Liberals and Conservatives explained

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is a full listing of what she advocated:

1) "questionable" lyrics were printed and provided with their respective recordings

Not censorship.

2) "objectionable" album covers were sold in plain brown wrappers (or sold in areas segregated from other albums)

Don't have a problem with that. We do the same with books, movies and magazines. Why should it be different for music? We fully accept the idea, as a society, that certain material is objectionable to young recipients. Making sure minors don't have access to them without parental permission isn't censorship.

3) rock concerts were rated

Not censorship. And so? We rate movies and video games. Again, just a tool whereby parents can control what their children are seeing/listening to. I don't think any conservative would object to the parental right to do just that.

4) MTV segregated "questionable" video recordings into specific late night viewing slots

This might be the best argument you got, but it doesn't meet the "censorship" bar I'm afraid. Television does it with their programs, which is why NYPD Blue is on at 10 PM instead of 8 PM. It's been a standard practice that material that may be objectionable for minors be aired later.

The group she founded has also argued that argued that virgin minds were being poisoned by "hidden messages and backward masking."

She and Al also distanced themselves from that group once it adopted far more extreme views than they thought were appropriate, making public statements as such. The group was also populated by staunch conservatives far more so than liberals.

Sorry, but nothing above equals censorship. And frankly, I support most of the things she tried to do as giving parents reasonable tools with which to monitor what their kids listen to and watch. If I were a parent, you can bet I'd be glad to have them.

[Sava]

I watched porn as young as 11, saw violent movies when I was 7, and used foul language when I was 5 (and the soap didn't taste good). But look at how great I turned out (prepares for flames). The rating systems in this country are stupid. A 16 year old kid can be responsible for a 3000 pound vehicle, but can't see a horror movie in the theatre without parental permission?

Any type of rating system that restricts the privilage of someone is nothing more than someone pushing their morals on to other people. In effect, the MPAA wants to parent your kids. Ratings should accurately state the content of the media, and nothing more. I don't know about everyone else, but when I was 13, I had no car, I had no money, so everything I did was at the mercy of my parents, if they didn't want me to see a movie, they didn't give me money, or they didn't give me transportation to the theatre.

I'm still waiting for proof that shows that a 5 year old who sees a porno is going to grow up to be a criminal. If anything, that kid will be desensitized to such material, so seeing boobs, shlongs, and whatnot would be routine, and wouldn't be something that would upset that person, or cause that person to commit a sex crime.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't know about everyone else, but when I was 13, I had no car, I had no money, so everything I did was at the mercy of my parents, if they didn't want me to see a movie, they didn't give me money, or they didn't give me transportation to the theatre.

As it should be.

[Sava]

yup

[Ecthy]

Siro my friend... you started a monster..