Family television hour as a thing of the past

posted at 3:31 pm on June 23, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I suppose this is just one of those things that I’ve always taken for granted without giving it a lot of thought. Network TV is supposed to have tighter restrictions on the type of content they can show, particularly before 10 PM, providing a more family friendly lineup with less racy images and not so much coarse language. Cable television doesn’t hew to the same standards at any time of day, but are really allowed to go off the leash quite a bit during the late night hours. Subscriber TV, such as HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, etc. can show pretty much anything up to and including soft core pornography, trusting to the fact that parents will regulate what their children view and can keep control of pay channel access with their credit card. But the playing field has definitely shifted, particularly over the last decade, and the networks are saying that the old rules don’t really apply anymore, and they would like the restrictions loosened up a bit.

When they talk to Wall Street, broadcast moguls love to boast about their financial power and unparalleled ability to reach mass audiences. But the FCC heard a different story this week from networks as they challenged the agency’s efforts to minimize indecent programming. Companies say that the rules are too vague, that they clash with broadcasters’ First Amendment rights, and that parents can control what their kids watch. But ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC also say that rules are archaic because the networks have lost so much cultural clout. Fox says in an FCC filing, “Americans today, including children, spend more time engaged with non-broadcast channels delivered by cable and satellite television, the Internet, video games and other media than they do with broadcast media.” In a separate filing, NBCUniversal observes that ”Broadcast TV is not a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of 21st Century Americans.” Broadcast network affiliates’ total day share of viewing “was just 28 percent in the 2010-2011 television season – compared to the 53 percent viewing share held by ad-supported cable programming networks.” CBS also notes that “the day when a child watching television was almost certain to be watching broadcast television has long since passed.”

I first caught wind of this story from Dr. James Joyner, who seems to sympathize with the networks.

They’re right.

The rules made sense thirty, even twenty years ago. Back then, cable television was essentially a platform for showing re-runs from the networks, live sports, and theatrical movies. The handful of original creative shows were mostly R-rated T&A shows that HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime—premium priced providers—aired late at night. Nowadays, the distinction between “broadcast” and “cable” or “satellite” is largely irrelevant. Even the likes of USA Network and A&E are producing their own programming and most of us time-shift our viewing via our DVRs. I frankly don’t know what time most of the shows I watch air and am only vaguely aware of which network airs them. And any show that airs after 9pm is getting watched later in the week at an earlier hour, anyway, so the “family time” concept is irrelevant.

Joyner goes even further, stating that the current generation of tech savvy kids with access to all of the cutting edge entertainment technology largely renders much of the protections irrelevant, and that most of the material on cable if already family friendly, provided we “don’t hold to 1950s notions of acceptable language and sexual depiction.” Joyner is dealing with life as a single dad, so I’m not going to judge him too much on that.

But I do have to wonder if this is a battle which we shouldn’t just give up on. I continually find myself depressed over many ills in society which seem to me – speaking only as a layman, of course – to be the result of decaying structure in the family and the community. This just sounds like one more line which we, as a society, shouldn’t completely abandon. But is it too late? Has technology left us in the dustbin of history on this one? Aside from throwing out your television entirely or keeping it in a locked room and forbidding your children the use of a computer and a mobile phone, perhaps it’s become too high of a wall to climb.

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

TV already has headed towards the lowest common denominator that the FCC will also over broadcast airwaves. The goal here is basically to remove the current decency barricades to widen the options for heading even lower.

jon1979 on June 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Feed them garbage you end up with pigs.

profitsbeard on June 23, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Thankfully there is the ABC Family Channel and Disney.

/

CW on June 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM

I’ll watch The Simpsons and SNL, mostly as a way just to keep an eye on pop culture, but otherwise I don’t watch broadcast tv (well,ok, my local PBS station shows some woodworking shows on the weekends, but that’s it.)

The Networks are dead, they’d do best to not compete with cable, which can get away with more, but concentrate on quality shows that families want to watch together.

rbj on June 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM

….access to all of the cutting edge entertainment technology largely renders much of the protections irrelevant, and that most of the material on cable if already family friendly, provided we “don’t hold to 1950s notions of acceptable language and sexual depiction…

Provided we don’t hold to 1950s notions of bank robbery and rape…..

What this man really says is that anything goes, as long as you’re ok with it.

BobMbx on June 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

What I’m finding, of late, is that every hour of TV shows requires 34 minutes of commercials.

Seems to me the show is the ‘break’ between advertisements.

Liam on June 23, 2013 at 3:42 PM

But I do have to wonder if this is a battle which we shouldn’t just give up on. I continually find myself depressed over many ills in society which seem to me – speaking only as a layman, of course – to be the result of decaying structure in the family and the community. This just sounds like one more line which we, as a society, shouldn’t completely abandon. But is it too late? Has technology left us in the dustbin of history on this one? Aside from throwing out your television entirely or keeping it in a locked room and forbidding your children the use of a computer and a mobile phone, perhaps it’s become too high of a wall to climb.

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.

The way to ensure that society has no standards is to enforce none. Those who are saying that the networks need to be given greater latitude are much like many gay marriage advocates, who frequently use a line of argumentation like this: “Because straights have done such a terrible job with marriage and make a mockery of it, now it should be our turn!”

It’s a similar argument used when it comes to alcohol and drug legalization. In essence what it boils down to is, “Things are bad, so who cares if they get worse?”

Rather than presenting a vision of a society that strives for, and embodies in its law, excellence, it instead presents a vision where Americans wallow in their own filth and debauchery. It is a society that has no ambitions, no aspirations, no drive to greatness, and no conscience — only an aloof neglect paired with selfish sloth.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The FCC should be abolished entirely. It no longer serves any purpose apart from government censorship and enforcement of a broadcast monopoly by a few huge media conglomerates. Let the market and the viewers decide what will be aired.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Feed them garbage you end up with pigs.

profitsbeard on June 23, 2013 at 3:35 PM

And fat pigs at that.

davidk on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The denizens of Pine Valley and Llanview, Pennsylvania are getting their potty mouths washed out with soap! The Online Network has announced all swear words will be eliminated from new episodes of All My Children and One Life to Live starting June 24.

http://daytimeconfidential.zap2it.com/2013/06/20/all-my-children-and-one-life-to-live-to-cut-out-cuss-words

vityas on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The television went dark in my house a long time ago — because family hour included things that I found morally questionable.

Now, if we hear about a tv show we really like, we buy a DVD. If the show was worth watching 5 years ago, it’s worth watching now.

So the networks can do whatever they want with their free speech rights, so long as they don’t force me to watch.

unclesmrgol on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

The FCC should be abolished entirely. It no longer serves any purpose apart from government censorship and enforcement of a broadcast monopoly by a few huge media conglomerates. Let the market and the viewers decide what will be aired.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Does Armin Tamzarian know you are using his account?

davidk on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

It’s already too late (to my dismay). You see Trojan Vibrator and Erectile Dysfunction medication ads all over prime time TV. Besides, my kids never watch TV, the watch their shows on computers, which is nearly impossible to regulate. The world is a cesspool and we all have to take a dip. Now I know why old people sometimes welcome death. It’s an escape from the absolute insanity that is our world.

ratherbskiing on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

The way to ensure that society has no standards is to enforce none. Those who are saying that the networks need to be given greater latitude are much like many gay marriage advocates, who frequently use a line of argumentation like this: “Because straights have done such a terrible job with marriage and make a mockery of it, now it should be our turn!”

It’s a similar argument used when it comes to alcohol and drug legalization. In essence what it boils down to is, “Things are bad, so who cares if they get worse?”

Rather than presenting a vision of a society that strives for, and embodies in its law, excellence, it instead presents a vision where Americans wallow in their own filth and debauchery. It is a society that has no ambitions, no aspirations, no drive to greatness, and no conscience — only an aloof neglect paired with selfish sloth.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Not that I expect a loud-and-proud totalitarian to understand this, but one’s man excellence is another’s filth and debauchery. If you don’t like something on TV, turn it off.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

The FCC should be abolished entirely. It no longer serves any purpose apart from government censorship and enforcement of a broadcast monopoly by a few huge media conglomerates. Let the market and the viewers decide what will be aired.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

If that happens, my station will go on the air as soon as I can get the broadcast equipment set up.

unclesmrgol on June 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Whatever. The ideological pollution the networks pump out is vastly more damaging to the country than any quantity of smut.

Fabozz on June 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM

and that most of the material on cable if already family friendly, provided we “don’t hold to 1950s notions of acceptable language and sexual depiction.”

Okey doke … This Joyner dude is a friggin moron – and I only write “friggin” because Hotair has tighter restrictions on language than anything on cable or even the broadcast networks. Much, much, much tighter, though without any real regard as to “acceptable” or not. Here, it’s mostly a question of whether it’s PC or not.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Happy to be a part:

Rank Website Traffic Rank
1 foxnews.com 169
2 wsj.com 330
3 telegraph.co.uk 337
4 theblaze.com 1022
5 nypost.com 1193
6 breitbart.com 1541
7 zerohedge.com 2164
8 washingtontimes.com 2810
9 dailycaller.com 2951
10 weeklystandard.com 3755
11 realclearpolitics.com 4161
12 townhall.com 4451
13 nationalreview.com 4921
14 newsbusters.org 5813
15 hotair.com 5865
16 mediaite.com 6255
17 freerepublic.com 6556
18 pjmedia.com 6606
19 washingtonexaminer.com 6731
20 investors.com 7508
21 cnsnews.com 7947
22 twitchy.com 9341
23 rushlimbaugh.com 9705
24 reason.com 10406
25 americanthinker.com 11606

davidk on June 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM

The FCC should be abolished entirely. It no longer serves any purpose apart from government censorship and enforcement of a broadcast monopoly by a few huge media conglomerates. Let the market and the viewers decide what will be aired.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

…and if I don’t like your TV station, I’ll jam it.

unclesmrgol on June 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Not that I expect a loud-and-proud totalitarian to understand this, but one’s man excellence is another’s filth and debauchery. If you don’t like something on TV, turn it off.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Not that I expect a reprobate to understand this, but evil triumphs when good men do nothing, and tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM

davidk on June 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM

dailykos must be pretty far down the list.

unclesmrgol on June 23, 2013 at 3:57 PM

A few years ago I was watching How I Met Your Mother at either 8 or 8:30 and I realized that it was pure smut. A month or two after my first child arrived, I got rid of cable/satellite and will never go back.

myrenovations on June 23, 2013 at 3:57 PM

ratherbskiing on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Luckily I graduated from UCLA. No vibrators needed.

unclesmrgol on June 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Back in the day we knew that what was on TV wasn’t real.

davidk on June 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM

It’s already too late (to my dismay). You see Trojan Vibrator and Erectile Dysfunction medication ads all over prime time TV. Besides, my kids never watch TV, the watch their shows on computers, which is nearly impossible to regulate. The world is a cesspool and we all have to take a dip. Now I know why old people sometimes welcome death. It’s an escape from the absolute insanity that is our world.

ratherbskiing on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You know, there’s a great irony here. While parents are fretting over the deleterious effects that vibrator and Viagra commercials on TV have on impressionable young minds, their kids are probably looking at YouPorn for 3 hours a day.

Not that I expect a reprobate to understand this, but evil triumphs when good men do nothing, and tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM

It must be convenient to have a total monopoly on what “good” and “evil” are defined as, huh?

Your ideology is a relic of the past, buried with the likes of Anthony Comstock and the temperance movement. Good riddance.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Link: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-top-150-conservative-websites-june.html

davidk on June 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM

HA is # 15? Woot!

VegasRick on June 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM

When I started watching tv every channel ended the day with either the national anthem, the Lord’s Prayer or both. TV is the medium through which the liberal agenda has been broadcast in America. Try to find a show today that does not have a pro homo and or woman as the strong leader type thread in the theme…..

devan95 on June 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Family television hour as a thing of the past

It went the way of the family dinner together.

petefrt on June 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

provided we “don’t hold to 1950s notions of acceptable language and sexual depiction.”

He says that like 1950s morals and norms were a bad thing. Other than the pervasive smoking, a return to the 1950s would be a breath of fresh air to this world.

KS Rex on June 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Not that I expect a reprobate to understand this, but evil triumphs when good men do nothing, and tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM

In that case, you can rest easy knowing that I do not have an ounce of tolerance for fascists and busybodies like you.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

TV has been going down hill for decades and the media industry has always been trying to subvert regulations and go to the lower denominators, and the public has largely gone along with it.

I have a tendency towards laziness and procrastination, so as a single man with not much of a “life”, I tended to watch a lot of tv… and didn’t do the best about regulating myself because hey… I was single and lived alone mostly – though I tended to watch a lot of history/sciency stuff.

As a husband and a parent? Things changed. We got rid of cable six years ago and barely watch any “tv”. Who has the time? And why do I want to subject myself to so much garbage… nevermind borderline material I don’t want my children seeing?

Oh, we do watch shows around here. Lots of videos. No commercials – except for the ones I’m subjected to watching online to watch some inane Yahoo video or some such.

Tried Netflix – wound up not being worth our money. Have zero desire to pay for any of the other tv options.

As our children get older and we have more income, we’ll re-evaluate… but I suspect we’ll continue to find little time for tv – if not less. TV, specifically videos, are primarily for the little ones. As they get older, we will certainly be restricting their video watching more.

There is more to life than tv. People lived quite well without tv and radio before those existed. We have the internet and dvd players. We can control what we want to watch. Turn off the power.

Logus on June 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

When I started watching tv every channel ended the day with either the national anthem, the Lord’s Prayer or both.

devan95 on June 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

A few months ago, FNC started ending the day with the national anthem. Nice touch, IMO.

petefrt on June 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

In that case, you can rest easy knowing that I do not have an ounce of tolerance for fascists and busybodies like you.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

And I have none for reprobates or scum like you, but here we are.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Family programming is still a huge money maker for those who know how to do it right. If the networks focused on making actual family programming instead of watered down versions of what Cable TV have to offer, they might see more success. The sitcoms on network TV these days are also pretty bad because they are so politically correct and derivative; something that will remain in place because of the people who run the networks.

Daemonocracy on June 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I can’t stand The Waltons. But Little House On The Prairie works just fine.

When I was a kid, I had a major crush on Melissa Sue Anderson. What a pretty face!

Liam on June 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I suppose this is just one of those things that I’ve always taken for granted without giving it a lot of thought. Network TV is supposed to have tighter restrictions on the type of content they can show, particularly before 10 PM, providing a more family friendly lineup with less racy images and not so much coarse language. Cable television doesn’t hew to the same standards at any time of day, but are really allowed to go off the leash quite a bit during the late night hours.

There shouldn’t be a leash at all.

If family programming is commercially viable, some broadcaster will provide it, whether the FCC regulates them or not.

Likewise, if enough families want to restrict their kids’ viewing, methods to do so will be (and have been) developed. Companies will provide these valuable services through the market — government regulation is not required. In fact, the censorship hurts these companies, because, by simply ordering everyone to conform to the FCC’s standards, the government has removed that niche from those companies who could provide it best.

Like so many things, here government regulation is the problem, not the solution.

Revenant on June 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

So this is a conservative call for more government intervention and control in the name of the children? Ridiculous.

The FCC should be abolished along with many other federal agencies that do nothing important.

AngusMc on June 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM

So this is a conservative call for more government intervention and control in the name of the children? Ridiculous.

The FCC should be abolished along with many other federal agencies that do nothing important.

AngusMc on June 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Jazz isn’t really a Conservative.

Daemonocracy on June 23, 2013 at 4:16 PM

“Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn’t even notice”

Marge Simpson 2010 (Lisa’s Wedding)

SaveFarris on June 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM

So this is a conservative call for more government intervention and control in the name of the children? Ridiculous.

The FCC should be abolished along with many other federal agencies that do nothing important.

AngusMc on June 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM

A “conservative” call. That word really needs the scare quotes around it in a situation like this, though to be fair Jazz is somewhat equivocal about just where he stands on the issue, as usual.

I’ll say this much about people like Stoic Patriot: at least he is upfront about the fact that he wants to live in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. It’s good to know who your enemies are.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM

The world is a cesspool and we all have to take a dip. Now I know why old people sometimes welcome death. It’s an escape from the absolute insanity that is our world.

ratherbskiing on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

And I thought my attitude was bleak.

Burke on June 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM

This is what’s funny about you: You say a whole lot of nothing while thinking yourself above the fray that is reality.

Liam on June 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Rather than presenting a vision of a society that strives for, and embodies in its law, excellence, it instead presents a vision where Americans wallow in their own filth and debauchery. It is a society that has no ambitions, no aspirations, no drive to greatness, and no conscience — only an aloof neglect paired with selfish sloth.
Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Yes we can!

Isn’t this already the electorate? I’ve given up on my fellow Americans. I suggest we all get rid of cable. We know there are gutters and filthy alleys… Doesn’t mean we should dine in them.

There is a small segment of society that’s worth being around. Just spend your time with them, forget the rest.

happytobehere on June 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Thankfully there is the ABC Family Channel and Disney.

/

CW on June 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Yup.

“This particular storyline was developed under the consultancy of child development experts and community advisors,” a Disney Channel spokesperson says. “Like all Disney Channel programming, it was developed to be relevant to kids and families around the world and to reflect themes of diversity and inclusiveness.”

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-disney-channel-breaks-ground-good-luck-charlie-203000988.html

Fallon on June 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM

I’ll say this much about people like Stoic Patriot: at least he is upfront about the fact that he wants to live in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. It’s good to know who your enemies are.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Yet the great irony is that I’m an atheist.

Yes we can!

Isn’t this already the electorate? I’ve given up on my fellow Americans. I suggest we all get rid of cable. We know there are gutters and filthy alleys… Doesn’t mean we should dine in them.

There is a small segment of society that’s worth being around. Just spend your time with them, forget the rest.

happytobehere on June 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I’d say that it’s probably a majority of the electorate, sadly. Sure, we could just leave the world to its own devices, but I’m willing to gamble that through persuasion, reason, charm, electoral victories, and institutional takeovers, we can reverse the damage.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Aside from throwing out your television entirely…

A wonderful idea!

One that we thought of nearly thirty years ago.

I have no doubt that we enjoy life more than most people, & one reason is our lack of a TV.

itsnotaboutme on June 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Our household quit watching broadcast TV over 10 years ago. The little of what decent is on, can be purchased on dvd. I read, draw, write, surf the net, talk to my spouse, play with my cats…there’s a lot more to life than television.

But ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC also say that rules are archaic because the networks have lost so much cultural clout. Fox says in an FCC filing, “Americans today, including children, spend more time engaged with non-broadcast channels delivered by cable and satellite television, the Internet, video games and other media than they do with broadcast media.”

Ooo-kay…they’re pushing for more relaxed standards to serve up material that’s still more debased, and yet that relaxation of standards and pushing of the envelope to make more “edgy” television is part of the very reasons that a good percentage of their viewership moved on to other sources for entertainment in the first place. Well, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and lose almost their entire audience except the depraved few…

theotherone on June 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I have no doubt that you’re lying about not having a TV.

Moesart on June 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

These stories always bring out all these claims from people that they don’t even have a TV.

Gee, aren’t you special.

Moesart on June 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

When I was young many moons ago, we had one TV with not many channels. The whole family did have to agree on what we would watch. Unless Star Trek was on and in that case dad got his way.

birdwatcher on June 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Yet the great irony is that I’m an atheist.

The Pope probably is too. Doesn’t change much.

Ooo-kay…they’re pushing for more relaxed standards to serve up material that’s still more debased, and yet that relaxation of standards and pushing of the envelope to make more “edgy” television is part of the very reasons that a good percentage of their viewership moved on to other sources for entertainment in the first place. Well, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and lose almost their entire audience except the depraved few…

theotherone on June 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

So? Let them. It’s the free market. And as is always the case, government regulations disproportionately harm smaller businesses. End the FCC’s reign of terror, end the government-sponsored monopoly on broadcast television by a few big networks, and fresher, better alternatives will pop up naturally.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

To me, it’s always amazing that the networks seem to think that the only reason that people aren’t watching their shows is because they “can’t compete” with the raciness of cable television. The bigger problem is that there are so few shows out there anymore that even have decent plotlines or engaging writing much less an interesting premise. Not to say that there weren’t duds in years back, but watching reruns of hits from the ’50s and ’60s, it’s clear to see that there were higher standards in development. Since the networks don’t want to break out of their standard ultra-liberal boiler plate woman-is-great man-is-a-dunce let’s-all-get-along utopia shows, they just whine about what they are “not allowed” to do.

Katja on June 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I have no doubt that you’re lying about not having a TV.

Moesart on June 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

I have a TV, I just don’t have cable. It’s great for watching video’s but that’s it.

Why does that bother you?

sharrukin on June 23, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Moesart on June 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

I have a TV. We also have dvd players.

The only reason we have cable at all is because it’s through the same company we have internet access with. No other service in our area has the same internet speed so we have to stay with this particular company. To compensate, we have the most basic cable you can get and still receive broadcast television. But we rarely watch it–about the only time it gets turned on is when something big happens in the news (like the recent tornado outbreak). Otherwise, we get all our news online.

I’d watch Fox News, but we’d have to upgrade our cable, and I don’t like wasting my money on crap I know we won’t watch.

theotherone on June 23, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Hogan’s Heroes, Gomer Pyle, McHale’s Navy were great shows that did not need to be racy.

birdwatcher on June 23, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I’ll say this much about people like Stoic Patriot: at least he is upfront about the fact that he wants to live in a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. It’s good to know who your enemies are.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:24 PMArmin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

So not wanting hardcore sex and continues f-bombs on broadcast tv equates to desiring a Christian version of Saudi Arabia – and also makes one your enemy?

Hyperbole much? Give me a break. There’s nothing NOT conservative about allowing for some protection of a child’s childhood.

Similar to why conservatives are also okay the the big, evil government outlawing abortion.

And that doesn’t infringe on your rights in any way – you can still go watch all the porn you want for free in your basement on the intertubes.

MikeknaJ on June 23, 2013 at 4:54 PM

The Pope probably is too. Doesn’t change much.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

That must really suck for a guy who’s been a part of the clergy all this time. All of that time in seminary, all of those Sunday services, all of those confessions… tell me, are you really that cynical?

Somehow, I’m willing to bet that the Pope is, indeed, Catholic.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 4:55 PM

I’d say that it’s probably a majority of the electorate, sadly. Sure, we could just leave the world to its own devices, but I’m willing to gamble that through persuasion, reason, charm, electoral victories, and institutional takeovers, we can reverse the damage.
Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM

I was with you till “electoral victories”. That’s the trouble with democracy. Electoral victories require a majority of the electorate.

As for reversing the damage: you must be joking! We can’t even slow it down.

happytobehere on June 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM

To me, it’s always amazing that the networks seem to think that the only reason that people aren’t watching their shows is because they “can’t compete” with the raciness of cable television. The bigger problem is that there are so few shows out there anymore that even have decent plotlines or engaging writing much less an interesting premise. Not to say that there weren’t duds in years back, but watching reruns of hits from the ’50s and ’60s, it’s clear to see that there were higher standards in development. Since the networks don’t want to break out of their standard ultra-liberal boiler plate woman-is-great man-is-a-dunce let’s-all-get-along utopia shows, they just whine about what they are “not allowed” to do.

Katja on June 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Yup. Oddly enough, when there were things you “couldn’t say or do” on television, writers were forced to come up with real plotlines, actually funny humor (watch the old Dick Van Dyke shows) and real entertainment. Writers these days don’t seem to know how to tell a story if it doesn’t have tons of pc morality tales, foul language, sex and violence. And don’t get me started on kids’ TV and movies–!! They leave out the sex but pontificate on liberal causes such as “diversity” (usually personified by homosexuality), the environment (read: global warming and vilifying Big Business for Their Dastardly Polluting Ways) and they rely on a LOT of bathroom humor to carry the laughs. Pathetic.

theotherone on June 23, 2013 at 5:01 PM

The Pope probably is too. Doesn’t change much.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

That same line …again?

Phuckhead ain’t very creative…. are ya?

CW on June 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I was with you till “electoral victories”. That’s the trouble with democracy. Electoral victories require a majority of the electorate.

As for reversing the damage: you must be joking! We can’t even slow it down.

happytobehere on June 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I mentioned electoral victories because of low-information voters, who tend to be moved by whatever is the passion of the moment rather than an ideological conviction. Focusing on maximizing our own turnout, and having a guy who comes off as affable I think can still win.

On reversing the damage, I would point to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act, and Gonzales v Carhart, which upheld the ban thanks to Dubya’s appointments. It’s not much, but it is something. I don’t think we’re likely to get any more such victories in the immediate future, in part because Obama is in office, and in part because John Roberts has since seemed to be drinking from a strange well. One potential sign of hope could come in a few days if SCOTUS overturns affirmative action on college campuses.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM

I think the networks make their money from cable deals, not advertising revenue too much.

I knew it was all downhill when every show started to include the word “ass”. And it hit bottom soon after. The show Charlie Sheen was on was nothing but one teenage insulting sex joke after the other. And all families are portrayed as cynical or dumb or crazy and/or sex-crazed. New Girl–not exactly Mary Tyler Moore!! Non-stop crudity.

But like I say, no one is watching.

PattyJ on June 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Non-stop crudity.

PattyJ on June 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

They seem to rehash the same tired crap. Not much ingenuity is apparent.

CW on June 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

The final line: “Let’s get the hell out of here.” was considered a breath-taking bit of boldness in the original Star Trek episode “The City on the Edge of Forever” in the 1960′s.

Shocking, even.

Without artistic restraint you have anarchic incontinence.

The general media trend since the mid-1990′s.

Which is amusing for a day or two, but ends up burning out the taste receptors with standard-less excess.

When everything is conveyed as essentially corrupt and crude you end up with creatures who are crude and corrupted to the core.

Not a good plan for structuring a civilization.

profitsbeard on June 23, 2013 at 5:24 PM

These stories always bring out all these claims from people that they don’t even have a TV.

Gee, aren’t you special.

Moesart on June 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

It’s their thing. I read it as “My moral high horse is even higher than yours! Watch as I look down upon you from it!”

I don’t believe most people that say they don’t have a TV either but I do allow that there might be a few. The most likely explanation for the level of crazy some of them display is that they’re being so repressed they’re about to explode.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

I haven’t lived with a TV in my house for about 18 years. Whenever I have the misfortune to be around one, my decision to go without is reinforced. If I have to be in the presence of TV I hope it’s M*A*S*H* reruns, or Twilight Zone, or Star Trek, or something from those days.

I remember as a kid my dad liked watching Hee-Haw. It wasn’t until I grew up I got the joke about the Hee-Haw all-jug band. My dad let us watch Love American Style. My mom thought we shouldn’t be watching it. I bet watching an episode today it would be tame.

Dan_Yul on June 23, 2013 at 5:31 PM

a return to the 1950s would be a breath of fresh air to this world.

KS Rex on June 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

.
Not entirely. No, it would not. You have to “cherry-pick” the features of that era that you want to emphasize, otherwise we get the racism, the oppression, the standard cookie-cutter group-think of that period. I decline to relive that somewhat ignorant era; no thank you.

ExpressoBold on June 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

I don’t believe most people that say they don’t have a TV either but I do allow that there might be a few. The most likely explanation for the level of crazy some of them display is that they’re being so repressed they’re about to explode.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Life Without Television – is it Possible?
Can We Survive Without Television?

http://voices.yahoo.com/life-without-television-possible-668412.html?cat=25

sharrukin on June 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

There are more people dropping cable every year. I highly recommend dropping it. I watch plenty of TV from Netflix and iTunes.

happytobehere on June 23, 2013 at 5:39 PM

I don’t believe most people that say they don’t have a TV either but I do allow that there might be a few. The most likely explanation for the level of crazy some of them display is that they’re being so repressed they’re about to explode.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Congratulations.

That is one of the most stupid remarks I have ever read on HotAir.

Possibly on the internet.

Way to go!

Solaratov on June 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Joyner goes even further, stating that the current generation of tech savvy kids with access to all of the cutting edge entertainment technology largely renders much of the protections irrelevant, and that most of the material on cable if already family friendly, provided we “don’t hold to 1950s notions of acceptable language and sexual depiction.”

We shouldn’t hold to 1950s notions of sexual depiction. In that era it was groundbreaking that Lucille Ball appeared pregnant on television. Ricky and Lucy slept in separate beds in “I Love Lucy” but if Lucy was pregnant then what would that mean must have happened?!?

Oh teh noes! Teh horror! Teh horror!

This is the era you’re pining to return to? An era when a depiction of a married pregnant woman (with no discussion of how she got that way!) was shocking?

If, like me, you think that’s a little over the top then think hard and really educate yourself before you start saying to go back to the morals of some bygone era, and if you agree that showing Lucy pregnant is scandalous then I’m glad society has left you behind.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

These stories always bring out all these claims from people that they don’t even have a TV.

Gee, aren’t you special.

Moesart on June 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

I don’t believe most people that say they don’t have a TV either but I do allow that there might be a few. The most likely explanation for the level of crazy some of them display is that they’re being so repressed they’re about to explode.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

LOL

Wacky accusations aside, we simply have a great thing going & we want to share it.

TV is a mind-numbing, time-wasting, moral-decaying addiction.
The best cure is cold turkey.

itsnotaboutme on June 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Network television no longer holds a monopoly on american television viewers. My children have been driven to various cable and on-demand options, including Netflix, because the networks have chosen to show only filth between 6:30 and 8:30. Really, look at what ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox put up in that time frame: sex joke after sex joke after sex joke. It’s just awful. They are far too explicit and not even funny. So we watch cartoon network and nicktoons and disneyfx, and various time-shifted children’s shows. They do not want our viewers, so I do not really care what they attempt to show anymore.

alwaysfiredup on June 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

The best cure is cold turkey.
itsnotaboutme on June 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

But enough about Hot Air.

happytobehere on June 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

It’s broadcast television that is ‘going by way of the dustbin of history’. They can’t compete with cable… period… even if they try to mimic the content. Even cable has lost a great deal of its viewership. The reason is that content is simply bad. The quality of film and television has deteriorated dramatically over the last two decades. The reason is that the name of the individual responsible for end product is no longer over the door as it was in the ‘golden age’ of both television and film. No one individual is held responsible for content or quality of content. Rather, a department is held liable and that department is answerable to the shareholder.

The bottom of line is tied directly to keeping viewers in seats to watch advertisments in broadcast television, and to handing over monthly fees on cable access or satellite content. For the last couple of decades the polling employed by those executives in charge of programming, and film production, has suggested that certain demongraphics drive sales. Hence, programming and production has been largely tailored to suit those particular demographics, both in normal programming cycles, and in terms of specialty niches such as holiday scheduling. That quality of content has declined is also a natural byproduct of hiring practices that revolve around hiring those with little experience, those to whom one is related, or those who are known by, or related to, someone to whom one owes a favor. This is also why we are subjected to the same, tired, ‘stars’ in every production, instead of new, talented people of all ages who could do at least as good a job in the role. Why would the executives risk money on an unknown face when the audience will settle for the same, well known and endlessly hyped, actors in all of the available roles when those faces are considered a ‘known quantity’ and will drawn in a predicatable audience? Its as simple as money in the bank.

Until the audience either wanders off to new pastures, like internet programming (which people are doing in droves), or just refuses to pay for content that is no longer entertaining and is of deteriorating quality at best, expect the quality of television and film to continue to deteriorate right along with the moral content as these corporations struggle to appeal to the lowest common denominator in hopes of securing sales.

thatsafactjack on June 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Not entirely. No, it would not. You have to “cherry-pick” the features of that era that you want to emphasize, otherwise we get the racism, the oppression, the standard cookie-cutter group-think of that period. I decline to relive that somewhat ignorant era; no thank you.

ExpressoBold on June 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Our society already tried cherrypicking, Expresso. It didn’t work. We’re living the results.

The 50′s was the last time when perverts were not allowed to parade down main street, welfare life and single ‘mother’hood (not including widows) were a rare and rightly despised, divorce was nigh-unheard of, drug use was unfashionable, STD’s were few and treatable…I could go on for half a freaking page.

Within a single generation that all began to change as the most recent batch of young people decided they were too good for the faith and flag and morals of their forefathers. They had a dream of something better than the wisdom of the ages and the hard lessons of most of American history.

Life isn’t fair and the starry-eyed notion of total equality has ended in disaster, cultural and otherwisse; which is now culminating in the push for women in active combat.

I would have expected conservatives of all people to understand these things. That’s what the ‘conserve’ part of conservatives stands for – keeping things the way they were because the ‘new’ and ‘progressive’ ideas are nothing but rehashed wickedness and folly.

MelonCollie on June 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM

What I’m finding, of late, is that every hour of TV shows requires 34 minutes of commercials.

Seems to me the show is the ‘break’ between advertisements.

Liam on June 23, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Those of us don’t have TV or listen to the radio are not numbed to the rudeness & bossiness of ad announcers, constantly giving orders to the gullible public. “Go to such-n-such.com now!” or “Buy one now!” or “Order today!” or the like.
How do you all put up with such behavior repeated ad nauseum (pun intended)?
And the music in the ads is often intentionally fingernails-on-chalkboard irritating so that you’ll remember it.

“If you don’t have TV, how do you know about this?”

Duh.
Every waiting room has an annoying box.
A million businesses bombard customers with radio.

itsnotaboutme on June 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

sharrukin on June 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Solaratov on June 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM

itsnotaboutme on June 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

You all quoted and responded to the same post of mine but when you did the quotation you all just happened to omit the same part of it. Maybe there’s a server problem or something and you can’t see it so here’s the first part of what I said in case you missed it.

.

It’s their thing. I read it as “My moral high horse is even higher than yours! Watch as I look down upon you from it!”

.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM

It’s their thing. I read it as “My moral high horse is even higher than yours! Watch as I look down upon you from it!”

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Did you imagine that you actually said something of relevance with that? Everyone ignored it because it was meaningless drivel.

sharrukin on June 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Did you imagine that you actually said something of relevance with that? Everyone ignored it because it was meaningless drivel.

sharrukin on June 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

You need a higher moral horse because some things are still going over your head.

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM

….access to all of the cutting edge entertainment technology largely renders much of the protections irrelevant, and that most of the material on cable if already family friendly, provided we “don’t hold to 1950s notions of acceptable language and sexual depiction…

Provided we don’t hold to 1950s notions of bank robbery and rape…..

What this man really says is that anything goes, as long as you’re ok with it.

BobMbx on June 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

What they said. Provided we don’t hold to the 1950s notion that 12 inches is one foot.

The Thin Man Returns on June 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM

If you don’t like something on TV, turn it off.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Ah, the old ‘if you don’t like it, don’t look’ argument!

That earns a chug in my drinking game.

The Thin Man Returns on June 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM

alchemist19 on June 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Not intentional, my friend. I didn’t see your post directly at first. I saw it only as quoted later on.

itsnotaboutme on June 23, 2013 at 6:20 PM

In that case, you can rest easy knowing that I do not have an ounce of tolerance for fascists and busybodies like you.

Armin Tamzarian

Armin, I hope that you and your ilk are young and will lead long, healthy lives, at least long enough to live with the tender attention of your Towelish overloads when that day comes. Maybe then you’ll discover that the Christians aren’t that bad.

Mason on June 23, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Who needs My Three Sons when you can watch Hollyweird STD vectors trying to boink each other?

viking01 on June 23, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Losers like Armin and Pig need to get out of mom’s basement once in a while.

Too much Jerry Springer is bad for perspective….

viking01 on June 23, 2013 at 6:31 PM

The FCC should be abolished entirely. It no longer serves any purpose apart from government censorship and enforcement of a broadcast monopoly by a few huge media conglomerates. Let the market and the viewers decide what will be aired.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Exactly. Where in the constitution does the federal government get the right to censor broadcasts? As a SoCon, I don’t want to see smut on TV, but I know that, in the absence of the FCC, the free market will provide solutions so that I don’t have to. What other people do is their own business. Forcing your values on someone else is bad no matter who you are.

Kafir on June 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Cable television doesn’t hew to the same standards at any time of day, but are really allowed to go off the leash quite a bit during the late night hours. Subscriber TV, such as HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, etc.

Never understood why HBO, Cinemax etc are treated as subscriber tv and cable in general isn’t, you’re paying for both and if you don’t want either, well, stop paying for it. Reminds me of how i’m old enough to remember when the big draw of cable tv was no ads, no, i’m not kidding, that was the big selling point, you payed them directly so they wouldn’t bother you with ads, what a novel concept.

But then Mtv started showing ads and that opened the floodgates, so thanks to Mtv we pay to watch ads all day and infomercials all night.

clearbluesky on June 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM

WTBS now TBS practically since its inception gave the Ginsu Knife Set and Pocket Fisherman a second go at naive consumers everywhere.

viking01 on June 23, 2013 at 6:49 PM

…gotta have my TV for sports…the whole family watches!

KOOLAID2 on June 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Never understood why HBO, Cinemax etc are treated as subscriber tv and cable in general isn’t, you’re paying for both and if you don’t want either, well, stop paying for it. Reminds me of how i’m old enough to remember when the big draw of cable tv was no ads, no, i’m not kidding, that was the big selling point, you payed them directly so they wouldn’t bother you with ads, what a novel concept.

But then Mtv started showing ads and that opened the floodgates, so thanks to Mtv we pay to watch ads all day and infomercials all night.

clearbluesky on June 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM

PBS as well. Used to be they said “because you support us we don’t need advertising”.

slickwillie2001 on June 23, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Armin, I hope that you and your ilk are young and will lead long, healthy lives, at least long enough to live with the tender attention of your Towelish overloads when that day comes. Maybe then you’ll discover that the Christians aren’t that bad.

Mason on June 23, 2013 at 6:24 PM

What an incredible dilemma. The freedom-loving American’s options have apparently dwindled down to either accepting authoritarian Christians censoring television (the person I’m responding to, Stoic Patriot, would take it even further and has expressed support for mandatory government surveillance cameras in private homes), or submitting to “Towelish overloads (overlords?)” by whom I assume you are referring to Muslims, who currently make up less than 1% of the population in the US.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 7:36 PM

What an incredible dilemma. The freedom-loving American’s options have apparently dwindled down to either accepting authoritarian Christians censoring television (the person I’m responding to, Stoic Patriot, would take it even further and has expressed support for mandatory government surveillance cameras in private homes), or submitting to “Towelish overloads (overlords?)” by whom I assume you are referring to Muslims, who currently make up less than 1% of the population in the US.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Actually, I haven’t. What I said, if you were paying attention, was that I wouldn’t object to them on the grounds of “privacy rights” since I don’t believe in a right to privacy. I also said in that thread that any such attempt to install surveillance in people’s homes would be costly, disruptive, and ineffective at actually stopping crime, and should be opposed on those grounds.

The problem with declaring things to be “private” and “off-limits” is that it essentially acts as a sanctuary then to any illegal activity. This is why Iraqi insurgents always holed themselves up in mosques when it came to urban warfare — because they knew we wouldn’t shoot them up since we were trying to be sensitive to the Muslim faith. Such an approach, be it in law enforcement or warfare, is plain dumb.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Actually, I haven’t. What I said, if you were paying attention, was that I wouldn’t object to them on the grounds of “privacy rights” since I don’t believe in a right to privacy. I also said in that thread that any such attempt to install surveillance in people’s homes would be costly, disruptive, and ineffective at actually stopping crime, and should be opposed on those grounds.

Oh, excuse me for not paying proper attention to your utterly worthless caveat. Yes, you have a practical objection or two to the most intrusive government surveillance conceivable; it would be expensive and disruptive.

That’s sort of like me saying that I don’t really think burning down every church in the country would be constitutionally problematic, but I oppose it because it would bring down property values in the surrounding areas.

The problem with declaring things to be “private” and “off-limits” is that it essentially acts as a sanctuary then to any illegal activity. This is why Iraqi insurgents always holed themselves up in mosques when it came to urban warfare — because they knew we wouldn’t shoot them up since we were trying to be sensitive to the Muslim faith. Such an approach, be it in law enforcement or warfare, is plain dumb.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Hell, that right to not self-incriminate in criminal proceedings also frustrates the ends of law enforcement. We should dump the 5th Amendment too and allow courts to force people to testify against themselves.

Is that dolt I responded to in my last post reading this sh*t? I hope so.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Hogan’s Heroes, Gomer Pyle, McHale’s Navy were great shows that did not need to be racy.

birdwatcher on June 23, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Or I Love Lucy. I’m 53. My grandmother watched it, my parents watched it, I watched it and my kids watched it.

All those generations, all those decades. Talented writers, producers and actors. Enjoyment without the filth.

So many shows I watch that I have to overlook crap here and there. They could be so much better without going in the gutter.

Elisa on June 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Thankfully there is the ABC Family Channel and Disney.

/

CW on June 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM

You must be joking. The programming on ABC Family Channel is unwatchable and very bad for kids, especially. The shows are full of notty kids who are overindulged and always scheming, and the only parents in sight are idiots.

lilacs on June 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Oh, excuse me for not paying proper attention to your utterly worthless caveat.

Or to put it more accurately, “Excuse me for stating precisely the opposite of what you had stated and for casting it as your position. Also, excuse me for implying that you had a religious faith that you don’t, and then further excuse me for claiming that the Pope shares your lack of faith without presenting so much as a whit of evidence to support my statement.”

I think that about sums it up.

Yes, you have a practical objection or two to the most intrusive government surveillance conceivable; it would be expensive and disruptive.

That’s sort of like me saying that I don’t really think burning down every church in the country would be constitutionally problematic, but I oppose it because it would bring down property values in the surrounding areas.

Yes, I have practical, not ideological objections, to such surveillance. I reject your analogy since I do believe in property rights. I specifically rejected privacy rights though, and declared in that thread that a narrowly defined right against unreasonable search and seizure does not produce a broader right to privacy.

Hell, that right to not self-incriminate in criminal proceedings also frustrates the ends of law enforcement. We should dump the 5th Amendment too and allow courts to force people to testify against themselves.

Is that dolt I responded to in my last post reading this sh*t? I hope so.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Funny you should bring that up. We might actually want to consider a constitutional amendment to change the fifth amendment, or at least clarify it, given the level of cooperation we’ve received from Lois Lerner.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM

For the last 15-20 years one of my pet peeves was that they had certain shows that they would not air during the 8-9PM hour because the jokes and situations weren’t for all audiences. But then 4-5 years later all those shows’ reruns were airing on all kinds of minor networks and cable stations at 5PM, 6PM, 7PM.

It was ridiculous.

Elisa on June 23, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Yes, I have practical, not ideological objections, to such surveillance. I reject your analogy since I do believe in property rights. I specifically rejected privacy rights though, and declared in that thread that a narrowly defined right against unreasonable search and seizure does not produce a broader right to privacy.

Practical objections are worth less than nothing when discussing principles.

It’s the difference between me not shooting you because I don’t want to waste a bullet and me not shooting you because I believe murder is wrong. The end result is the same but the motivations are worlds apart.

Like all authoritarians, your concept of rights is completely arbitrary, based on who the hell knows what. I can’t fathom why you’d even believe in property rights at all considering how useless the idea of private property is if the government can violate it for as flimsy a reason as generally preventing criminal mischief, in the abstract mind you, not even with a reasonable suspicion specifically tailored to that particular occasion.

Funny you should bring that up. We might actually want to consider a constitutional amendment to change the fifth amendment, or at least clarify it, given the level of cooperation we’ve received from Lois Lerner.

Stoic Patriot on June 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM

We should change the Fifth Amendment because it’s working as intended? I don’t care what Lois Lerner did; she has a right not to incriminate herself. If, in the future, federal prosecutors decide to bring charges against her, they will have to make a solid case by gathering and collating the evidence and convincing a jury of her guilt. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

Armin Tamzarian on June 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2