SpeakSpeak News

The political discussion site e.thePeople is currently hosting a debate about TV censorship.

The writer who started the discussion has this to say:

I’m open to some restrictions on what the media broadcasts – after all, they’re public utilities. Parents need to monitor their kids’ viewing – not use TV for a babysitter – yet we can’t catch everything. There needs to be some minimal restraint, I feel, on what comes into homes where kids live. Just as I don’t use bad language or put erotic nude pictures up on the walls for my kids to view, I don’t want TV to do so either.

Yet I may be a hypocrite, because I think of myself as absolutely opposed to censorship. And I think I’m not alone in this. Almost nobody in the US supports censorship. At least theoretically, in the abstract. But lots of people, when confronted with ideas or books or actions they don’t happen to like are all too ready to deprive others of the right to those things – even though they’d never admit that they are indeed championing censorship.

Take a peek and participate: Anybody Want to Champion Censorship?

A colorful abstract painting (with boobs) was removed from the Lake County (FL) Administration Building by a scandalized city manager.

When censorship and First Amendment concerns were raised, the painting was re-hung. The artist, however, has chosen to remove the painting from public viewing, fearing that the exposure (literal and figurative) could compel the painting’s foes to vandalism.

At Florida Today.

Senator Ted Stevens, the original Senate voice behind the push for cable and satellite indecency regulation, thinks that parental control is great, but not great enough. The Senator says he got a “very good explanation” of parental controls currently available (hint: there are many), but still thinks imposing restrictions on subscription-based services is a nifty idea.

In Broadcasting & Cable.