recall, the data reflected nothing statistically significant OR had fundamental methodological problems.

[KoKo]

25. Action for Childrens Television was very active. There were hearings

in House and Senate about the quality of Childrens Programming. There was alot more going on then, than in the last ten years or so.

:shrug: Just do a Google if you don't believe me.

[Pepperbelly]

28. regardless of activity ...

a study is not anti-speech.

[cestpaspossible]

31. If government wants to study harmful, violent messages in the media.

They should start with the rhetoric coming out of the White House.

Clinton and her co-sponsor Rick Santorum are 100% WRONG to want to waste our tax dollars on this.

[Pepperbelly]

43. there is a paucity of studies on the subject ...

and shitloads of conventional wisdom that can be supported or discounted as a result of properly constructed studies.

[FreedomAngel82]

49. Just the title

"anti-free speech" sounds wrong. We have freedom of speech in this country. :argh:

[CTLawGuy]

24. shes defintely

running for president.

A lot of Dem politicians show they are running by veering way to the right starting 2-4 year prior to their run.

[dooner]

27. Hillary doesn't represent

I have been disappointed by Hillary on numerous occasions. While she has her moments, her overall commitment to stand up for the truth seems lacking. She is too obviously a politician first and foremost. (Her husband was more subtle.)

I resent that the MSM/Shrills seem to be the ones foisting her on us as the leading democratic candidate.

If the country is ready for a woman president (highly unlikely) I'd go out on a limb with Boxer any day. She's my senator and she can be relied up to stand up for what is true.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. Boxer is the best

I think she'd be the best personally if it was a woman.

[TriMetFan]

36. There is to much sex & violence on T.V.

I say this as a parent. But I also make sure that what my kids watch is good for them. And if my kids don't like it when we put our foot down on some t.v. show we just ground the t.v. watching from them. My spouse and I also don't let our boy's play with guns and their friends parents all know that and respect our choice on how we have chosen to raise our boy's. I plan on voting for Hilary if she runs. I also hope that Boxer runs too.

Just one more thing. How many of you have been seeing those dumb Bob commercials? You know the ones about getting his manhood working again. Do you think it's o.k. to be showing something like that at 7:00 p.m.? Or the new Victoria Secret commercial that shows the women just in her bra & underwear?
:shrug:

[loudsue]

37. Right wing talking points are what's VIOLENT, and WRONG!

Hillary should try attacking the PROBLEM....corporate consolidation in the press spewing right wing talking points on every channel... before she tries to regulate the entertainment programs the right wing press may be putting on.

If LIBERALS actually WERE in charge of the media, we'd see a whole slew of educational shows, documentaries, and creative programming, instead of all Rambo, all the time. Liberals get off on education and learning, and positive "bleeding heart" (as repukes like to say) sensitive programming. If Liberals were as violent as repukes, we would have whupped their asses a long time ago.

:kick::kick::kick:

[tx_dem41]

38. So you are for regulation of content...

as long as the Democrats are regulating.

[loudsue]

39. I'm saying the issue is the wrong spin..

The corporate controlled media, in the hands of only a few, is the problem with the media. The programming has become the biggest problem since the intentional, complete takeover of the media by the right wing corporate heads that control the media.

If there was a liberal alternative to right wing media, there would be some COMPETITION in the programming, and Rambo would likely lose market share of the audience. (See the success of Jon Stewart.) A lot of the problems would be solved by the "free market", that the right wing loves to glorify, while they allow monopolistic and predatory practices.

:kick:

[tx_dem41]

40. I would agree that consolidation of media ownership is a terrible..

thing to allow. It sounds like that is the right thing to emphasize vs. regulation of content.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

41. This statement itself doesn't steam me up too much. OTOH

Hillary's support the Iraq War and apparent embrace of the neocon agenda make her unfit for office. At the very least she did finally wise up to the madness of the bankruptcy bill this time around and vote against it, but she has to do more that she's not in the back pocket of rich exploitative special interests. She's definitely not a "candidate of the people."

[Just Me]

44. I've always admired Hillary for her advocacy on children's issues.

I'm glad she consistently places the interests of our children above adult indulgences and weaknesses and perversions and whatnot.

If the adults want sick or violent shit to watch day in and day out, they can certainly find it and they can pay for it.

I'm sick of the bottom line, scum-dwelling, profit-driven crap dominating the industry which spills onto media outlets. To hell with 'em! They can live by some rules, too!!!

[Andromeda]

45. This isn't censorship;

it's a study. There are no policy changes; it's just observation and study.

It's not the first time discussions like this have taken place and it won't be the last because there is so much out there for kids to see that it would be impossible to regulate all of it. Parents just need a little help and they have made some headway with parental controls on television sets and computers but more needs to be done.

Hillary has always been involved in issues that have to do with children, so this is nothing new.